As of being good writers i don't know. You have excused Lauren of her poor writing by saying the editor demand inane things so that probaly applies to the Gaming journos in general...
Last edited by dnf; 15-11-2012 at 10:56 PM.
Why has this thread not died. Seriously. I mean, I don't think it's even relevant to the original topic anymore. It's now an argument about whether games critics are bad, right? And whether CoD is good? I don't even want to know how those arguments are connected. Seriously, guys, let the thread die and start up any lingering debates in a new one. Megathreads like this that don't even stay with the title topic are pointless.
For the sake of the argument, I'll paste something I wrote somewhere else:
"Choices start with the loadout. A tool kit allows you to open containers and gets new weapons and gadgets, hack or control drones and turrets or acces new parts of the map. I'm pretty sure at least some of these options can be disabled by the enemy if you're not careful. Also some levels are big, like Crysis 2 big.
Then you have the Strike Force missions. These are a parallel story. What you achieve here has a direct influence on the main campaign in terms of who you fight, how you fight, who helps you and on other aspects of the narrative. I'm not sure how many there are, I managed to successfully complete the SF in four missions but IGN has five in their walkthrough. They're picked from a pool of missions based on your actions.
In the main storyline there are some telegraphed choices - like press E or Space to do X or Y. You choose to spare or execute people, who or what to play as, where your team should go and other stuff specific to the mission.
Other branching paths come naturally through the action. For example you can act in a way that stops the enemy from destroying certain items that add another piece to the story. You can become aware of someone else's actions. Sometimes all that's added is a different cutscene or new dialogue, sometimes someone ends up dead. It's not always clear when you stumble upon such branching moments and that's what makes it great. After finishing the game, I learned that some things I thought were scripted can unfold in a very different way. Some crucial story beats could have been solved differently. I honestly have no clue how some of the alternate things can happen. The final third of the game is the one that is shaped most by your actions as all the pieces set up in the previous levels come together.
And finally, in some levels you can totally fail at stealth or in completing objectives and the game adapts."
Note that the RPS review barely mentions these details.
And now point out exactly where any of this supports your original assertion. Because tbh if this is anything to go by: -
I'd say the example is referring to something self contained, where in a clear degree of loss can be established within an institution (X was passed over for promotion Vs Y because Y happened to go to the same school as Z who was adjudicating). You have to be able to demonstrate that there is a loss through that methodology. As reviews are ultimately opinion pieces, it's nigh on impossible to apply that kind of rigour to them, especially when they don't fall out of line with similar opinions from others.In essence a potential conflict of interest will exist whenever a member of the University community is in a
position to influence the conduct of research, academic, human resource, business, financial,
governance or other matters in ways that could lead to personal gain for the member or a related
party, or give improper advantage to others, to the detriment of the University or other members
of the University community
Last edited by Kadayi; 16-11-2012 at 06:34 AM.
So it's really not the most convincing argument for games journalism being tits up, man. It's fairly weak stuff and no amount of repeating that these people are illiterate in gaming will actually make it so considering it's an accusation you've plucked *entirely* out of your backside and seemingly levelled at an entire discipline and no-one in particular.
He wrote the manual for one of their games and disclosed this publicly when he first reviewed Sins of a Solar Empire.http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/201...-solar-empire/
Should this man really be reviewing games from companies he's worked previously as a consultant for?
I guess in your world, being a full time salaried employee in a company for 10 years = a once off project writing a manual?
Last edited by Vicious; 16-11-2012 at 03:59 AM.
Either you're mentally deficient, or you're living in cuckoo land if you think the two in any way equate.
Everyone talked about how awesome Sensible Software were back then. Did he review them while working for Sensible? Otherwise your point is moot.You mean the guy that talked about how awesome Sensible Software and Cannon Fodder were until they gave him a job on the sequel?
Again, writing a manual for a single game = working in PR in a company for 10 years?Wrote the manual to Dominions 3, which was published by Shrapnel games who publish a hell of a lot of just the sort of strategy games he writes about. I can find a definite example later if you really want. Harder though as Bruce doesn't tend to do straight reviews much at all.
Fuck it, I'm going with crazy AND mentally deficient.
How stupidly will you stretch in order to back up your ridiculous points? I can't wait to find out!
Everyone's giving Call Of Duty:BLOPS HARDER good reviews. Did the Eurogamer.fr reviewer review the game whilst working for Activision? Otherwise your point is moot.
Do you see what Deano is getting at yet?
Last edited by RobF; 16-11-2012 at 05:46 AM.
How would you go about proving loss by way of conflict anyway? Imagine i'm a member in a board of a committee to choose the hottest fashion model out of a pool of contestants; the winner is awarded a substantial sum. Model X is my cousin and i am secretly her agent. I vote for Model X. But that doesn't definitively mean that I have caused "loss" to the committee because I chose her. Truth is I could have chosen her anyway. You are questioning a discretionary, subjective judgment. You can't challenge a subjective judgment. The only possible way you could prove "loss" is if somebody has audio-visual evidence of me stating that i specifically chose Model X because I would benefit as a result and I wouldn't have chosen her otherwise. Which is absurd. Conflict of interest laws and regulations were designed to prevent people from acting in a dubious position whilst potentially owing allegiance to multiple parties. It is NOT a fact finding exercise. All it asks for, depending on proximity of connection, is either for the person to abstain from acting in such a capacity or disclose his/her relationship.
Regarding the "conflict" from eurogamer.fr, I vaguely remember directors of listed companies within the last 12 months being forced to abstain from voting on company resolutions. Furthermore, people who are in cahoots may be freely deemed to be acting in concert by the local financial regulator and required to abstain from the same. What i'm saying is that it's incorrect to say only subsisting relationships can give rise to conflict. The thing is it doesn't even matter what you call it, whether it's conflict of interest or something else. The eurogamer.fr guy worked as PR for a decade and is now reviewing their products. You don't think the least you could ask for is full and frank disclosure?
In reality, relationships such as these DO give rise to conflict. See, for example, IMG agents acting for tennis players and subsequently ending up in positions of the ATP/ITF (governing body for tennis) and the incredibly deficient drug testing regime, plus cover up. The truth is what happens is you create a sort of "gentlemen's club". It's much easier to enter into a "give and take" relationship.
Not in that review he didn't (and certainly not anywhere I've ever seen). Which is the entire point no?He wrote the manual for one of their games and disclosed this publicly when he first reviewed Sins of a Solar Empire.
Hold up, so now you're suddenly wanting to assess the factual evidence? What changed exactly between Wainwright and Chick, bar your desire to cut 'uncle' Tom a break?I guess in your world, being a full time salaried employee in a company for 10 years = a once off project writing a manual?
Last edited by Kadayi; 16-11-2012 at 07:11 AM.
So the bar is now at being a salaried employee for over X amount of time? So just to check you're fine with the Wainwright/Square Enix thing, as all she did was consultancy for a single game too?Again, writing a manual for a single game = working in PR in a company for 10 years?
Sure, some of these examples are more stretched than others, but no-one seems to have a clear line they're willing to draw.
It really ought to be there on the page. People shouldn't have to google. And what if the guy didn't have a Linked In? What's your beef with where the disclosure is anyway? The more convenient, the better. There should be no objection unless you fundamentally disagree with the disclosure itself.But it was 12 months since the guy had worked for Activision, so by big finance/director logic he was fine. And there was full and frank disclosure: you Google his name, first result is Linked In with his full employment history. Is that really too much effort? Do you need it there on the page?
In respect of the laws/rules/codes used as a parallel, the fact of the matter is, it's a matter of degree. I didn't throw out financial codes to use as a guide. It's just there to recognize that the concept exists. The actual threshold may very well be different.
As for the director thing, these guys are required to ABSTAIN. Not disclose - ABSTAIN.
Perhaps there's been too much finger pointing in this thread. But accusations aren't constructive unless there is definitive proof, which there really never will be without audio-visual evidence, as i said before. So the constructive thing to do is to analyze/discuss the shortcomings of the system and advocate reform as a way forward.
Of course some people enjoy being a contrarian and arguing (not you). Maybe it makes them feel smarter or something.
Well i have seen a twit by Lauren referencing Squeenix as "mothership" after receiving some cool shit pics of some FF game. Haha, then we get to see so much apologies and rationalization for these shills,oh well..."but wahh she didn't give 5/5 in her poorly written review she is not a good shill wah".But hey there is nothing wrong with these entitled to doritos game journos eh, they are pretty critical of the games they review no?