The Sunday Papers

Sundays are for waking up in the dark, wondering what day it is. Ah, that day. With its links to a wide range of videogame writings. Better get up and get on with it, eh? That kettle won’t make tea by itself!

  • Simon Parkin on League Of Legends: “Twice a month Riot Games, creator of League of Legends, hires an actor to visit its Santa Monica studio. While the developer adds a couple of playable characters to the online PC game each month, this performer isn’t hired to provide voice acting for a new champion, or to be rigged with Ping-Pong balls and motion-captured while pretending to swipe swords or cast spells. Rather, they are hired to mingle, to roam the studio and chat with the other staff, pretending to be a new employee.”
  • Molle Industria on what Independence means: “A couple of years ago I proposed to frame the Indie game movement as part of larger trend that ranges from the punk movement from the 70s and 80s to today’s independent cultural producers, publishers and makers. From zinesters to urban farmers. I believe the indie gaming movement is yet another instance of a soft-rebellion of (mostly) skilled workers who realize to have an excess of creativity. That is a creativity that exceeds the ability of the capital to commodify it.”
  • Michael Abbott thinks game criticism needs a broader vocabulary: “We need a better way to write about games. I don’t mean a new form of journalism. I’m not seeking the Lester Bangs or Pauline Kael of video games. My point is much simpler. We need more words.” A commendable exhortation which revivifies both my sesquipedalianism and my enjoyment of obscurantism or arcane plays on our ludic idiom.
  • More Parkin, with Proteus On A Trampoline At GameCity: “Good friend of Hookshot, Brandon Boyer, creator of Venus Patrol, a game site dedicated to independent games, is running a special area in the main tent dubbed a ‘gym’. Here players can play Bennett Foddy’s GIRP on a giant floor mat keyboard or, brilliantly, enjoy George Buckingham’s Proteus ‘Frog Mod’, in which you control a frog roaming through Proteus’s pixel block world by jumping up and down while holding a PS Move controller.”
  • Probability in games: XCOM [WARNING: Contains graphs]: “There’s also some interesting game mechanics that require a bit of consideration. One good example of this is the Assault class’s “Rapid Fire” ability. This allows you to take two shots instead of one, but at a 15% reduced chance to hit. Obviously, as the player, you want to know: when it is advisable to fire a single shot, versus firing two reduced aim shots? That depends on a couple of other factors: are you worried about using too much ammo at this stage, and will one shot be enough to kill the alien?”
  • What does Hotline Miami sound like? Like this: “And you’re off. The world wobbles, spins, blurs around you, moving to a neon beat. You’re moving faster than any human man has ever moved before, and those that try to stand in your way are put down before they can express surprise. The first, the one guarding the front entrance to this place, this mafia hideout, died when you choked him and took the pipe he was holding, which is now flying down the hall and into the face of another guard. And now you’re slamming that face into the ground, again and again and again until the movement has gone out of him.”
  • The Rise, Fall, And Rebirth Of Adventure Gaming: “In case you’ve never played one, here’s a quick primer. Adventure games came in many shapes and styles, but usually shared a goal – sending you into an interesting world to solve puzzles with ingenuity – and usually a bottomless pocket full of assorted crap that would eventually come in useful for something. They were full of characters and challenges, comedy and lateral thinking, exploration and discovery, with settings that could be standard game fare like fantasy kingdoms and deep space, but were just as likely to take you to Parisian cafés, the mean streets of film noir, or back in time to an Atlantean temple.”
  • Craig suggests the five scariest PC games of all time: “*What? No AvP? No FEAR? No Hidden: Source? Where’s Pathologic? Why not Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason instead of Amnesia? All fine questions… that I can answer by pointing out that you might find things scarier than I do. Even though it does make you less of a man than I am, I’m contractually obliged to let you know that it’s all okay, and that you’re allowed to be a big baby in face of those games that I consider as scary as a kitten’s hug. But please do let us know what you do find scary, and what your list would be, because fear is best shared in a big group.”
  • Looking back at the first AssCreed game: “The Assassin’s Creed games may be about exploring the genetic memories of Desmond Miles’ ancestors, but you won’t need a fancy Animus device to remember the series’ first instalment. It came out just five years ago, and it’s weird to think that it was as recently as the start of November 2007 that we had no idea about any of this. Since then, Assassin’s Creed has become one of the biggest game series of its generation, and in Ezio Auditore – star of three games in the peculiar grouping that is ‘the Assassin’s Creed 2 trilogy’ – it has come as close as anybody to creating this generation’s equivalent of the classic gaming mascot. How fitting that Ezio had an uncle called Mario.”
  • The Elder Scrolls: quantum mechanics and game stories: “Instead of trying to negotiate five or six endings into one by virtue of information selection, or letting the player decide what happened on a meta-narrative plane, the solution is totally in-world, while simultaneously a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement of the problem. When the magical Mantella is activated, it causes a Dragon Break, a magical event with the outcome that all the endings simultaneously and truly occur. The civil war ends in a relative stalemate, because every king wins and loses the war; the Orcs do create their own state, but are also defeated by the other kings; and the Empire re-establishes control over the area. There’s a weird in-lore technical discussion of it over at the Imperial Library website which suggests what happens – namely, that when the timeline is skewed, the Dragon Break retroactively changes the past to fall in line with the new present conditions. Yes, it’s confusing, and quite a few characters and books in the game devote time to speculating on what exactly happened, and how.”
  • A gallery of the past month’s images from space.
  • Singularity Chess.

Music this week is a kind of suitably dark Halloween ambient.


  1. D3xter says:

    So, about those things then: link to
    link to

    Still no comment from RPS?

    • lordcooper says:

      Why would RPS need to comment on this shitty state of affairs?

      As an aside, Lost Humanity was literally the only reason I visited the Eurogamer site.

    • eks says:

      John already blogged about it on his personal site. There is no need for “RPS” to make any kind of “official” announcement.

      link to

      • LionsPhil says:

        Oh, so that’s what Flare Path was on about this week.</slowpoke>

      • Trashcanman says:

        Not everyone who reads RPS reads the editors blog. What happened is news. It shows how much influence publsihers and the suits in marketing and pr have over gaming ‘journalism.’ Any outlet claiming to be serious about mingling journalism and gaming should cover it.

        • Acorino says:

          bla blub.

          I think the hivemind considers it odd to cover the supposed corruption of game journalism in a gaming publication. But they linked to articles of this kind before, that’s true.
          Anyway, RPS is always about the stuff the writers are interested in.

          • Phantoon says:

            Or it may be they want to avoid any legal action by making a discussion about it directly, since they’re mostly British.

            I can safely say, as an American, fuck those fucking shit fuckers, fuck. Because we don’t have libel laws like that.

          • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

            Or… hover over that banner ad behind this column, and tell me what URL is shown in your browser’s status bar.

          • dontnormally says:

            ^ eurogamer

          • frymaster says:

            Just to set your mind at rest Eurogamer manage the ads on RPS, and that’s about it. They have no editorial control.

    • AmateurScience says:

      John had some things to say on his blog, worth a read if you haven’t:

      There’s a piece from Rab on there too.

    • D3xter says:

      Because it’s kind of a big deal, discussed everywhere anyway and I’m sure people would appreciate their opinion?

      I saw Walker post that RPS is apparently a “site about games, not journalism.”, but that sounds very much like a cop-out.
      It certainly has a lot more to do with video games (and is much more of a burning issue) than Winning Michael Jackson’s Hair: link to or being warned about a “Dating Site”: link to

      It kind of sounds like they’re avoiding the issue and don’t want to push it, similar to Kotaku, GameSpot & Co. A good bunch of other Gaming Sites like Penny Arcade, GamaSutra, GiantBomb etc. weren’t above taking it on either.

      • drewski says:

        Ben Kuchera’s been tweeting about it a lot since it broke; I think PAR will have some big coverage on it this week in editorial form.

      • eks says:

        This type of thing tends to end up being “news site” vs “news site”, when it really will just be the opinion of the person writing it, so it’s better to just take place on journalists personal blogs and leave the sites for actual video game journalism.

        Your comment pretty much proves this as you flippantly make sweeping statements about entire sites and organizations. In reality there are many journalists on these sites which probably all have differing opinions, most of them even write for multiple sites.

        Leave the “meta” journalism elsewhere and keep the gaming sites for actual gaming content.

        • D3xter says:

          I have just stated that there are other Gaming sites that apparently deemed it newsworthy and rather relevant to both gaming and todays gaming press environment.

          While other, very specific publications have decided to not cover it and rationalize it away, for instance Kotakus Editor-in-Chief by deeming it “not important”: link to with yet others laughing it off: link to

          • ReV_VAdAUL says:

            The laughing off is directly related to Florence getting fired. Quite simply people who ask dangerous and uncomfortable questions for the publishers or games journalism in general are removed whereas those who either cannot see or choose not to see a problem with the current state of affairs are well rewarded.

            The best example are people who say “lol I’ve never seen anyone receive a brown envelope full of cash to give a positive review!” shifting the argument to the most absurdly blatant and unlikely forms of corruption and at the same time reassuring employers and funders that they are comfortable and complicit with the actual questionable practices that go on.

          • drewski says:

            Rab walked, he wasn’t fired.

          • D3xter says:

            “lol I’ve never seen anyone receive a brown envelope full of cash to give a positive review!”

            Well, they might aswell, it’s not that very far off:
            link to
            link to

            John talked about paid Trips etc. in one of his Blog articles too, but this guy over at NeoGAF summed that part up pretty good:

            I love to retell this story, because it’s wholly indicative of everything involved in game journalism. I won’t name any names to protect the guilty, but the guy in question is pretty high up on the food chain now…

            So I’m at a game event, and Important Game Journalist A is badmouthing, openly badmouthing, the Web site I’m working for. I’m not sure why he’s doing it, he seems a bit of an ass, but I have no desire to say anything. Until the guy remarks about how above-board he is, how he is a real journalist in a sea of hot-garbage hacks.

            I asked him, “Who paid for your flight?

            “Who paid for your hotel?

            “Who paid for the travel to and from the airport, to the event, and to this restaurant?

            “Who paid for that steak in front of you? And the drinks you’ve been pounding?”

            Well, he hadn’t paid for any of it. Not a cent. And he wouldn’t pay a dime the entire time he was there.

            “Woodward and/or Bernstein you are not, I told the guy.””

          • ReV_VAdAUL says:


            That’s semantics. MCV / Wainwright’s spurious libel claim forced Eurogamer to edit his piece which pretty much forced him to resign (as someone with integrity he actually stands by the content of his work).

            MCV’s contemptible actions cost Florence his job regardless of semantics.

          • drewski says:

            Hogwash. Rab decided he could no longer write for EG without the full support of the editorial staff, which is a fine position to take, but EG would have happily had him keep writing there if he so chose.

            He may have lost work as a result of this controversy, but that’s entirely of his own choosing. There’s a huge difference between that and being fired.

          • Pazguato says:

            Robert Florence about saying he forced to leave: “No writer with any self-respect could possibly stay after what happened. And that was understood. ”

            link to

          • Phantoon says:

            He really didn’t have a choice, here. He had two choices: Throw away his dignity and what he believes in, or toss the job. And since throwing away your ethical code might as well be the same thing, as you’d be untrustworthy at that point, he took the only logical conclusion.

          • Prokroustis says:

            This. Getting your article amended for no real reason and getting fired is pretty much the same thing for someone with even a hint of integrity.

      • Screamer says:

        I’d say IGN and Gamespot are the ones least likely to mention anything about this due to being so deep in Publisher’s pockets. It took them 5 days to publish MOH Warfighter’s review, a supposedly 4 hour game. Just reeks of delaying the review to please the publisher.

    • drewski says:

      Thanks for the Forbes links, some very interesting takes there. I wonder if it’s easier for someone like Forbes, who have no vested interest in games PR, to go after this kind of thing than it is other sites.

      • Abbykins says:

        The Forbes article is excellent. Here’s a quote that summarizes is all…

        “And do not patronize me by telling me the reader is the customer—your real customer is the one that pays you your revenue. And it is game industry advertisers.”

        Personally, the reviews that have any credibility in my mind are those that don’t get their paycheck directly from game ads (sorry, RPS). For example, TB on YouTube.

        Of course, I’m a mature 40-something adult. The industry as a whole relies on their core demographic – hence the shameful Doritos, Mountain Dew, Halo 4, Geoff Keighley thing.

      • meatshit says:

        They were pretty much the only ones to give the ME3 ending debacle an even-handed treatment as well, so I’d say their independence has a lot to do with it.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      How can a direct, full, in context quote EVER be libel? I really hope Ms. Wainwright is proud of herself – not only is she in the running for a free games console, but that lottery ticket has cost a talented journalist his job in a worldwide recession. A small price to pay if you are not Robert and are the type of utter scum that is more concerned about public image than doing your job with a modicum of professionalism I suppose.

      • lordcooper says:

        Too far.

        • Sheng-ji says:

          No, this is exactly what I would say to her face. She wilfully put a talented and honest games journalist in an impossible position and why? To try to cover up the fact that she acted in a suspicious way. In my view that makes her scum – because she would rather force someone out of a job than face her own short comings. Unprofessional – because she is a journalist, throwing her toys out of the pram when her actions are questioned by journalism.

          I don’t know yet if she is corrupt, bought and paid for by Squeenix, but I do know she is a scummy individual and a deeply unprofessional games journalist. Too far – not far enough.

          • lordcooper says:

            I highly doubt it was her intention that Rob lose his job over this. Calling her irrational, unprofessional or thoughtless wouldn’t make me think twice, but ‘utter scum’ is going a little far, especially when you don’t actually know the person you’re insulting. Terms like that belong in Daily Mail articles, not RPS comments.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Alright, to clarify – this thing she did was scummy. Maybe she’s all flowers and hearts to her friends and family and only reserves this side of her character for people not in her immediate circles.

            And I’m sorry but if you attempt to place pressure on a publication to change an article by removing, by any definition a non-libellous comment, you have to accept the fact that you are negatively impacting on other peoples careers. If she demonstrates that she didn’t understand this, I will redact “utter scum” and replace it with “naive moron”

          • phlebas says:

            “Scum” is such a vile word. It’s a word with a clear purpose: to dehumanise.
            (Walker, in another context: link to

          • Sheng-ji says:

            I mean’t it in it’s original and more literal and descriptive context, the bitter froth that floats on top of stock and needs to be skimmed off because it ruins the appearance and flavour of your soup.

            Anyway, i do believe that you are taking John Walkers article out of context because 1) I am not using it to section off a whole section of society and 2) I think she dehumanised herself by her actions, it is my opinion that she acted in a scummy way and because I am not a journalist, I don’t have to worry about publishing my honest opinion because it will not affect my career.

            But by all means, continue to try and convince me that I shouldn’t think what I can’t help but to think, maybe if the woman in question were to release a public statement I would have some primary evidence to readjust my views.

          • ReV_VAdAUL says:

            I hate tone arguments so much. A person gets called out on their wholly public questionable behaviour and uses libel laws to censor accurate reporting of their wholly public acts and then get the person who called them out fired.

            When an observer gets rightly mad about this they are told no no, you must be 100% polite and nice to the bad person because heaven forfend that bad person feel any consequences at all for their deeply unacceptable behaviour.

            Righteous anger is a great thing when it regards a legitimate target, if the target is not legitimate then explain why instead of telling people how they’re allowed to express their anger.

          • Mr.Bats says:

            @ReV_VAdAUL She tweeted to win a Hitman game, though (Square Enix AGAIN).

            @Sheng-ji She’s scum all right.

          • AndrewC says:

            @ReV_VAdAUL Yes: this is very important. You have just argued that all behavioral responsibilities are waived if ‘we are angry’. If we decide to hate on something, we can act in any way we like, and all we need to justify this is ‘angriness’.

            This is the justification of the pitchfork wielding mob, and of all the horrific pile-ons we see on the internet. Not only is it allowable to dehumanise the target, it is actually good and righteous to do so, for this is the most effective way of dealing with those you are angry with.

            This is why such brutally ugly hyperbole rules these discussions,- because ‘getting your hate on’ is actually seen as the most sensible way to doing things. They think they are being reasonable.

            John Walker tweeted that more than one thing can be wrong at a time. Someone doing something wrong is not justification for you doing wrong. You reacting against something that is wrong does not make whatever you do right. This isn’t some white hat/black hat manichean fairy tale.

            ‘how you express being angry’ is on you, it is not on the behaviour of anyone else.

            So thank you for expressing this position clearly. It is important that it is out in the open.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @AndrewC – It’s worth noting that I am not angry. It’s also worth nothing that I am not “piling on” her, for one, my opinion at the time it was expressed was the only one and secondly, this is not on her site, this is not on her twitter or facebook or any other medium she controls. It is on a website that she is unlikely to check unless she is actively seeking out opinions on herself.

            So the issue is, is it OK for me to call someone scum if I believe it to be true? It is claimed that the word dehumanises sections of society, and in that I agree, but it is not a blanket rule. The n word when use by most of society is about as offensive as it gets, yet black rappers use the word freely in their own music, which is an amazingly positive thing. Point is, you can’t blanket use of any word with arbitrary interpretations because the wonderful thing about the complexity of our communication is that you can always use a word in a way which breaches that interpretation.

            So the question moves on to “Did I dehumanise her by calling her scum?” Well, to answer this you need to understand what it means to be a human. As humans we pride ourselves on many things, one of which, I believe is our willingness to look at ourselves critically and try to adjust our society based on what we observe. THIS IS WHY JOURNALISM IS SO IMPORTANT. That wasn’t shouted, that was spoken firmly! This makes it all the more important that journalists are not censored needlessly. I will admit there are some things journalists shouldn’t be able to write, but this does not even come close. So her (sucessful) attempt to censor a journalist for purely selfish reasons dehumanised her in my opinion. It placed her on a level with animals.

            So I’ve explained that I believe she has dehumanised herself, is it now OK for me to use a term which may dehumanise her . Well no, because as you pointed out, two wrongs do not make a right. However this is all relying on the assumption that my use of the word scum did indeed dehumanise her. Did it? What if I had stated “She is like the unwanted froth in the soup of games journalism”. Did that dehumanise her? no, clearly not. But I just “Taboo’d” the word scum. I may as well have called her it.

            Lets look at this in a bit more detail. It has been claimed that the word scum dehumanises sections of society. Why? Because it marks them as unwanted in society and when you point the finger, as the daily mail does at disabled people, or unemployed people, or people who grew up in certain conditions, it is indeed telling these people that they are unwanted in society. They are only fit to be removed from society.

            But in the context of how I used the word, I was saying that I think she is unwanted in journalism! I didn’t dehumanise her, I dejournalisted her and on the strength of the evidence I feel perfectly justified in doing so.

            Simple as that.

          • Phantoon says:

            Hey, can we talk about the issue of how what she did was totally crap rather than semantics in text? We can berate for tonal abuse later.

          • Consumatopia says:

            From John Walker’s blog post re:scum

            I believe that every one of them has potential, can be reformed, snapped out of it, educated, or offered opportunities never before available. Because I believe these things are true of every human being alive.

            That about sums up why I’m okay with the word scum. Because I don’t believe that. Some people, of all races and creeds, turn out to be incorrigible bastards.

            I would accept that it is impossible to prove that any given person happens to be one of the unsavable ones. So it’s possible that I might label someone scum when actually they’re still someone with the potential to do better. But, hey, if they don’t want me to call them scum, they should feel free to prove me wrong.

          • derbefrier says:

            The bottom line is, whatever her intentions where, her actions resulted in something that should not have happened and she threw the poor guy under the bus instead of standing up for him. She may not be scum but she is certainly a coward

      • drewski says:

        Wainwright didn’t tweet the tag for the PS3, she just defended those who did.

        • Sheng-ji says:

          Fair enough, but my opinion of her remains unchanged.

        • Mr.Bats says:

          @ReV_VAdAUL She tweeted to win a Hitman game, though (Square Enix AGAIN).

      • Lanfranc says:

        How can a direct, full, in context quote EVER be libel?

        I am not a lawyer, but this is my interpretation: It is potentially libel under English law because Florence’s interpretation of Wainwright’s statements could be read as “…calculated to disparage the plaintiff [Wainwright] in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried…” (Defamation Act 1952, s. 2), i.e. that her judgement had been influenced and so casting doubts on her standing and reputation as a journalist.

        Under English defamation law, this would be libel “actionable per se”, which means that Wainwright would not have to prove having suffered any actual damages from the statement. Further, since the burden of proof is on the person or entity making the statement, Eurogamer would have to either prove that the statement was true (diffcult) or that it was a “fair comment” made in the public interest (which is a complicated concept, and also difficult). Finally, damages awarded for libel tend to be high, and there would be costs for a possibly long trial involved as well.

        So that’s English defamation law for you. It’s a crappy law, but it’s the law.

        • Sheng-ji says:

          Yes, but you have to understand libel law is only invoked if the statements are false, and the onus is indeed on Ms Wainright to prove this if she brings action against him. Then, if proven untrue, it would not be necessary to demonstrate damages.

          Now given that she publicly admitted to being employed by Square Enix, I do not see how she could ever prove the statements made are false, given that the statements made were her own words and the insinuation (which was clearly labelled as opinion anyway) has been confirmed by her own admission.

          • Lanfranc says:

            No. The burden of proof in an English libel suit is on the defendant, who must prove that the allegations made are true, assuming he defends by justification. And it is not necessary to demonstrate actual damages in a “per se” suit, such as one which concerns professional standing.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Yes, fine, I agree, but in this case, the statements quoted were made by the claimant and the opinion he made, (opinion cannot be libel, strike 1 as to why this was not libel), is also based on her own statements i.e. at the time she was publicly claiming to be in the pay of squeenix. Now as she is both claiment and witness against herself (strike 2 as to why this is not libel) and under expectation to be truthful in court her only choice is to admit that she is no longer in the pay of squeenix thus the statement she made was untrue. The onus is then squarely on her, and remember she is now speaking on behalf of the accused, to prove this statement false. (If she cannot, the comments are not libellous) Then when acting as the claimant, she would have to justify why she has bought a libel case when the source of the libel is inaccurate information published by herself. I.e prove that her claim to be in the pay of Sqeenix should not reasonably be assumed to be truthful.

            Whichever way you look at it, she cannot take this to court without the burdon of proof falling on her. The whole thing is BS anyway and no court would let this get within a million miles of action.

          • Lanfranc says:

            It sounds to me like you’re approaching this from the point of view of American defamation law? (Correct me if I’m wrong.) The English state of law is considerably different and much more plaintiff-friendly. You cannot simply call on “opinion” as a defence – it has to be a “fair comment”, which must still be based in true facts, it must be clearly distinguishable from actual allegations, and further it must be relevant for public debate.

            The point is that while it is entirely possible that Florence’s comments would be considered fair comment at court, it is by no means a certain thing under the current state of law, and would depend to a large extent on the judge and (if a jury trial) the jury. On the other hand, I’m pretty certain that Eurogamer does not have the sterling lying around to pay for the necessary legal fees for such a trial, which is why the article was edited. This kind of self-censorship is entirely normal in the UK and a logical consequence of the current state of the law.

          • Sparkasaurusmex says:

            yeah Brits ain’t got no bill o’ rights

          • Mr.Bats says:

            As a Law student, I find British law to be worrisome indeed

          • Phantoon says:

            Sounds like to me like the only people that’ll risk the libel law, are those that are already doomed. I mean, we got stupid crap going on over here in the States (starting with the name, for instance), but we don’t have THAT.

          • Unaco says:


            We do. The 1869 Bill of Rights.

            link to

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @Lanfranc – this is civil law, not criminal, thanks to the UN commissions of human rights, any country which tries to treat libel as a criminal infraction is breaching their citizens right to freedom of speech – there is absolutely zero chance this would ever be put in front of a jury, and it is quite clearly stated in British law that explicit statements of opinion cannot be actionable: This is because the two following statements can both be true:

            Michael Jackson is not an alien.
            In my opinion Michael Jackson is an alien.

            British courts distinguish the difference between these two statements and accepts that the second can never be proven true or false, therefore is opinion, therefore is not actionable. It is the US supreme court which doesn’t recognise opinion in actual fact!

            British libel law isn’t the horror that people are making it out to be, you really only can be sued if you can’t prove what you’ve said to be based in fact. Seriously people, we need compulsory law and citizens rights education in secondary school!

            Where British law is much more plaintiff friendly is that the complainant rarely has to prove that defamation has occured; so for example if I were to say “Farmer Giles is not cool”, Mr Giles would never have to prove that this communication has defamed him, it is enough for him to merely be offended by it whereas other jurisdictions may point out that Farmer Giles has been derided as being uncool since his birth by tens of hundreds of more influential sources, this singular statement doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to his street cred.

          • Lanfranc says:

            @Sheng-ji: …there is absolutely zero chance this would ever be put in front of a jury…

            I refer you to section 69(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981:

            Where, on the application of any party to an action to be tried in the Queen’s Bench Division, the court is satisfied that there is in issue—
            (a) a charge of fraud against that party; or
            (b)a claim in respect of libel, slander, malicious prosecution or false imprisonment; or
            (c)any question or issue of a kind prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph,
            the action shall be tried with a jury, unless the court is of opinion that the trial requires any prolonged examination of documents or accounts or any scientific or local investigation which cannot conveniently be made with a jury.

            If you require further information, the matter of jury trials in civil cases is discussed in greater detail in Slapper & Kelly, English Legal System, 11 ed., p. 504–9.

            Re: opinons, again, yes, it is legal to state an opinion. The problem is in distinguishing between an opinion and a libellious allegation, which is not simple. If I were to say, “It is my opinion that Sheng-ji torments fluffy kittens for fun and profit” (cf. Animal Welfare Act 2006), have I then stated an actual opinion? Or have I made an allegation and attempted to disguise it as an opinion to avoid an action for libel? That is not a clear-cut matter and will depend on the circumstances.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @Lanfranc – As I pointed out, the criminalisation of libel is considered by the United Nations, of which Britain is a part, a breach of human rights. Should the Crown Prosecution Service attempt to bring a criminal trial against you for libel you would have every right to have the matter refereed to the European Court of Human Rights, a higher court than any in Britain. There is no way in hell any country could bring a criminal charge against it’s citizens and not face breach of human rights charges. I challenge you to find one case since the UN made that ruling in Britain, a country that has historically respected the courts of human rights.

            Regarding opinion, if you have clearly stated it was your opinion, by using the phrase “in my opinion”, it doesn’t matter if you are trying to make a libellous accusation and hide it behind your opinion because by stating that it’s your opinion you automatically inform any reader that it is not a fact and open to interpretation. It is as I pointed out acknowledged in law that by stating something is your personal opinion makes it, legally speaking, unable to be considered a fact. This is in black and white in British law and any judge who chooses to ignore that will find the court of appeal rather unsympathetic.

            Next time you are in court, listen very carefully to the times when the phrase “In my opinion” is used and watch very carefully how the judge uses the information. I deal with pupils day in and day out who quote out of date law to me, don’t be one of them.

          • Lanfranc says:

            @Sheng-ji: The UN ruling notwithstanding, there are numerous countries which consider defamation a criminal matter, including Denmark, Sweden and Norway, just to take the jurisdictions I am most familiar with. That’s immaterial, however, since we are not discussing it as a criminal matter in this context. It would be a civil case under the Defamation Act 1952 and with a jury trial at the option of either party under the Senior Courts Act 1981, both of which I have previously quoted.

            The real point is how the comments in question would be construed by the courts if the case came to a trial, and here I would be grateful if you could provide me a reference to the specific statute or case which establishes this “black and white” definition of opinion that you mention.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Source? How about the ENTIRE of clause 3 of the new defamation bill? And yes, it has been included in this new statute because this is how this has been considered in law for at least 2 years. Jesus man, this is verging on me doing this:

            link to

            Also see

            Spiller v Joseph [2010]
            Cheng v Tse Wai Chun Paul
            [2010] UKSC 53 (at para 105)
            defence of absolute privilege under section 14 of the 1996 Act
            the defence of qualified privilege under section 15 of that Act
            and the defences in clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill relating to responsible publication

            Enough evidence for you?

            It’s Monday now, please ask your Pupilmaster if you have any more questions, that is what their job is afterall.

            EDIT: I’ve just seen that you are not a lawyer, in that case please take it as a massive compliment that I assumed you were a pupil, but please also forgive my increasingly sarcastic tone!

            Just remember that you can’t read a 30 year old document and take it that that is how law is applied these days, whenever you are quoting them do check the latest guidance notes and always understand they are like cars. 30 years ago when it was brand new, it was neat and efficient, did it’s job superbly. 10 years on it was creaky but with the odd tweak just as good. 15-20 years on it’s got a funny smell and deeply unpleasant to be in. It breaks down often and really doesn’t do what a car should. 30 years on and it really is only fit for a museum.

          • Llewyn says:

            @Sheng-ji: Please don’t attempt to pass yourself off as an expert on legal matters.

            About the only thing you’re right on is that English law relating to libel is far from the monstrosity that the Forbes author ignorantly claimed it to be.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Hehe @Llewyn An opinion stated as fact! IF I’m so wrong, didn’t you just defame me? The fact you even made that statement demonstrates that you agree with the entire thrust of my argument.

          • Llewyn says:

            @Sheng-ji: Why would I need or want to? Your assertion that the onus is on the plaintiff to establish that a statement is true, followed by your bizarre comments about criminal prosecutions as soon as juries were mentioned, ruin your credibility far more comprehensively than anything I’m interested in saying about you.

            “Deformation Bill” did amuse me though.

            Edit: Just seen your edits to your previous comment. Yes, as it happens I do broadly agree with the opinions that I think you’re trying to present. That’s not the issue here; you’re trying to reinforce your opinions by giving the impression of legal expertise that you clearly don’t have, which I find objectionable. I also find it somewhat depressing that you might be in a position where you really should have that expertise.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Maybe it’s all because when I try to state things correctly, I get a stream of abuse for using language people find difficult to understand :/ Maybe I can never please everyone all of the time, all I will say is that I am very, very good at my job so please don’t feel depressed. Perhaps if you re-read what I have written, understanding the context in which it was written, add in a fudge factor for my natural stupidity and weekend brain etc. Speaking of work, I have much to do, so I’ll not be replying any time soon.

          • Llewyn says:

            The guy who cuts my lawns is very good at his job too. Wouldn’t go to him for legal advice though!

          • Sheng-ji says:

            I’m not giving out my personal information on this site. Whether you believe I mow your lawn or am the supreme justice of all the universe, all I ask is that you don’t be depressed because whatever I do actually do for a living, I am gobsmackingly brilliant at it (Can you honestly claim the same?). No need for snarky comments, your e-peen is so relatively huge, mine could never hope to break orbit. Feel free to “win” this exchange and wave it elsewhere!

          • Ich Will says:

            Just registered to point out that Llewyn is absolutely correct – I think, if I bend my mind a full 180 degrees, I can see why Sheng – ji wrote what he wrote, but at best, it is highly misleading. I do believe his intentions were good though.

    • RobF says:

      We’re not really doing this without linking to this are we?

      link to

      • Phantoon says:

        Wait. Who am I supposed to be angry at! I don’t know the names of anyone involved in PR!

    • Radiant says:

      Rossignol has commented, on here, about writing found elsewhere before [one of Ben Kuchera’s idiotic articles posted on ars technica].
      So hiding behind the argument that ‘this is a pc site for pc people so no comment’ could be taken as an act of cowardice.

      • Pazguato says:


      • Radiant says:

        Troll failed. Abort operation!

        • Aedrill says:

          Oh you made me laugh, you did. But it really is weird that there’s absolutely no mention of this on RPS at all. And I don’t even mean full articles, elaborate opinions, or anything. I acknowledge the fact that this is a gaming site and RPS folks have to do stuff that puts bread on their tables and that they’re free to choose their own topics, and so on. But not a single word in Sunday Papers? That’s a bit weird, don’t you think? I mean, it’s about computer games (much more than singularity chess, for example), and it takes only one link to let us know about it.

          • Acorino says:

            Yet we do know about it, and it’s the most discussed topic here in the comments. So, no linkage was required anyway.

          • Aedrill says:

            Which doesn’t answer the question, so it’s irrelevant.

    • Yosharian says:

      Oh boy. *starts reading*

      edit: does anyone have a snapshot of the article as it was before it was censored? or know of the particular tweets that caused the offence?

      edit2: nvm it’s in the Forbes article

      edit3: gah, reading Rab’s twitter is making me want to buy hotline miami godammit

    • Advanced Assault Hippo says:

      I have to say, for the biggest story of the week – the story that gamers have been up in arms and talking about the most – not to be covered on RPS, is getting stranger and stranger with each passing day.

      Let’s just say it’s rather…. interesting… that they’ve chosen to ignore it.

      • MOKKA says:

        Maybe it’s because RPS is part of the Eurogamer Network? I mean there could be some kind of ‘legal’ obligation for them to not make an official statement about this.
        Sure, I’m just guessing here, but I think it’s more likely it has something to do with this then it being some kind of conspiratory thing.

      • mckertis says:

        “Let’s just say it’s rather…. interesting… that they’ve chosen to ignore it.”

        The obvious parallels with RPS’s coverage of XCOM perk up pretty much instantly…

    • Text_Fish says:

      You wouldn’t go to Eurogamer for impartial coverage of this story, and as RPS are partnered with Eurogamer I guess RPS might not feel in the best position to comment either. As long as conflicts of interest are made public, the public are empowered to choose their reading accordingly and would be wise to get their information on this story from a source that has no direct ties.

      As well as being my hugely speculative (and probably wrong by my track record) suggestion as to the lack of RPS coverage on this issue, it reflects my opinion on the state of journalism as a whole. We all know journalists are writing to earn a living right? So they’re being paid, right? So they’re unlikely to write something that pisses off the people who pay them … right? The only exceptions are the publicly funded BBC (even then it’s highly questionable), and bloggers doing it all for free. So with that in mind, anybody who buys The Official Sony Magazine would be a fool to expect impartial coverage of the wider console market and the same applies the world over. As with most such media quandaries, the answer tends to be that the public need to excersize some editorial control of their own rather than simply accepting a drip-feed of information from a limited number of sources.

      • nootpingu86 says:

        Let me be a bit curt here: Your post here is an ostensibly reasonable opinion masquerading as an apologetic stance. I 100% realize you may not have intended it this way, however. “I literally can’t make money writing about games without hitching my wagon to a publisher’s PR department while never noting the conflict of interest” isn’t an argument for continuing to do that, but rather an argument to leave the field altogether/agitate for change. Deceiving readers (or cynically expecting them to assume) as to the nature of your relevant economic loyalties is nothing new in journalism but it is a form of lying and categorically unethical.

        There are similar, more dangerous conflicts of interest in real-deal journalism as well — link to

        • Text_Fish says:

          I’d prefer to consider it a realist standpoint myself. I don’t approve of it, but I also know that very few people have the luxury of choosing their employer in today’s overcrowded jobs market. As long as there are companies with money to employ people there will be potential employees with little choice but to take what they can get and the only way to put an end to the worst offending employers is for the public to whom they owe their riches to take some responsibility and vote with their wallets/internet-cookies/time.

          Personally I’d like to think if I were in journalism I would find a good balance between offering my honest opinion and keeping my job, but that’s very easy for me to say because I’m not currently in that situation.

          On the flip-side, if anybody IS in a position to choose integrity over a regular paycheck then it’s journalists who’ve been in the industry for a good while and know they’ll find some sort of work elsewhere and I think anybody in that situation absolutely should make a stand. But there will still always be hacks without enough clout or savings to “give it to the man”, as so many righteous people claim should be the default modus operandi.

          • PopeJamal says:

            “I’d prefer to consider it a realist standpoint myself. I don’t approve of it, but I also know that very few people have the luxury of choosing their employer in today’s overcrowded jobs market.”

            There’s a word for this: sellout.

            That’s what we call people who compromise their ideals for money. Sure, maybe you don’t have a “choice”, but you’re still a sellout.

            Sometimes, we gotta do what we gotta do, but at least be aware of what you’re doing and don’t make excuses.

          • Text_Fish says:

            In an ideal world nobody would have to sell out. The purpose of a realist definition is to remove idealism and state the facts.

    • ReV_VAdAUL says:

      While it is generally applied to economic and political journalism I had a go at applying the Propaganda model: link to to games journalism.

      I’ll just point out here that obviously the fifth filter, anti-communist ideology, does not apply for very obvious reasons. Some idiot may try and make something of it anyway but such is idiocy.

      The other four filters do apply quite readily to the current state of games journalism.

      1) Games Journalism Ownership: The majority (in terms of viewership and clout) of games journalist publications and websites are owned by large corporations which seek to maximise profit which is aided by the exclusives and general access leading to being able to offer more desirable content to consumers. Heck a large chunk of the most prominent websites are owned by Murdoch’s News Corporation and Games Informer is directly owned by Gamestop, a retailer with a direct interest in promoting sales over informing consumers. Finally one must of course mention the MCV and its’ owner Intent Publishing were the organisers of the GMAs which was the main focus of Rab Florence’s original article.

      2)Games Journalism funding: Magazines and websites all rely on advertising to stay profitable. While advertisers will of course seek out popular websites or magazines that attract consumers with good content it is undeniable advertising money will be a potential lever of influence and a potential motive for positive reviews to attract more advertising from a publisher. It may very well not occur much or at all but the temptation is there for journalists to be positive towards big advertisers and for advertisers to be miserly towards those who are critical of them.

      3)Sourcing of Gaming News: For apparently necessary reasons gaming news is often sourced from press junkets which may take place in exotic locales or contain fun activities alongside the previewing of the actual game. Which, regardless of the recipient’s claims, will have a positive influence on perceptions; one will always regard products one associates with having a nice time with more fondly. Further due to the nature of games access is easily tightly controlled by developers and publishers and while this has to be balanced with the need to get information out there about a game it does mean the advantage is tilted towards the developers / publishers in that relationship. Thus PRs become substantial wielders of influence, they are gatekeepers to cool and exciting information and games which just so happens to also to be great promotional material for the PRs’ employer. Further when a PR gives a games journalist access it can easily be percieved as a favour, one that the recepient my be loath to respond to with anything but positivity.

      In addition news items at attract consumers to a news sight will often be straight up promotional material like trailers or screenshots or simply press releases drescribing features a game will have.

      4)Flak: The response Rab’s article and its’ ensuing censorship give us ample evidence of just how strongly gaming journalists and PRs will defend the status quo. Dissenting voices were repeatedly defined as bitter, self righteous naive or uninformed. However then MCV/Intent publishing, the organiser of the GMAs which were the main thrust of criticism in Rab’s article managed to get his article pulped, with the vague execuse of defending Lauren Wainwright (an employee of theirs), whose actions were both worthy of deep criticism and performed wholly in public.

      MCV did something deepy questionable in blurring the lines of PR and Journalism but in highlighting this and Games’ Journalist’s more general lack of ethics it is Rab and not the more more suspect journalists that have lost their jobs.

      • nootpingu86 says:

        Great post and 100% applicable to this situation. The uncomfortable conclusion is just how much journalism falls under this model to begin with.

    • Lacero says:

      I can understand RPS not wanting to post about this as they think RPS is about games not about games journalism. Disappointed as while games are important to people reading games journalism, games journalism is obviously at least as important to them too. But I understand.

      However having posted the Flare Path article earlier this week I don’t think that stands up, despite John’s stellar work this week it leaves a bad taste in my mouth for the only article on it to be a Stonian ramble around ancient gifts.

      Would RPS be keen to post a public ethics policy with regard to free gifts, free travel to ride in a tank, free invites to parties etc.? I don’t see one at the bottom of the page, if it’s elsewhere perhaps it needs to be more public.
      eg: link to

      Also now would seem like a perfect time to expand the subscribers option, add more payment options, a private forum perhaps. Moving away from advertising paid journalism is the only way to really help this and I think RPS is in a good situation to do this. If the subscriber package felt more like a real option and not a quick paypal account this may help.

      Finally I saw this on neogaf and I don’t think it’s been posted.
      link to

      • ReV_VAdAUL says:

        Thanks for the check this link, it is really interesting.

    • Colthor says:

      Is this an elephant I see before me?

      I notice the subtitle is currently “a beacon of light…”.

      • LeMonde says:

        But note the ellipsis!

        What follows the ‘dot dot dot’?

        ‘A beacon of light… sometimes’

        • Colthor says:

          Ha, if so it’s a funny place for WordPress or Chrome to cut it.

          Anyway, Lacero is exactly right.

          • LeMonde says:

            New subtitle.

            No ellipsis this time.

            More definitive – I like it!

    • KDR_11k says:

      This week’s Flare Path looks like a response to the whole mess.

      • shitflap says:

        Thing is, are his Cardboard Children articles still gonna be published here?

        • Jim Rossignol says:

          Yes, of course. Although it should be noted that he has not yet submitted one this weekend.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            May I suggest – though I’m sure you guys are well on top of things – that if he does have an article published in the next few days, that you consider disabling comments?

          • shitflap says:

            Glad that he is, Mr Florence is a treasure

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      John has already produced plenty of comment on this, and since he is one of the owners of RPS, I don’t see the need for additional comment. Rab has our continued support. I omitted it from the Sunday Papers because it’s all very sad, and I’d like to spend my Sunday thinking about something else.

      • Kieron Gillen says:

        And frankly, follow our bloody twitters if this sort of thing interests you. We never shut up about it.

        • drewski says:

          zomg the Gillen stirs

          • Kieron Gillen says:

            THE GILLEN AWAKES.

            (The main reason I haven’t commented recently is that I’ve got new PC and couldn’t be bothered to find my RPS password.)

          • Prime says:

            Lastpass, Kieron. The “Last Password You’ll Ever Need”

            (NB: Prime is in no way affiliated to or in any kind of relationship, business, personal or otherwise, with The Lastpass Corporation)

          • Kieron Gillen says:

            Prime: I keep on trying to get around to setting it up. I’ve heard nowt but good things.

      • Pasco says:

        I appreciate this stance, but the ‘circling of the wagons’ that happened in the games press this week was pretty sickening, and this can only be seen in that context.

        IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, Joystiq, Destructiod, etc. Name any big game site (and I very much include RPS in this list) and you wont find a mention of what is undoubtedly the biggest story in games this week.

        A man criticised corrupt practices common to the games media, his publication is threatened, his article is amended and due to his amazing and steadfast integrity he walks away. PR buys and sells the games media and anyone who speaks out is silenced, its like the fucking Mafia.

        Investigating and writing about this would be games journalism, ferreting shit like this out, doing the leg work, exposing the corrupt practices. People are clearly very interested, as the massive forum threads and outcry attest to.

        But no, everyone buries their head in the sand and waits for it to blow over (which it sadly will).

        • drewski says:

          I’d say Penny Arcade and Gamasutra are pretty big sites and they’ve both covered it to some extent.

        • Jim Rossignol says:

          “and this can only be seen in that context.”

          No, it can be seen in the context of RPS’ editors publicly (and privately) supporting Rab.

        • Pazguato says:

          Penny Arcade is an exception. The majority of mainstream sites (sadly including RPS) haven’t whispered a word about it. We know your connections with Eurogamer but this silence is deafening. We don’t talking about tweets here, we are talking about an official post stating your point of view about the most important news of the week. Is asking too much?

          Edit: Who talks about complicity? We are asking for an official post in RPS about the biggest story of the week that includes one of your writers. Once again: Is asking too much?

          • Kieron Gillen says:

            Yes. Clearly.

            EDIT: I’m being facetious because frankly when the site that’s co-owned by the man who’s made more noise about this than anyone else is being talked about as complicit, it’s fucking ludicrous.

          • Synesthesia says:

            The thing is, a blog with i dont know how many million hits a day, with a broad public audience, is not the same as a personal blog. (A very good one, at that). To completely find out about this story, I had to find the botherer via tweets, which i dont use, same as facebook. Many people wont bother -heh- with that.

            I think what many of us are thinking in that matter, is that more people need to see it. Yeah, even more.It is kind of important, and a voice such as the rps hivemind could do some good. It’s a respected voice, many people will listen to. That’s it.

        • lordcooper says:

          Biggest story in games *journalism*. There is a difference :)

        • Tasloi says:

          I regularly visit a variety of big name game sites yet I learned about this story via the first commenter here under this article. Another reminder of why I hold a particularly low opinion of game / tech journalism. That’s putting it politely.

      • Om says:

        Maybe this is my fault but I don’t read the RPS personal blogs and I don’t follow you guys (or anyone) on twitter. In fact, this site is pretty much my sole outlet for PC gaming news. So, while trying not to sound like some whiny and entitled prick, I’m slightly disappointed that apparently the biggest gaming story this week hasn’t even been mentioned here

        • Pazguato says:


        • John Walker says:

          It isn’t a “gaming story” in any sense.

          • Unaco says:

            SOPA had only a tangential connection to video gaming, but you were happy to cover (nay, crusade against) that. The situation with Florence/Wainwright is just as tangential, but is very, very much about the gaming industry.

          • Om says:

            Come now, John. How games are published, reviewed and digested is as worthy of commentary as the mechanics of pulling a digital trigger. I’d always considered this broader view to be one of RPS’ strengths. This may because I’m still reading up on the story but the notion that someone has lost their job because, in some way at least, of allegations/commentary on the publisher-reviewer relationship strikes me as being very much of interest

            This whole affair as every bit as relevant to ‘gaming*’ as the Michael Abbott article linked to in the article above. Surely it’s as worthy of comment, or even a mention, as, say, the sexism directed against female journalists? Or the flaws in the review/metacritic system? Or whatever

            Ultimately this is your site and if you guys don’t publish because it’s distasteful or personal relationships have compromised your ability to comment then fine. I’m slightly disappointed (boo hoo) but that’s life. But, if this page of comments has demonstrated anything, this is definitely relevant to gaming

            *Admittedly, I’m not a fan of the word

          • Sheng-ji says:

            They’ve responded with the reasons why they didn’t cover it – either accept that in their opinion that this isn’t related enough to games or come out and directly accuse them of lying about their reasons – don’t try to logic them into changing their minds about making a statement especially when we all know such a statement will only add to the internet soap opera this is a tiny part of.

          • Eukatheude says:

            And Date a gamer is? I don’t think anyone is accusing you of covering this up. We’re just baffled you don’t want to spread this.

          • SkittleDiddler says:


          • MrMud says:

            Yea, this is crazy to me.
            How is this not about the gaming industry?
            The publisher – media relationship, or as Ubisoft PR put it “partnership” is incredibly relevant to the games industry and something that is absolutely worthy of coverage.

    • Hematite says:

      This is definitely the kind of thing I would like to see mentioned on RPS (also, Flare Path now makes sense to me). I use RPS as my quality filter on internet gaming news – I follow some sites like Flash of Steel for specific flavours of commentary, but I generally trust everything of wider significance to turn up on the RPS front page.

      Apart from any of the specifics of this situation, I think it is a disservice to the readership to not even post a notification in the Sunday Papers about what could be headlined “UK libel laws stifle discussion of journalistic ethics”. John Walker has posted about it four times already on his personal blog which I previously didn’t follow (through fault of my weak moral fibre). It’s obviously not small news. It’s huge news, whose significance extends beyond gaming and games journalism. The Sunday Papers comments seem to have been thoroughly hijacked already. It has the same weighty meta-significance as No Internet Oceans and I think it fits squarely within the broader remit of RPS as a site which discusses things which an educated game player should know about.

      In short, more of this sort of thing! I hope there will be a scholarly feature forthcoming about the chilling effect of legal threats on honest journalism. This is a topic which is obviously of interest to the RPS readership.

    • John Walker says:

      Sorry to spoil all your conspiratorial fun, but the reason RPS hasn’t written about it is because we’re a site about games and the games industry. We’re not a site about games journalism and the journalism industry.

      Clearly we have no agenda to ignore the story, since as one of the owners and directors of RPS, I’ve been writing extensively about it on my own personal blog. Which is where a subject matter like this belongs.

      The circumstances under which we would write about media matters would be the misrepresentation of games, such as Fox News’ coverage, or newspaper reports of Games Are Killing You stories.

      So much as we haven’t covered Lance Armstrong’s controversy, because we’re not a site about sports, we haven’t talked about this story, because we’re not a site about games journalists.

      I’m intrigued that people think not covering this story is to our advantage. We could make political capitol of the story to our own advantage. We aren’t.

      • Unaco says:

        That’s weak John. RPS is not above writing about the Industry, and this is very much about the Industry. You’ve covered games journalism repeatedly, as you say yourself, with the FOX news articles (6 or 7 of them?) and the Baroness Greenfield articles. It may have been a while, but KG used to write, specifically, about Games Journalism Journalism.

        In this a new editorial stance? You will never discuss the media on the site again?

        • Pazguato says:

          Certainly that would be better and far more related to games than Winning Michael Jackson’s Hair: link to or being warned about a “Dating Site”: link to

          • Sheng-ji says:

            * Winning MJ’s hair in a PC game

            ** A dating site specifically targeting PC Gamers

          • John Walker says:

            Yeah, sorry to spoil your fun, but the MJ hair story was based around a Flash game, and the dating site was aimed at gamers.

          • Pazguato says:

            The point here, John, is that none of those kotakuesque stories have even one-tenth of the significance and impact for games, game journalism and game biz. But it seems you don’t wanna see that.

          • MaXimillion says:

            Surely games journalism is also aimed at gamers?

      • D3xter says:

        For not being a “Games” story it appears in the “Games” section of many a Gaming site, furthermore it has far-reaching implications in regards to “Gaming” and “Gaming Journalism” both, and as other people have said it is very much being discussed everywhere and likely the most important story of the week, if not month.

        Witholding comment on something like this (at least outside of personal blogs) is rather counter-productive, especially if it comes to changing something that is perceived as wrong by many or getting a discussion going about it.

        As noticed before, at least to my unschooled eyes, it certainly seems to be much more of a “Gaming” story than a lot of what you have discussed before, John.

      • John Walker says:

        I should add – I’m not declaring RPS editorial policy here. As is very clearly the case, we’re far too varied a group of people to ever manage to come to agreement on such things. I’m arguing my reason why I don’t think it was a story for RPS to cover.

        But I think in all the anger and conspiracy being expressed here, it’s important to note that a) if we had a problem with the subject, we’d not all be making it clear in comments that we fully support Rab; b) I wouldn’t have written about 5,000 words on the subject on my own site which I think is the more appropriate space for the discussion; and c) think about who we are – do we seem like the sorts who’d want to “hush the story up”? That just seems ludicrous.

        • Kieron Gillen says:

          I mean, every fucking piece of coverage links to John’s site. He’s the *source* for most of this. He’s published Rab’s response, ffs.

          Talking personally (and talking personally as someone outside the editorial team), it just seems too late for anything large on the site unless it had a radically different angle (or the situation developed further). The Sunday Papers would have been the place to include it, but I find it hard to argue when Jim says he just feels too depressed to write about it.

          • Saul says:

            How about a story explaining why there wasn’t a story? Just so the explanation is somewhere other than down here in the comments. Just a thought.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            RPS – every single one of you, never change! The fact that you don’t try to present some “corporate front” – probably the wrong words – and that you are able to speak personally is a wonderful thing. That and your opinion on scoring games!

          • Pazguato says:

            Too depressed to write about the the biggest story of the week does not sound very “journalistic” (sorry Jim!). Moreover, the story is worthy of its own post not just a paragraph on The Sunday Papers. As a RPS reader I want to know what happened in the gaming world (in a broader sense) lately, -and even more if involves one of your contributors. This story is hugely relevant to gaming. Hasn’t it been established by now?

          • Core says:

            I am also voicing my disappointment on you not covering this news. I almost missed this whole thing, since I only browse VG247 and RPS.

          • jezcentral says:

            @Pazguato, I think you mean “Too depressed to write ANY MORE THAN THE CURRENT MOUNTAIN OF TEXT THAT HE HAS ALREADY WRITTEN about the the biggest story of the week.”

            It’s not as if they are trying to bury the story. They are not deleting posts. They are discussing it with us.

          • Lemming says:

            I was surprised it wasn’t in the Sunday Papers, but if that’s Jim’s reason then yeah, it’s hard to argue I agree.

            It’s exactly why I love this site. Reading it is always like being in good company down the pub, and if someone doesn’t feel like talking about something, well why should any of us be offended? Rab knows who has his back, and frankly, that’s enough.

          • Seb says:

            I mean, every fucking piece of coverage links to John’s site. He’s the *source* for most of this. He’s published Rab’s response, ffs.

            “There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. … What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout.”

        • MortalWombat says:

          I would argue that it would simply be in the best interest of the games industry to see the topic investigated on RPS. I strongly assume that your readership is much bigger than the readership of your personal blog or twitter and also contains much more of sorta-mainstream gamers than your other outlets. I feel it is very much important to give this people who might also read/watch very biased gaming news/reviews a perspective on their own consumption of information.
          This would be a move towards forming a more critical and more informed consumer of gaming news and therefore of games in general. Just discussing it in our own little happy circlejerk of people who don’t desperately await the new faceshooter man-ops anyway won’t help in playing against those who deliberately give a shit about journalism and art and just want bigger piles of money and dumber consumers aka. sheep.

          To say you don’t want to come off being accused of bias is not an excuse at all. Just stick to facts rather than opinions. The reader can easily form opinions on his own.

        • OrangyTang says:

          John, I’d like to say that yours and Rab’s responses to this mess have been measured, polite and well reasoned, and I tip my hat to both of you.

      • Deano2099 says:

        Plus half of the debate going on is about the nature of conflicts of interest in gaming journalism, and how a writer who is seen to have a conflict publicly can’t be taken seriously when writing on conflicting topics.

        Meanwhile one of two writers at the centre of this story is a regular columnist on this site. Not saying I wouldn’t be interested in RPS’s views on the whole thing, but just like in Rab’s original argument, even if you were entirely unbiased and objective, the whole thing would still be questionable because he writes for you. If nothing else, that’s a level of meta I can’t be dealing with.

        That said, a link to John’s blog with no additional comment in this piece might have been nice.

      • Sparkasaurusmex says:

        Basically RPS has to write an article about this now.
        …well, you don’t… but that will be more disappointing than the esports article.

      • Gorf says:

        “John Walker says:

        Sorry to spoil all your conspiratorial fun, but the reason RPS hasn’t written about it is because we’re a site about games and the games industry. We’re not a site about games journalism and the journalism industry.”

        sorry but, LMFAO!

        BUT, if Jim is too depressed and upset to include this major story in The Sunday Papers then thats a good enough reason for me.

      • The_Great_Skratsby says:

        Whoops, misquoting but I guess the comment still sticks.

        Having read the comments and all I’d just like to add it’s an crushing shame the whole Eurogamer fiasco hasn’t got front page coverage on RPS. Even an acknowledgement. It’s this kind of thing that deserves the thoughtful angle RPS tends to deliver, or being highlighted, especially considering how events like E3 and plenty of other hoopla like the tabloid nonsense received a good deal of attention.

    • Saul says:

      I would also like to have comment from RPS. Having to find out about it word-of-mouth feels wrong, especially when there are two RPS contributors involved. It feels a bit like it’s being swept under the rug, when in fact it should be out in the sunshine, properly discussed. Yes, it’s a distraction, and an ugly one at that, but it’s also an important issue. I’ve emailed Jim and John to see if they will tell me what the reasoning is behind leaving it off RPS.

      Edit: John posted while I was typing. That’s pretty much what I figured – I guess just some kind of acknowledgement of the events was all I was expecting, given that you have been so vocal elsewhere, and Rob is a contributor here. I realise it’s not your primary remit, but it is a bit personal for you guys, and as a reader I feel like it’s the kind of thing that would both fit the “authentic” angle of RPS, and be relevant to the interests of a large part of your audience (as evidenced by this comment thread). Anyway, it’s all good – carry on!

    • Wisq says:

      The Florence article was ordered in such a way as to say “here’s an example of what I don’t like” (the Wainwright and Cook part), and then later, “I stalk journos and keep a list of the worst offenders, but I won’t name them”.

      Yet rather annoyingly, most of the critiques of the article are happy to turn that around, putting the second part before the first, thus pretending that he was naming names he said he wouldn’t name, and that he was calling out Wainwright and Cook as the worst offenders.

      If anyone deserves charges of libel, it’s the ones pulling that little quoting-out-of-context stunt. But then, Florence doesn’t have an army of corporate lawyers behind him, so I guess it’s open season on him, huh?

      • Phantoon says:

        With that, the argument becomes less about “is games journalism corrupt” and more about “the entire english civil law system is corrupt”.

        Guilty until proven innocent is the stupidest thing.

        • Kadayi says:


          I find it frankly amusing that now the witch hunt for corruption is so unflinching that one of the very guys who initially wrote about the whole affair on his own blog is now being called into question by the mob….when does this madness end? When do people actually pause for breathe and realize that maybe, just maybe it’s all a fiction. It’s like something out of the french revolution…..

          • Unaco says:

            So… the whole thing is a fiction? Rab’s article wasn’t amended to remove mention of Lauren Wainwright and… the other guy?

          • D3xter says:

            I’d ignore him, he has managed to be insufferable through this entire ordeal (and even before) and apparently believes only what is available in triplicate and impregnated with the royal seal to be sure it’s officially official, not to say that he apparently found a way to make Rab the “villain” in all of this and calling him bad things…

          • The Truth says:

            I suspect it’s less conspiracy theory or “corruption” than something akin to the process detailed in:

            Herman, E. S. and Chomsky, N. (1994) Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media, London: Vintage.

            Some of the more rational commentators on this matter appear to be collectively piecing together the book’s central thesis.

            A recent article on the status of the propaganda model.

          • Kadayi says:

            @The Truth

            We’re talking about the enthusiast press here. Pretty much anything they do can be viewed as propaganda if you want to take it that way. Fundamentally you’re here right now at this games site for games news because (and correct me if I’m wrong) you’re interested in game news. In order to service that interest it’s necessary for the enthusiast press to engage with the games companies. It’s a transaction of information. I’m not entirely sure what the Dexters or Unacos of the world want really truth be told. I get the impression they don’t want any games coverage because that’s corrupting and obviously any advertising is corrupting and any engagement with games PR is corrupting. So what are we left with? A world where sites like RPS throw up reviews/WiTs for titles whose names we’ve never heard of (because there’s been no coverage upto now) and we base out buying decisions on those alone? No more E3 or gametrailers or EA press releases instead everything should be delivered to us like a Steve Jobs ‘available tomorrow: Bioshock infinite’ approach? These people are the gaming AIM equivalent of the Taliban.

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      Does no-one think that perhaps RPS (an opinion blog) publishing a story about a friend and colleague’s troubles arisen from his piece on (possible) journalistic bias could be seen as a little on the nose? I think it’s sensible/senstive for RPS to be steering clear of it for now.

      Edit: Aside from the fact that it’s clearly not a story about PC games anyway.

    • D3xter says:

      This is another great piece on this, dealing with journalistic integrity and ethics: link to

  2. eks says:

    I’m not sure I “get” Mr Abbott’s article. “More words” aren’t going to solve the problem, there will (hopefully) always be video games that push the boundary of what we consider “games” and therefore we should always (again hopefully) be unable to accurately describe the experience because there is no reference point.

    I guess he is trying to get at how we shouldn’t be comparing it to other forms of ~media/art/experiences~ and that gaming is “grown up” enough now to establish it’s own “language”. I think it’s ironic that while complaining about how it’s compared to other mediums, it’s suggested we should be able to accurately describe the experience of video games though another medium (writing). While pointing out the flaws of viewing gaming through the lens of other media, he fails to notice that he is trying to do the same thing.

    On another note: That space gallery is awesome.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Not really; we’re surely talking non-fiction writing, i.e. have a technical vocabulary in our language to describe and discuss an artform in detail and wth concise precision (i.e. a boatload of jargon). This is true of basically any established field that people want to talk about.

      • eks says:

        From the article:

        [..]we continue to see a disconnect between scholarship about games and the critical community charged with writing about games for a broader non-academic audience[..]

        That seems to imply we already have the “jargon”, but it’s at the “academic level”. So what you describe is already possible. The problem lies with trying to accurately describe the experience, which is what my statement was sort of directed at.

    • MiniMatt says:

      At the very great risk of being the grammar nazi I’d be tempted to suggest we should perhaps tighten up proof reading of the words we do have before looking to add new ones :o)

    • InternetBatman says:

      I disagree with his argument entirely. I think jargon and specialized language is overused in the liberal arts in a silly effort to legitimize the field or to lazily support a lack of explanation. Part of the goal of any piece of writing should be to educate the reader, and by using jargon writers are abdicating a bit of that responsibility.

      Eh, that whole sentiment comes from being a History major. There’s a small but perpetual skirmish between History, English, and Sociology academics on this issue.

      • Shuck says:

        “I think jargon and specialized language is overused in the liberal arts in a silly effort to legitimize the field or to lazily support a lack of explanation.”
        I once thought that, before I started doing critical writing in that area. Then I found myself using more and more of the vocabulary that I once scoffed at, because no other words sufficed. Jargon can be alienating for outsiders, but it exists because it’s useful.

  3. D3xter says:

    Also, this was kind of interesting.
    “History of DRM & Copy Protection in Computer Games”: link to

  4. LeMonde says:

    “A commendable exhortation which revivifies both my sesquipedalianism and my enjoyment of obscurantism or arcane plays on our ludic idiom”

    I’m astonished: ‘revivify’ is a proper word. I’m never saying revive ever again, thanks Jim!

  5. MOKKA says:

    Be aware that the article about Advenutre games is partially behind a paywall.

  6. coffeetable says:

    Journalists caught misapplying quantum mechanics should be locked in a box with a radiosensitive gas canister and a sample of radon.

    • Wunce says:

      Journalists caught misunderstanding statistics must ask themselves the most difficult question – When Monty Hall opens the door, should they stay with their choice or swap to the remaining door?

      Edit: This wasn’t referring to the article about probability linked here, rather my local newspaper.

    • EPICTHEFAIL says:

      Addendum: Journalists caught using physics as a metaphor for unrelated topics should have the literal meaning of the term misused applied to them in a painful manner.

  7. BooleanBob says:

    Stewart Pearsons of the world: unificate at enlightenment-rich hivemind nodes in the idealogueosphere, aligning multifar-outious semantic/discursive/reflexo-critical academediac vectors, and effect paradigm-shifting grass-roots pyramoid inversions of the traditional dead-tree cognizances of ownership. While shining the light that you own.

  8. tobecooper says:

    That article about Assassin’s Creed 1 suggests that the sci-fi elements are good and immersion-creating while combat is dull and based around ‘block-counter’.

    I completely disagree and I am absolutely outraged by someone professing a different opinion than mine. Sci-fi/Desmond are completely immersion-breaking and annoying as all hell. I want to be an awesome assassin during crusades, not some kiddo in a barely textured room. And the combat has a lot of depth if you’re trying things instead of hiding behind blocks all the time! There’s grabbing, all sorts of breaks, various weapons and you can attack all the time, I barely use counter!

    In short,
    Tom Bramwell = very wrong
    me = right

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      >Sci-fi/Desmond are completely immersion-breaking and annoying as all hell.

      Agreed. They are among the worst fiction elements of any game.

      • LennyLeonardo says:

        I really like the Desmond stuff, (in particular the ways that the first game tried to blur the line between the player and player character). Imagine Quantum Leap without the quantuming or leaping – it’d just be a series of pointless and unconvincing twee period dramas. Not that it was ever that good anyway, but it was silly fun.

        • Dominic White says:

          Yeah, I thought it was a rather clever framing mechanism, and a good way to string together a story that is going to span hundreds of years across multiple protagonists while still being fairly tightly linked.

          I am very much in the minority. I knew people who declared that they were boycotting the entire series the moment the whole Animus angle was revealed in AC1.

          Nobody seems to love it, but opinions on the subject seem to range from ‘It’s decent enough’ to ‘Worst narrative element in videogame history bar none’

        • tobecooper says:

          One of my problems with Desmond is the presentation of his segments. It’s just an unskipable boring cut scene where you have to walk around and listen to people providing you with exposition. It’s poorly-made filler. I think the game would work better as a period drama – the setting is so well-made that it could easily stand on its own.

          And I could do without blue numbers flying all over my Jerusalem to make sure I know I’m playing the game, and the ‘rewind’ mechanic of ‘let’s skip this moment.’

          Of course, I would argue that it’s not the worst ever framing device. It could work.
          But in Assassin’s Creed 1 it just falls flat on its face and hits the curb.

          • dE says:

            The Animus isn’t as bad as a narrative device in my opinion. It’s interesting enough an idea. And when I first heard about it, I was actually intrigued. I think in a proper story, I still might be. But I feel like the Animus has become synonymous with all sins of gaming in my books. For one, it breaks the pace and scenery. It does so just as I’m about to feel immersed in the game and actua… YOINK! MY AREN’T YOU HAPPY TO SEE DESMOND AGAIN?
            It then proceeds to become extremely linear. Where the base game often allows for different routes and approaches, scaling great buildings and seeing lovely scenery, the Animus Sections are corridor levels of the worst degree. You have only one direction to go, not even the hint of other directions. It’s essentially “walk down that corridor, listen to the stuff the NPCs have to say, wait for them to push buttons, listen to Desmond’s mentally detached ramblings. Then walk back that same corridor, wait for some more buttons to be pushed by other people and if you’re lucky, you may continue with the actual game”.
            Which brings me to the next issue, dear Desmond. The actual Assassins are fine. They’ve got edges and roughs and end up being troublemakers. People love those, easy to relate too. And then there’s Desmond. He’s probably meant to be the projection surface for the players. Which must be why he’s such a shallow character. Nothing about him is interesting to me. He has no wit, no class, no style and most of all, no brainactivity in that skull of his. There’s a scene where he’s escaping some place with another person. The other person explicitly tells him to be quiet as there are guards everywhere. And dear Desmond can only think of waltzing through the corridors, constantly blathering… and I really mean incessant babbling about random stuff he sees. It’s like he is a meme. COMMENT ALL THE THINGS. There’s a guard walking past the hiding person? Desmond got no care, Desmond gotta remark about the Potflower on the Table. While standing upright and staring straight at the guard. Desmond gotta comment about that dudes bottom. Mighty fine bottom. Good day sir, nice hat, nice of you to not see me. Thank you for moving along. We’re not hiding here. No sir, absolutely not. Nice flower there. So why are we leaving?
            Other person: Be quiet now
            Did you see the weather outside? I heard it’s lovely. Not that I know, never been there in my last couple of days. Did I tell you about the… oh nice baton. Long. Hello mister guard. Yes, we’re not the fugitives you’re searching for. Want a flower? I think I saw one a couple of steps back. it was like…

            So I feel that most people aren’t mad with the Animus Idea itself, but rather with its poor implementation and how it actually breaks the pace and setting, instead of adding to it.

          • tobecooper says:

            I’m with you dE!
            All the way through this tight commenting space!

        • LennyLeonardo says:

          I suppose a lot of people just dislike Desmond himself, which is fair enough. I do think he got more likeable in AC2 (Nolan North is really pretty good within a certain range), and his story was becoming more interesting by the end of Revelations. The whole Assassin commune thing was kind of creepy in a good way. Anyone else reckon Connor’s estate is going to end up being the same place?

      • Deano2099 says:

        The thing is, if there were tons of historical assassination games and someone came up with the AC conceit and stuck it on top, it’d be lauded as a clever attempt to do something different. But there aren’t. And the core game of AC is actually original enough on its own.

        Had the animus conceit been dropped into a WW2 shooter for example, we’d all be thankful someone was trying something new.

    • Lemming says:

      My first and only paddle in the series is the rather great Assassins Creed 2, and I feel like the sci-fi stuff wasn’t too bad in that one, but still, it remains largely irrelevant. The conspiracy and plot could have been easily woven into Renaissance Italy as the present and only timeline.

      I find that the Thief series is guilty of this to a certain extent, in that the zombies seem totally needless. The cool thing about it is being a thief and robbing people blind while avoiding the fuzz. The zombies just seem like a panic on the part of the developer that not enough people would ‘get’ their game if there weren’t more fantastical elements.

      That said, I think the ghost stuff (Cradle) works brilliantly, but perhaps that’s because ghosts are something some people believe in, or at least have some semblance of doubt whether they exist or not. Whereas we all know zombies are just made up TV bollocks.

  9. Alexrd says:

    Good article about the first Assassin’s Creed. Still the best of the series.

  10. drewski says:

    I really should get around to playing the Assassin’s Creed series I guess.

    • Persus-9 says:

      I wouldn’t rush. I’ve played the first two and they’re both pretty meh. They’re not bad by any means but they certainly aren’t essential playing.

    • Arglebargle says:

      I don’t know about that: Got the first AC late, and what I really wanted was my $5 back.

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      Oddly enough, I really despise the first game in the series, but the second one has got me hooked. Maybe it’s because the pacing seems to be a lot more ironed out. I’m hoping that Brotherhood follows the same structure: less animus, more assassin.

    • Lemming says:

      I recommend the second one, as the others didn’t really grab my attention enough to warrant playing, but AC2’s northern Italy setting is just sublime. Plus, if you set the audio settings right, you can learn some Italian as you go :)

  11. Lord Byte says:

    Ugh I’m starting to think most journalists (apart from this here establishment) all play at being videogame journalist. Did Simon Parking even PLAY League of Legends? He reports it like he has no idea how it works:
    “Anyone can play for free at any time using one of the handful of characters that are made available gratis each week. But at the end of the week you must pay if you want to continue playing as your chosen character. Don’t want to pay? Then you can simply opt for one of the new characters made available in free rotation. Where Zynga turned so many off with its cynical monetisation in the earliest days of free-to-play, League of Legends players seem only too happy to invest in characters they grow attached to. I ask Beck where the idea originated.”
    What? The most MAJOR difference to reality and what he says is that BY PLAYING you can actually unlock your favourite champion! You don’t even need to pay, when I still played while I never got all of them, I was able to keep up with the ones coming out, running only about 10 champions behind. And apart from the Package on release I didn’t buy any with money! I believe numbers were released that most RMT was for skins FOR their favourite champions.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      I don’t know anything about the specific case you mention, but like any industry there are good and bad games journalists and it always pays to put a bit of effort into seeking out the best!

      • Lord Byte says:

        Exactly, that’s why I ended up here. While, for instance, I liked Kotaku’s journalists, I disliked the site’s sensationalist reporting style. RPS became more and more my defacto pc gaming source, and PAR fills the gap.

        • Simon Parkin says:

          Hi there Lord Byte,

          Thanks for your clarification!

          Just wanted to explain myself a little here. One of the ways in which LoL monetizes is by allowing players to pay for champions they grow attached to during the free rotation.

          There are other ways to play as champions without paying for them, but the point I wanted to ask Beck about was where this particular model of monetization originated. I’ve not seen it around elsewhere and it seems to me to be a more positive way of running things than in many other F2P titles.

          The article is not about monetization or character unlocking in LoL otherwise I would have been more comprehensive in outlining how it all works (although I do mention the skins aspect elsewhere). I believe this detail was unnecessary in the context of my question and the wider thrust of the piece.

          Hope you enjoyed the rest of the piece and it shone some light onto some of the lesser known aspects of the LoL phenomenon for you.



          • Malibu Stacey says:

            Some slightly investigative journalism would’ve been nice. Enquiring into their methods of shutting down all possible competitors such as demanding tournaments only be allowed to host LoL games if they refuse to host any of their competitors and demanding professional teams who play LoL to not have teams for their competitors games.

    • RandomEsa says:

      Ha haa time for some facts ( date based on: 23/7/2012)

      Assuming that you get 113 ip on average from every win and 74 ip from every loss from summoner’s rift without ip boosts or first win of the day bonus. Now let’s assume that the games on average last 25 minutes or when you lose you surrender at 20min mark. At best it would take you 56 games without ip boost to unlock a new 6300 ip champion ( the only kind RIOT does today) or 23.4 hours. Now if you lose every game it would take you 27.3 hours to unlock a champion worth of 6300 ip.

      Now to unlock every champion in the game. At our given date there were 100 champions ( prices changing from 450, 1350, 3150, 4800 and 6300) currently in LoL, but you could get 2 1350 ip champions for free. So that would be in total 372000 worth of ip to unlock every champion ( no runes or pages, but will provide stats from them If you would like). Now assuming that you WIN every game of 5v5 Summoners Rift ( excluding the first win of the day). You would need to play at least 3293 games to unlock every champion. Now If you would lose every game at 20min mark it would take you 1676 hours or 69.9 days to unlock every champion.

      Riots model is by their own words toxic. If you want to know how much it would take you to unlock every rune and rune pages you can ask for it. If you would like to unlock everything in Dota 2 that affects gameplay then it would take you the time you need for downloading the game.

  12. wodin says:

    I think RPS readers just want to see you make a stand here in support of Rab in an official article. That is all.

    If I where involved in RPS I’d now make sure an article was forthcoming as our readership demands it.

    Many here including myself feel connected to Rab through his love and passion on boardgames and we’d like as said to see you write a proper article in defense.

    So far your reasons why an article hasn’t being published aren’t really the strongest…I don’t use twitter for starters.

    So please to put this to bed so too speak and keep you readership happy write an article expressing your views. Obviously with alot of sites being very quite on the subject then theories will start flying around especially as they are games review sites. So again publically write an official article here on RPS>

    • dangermouse76 says:

      I would respectfully add I am not one of these people who needs this to be written. And I am sure there are others; vocal minority / majorities and all that jazz.

      • wodin says:

        To be honest I have no real want either way..just seems it would dowse any theories flying around.

        A straight copy and paste from Johns twitter would be enough.

  13. jaheira says:

    “So again publically write an official article here on RPS>”

    No, please don’t do this. Any time you spend on this topic is time not spent writing about games.

  14. Prime says:

    [comment redacted]

  15. Kaira- says:

    The Top 5 Scariest Games on PC article lead me to wonder about the differences of horror games (even if the article itself wasn’t strictly about “pure” horror games) between PC and consoles. Some of the most revered horror game-titles are primarily for consoles – Clock Tower, Silent Hills, Resident Evil, Fatal Frame and Eternal Darkness for the prime examples. The article to me read more like “top 5 tensest games on PC” instead of scariest, since most games on the list (except Amnesia and SS2) tend to be very tense, but don’t really creep under your skin. Personally I would’ve mentioned Darkness Within (an excellent point-and-click horror game with Lovecraftian themes and very creeping sense of terror) as well as the original Alone in the Dark.

    Terrorrific Halloween to everyone, though!

  16. Captain Joyless says:

    The XCOM analysis would be interesting if the assumptions in it were correct.

    The problem here is that everyone is assuming the hit percentages displayed are correct.

    They are not.

    I have missed 100% shots. I have also missed about 75-80% of shots described as “45%”, as calculated across a few hundred shots (excluding reloads due to seeding.) Easy enough to reject, with high confidence, the game’s claim that it is a 45% chance.

    The shot% in the HUD is not correct, end of story. Thus, we can’t make any of the conclusions drawn in the article.

    • Eddy9000 says:

      I’ve thought that percentages on classic difficulty seem to be lower than displayed, but then I thought it might just be because the consequences for mission on classic are so disastrous that I notice it more when it happens. Not missed anything on 100% though I must admit.

  17. rockman29 says:

    Dat HLM soundtrack…

  18. LennyLeonardo says:

    Oopsie, reply bork.

  19. neolith says:

    Singularity Chess is the coolest thing I’ve seen on a game board in a long time!

  20. eclipse mattaru says:

    The Michael Abbott piece reminds me of a couple great features that Old Man Murray presented shortly before it closed up shop, the Great Moments In Game Writing …

    “There’s a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,” says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex.

    … and The Mixed Bag Blotter …

    Arstechnica’s Daikatana review : Graphic detail was a mixed bag.

    Gamespy’s Evolva review : Overall, Evolva is a mixed bag.

    Avault’s Invictus review : Appeals are a mixed bag

    Firing Squad’s Daikatana review : Daikatana is a very mixed bag of good and bad

    Gamepost’s Everquest review : During the first couple of weeks, it was a mixed bag

    The Overall Addendum:

    Gamersdepot’s Daikatana review : Overall this game is a disgrace

    GG8’s Blaze and Blade review : Overall, I’m not really impressed

    Gamespy’s Evolva review : Overall, Evolva is a mixed bag.

    Ah, good times.

  21. thecat17 says:

    You know what? I was reading this in bed, being that’s it’s Sunday, and I thought to myself, “why, yes!” and “tea would be really nice right now!”.

    This is pretty amazing, because I am American and I should have already a 2 liter bottle of Nuka Cola near me at all times.

    So I went and boiled water, fired up my PC, mashed this out on a kb+m, and… I believe the tea should be ready. Now, for some reading!

    • Lemming says:

      turn your AC to 66.2 F and the British illusion will be complete.

  22. The Innocent says:

    Hey, huh, I’m in the Sunday Papers. Didn’t see that coming. Cool! Even though this news week is all about the fallout surrounding Rab’s article, it still makes me feel pretty.

  23. Premium User Badge

    Earl-Grey says:

    Frankly, you who are attacking the hivemind for not covering this disgracefull flustercluck should calm the fluck down.
    There are plenty outlets on the internet where paranoid, entitled trolls like you can vent your conspiracy theories.
    I suggest you point your bile spewing orifices thusly, and spare us your idiocy.

    I have been following this site and it’s main contributors and owners for a very, very long time, and never have I questioned their journalistic integrity.
    I will not stand by and watch as you try to smear these feces on the beautifully draped walls of Castle Shotgun by comparing it’s delightful contributors to the sort of “journalists” who, filled to the brim with Mountain Dew and Doritos, whoop and cheer at corporate gaming events like starved prostitutes, and who gleefully obey the whistle of the almighty publishers dollar.
    No. These are good people and proper journalists you offend.

    I do not expect thanks or gratitude for my ravings, I do not presume to believe my seemingly hysterical ramblings will somehow uplift me in the eyes of the hivemind of RPS.
    But I do expect you ungrateful little shits to take your witch hunt somewhere else, begone foul troll.

    Thank you Alec, Jim, Kieron, John, Quinns (wherever you are), Adam, Nathan (welcome, by the way), Lewie, Robert, Tim and those I have neglected to name.
    We are not all insane, pay no heed to the raving of idiots.
    -unless they say nice thing, like this particular idiot.

    • Prime says:

      Thank you Earl-Grey for putting into words exactly how I feel about the atrocious comments this thread has garnered. People like Unaco should really be ashamed of themselves for not only their disgusting attacks on poeple who have worked very very hard to be the very best journalists they can be, but also for completely failing to understand the very point John was making in his blog, that it only takes one suspicious moment in games journalism to cast doubt on everyone and everything. I understand that the modern world can be a very scary, cynical place, and that some modicum of protection is necessary – some people out there ARE trying to trick you – but the writers of RPS have long since proved themselves honest, decent, hard-working and highly moral, and for people that have been commenting here for years to STILL not see that…well there’s really no hope for these rude little trolls, is there?

      So RPS hasn’t written an official word on the scandal? So fucking what. They’ve given their reasons. Now it’s up to us to take them at face value, stop throwing pointless and hurtful conspiracy theories around, and move on.

      I love RPS, I love all the writers here, many of whom I’ve been following for over a decade. Their open, honest values and high standards are clear for everyone to see (apart from the afore-mentioned Idiots). I support them all, including Robert Florence.

  24. Decimae says:

    Every mathematical comparison made in the Molle Industria article is very mis-informed. It annoys me so much. For instance:

    Independence is a gradient projected toward infinity on both ways.
    Can you possibly picture the least independent developer?

    That argument doesn’t work, for instance, is there a smallest positive number? What about that number divided by two? (if that argument would be correct, every number would be equal to both positive and negative infinity)
    Also, what they’re arguing for, is the same as just saying there is a gradient. A limited gradient is as big as an unlimited one.
    I’m having trouble taking the article seriously when such mistakes are made.

  25. rockman29 says:

    Screw Laurence Wainwright, what a piece of journalistic trash.

    She got someone, who was doing something good for all games journalists, fired.

    Screw her. Screw all the people who treat other game’s journalists like she did. That’s not fair what happened to Mr. Florence.

    • Kaira- says:

      Except no one got fired.

    • Prime says:

      As a species we really have to get over this rush to condemnation that happens in cases like these. If you read carefully around the topic it is made quite clear that Lauren herself is perhaps as much a pawn in this as Robert Florence was. It is suggested that she was thrown to the wolves, made the scapegoat for what happened here. by condemning her you play right into the hands of the people who did this to her. Even Rob himself avoids condemning her, and he’s got far more reason to do so than you. Also, we just don’t know much about Lauren except the scant details we’ve been presented with. They look bad, certainly, but it’s still not enough to condemn her for until we really know how she’s been living her life and what has been going through her head. Unless we see footage of her cackling her head off like a supervillain while burning effigies of Robert Florence in satanic ritual we have to remember that she’s a person entitled to exactly the same amount of respect as you are. That includes not reaching for the pitchfork at the slightest provocation.

      The quality of forgiveness seems old-fashioned these days but I’d implore people to use it more. If you want to lead people out of darkness you don’t do that by showing them more darkness – you show them the light.

  26. Wedge says:

    Wait LoL is going to start a salaried league run by the developers themselves? This is all going to be a rather spectacular crash and burn, isn’t it?

  27. Bob says:

    Instead of the “Scariest Games” we could discuss tense and unsettling portions. As a whole the complete “scary” game is usually unsettling for the most part and only scary in places. The Shalebridge Cradle, We Don’t go to Ravenholme, and the first couple of hours in FEAR, had me tense and expecting something to happen at every turn.