The Sunday Papers

Sundays are for ingesting mystery (legal) substances in the name of science. Before we consume mystery, let’s consume the week’s best writing about videogames.

  • The BBC ran an article this past week about sound design in videogames, talking about Alien: Isolation, FIFA, and the hard work that goes into absorbing you in a location.
  • “So, we have a value called Stealth, which tells us at any given moment how stealthy the player is being – how much noise they are making, how close they are to an enemy, the enemy’s awareness of the player.

    “We use that to both change the music and the mix. We will lower the atmosphere and raise up the Alien’s sounds and Ripley’s breathing rate.

    “You don’t want to be making any noise at that point, so we’ll start to raise up your sounds a little bit just to put you on edge.”

  • Nathan has disembarked from the good ship RPS, but he wrote this past week over at Kotaku about the messy story behind YouTuber’s taking money for game coverage. The spark that prompted the story is the recent situation with Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor:
  • Before Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor’s release, a curious thing happened: critics on YouTube (and some in the traditional press) tried to obtain early PC copies for review, but couldn’t. And yet, YouTube entertainers were able to—if they agreed to terms like, “videos will promote positive sentiment about the game.”

  • Also on Kotaku, Stephen Totilo writes about the site’s decision to focus less on games pre-release, and more on games in the months and years during which people are actually playing them:
  • The message is clear: A game doesn’t stop being interesting once it has been released. What happens to games after they come out—what gamers do with the games they play—matters. It’s exciting. It’s interesting. It’s part of a game’s life. It’s something we should be covering not haphazardly but with an institutional intent to make it a priority.

  • Which prompted me to look out a copy of this old open letter then-editor of PC Gamer Mark Donald wrote to the PC games community, stating essentially the same thing. Seeing this letter prompted me to submit my first work to PCG, which became my first paid-for piece of writing:
  • ‘m trying to create a magazine that communicates the incredible experiences gamers have. A magazine that reports on the amazing transformations that dedicated communities have wrought upon the games they love. I think such a magazine would print articles about the destruction of Kerafyrm The Sleeper in Everquest. It would report on the morphing of games like Grand Prix Legends and Interstate 82. It could relate the tale of a dramatic duel in Jedi Knight 2 or cover the phenomenon of swoop bike races in Star Wars Galaxies. Anything at all. Single-player gaming, multi-player gaming, modding, MUDs, indy games. The building of the Space Station in There, the development of unique in-game body language. A well-argued opinion piece on the state of videogame interfaces. Crazy antics on stunt servers or a simple essay on how a game stirred an individual’s emotions.

  • At Firaxicon, the first ever Firaxis convention, Sid Meier and Jake Solomon talked about Meier’s lengthy career within the industry. The Civilization designer had interesting things to say as always, as reported by
  • “I’m certainly not in favor of any sort of censorship – we’re artists, we’re creative and we should be able to do what we want. On the other hand, it’s hard to say our games are immersive and grab people, allow them to participate and make them the stars, and then say that there’s no impact, or that it doesn’t affect them. So I think we have to walk that line. I think people know the difference between fantasy and reality – gamers are very mature and intelligent people. However, whatever we can do to create a positive climate we should do,” he said, after noting that his games never “glorified violence.”

  • Star Citizen strikes me as the most pure expression of videogame-systems-as-consumerism. It’s a game in which you can spend hundreds or thousands of dollars buying spaceships, and items for spaceships, for a game which does not yet really exist. In buying those objects, you’re creating the game in your mind; a communal fantasy constructed between you and all the other shoppers. Eurogamer’s look at the game’s grey market – the re-selling of objects outside the game – is interesting.
  • The Star Citizen grey market emerged out of a couple of important design decisions by CIG. One, the developer sells certain ships for a limited time or in limited numbers, creating a demand for products that aren’t available to all players at all times. Two, in the final game your ships can be destroyed. The answer? In-universe insurance that protects players’ investments. It’s clear that when it comes to Star Citizen’s virtual spaceships, the stakes are high.

  • Alice writing this past week about Kane & Lynch 2 reminded me of this old piece by former journalist Michael Gapper:
  • Sooner or later – likely sooner, at some point in level one – a fleeing bystander will catch a bullet. The weapons are ferocious and scattershot, the way they would be in the hands of an unskilled clown. Inaccuracy is built in and compensated for. It was clearly a conscious decision to exclude the traditional ‘tightening’ reticle when you squeeze the left trigger; the guns are supposed to be indiscriminate. You’re supposed to miss; innocent people are supposed to die.

  • Richard Cobbett’s Saturday Crapshoot has come to an end. Which is terribly sad for sentimental reasons, though Richard is starting a new column for PCG soon. You can read more thoughts on the series from Richard here, and there’s still over 200 in the archive if you’ve never read them or missed any.
  • It’s been a really awesome series to write though, not least because it’s been totally unsupervised – I picked the games, I wrote whatever I wanted about the games, and I stuck them online without them going through any approvals or editing. When I did the videos, I just did the videos. Doing one as a text adventure was entirely that doing a text adventure seemed funny the night before, and I typically wrote all of them on the night before they went live. It’s not a wise approach to professional writing, but it’s quite a good one for humour – a deadline that leaves no time for second-guessing often leading to far crazier, wackier ideas. It seemed to work out.

  • Andy Kelly’s Other Places series continues to highlight the beauty of game worlds. He posted one of Alien: Isolation this past week – though it’s got spoilers, so I haven’t watched it – along with this visit to The Vanishing Of Ethan Carter.
  • Music this week is lopsided, because one of the ears of my headphones broke. But you can take Music of Bleak Origin by Necro Deathmort and tell me what’s on the right channel.


    Top comments

    1. wu wei says:

      What I want: a Kane & Lynch 2 expandalone for the Oculus Rift, in which you play the cameraman from the original, with a new parallel storyline about why he's following them filming everything. The view removes the bulk of the visual filters but re-enables them when looking through the camera.
    1. Fomorian1988 says:

      I’m going to miss reading new Saturday Crapshoot every week so very much.

    2. Gap Gen says:

      Is that the game where you have to guess which law textbook it is by eating the pages one by one?

    3. HadToLogin says:

      If only Kane and Lynch 2 was released today. They would slap “art-game” on it and everyone would fall in love.

      • Eight Rooks says:

        Not sure. I like the article, and I agree with a lot of his points, but like I said on Alice’s post I still just don’t agree that Dog Days is a particularly great shooter. The level designs are awful from a purely mechanical point of view – and from how those mechanics intersect with the storytelling, or the aesthetics. As in, the shooting doesn’t feel much fun, and far too many of the arenas you have to shoot people in are these pitifully obvious arrangements of random barriers and concrete pillars, etc., stuck in the middle of this beautifully ugly urban setting for no real reason. Seriously, you turn a corner, go through a doorway and it’s suddenly, chest-high walls, thousands of them, as if IO just copy and pasted one piece of scenery a few times and called it a day. And I don’t think the story really held up all the way through – the running around naked bleeding from a thousand cuts sequence was where the whole thing started to slip into pointless misery-porn for me.

        It’s a stunning visual and audio achievement, it’s a crime no other developer has dared to do something with aesthetics so wilfully, aggressively nasty, it’s one of the few games around where the antiheroes actually feel like antiheroes should, and it’s worth playing just to experience how different action games can and should be. It’s not intrinsically a problem that it’s really short, either. But I still don’t think it’s a very good game, under the hood. It did get panned for some perfectly legitimate reasons.

        • Gog Magog says:

          I really love the etymology of the term “antihero”.
          Originally it meant a lead character who finds themselves in situations where traditional “heroes” would use their superior abilities, be they of strength, skill or smarts, to dominate whatever obstacle they were presented with in some interesting way, or to fail trying.
          But the antihero does not have these abilities, they’re completely unsuitable for the task at hand and appropriately enough the only way they can possibly move forward (if they do at all) is either someone else’s intervention or some form of hair-raising dumb luck.
          A hero is a conqueror first and foremost. It is their capacity to thrive in conflict that allows their actions to be designated as “heroics”.
          An antihero may end up with the same ability throughout their travels (all stories are about travel, especially the ones that aren’t) and be promoted to hero or they may not and find some other resolution (or find resolution impossible).

          But in modern parlance an “antihero” is just a guy that sometimes does ethically questionable things. Like beat prisoners for information. Or drink. Or have sex. Or be angry at people. Anything edgy, really.

          • Eight Rooks says:

            Uh… that’s nice? Never come across that definition in my entire life, so while I’m not exactly saying you’re wrong (I’m sure there are any number of things about the English language I don’t know) I’m not sure what academic nit-picking over semantics adds to the discussion – such as it is – other than making you look vaguely smug. Pretty sure the majority of people in a random straw poll would think an antihero is a protagonist who’s attempting to achieve a goal and employing means to that end which are anything but heroic, which are opposed, one might even say antithetical, to the concept of heroism? Language evolves and all. Certainly your typical antihero nowadays is basically A Good Guy Who Sometimes Punches People He Shouldn’t, absolutely no argument with you there. But Kane and Lynch are notable since while they do arguably elicit some measure of sympathy – a desire to see them “win” based on more than simple bloody-mindedness – they’re also demonstrably completely horrible and morally bankrupt people. They are doing things which heroes typically do, but they’re doing them for terrible reasons and in reprehensible fashion. Antiheroes.

            • P.Funk says:

              Just to swing it all around on you your comments smack me as an anti-intellectual reflex that’s typical of our current culture, people who think its smug to share information or just randomly cite how interesting things are in terms of the cultural development of a term from before til now.

              I’m not saying you’re necessarily a dick, but your response to a very interesting bit of cultural analysis is… well comes off a dickish and hostile towards intellectualism. Are you suggesting that the history of our culture is meaningless and anyone who wants to examine it is trying to be a smug know it all?

              Please forgive me but I’m a smug know it all so you’re hitting me where I live.

          • blind_boy_grunt says:

            @eight rooks
            i don’t think he was attacking you for using it.

            I liked the information, but my research(aka wikipedia) wasn’t really conclusive, it (it being my research, which means the wiki page) indicates that an antihero is a hero that “…acts in an unheroic manner and lacks conventional heroic qualities such as idealism, courage and morality.” Which can also mean the modern use of a guy with questionable morals.
            But what Gog Magog defines as the anithero of the modern age probably is better in line with the definition of a Byronic hero. A hero “who is a romanticized but wicked character. Conventionally, the figure is a young and attractive male with a bad reputation. He defies authority and conventional morality, and becomes paradoxically ennobled by his peculiar rejection of virtue.”
            I can remember a time where i didn’t have the internet to do homework, no idea how i did it.

        • manny says:

          No surprise really, just an attempt by the Hitman developers to resuse their engine for an FPS with the same ‘antihero’ angle cause making an FPS is alot easier than making a Hitman game. (With it’s intricate level design and npc a.i)

          And the team reused their original 2 Hitman games with the release of Hitman Contracts and Blood Money.

          This exodus of talent became very evident with Hitman Absolution which is considered their worst game in the series post-Hitman 1.


        You’re making a joke, but I think it’s true. If the article is true (I haven’t played it yet myself) then the game has many of the same sentiments that Spec Ops: The Line had, only it came out before critizing the extreme violent content of shooters came to the foreground and didn’t sell itself on those merits. Eight Rooks says above that the game is a bad shooter, but well, so is SO:TL, and people understood it was deliberately bad as part of its criticism of war and war as entertainment. (It’s not. The different kinds of enemies and sand mechanics are examples of how it attempts to shake up the gameplay. It fails, and is actually a better game for it, but would be even better if the devs had realised its strenght and stopped trying.)

        Of course, you mean to say “the modern audience is so stupid, they like bad things and say it’s art!” when I mean to say “the reception of a work is highly dependent on the context it exists in, and the audience is much more receptive to conventions that deliberately go against what is considered common sense in game design, to the point that they often see deliberate subversions of said conventions when there is only accidental failure to follow them; regardless, the result may be a better experience”, which means I need a lot more time to say my thing and am at a clear disadvantadge.

    4. kwyjibo says:

      The New York Times covers League of Legends.

      link to

      • Philomelle says:

        I wonder if they already disbanded the Foundations division, given that the Azir reveal was the biggest embarrassment Riot Games suffered in a very long while, and their idea that completely separating story from gameplay improves player experience made it impossible for the narrative team to even show up on the forums without being verbally torn apart.

        • commentingaccount says:

          Could you explain to someone not into LoL what happened there? This is the first time I’ve heard of that.

          • Melody says:

            Riot had a whole meta-plot in the LoL narrative: there was a sort of United Nations of the fictional world where people came to fight in what was the main game arena, in order to solve political issues peacefully, through battle in the arena and not with actual war.

            In this narrative they accounted for the existence of Summoners (the players) actually, in the game fiction, summoning the characters they were playing, it was all really meta stuff, some champions even addressed the player directly in their voiceover. It also accounted for things like respawning instead of actually dying etc. A game of League of Legends was, in the fiction, one of these battles organized by this UN thing.

            Some time ago, Riot decided this whole narrative thing was too constricting in terms of making compelling characters and stories that made sense, so they threw it all out of the window, and are in the process of slightly reworking and adjusting the lore.

            A lot of aficionados got really mad that the plot they had known for years was suddenly unofficial/wrong/not canon.

            • kwyjibo says:

              Why do people give a shit about the lore in a game made for competition? I don’t play dote-em-ups, every so International or so, I might give it a bit of a watch – and the lore just gets in the way. I have no idea what Vlad’s does, but I know what an invisibility rune does. It’d be a lot clearer if instead of loreful names like Aghz, they just called it Mega-Ultimate.

              Why are the terrorists blowing up a cobbled Bavarian castle? No one knows, and quite frankly, no one cares.

            • Philomelle says:

              I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that because you and some other group of people don’t care about lore in a MOBA, means absolutely everyone doesn’t care about lore in a MOBA. Next time I visit a religious establishment of my choice, I will phone up a deity and ask them to smite us foolish mongrel who are so alien and unlike the rest of humankind.

              In the meantime, I will appreciate Dawngate’s heavy focus on lore and WoW’s decision to keep producing a lot of narrative content despite only maybe 30% of the playerbase actually playing through it.

            • kwyjibo says:

              Phil, I’m sorry if I touched a nerve. But you failed to answer the question. Why are you so invested in such a make-it-up-as-you-go-along universe? You seem more invested than the people who actually write it. Not sure that it’s healthy.

            • Philomelle says:

              I didn’t answer that question because you didn’t ask it. What you did is issue a mocking statement that generalized any and all MOBA players as not interested in lore, then accused me of being over-invested after I called you out on it. Seriously, you didn’t need all that ad hominem to actually ask that question.

              But now that you asked that question, people get interested in MOBA lore for the same reason why they’re interested in any video game’s lore. It’s because they are interested in fiction and world-building, plus they just happen to enjoy the playstyle provided by that game. They get both fiction and a game as a result.

              It also provides a decent logical explanation for the art direction. As you’ve pointed out, there’s no reason why Ashe is called Ashe instead of Frost Archer, why Vladimir isn’t called Blood Mage and Fiddlesticks isn’t called Scarecrow. Similarly, there’s not even a point to naming their abilities because most competitive players will refer to them by the hotkeys used to execute these abilities. You need a logical layer to explain how art direction links to the gameplay, with lore being that logical layer. Without it, it’s just a pile of art assets that might provide some aesthetic enjoyment, but mostly distract because they don’t make any actual sense.

              DOTA2 did a very smart thing there in that it chose to refer to characters by their titles instead of names, IE Drow Ranger instead of Traxex. It has lore, but it keeps that more as underlying fluff behind the primary thing. League of Legends, on the other hand, had very prominent lore that provided explanation for every element of the UI, they provided a narrative for such things as new character introductions and balance reworks, and they had multiple major lore-related events that are bound very heavily into the stories of various characters involved in the game. When that lore was removed, all those logically explained art assets became just a pointless pile of names and colors which quickly collapsed in on itself. So people are naturally frustrated.

              tl;dr When your game spends four years of its lifespan with major aspects of its UI and art direction revolving around a narrative, erasing that narrative out of existence just might be an extraordinarily stupid idea, not to mention blatantly bad game design.

          • Philomelle says:

            What Melody said, though I’ll add something on top as someone who has been frequenting the game’s forums.

            The critical issue is how the retcon has been handled, namely that there isn’t any actual effort put into it. A lot of people, including myself, approached members of the narrative team and asked them for clarification on various aspects of the plot. The answer is always the same, “just remove the League of Legends out of the story and leave everything exactly the same”. Pointing out specific parts of the story that make no sense with that approach gets the conversation invariably abandoned on the spot, even if people simply want further clarification.

            The entire situation feels like if someone decided to reboot Batman by removing the death of his parents, then claiming “everything else in the story is exactly the same, except Bruce’s parents never died”.

            Between that and the narrative team members getting parts of the story blatantly wrong, people formed an image of them as a bunch of newbies who were hired only recently, don’t actually know the game’s story and got lazy about researching it, so they decided to flush it out of the game. It didn’t help that the change essentially demolished the vast majority of community-created content.

            It also created a nasty precedent in that they essentially retconned players and their presence within the game’s world out of their video game. People got angry because their immersion was shot to hell. The entire game UI is built around the idea of you playing a summoner who supports a champion, with characters referring to the player as a summoner. Now that the concept is gone, the players’ immersion is shot to hell. Yes, the narrative team keeps arguing that it’s okay because people can just associate themselves with characters now, but last I checked, it’s hard to pretend you’re someone on the screen when said someone follows the commands of your cursor and barks out acknowledgment of your orders.

            Plus, there’s something to be say about a bunch of writers saying that video game players having any sort of agency in the story of a video game they’re playing is a bad thing and hard to plot around, and even more things to say about removing an organization called the League of Legends from a video game called League of Legends.

      • P.Funk says:

        At this point isn’t selling a majority share of LOL for $350 million seem like a colossal mistake given its current popularity? The game is apparently pulling in a billion in revenue this year so shouldn’t that make its value in sale like at LEAST what they just gave Mincraft or even better?

    5. Laurentius says:

      Man, these type of articles like Grayson’s ? I don’t know, it just kinda feels wrong somehow. Like writing article about unethical pratices in Mercedes-Benz factories and then going and posting it on BMW website.

      Edit. I don’t have problem with this type articles being written, just the opposite. It’s good that this type of things being examined. What I’m finding problematic are outlests where they are published, hence my example.

      • thedosbox says:

        Not sure what your complaint is about, but it’s well known that publishers like to use youtubers as part of their PR campaign: link to

        • Laurentius says:

          Kotaku ( and broadly speaking traditional gaming sites ) and YouTube channels are compiting for audience, market and profits. So articles like this or Simon Parkin’s link to being published on Kotaku or Eurogamer, I don’t know this is a huge gray area as far as integrity goes, like in a hyperbolic example I included in my innitial comment.

          PS. Not even starting on how much of that PR hype is created by those sites in the first place. Time and time again they underline how editors are sperate entities from marketing departments, where net results are exactly the same. I really can’t tell a difference from paid hype for Shadwos of Mordor from You tube channels and “supposedly” unpaid hype form traditional gaming sites.

          • thedosbox says:

            Are you suggesting that games sites not cover the story at all? Approaching this from anoher POV, which youtubers regularly cover this type of story?

          • blind_boy_grunt says:

            “I really can’t tell a difference from paid hype for Shadwos of Mordor from You tube channels and “supposedly” unpaid hype form traditional gaming sites.”
            Maybe wait until the game sucks and those sponsored youtubers still have to basically sell the game. Didn’t destiny get rather mixed reviews, how did that happen in your opinion?

            • Laurentius says:


              I’m not suggesting anything as I really don’t know what to suggest in this situation but I found this kind of thing problematic. These are for me some kind of blurred lines crossed and some gray areas entering as far journalism goes.

              Mixed reviews for Destine that may well be but somehow hype train keeps rolling: link to /facepalm

            • commentingaccount says:

              *clicks link*

              *Sees Ben Kuchera*

              *Hits back button*

              And nothing of value was lost.

            • blind_boy_grunt says:

              what exactly is your problem with “we write articles about destiny because you read arictles about destiny”? Like some youtube-channels don’t stop playing a game because enough viewers keep watching.

            • welverin says:

              Laurentius, despite the middling reviews, there are people who actually like Destiny. Also, let’s be clear, the reviews for Destiny are not bad, they just aren’t great. Big difference.

              ~78 metacritic score is good, I just can’t understand how people interpret anything under 80 as bad. The reason Destiny is a disappointment is it’s a new game from Bungie and the prerelease coverage had built it up as a game of teh year contender, and it fell short of that.

          • thedosbox says:

            @ Laurentius – how is this different from the guardian newspapers media coverage? I’m also curious as to why your lumping in coverage of the PR campaign with the reception of the games. Both Mordor and Destiny seem to have been (generally) well received by critics and non-critics alike.

          • AXAXAXAS MLO II: MLO HARDER says:

            It does feel a little fishy, like when I see a TV news show badmouthing Internet news sites, but since youtubers rarely do anything resembling journalism (by their own admission) who else is going to cover this?

            I also suspect that the overlap between fans of youtubers and fans of written games sites is smaller than one might think, but I’d need a few thousand dollars and a team of skilled researches to prove or disprove this hunch.

            • Baines says:

              Of course when you ask for anything akin to journalism, website journalists tend to point out that they aren’t journalists either.

              The longstanding iffy thing to me is the twin feeling that many games journalists treat it all as “It isn’t unethical if we do it” and “It is only news if it won’t involve us.” (The latter acting as a muffler on any stories that might splash back onto a reporting site, sometimes even if said site is truly innocent.)

              It is to be expected. After all, most places aren’t going to suddenly go “We’ve been wrong all along” when faced with a public question of ethics. They’ve already decided what they feel is ethical and what is unethical. If they feel a practice is ethical, then they’ll try to defend it or remain silent. (If they do something that they figure might not be ethical, they may defend it, deny doing it, or remain silent.) It isn’t news, because to them it isn’t an issue. That leaves only the things that they are above doing as topics worth talking about, or things which involved targets far enough away from them (such as print mag versus web site, or now web site versus YouTube).

              It has been that way since the prime time of the print mags, before the internet boom.

          • Consumatopia says:

            I understand your point, but keep in mind that before that Kotaku article went up, people were criticizing Kotaku and other mainstream gaming web sites for ignoring this story:

            link to

            This is a pretty significant story, and, if accurate, one that directly ties into games corruption – a real hot topic right now! Even better, it’s a corruption story that zings the up and coming Youtubers that are stealing from the classic media! Surely the one of the big boys would cover it. Nope. Google reports no mention on Gamespot. IGN. Kotaku. Polygon.

            The story was more than a week old by that point.

            In practice, journalists don’t necessarily hesitate from reporting on their competitors when their competitor becomes the story. If you’re American, you might recall a big kerfuffle over the New York Times changing executive editors. Other papers didn’t hesitate to run stories on it. You can say there’s a conflict of interest, but in a way it’s a good conflict of interest–it’s much less problematic than a paper doing a story on itself.

            • Laurentius says:

              It wouldn’t be a problem if there was a constant multi voiced examination of gaming media akin to what you are refering to in a news media etc. At present though, gaming outlets are very hesitant to examine their own peculair position and practices. Like in this example, I don’t really understand that PR guys paid money to youtubers to “empahsize nemesis sytem” in Sahdows of Mordor and didn’t paid money to Kotaku and other traditional game sites and they still emphasized nemesis system in SoM all the sime. It’s kind of interesting that paid hype is basicly the same as “unpaid” hype, that content provided by “youtube entertainers” is almost the same as “game journalists”.

              PS. This is also reason why in my opinion general audience is apthetic to this kind of articles, at least I am, as I simply have problem to wraped my head around idea of PR splashing cash on something that at lest so far was achived on traditional sites for “free”.

      • Dare_Wreck says:

        What is your issue with Nathan? He never had an article published about the person in question that you’re alluding to, so I (as I’m sure the RPS hivemind do) take offense at your besmirching his name with your comment.

        • commentingaccount says:

          He said “like Grayson’s”. As in articles similar to what he wrote here. There’s been more than one.

        • Laurentius says:

          Hell of Saturday’s night was it ?

        • blind_boy_grunt says:

          “Man, these type of articles like Grayson’s?”
          that means op is including grayson’s article that he has a problem with, so the question what ops problem with grayson is seems valid. My guess is corruption and that for op said corruption is proven, which for some is just a bit, but just a bit, questionable (by some i mean me, but my assumption could be wrong, so i too would like to know what op’s problem is, edit: no wait i don’t care).

          edit2: i have to apologize, i had autoattack on. I doubt anyone was able to make sense of what i wrote anways.

      • pepperfez says:

        Shouty People: WRITE ABOUT CORRUPTION
        Games Writers: Uh, we have been, but OK. [writes about corruption]

        • Laurentius says:

          I don’t really understand what you are about. Nevertheless I’m pretty sure I’m not shouty poeple as I’m just me, at least I was the last time I checked.

          My point is that in tight, competing business, writing article about certain questionable practices of certain growing business and then choosing as outlet for your article their direct buisness competitiors seems like a gray area to me and something I would personally be hesitant to do.

          • Rikard Peterson says:

            If you really don’t know what pepperfez is talking about, consider yourself lucky.

          • Dare_Wreck says:

            Ah, now I see. You should have said that in the first place then. I automatically assumed that you were jumping on Nathan for the same reason why other conspiracy theorists were jumping on him and RPS in the last two months. You weren’t focusing on that craziness, but rather trying to make an analogy that just happened to involve Nathan’s article.

    6. wu wei says:

      What I want: a Kane & Lynch 2 expandalone for the Oculus Rift, in which you play the cameraman from the original, with a new parallel storyline about why he’s following them filming everything. The view removes the bulk of the visual filters but re-enables them when looking through the camera.

      • Premium User Badge

        Graham Smith says:

        Have you played Michigan: Report From Hell?

        • wu wei says:

          I haven’t even heard of it before, now I really need to check it out, cheers!

    7. Wulfram says:

      Covering games after launch is worthy idea, but the combination of the low quality of games journalism and the abundance of unmediated information probably makes it unworkable. What are they going to offer that can’t be found at far better quality on a ton of fan sites?

      • edna says:

        I think covering games after launch is workable and I have often wished that such a thing existed. Particularly for games with bad launches and consequent bad reviews which, in some cases, become worthy of another look once they’ve been patched and modded a few months later. Fan sites don’t often do the trick because they are very biased and tend to require quite a lot of forum stalking to get a flavour.

        • KenTWOu says:

          Agreed. We need more post-release coverage. Especially if it means less boring pre-release stuff.
          For example, I think that Far Cry 4 will be a good game, but I don’t want to see another shallow video about Far Cry 4 shiny weapons which will create negative comments below. What was the point of that? To maintain negativity? I’m pretty sure, FC4 weapons will be useful without a promo video by Ubisoft. I want to know more about the game structure, about its linearity/non-linearity, about its improved convoy missions. So let’s forget about FC4 and wait when Ubisoft will cover that part of their game in their mandatory 101 trailer or earlier.
          Instead I would like to read an article by RPS staff, let’s say, explaining one of the coolest emergent moments which the Nemesis System could create in Shadow of Mordor or a vivid description of a thrilling moment from Alien:Isolation survival mode.

    8. kwyjibo says:

      You’ve probably read too much of Gamergate already, but here’s John Walker with more words

      link to

      • Wulfram says:

        It’s funny how “Don’t feel you’re represented? Make your own stuff.” suddenly becomes an acceptable answer when it’s people you don’t like stuck on the outside.

        edit: Also, we were supposed to take that waffling article before as “we disagree with Leigh Alexander’s article”? Really? Huh. Guess that’s what happens when you try to write as a committee. But nice to know.

      • Melody says:

        Another piece on GG, this time from First Person Scholar

        link to

        • SirMonkeyWrench says:

          The problem with that article and all the other articles like it is that in any internet movement of any reasonable size it is trivially easy to find material to support any purpose whether that be demonizing said movement or celebrating it or somthing else altogether, and since gamergate doesn’t even have a consistent set of goals its ‘members’ cannot even be condemned as a group on the ground of what they are advocating.

          • pepperfez says:

            So if there’s no set of goals, and no representatives, and nothing can legitimately be attributed to it, what’s the point of Gameghazi? Why not just walk away from it?

        • iridescence says:

          @Melody: Thanks, easily the best summary of GG I’ve read though some of the parallels drawn are absolutely chilling to me. Also a new blog to add to my reading list. Very good writer.

          • AXAXAXAS MLO II: MLO HARDER says:

            Agreed, a sterling piece. You always seem to bring up excellent stuff for the Papers, Melody. Thanks. Thelody.

            • Melody says:


              By the way, if you don’t mind me asking, why did you change your name, commenter formerly known as The Random One, (and what does your new name mean)? ^_^

      • Frosty Grin says:

        And another one, from Reason:

        link to

        The interesting part is the author’s critique of the so-called “social justice warriors”, who, in her opinion, “can be a highly toxic Internet presence”. Other than that, it’s a balanced and fact-based take on the controversy.

        • Philomelle says:

          For a balanced and fact-based take, it tries very hard to ignore the part where 4chan moderators recently issued a huge sweep of IP bans after a reveal of IRC logs that proved the whole GamerGate was concocted by a dozen nutcases from /vg with with explicit intent of, guess what, harassing women out of the video game industry.

        • Mark Schaal says:

          It is neither balanced nor fact based. The author makes it clear that she is anti-progressives and that her primary information about gaming comes from the opinions of her friends. The most interesting thing, in my opinion, is that because her information comes from her friends she is a model of corruption according to gamergate standards. She doesn’t grapple with that issue at all in her article.

        • joa says:

          Whole thing seems like a storm in a teacup. People are just using the supposed corruption that didn’t really happen to go after websites they dislike for other reasons (i.e. because those sites have ‘social justice’ viewpoints).

          It’s kinda inevitable when you think about it. These are some unhappy guys, quite young, with too much time on their hands. Women, and men who have ‘made it’ in life seem like the obvious target for their frustrations. They’ll probably grow up and mellow out in time.

    9. Sigwolf says:

      Why was there no Bargain Bucket this weeked?