A new low for game journalism?
This is going to be a little weird to write because I'm going to absolutely refuse to credit any of the sources, since this was just pathetic and unworthy. Yet I still want to discuss the issue in some detail, which means giving you an idea of the example. So if you really want the sources here, go dig up the end of April, or start of May's articles on random websites and you'll find something like what I'm talking about. However you really, really shouldn't.
Journalism as we know it has always had some fairly low points. Its pretty clear now, especially in the digital age, that news will come in from an angle that exploits the human mind, looks for drama, and will scrap up anything it can to make or mis-contextualize that for more drama. That's not to say everything does that, or does it often, but its a reality of journalism. Heck what could you expect from a media where their television hosts look to be made of wax. Game Journalism on the other hand, isn't even a real thing for the most part. Sites repeat out press info they're given or read on the company website, basically being the hub of public info left scattered all over the place. Other than that they do the usual drama stirs, poke at rumors, and rate games that they're often given by publishers. Very seldom do we see actual investigations, or even interesting interviews. They don't even compete with each other, as the GG consumer revolt revealed, they've been collaborating with each other and even plan out offensive and political articles to throw their own agenda around in a wide-spread narrative. That's because they have little reason to compete with each other. They're all reporting the same thing from the same sources, and even from the same pay, and practically nobody gets up and says "lets push this forward!"
Well I can't help but have this all surge around in my brain as I stumbled onto a recent article. It was framed with the idea that ___ developer called out CD Projekt red for sexism (I can name projekt red, because they weren't desperately grasping for attention to the point of exploiting their fans). Now seeing an article on sexism in itself should be a red flag for desperate clickbait, but honestly it was coming from within the industry itself, so curiosity got a hold of me and I gave it a look. It was a fucking tweet that couldn't even write a sentence. That was it, laughably with the fluff writing of "the other side has failed to respond." Well no shit. If I were a working company in an entertainment industry I would be focused more on the upcoming project, and support of my games, than what some idiot said to me in a half-baked tweet. Shockingly enough (not really), the difference in work attitude can be seen in the products. The jab came out of a small team that makes minimalistic games received well only by a cult audience, and they have trouble even conveying how to sprint in their latest game. CD red on the other hand, I shouldn't have to explain. Point is, they shouldn't waste time with responding to such dribble, and neither should the website, and heck neither should I. However I've kind of got my excuse *looks at the storm*, and rather than naming names, I'd rather shame the fact that its actually even come to this.
 |
| Your best source for news, apparently |
Seriously. If all you've got going for you as a source of gaming news is, "oh no, dude on twitter is talking poorly written smack!" then I'm going to question your site, writing, and journalism skills way more than normal. Oh but it happened yet again this week, when a certain AAA developer tweeted out insults to COD's new trailer over twitter. He had a little melt down over the matter, and apparently his outraged tweets were so interesting it was reported as news. I rarely see this stuff devolve this far. Its not quite a new low, but its touching the bottom. And the fact that I actually trusted them enough to click that link, is also sad. So I'm not going to do it again. That's why I'm not sourcing things now or naming names. I'm not bringing attention to some whiny twitter troll that just so happens to be a part of a company with a mixed record. Instead I'm going to ask to readers and writers why this is a big deal. Why have we come so far in gaming, only to put this in as a highlight for the day? What's next, youtube troll says PS4 has no games in the headline? Look, don't add to this nonsense. If a storm isn't looming in your area, you've got better things like Dark Souls 3 to do. You've got fun games to play, actual news to look into, or at the very least you can protest the existence of these articles in the comments if you find yourself feeling tricked into reading one. If you actually care more about what one dev says to another that DOES NOT directly impact your entertainment, take a step back and think about things.
Modern Warfare's tough sale's pitch
Hey guys, guess what? Your favorite modern day style COD is getting a remaster like you've been begging for! Modern Warfare's remaster is coming out just in time alongside the brand new entry, has multiplayer support with its own dedicated servers, and is being done by such a good team as Raven. The bad news? Its being held at gunpoint by the new COD.
 |
| $80 |
Right so that's a bit of an exaggeration, but in case you hadn't heard there's a weird catch related to the COD4 remaster, you need to buy it bundled with the new entry. That's $80 in the very least. I... actually can't say I'm surprised, and not that that outraged. However as I thought about it more I realized that was lack of care was more on my lack of emotional attachment to the series. Really this just sucks in general, for both parties involved. Its really one of those situations in which only the super fan or publisher wins. The super fan wins because they were going to buy the new game no matter what, and at $20 the addition of a resurrected favorite is pretty great. Certainly beats the $50 attitude Activision took with Deadpool. And Activision wins this because they know they can push a couple people to get the series, and can show their investors that "look, this entry has boosted sales. Gee, I wonder why..." and then they can pull the strings to cash in on a $30-40 stand alone sale several months to a year later.
Look my initial reaction is that its kind of evil genius. Its one of those things I have to step back on and say "yeah its shitty, but its clever.". A lot of times my complaints for the games are done on merits that its just a plain stupid decision, or something with awful long-term consequences, but this is one case where I nod my head and say "okay, yeah, you got us in a good choke-hold there". However its still sad, AND its not entirely without its flaws. If this is to please investors and get some early extra sales, that's good. However you're also losing sales. You're losing sales from people like me that would have given you $20 for that entry (it would be my first time owning the original MW, so sure I'll put down the money), but now its a matter of the other game justifying a freakin' massive $80 investment. For comparison, I barely did $40 on the one recent COD I was optimistic about, and wound up regretting it to. Then there are people who are just plain done with new COD, but were ready to give you a good chunk of money for a remaster of the one they loved. Now, that money just isn't going to get to you, period.
Then I realized yet another way in which this was evil genius, but potentially bad for everybody. Hypothetically speaking, what if this is a cover up? What if they're afraid that either COD4 is so good that it would, by itself, cannabalize all the work put into the new game? What if this is finally the chance for fans to prove they want a simpler game, and a more classic take on the campaign, if it sold way better and had longer online support? What if the new game sucks entirely, or they have little confidence in it after Ghosts, and this is to help push you to buy it before you realize that? This could be a case of potentially holding quality hostage by a more expensive and lesser game, in order to maximize profits. I kind of doubt it, since I would honestly rather believe Activision is just that selfish that they simply want to maximize $80 profit potential for the sake of it. Still this hostage type conspiracy is possible, and I want people to remain cautious about the upcoming game because of it. In either case I'm left kind of agreeing with the majority on this one. Fuck you Activision. Don't support this! Wait to test them and see if there will be a stand alone in the future, and even if that's not a thing... well, the PC version on steam is just $20. Grab a good PC, buy it, and enjoy it. Its a little ironic protest, and your money on the PC platform will take your further than just dunking $80 on a game you don't even want. Of course if your a super fan you'll just buy and enjoy both anyways, and again, more power to you if you're in that winning position.
 |
| Murky future ahead on this one |
Well that's all for now, and.... damnit, still can't play Dark Souls 3. Well this article did kill some time, but I guess the storm outside is just stubborn. Thanks for reading anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment