Can we talk about 'Gamergate' ?

[Yami X]

I think Gamergate is a massive joke.

 

It's a bunch of people who are incapable of making their own opinions on their video game purchases, so they become overly reliant on journalists to make the opinions for them. Then get butthurt that they got shafted into buying a game they didn't like.

 

I've tried reasoning with them that a completely impartial media outlet doesn't exist in the real world and that everyone has to do their own research and fact-checking. Looking up the information on your own is the best way to make an informed purchasing decision.

 

Almost all of Gamergate are very against developing this basic life skill because it imparts some sort of personal responsibility on them when they buy games. They prefer to blame everyone around them instead of themselves for their own shortcomings. As I see it, that makes them no different to SJWs.

To me, if they can get fooled into buying a game they don't like, they are no different than the gullible fools who microwave their iPhones after seeing that fake Apple Wave promo. Read your shit up or look for other sources. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of independent reviewers on Youtube and on other sites who review games in their free time but Gamergate gamers somehow ignore them.

 

This movement looks more like a cover for certain individuals to anonymously harass people and quickly shrink away responsibility when confronted about it using the 'no true Scotsman' routine.

Wha-........

 

[Guest Omega1084]

"OMG SKIMPY ARMOUR! SEXISM AND MISOGYNY!" Argument?

I'm just gonna drop this here:

 

 

 

Reviews?
Don't watch 'em, they're all biased anyway. Opinions and all that.

I watch pure gameplay, if a game catches my attention via gameplay then it's good.

If you NEED to see someone else's opinion on something so you can buy it then you're kinda retarded honestly and not in the mental disability way, in the "Blown tire? Guess I gotta drive like this till I die" way.

Especially if you don't like it later and bitch at everyone for it. Fuck you.

 

Feminism/Feminazi-ism? Inequality in the workplace?
Don't see myself affected by either, I've a good job and all I did was study and earn my certifications and experience.

Weird, huh?

[legendarytoyou]

"OMG SKIMPY ARMOUR! SEXISM AND MISOGYNY!" Argument?

I'm just gonna drop this here:

 

 

 

Reviews?

Don't watch 'em, they're all biased anyway. Opinions and all that.

I watch pure gameplay, if a game catches my attention via gameplay then it's good.

If you NEED to see someone else's opinion on something so you can buy it then you're kinda retarded honestly and not in the mental disability way, in the "Blown tire? Guess I gotta drive like this till I die" way.

Especially if you don't like it later and bitch at everyone for it. Fuck you.

 

Feminism/Feminazi-ism? Inequality in the workplace?

Don't see myself affected by either, I've a good job and all I did was study and earn my certifications and experience.

Weird, huh?

yeah see I'm of the same opinion as should other people; don't take a review as pure gospel.  Take Totalbiscuits review of the Borderlands Pre-Sequel; he basically said the phrase, "if it ain't broke don't fix it," but aside from zero G mechanic it hasn't changed much.  Yet I still want to buy it (can't right now to many bills >.<) because he had the presence of mind to show gameplay.  The only reason he was extremely critical of the game is because its whats expected however knows full well its up to the consumer's decision not his alone.  It's one of the reasons I like to watch his WTF is reviews.  They're not so much critiques but first impressions.  The first 20 minutes of a game can interpret what it'll be like for the next 2 or three hours.  There will be changes of course however the core of the game is dependent on first impressions.

 

It's the reason why Aliens: Colonial Marines landed on its face...hard.

[Kendo 2]

Don't see myself affected by either, I've a good job and all I did was study and earn my certifications and experience.

Weird, huh?

That's because you're a rabid, ball-breaking bitch and everyone is afraid of you...except for me of course.  I think you're wonderful.  I wanna have your baby. 

[Guest Omega1084]

 

Don't see myself affected by either, I've a good job and all I did was study and earn my certifications and experience.

Weird, huh?

That's because you're a rabid, ball-breaking bitch and everyone is afraid of you...except for me of course.  I think you're wonderful.  I wanna have your baby. 

That can be arranged. I'm developing a game, if you get your friends to give it a 10 on IGN we can work something out.

[Yami X]

 It a sad day when common sense is coming off as a form of logic the more tech grows the dumber people get apparently.

 

 

 

[Kendo 2]

That can be arranged. I'm developing a game, if you get your friends to give it a 10 on IGN we can work something out.

DEAL, as long as you swallow.  I hate it when girls spit it back out on my stomach.  So what do I need to say when I give the 10?  It needs to be kinda open so my buddies can tweak it for their reviews.  We can't have them all sounding the same.  Those scumbag gamers are getting wise.

 

*WOW, I wonder if the conversations Zoe had went something like that when she was wrangling her reviews?  Of course, my penis would pull out a gun and shoot himself in the head if she tried to suck him.*

[Guest Omega1084]

 

That can be arranged. I'm developing a game, if you get your friends to give it a 10 on IGN we can work something out.

DEAL, as long as you swallow.  I hate it when girls spit it back out on my stomach.  So what do I need to say when I give the 10?  It needs to be kinda open so my buddies can tweak it for their reviews.  We can't have them all sounding the same.  Those scumbag gamers are getting wise.

 

*WOW, I wonder if the conversations Zoe had went something like that when she was wrangling her reviews?  Of course, my penis would pull out a gun and shoot himself in the head if she tried to suck him.*

Always do. Like my mom used to say "Can't have any spills if you gotta pay the bills."

Just tell 'em to improvise :v

 

*Have you seen her ED page? She clearly tucks her curtains in nice and tidy for the nudes ;P*

[Kendo 2]

*Have you seen her ED page? She clearly tucks her curtains in nice and tidy for the nudes ;P*

Okay, that made me drive heave.

 

[Guest Omega1084]

 

*Have you seen her ED page? She clearly tucks her curtains in nice and tidy for the nudes ;P*

Okay, that made me drive heave.

 

That is the correct reaction.

 

 

You're welcome.

[legendarytoyou]

 

 

 

 

I think Gamergate is a massive joke.

 

It's a bunch of people who are incapable of making their own opinions on their video game purchases, so they become overly reliant on journalists to make the opinions for them. Then get butthurt that they got shafted into buying a game they didn't like.

 

I've tried reasoning with them that a completely impartial media outlet doesn't exist in the real world and that everyone has to do their own research and fact-checking. Looking up the information on your own is the best way to make an informed purchasing decision.

 

Almost all of Gamergate are very against developing this basic life skill because it imparts some sort of personal responsibility on them when they buy games. They prefer to blame everyone around them instead of themselves for their own shortcomings. As I see it, that makes them no different to SJWs.

To me, if they can get fooled into buying a game they don't like, they are no different than the gullible fools who microwave their iPhones after seeing that fake Apple Wave promo. Read your shit up or look for other sources. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of independent reviewers on Youtube and on other sites who review games in their free time but Gamergate gamers somehow ignore them.

 

This movement looks more like a cover for certain individuals to anonymously harass people and quickly shrink away responsibility when confronted about it using the 'no true Scotsman' routine.

 

When someone spit on your face you say it is raining, I'm right? Right.

 

 

I don't see how your analogy applies here.

 

If you don't think the article is fair go find another article and see what it says. Then after looking up several independent sources you gather them together to make a decision on what to buy. Is that concept alien to you?

 

 

You see, there is slight problem when article doesn't say nothing about game but about people that play it. But I presume that you ignored every single post in this thread - and just slapped your educated opinion here.

 

 

If people want to make social commentary then so be it. I don't see how that affects how you play your videogames.

 

The only articles that should matter to you are the ones that helps you make an informed purchasing decision. Everything else is just trivial nonsense that people get worked up about that has no bearing on the videogame industry and only get as big as they do because you keep giving them attention.

 

See Derpakin that's part of the problem; what do you do when every outlet you use to find non-biased and critical critique of a game doesn't exist.  You can name off a number of sites and each one more than likely is either bribed, encouraged, black-mailed or threatened to make good reviews of a game knowing full well its an un-optimized piece of crap (glares angrily at Battlefield 4).  It's also horrible to expect there to be reviews of games knowing full well its full of shit and your better off renting it from the Redbox or borrowing it from a friend to give your own interpretation because no matter what source you look for it'll be biased because more than likely the reviewer has been paid off to say its a good game when in fact its simply a poor excuse of a cash grab.

 

Although you do have a point on the fact that reliance on review sites really should be nipped in the bud.  I watch Totalbiscuits WTF is from time to time but don't take it as pure gospel; I ask around, mostly from people at work, do my own checks and finally rent the game to see if I like it.  To be entirely dependent on review sites though just opens up a can of worms you'll never be able to fix.  There in though is the problem.  When we expect, BY DEFAULT, a review site to be corrupted from the start do we really think that's good for the industry.  By and large NO it is not and let me explain why;

 

MANY if not ALL developers and publishers base their sales and growth on Metacritic, a site that has shown on many occasions to be defunct.  As a result because of this they look to other methods to interpret what is potentially well grossing in the market thus make business decisions based NOT on actual gamers but these sites.  However due to journalistic corruption they get the wrong idea on what is popular and what is not.  They are also misinformed on just how much expectation there is to a certain AAA title and make poor business decisions on corrupt ideals stemming from hype and misinformation.  If you want an example of a game that was rushed intentionally because of corrupt journal reviews its Mass Effect 3; the devil is in the details that one can tell its production and release were rushed due to the influence of...you guess it...corrupt games journalism.

 

This greatly hurts the market for today and future titles.  When a developer is SO dependent on games journalism to see what is popular and at what speed development should be it creates a huge imbalance.  They ASSUME they know what is best via journalism and make what they think are sound decisions on corrupt ideals.  People wonder why Duke Nukem Forever failed so badly.  It was not only because it was considered a dated engine but also because they did a lot of things wrong.  They ASSUMED everyone loved modern FPS shooters.  That failed.  They ASSUMED everyone liked cut-scenes every five feet.  THAT failed.  They ASSUMED everyone would like an EGO system similar to HALO.  That IMPRESSIVELY failed.  And they based it solely on what games journalism was saying was popular and mainstream knowing full that was false.

 

It's one of the reasons why I've begun to endorse games developers like Bethesda, Obsidian, Square Enix and even now Gearbox.  They have taken a more, "it'll get done when its done," ideal instead of focusing on defunct ratings and journalism.  They want a better business model and while its taken a huge tole via casualties of the games market they were smart enough to realize Metacritic and Kotaku are NOT legitimate sites to rate popularity.  Nobody wants an environment where games are dictated by corrupt gaming journalism and you know that.

 

If that were the case we'd end up with Call of Duty Clone # 90580209380582897 for the next 200 years.

[Derpakiin]

 

-snip-

 

 

The gaming industry is not dictated by journalists. It's dictated by your wallet as a consumer, and you are responsible for the products you buy that influences the market. It's your responsibility to educate yourself as much as possible about the product you are about to buy.

 

The only thing that could possibly be a problem is that journalists can influence you to buy a product that isn't good. But that should NEVER be a problem in the first place if people had half the intelligence to do their homework on their purchase.

 

It's not that complicated, and the issue is being over-dramatized.

[legendarytoyou]

 

 

-snip-

 

 

The gaming industry is not dictated by journalists. It's dictated by your wallet as a consumer, and you are responsible for the products you buy that influences the market. It's your responsibility to educate yourself as much as possible about the product you are about to buy.

 

The only thing that could possibly be a problem is that journalists can influence you to buy a product that isn't good. But that should NEVER be a problem in the first place if people had half the intelligence to do their homework on their purchase.

 

It's not that complicated, and the issue is being over-dramatized.

 

o.0...you completely missed the point.  The consumer is smart enough (at least SOME of them are) to differentiate on what game is good what is bad.  The signature problem is the one you either flat out ignored or are aware of it but don't want to admit it; the reason why games journalism is under fire is NOT because of the consumers only bias.  I stated that quite clearly in my other post;

 

Bad journalism + Bad Information = Bad games.  Developers and publishers get misinformation on what is popular.  They also get bad publicity if the development department isn't running on all 8 cylinders making the super charger smoke by over-inflating hype over a game aka: Watch Dogs.  This ruins the industry, games come out POORLY optimized and on occasion just flat out awful (Ride to Hell Retribution).

 

In short there NEEDS to be more ethics and morality in games journalism otherwise publishers and developers are usually left fumbling around in the dark.

[Derpakiin]

 

 

 

-snip-

 

 

The gaming industry is not dictated by journalists. It's dictated by your wallet as a consumer, and you are responsible for the products you buy that influences the market. It's your responsibility to educate yourself as much as possible about the product you are about to buy.

 

The only thing that could possibly be a problem is that journalists can influence you to buy a product that isn't good. But that should NEVER be a problem in the first place if people had half the intelligence to do their homework on their purchase.

 

It's not that complicated, and the issue is being over-dramatized.

 

o.0...you completely missed the point.  The consumer is smart enough (at least SOME of them are) to differentiate on what game is good what is bad.  The signature problem is the one you either flat out ignored or are aware of it but don't want to admit it; the reason why games journalism is under fire is NOT because of the consumers only bias.  I stated that quite clearly in my other post;

 

Bad journalism + Bad Information = Bad games.  Developers and publishers get misinformation on what is popular.  They also get bad publicity if the development department isn't running on all 8 cylinders making the super charger smoke by over-inflating hype over a game aka: Watch Dogs.  This ruins the industry, games come out POORLY optimized and on occasion just flat out awful (Ride to Hell Retribution).

 

In short there NEEDS to be more ethics and morality in games journalism otherwise publishers and developers are usually left fumbling around in the dark.

 

 

Oh... So now it's not about misleading consumers, it's shifted to journalists misleading devs and publishers. That sounds even more crackpot than rumors of Half Life 3.

 

Devs don't get their information from journalists to tell if their games are good or bad, that's a ridiculous conspiracy theory based on zero facts.They tell if their games are good based on their sales numbers, profits and their own dev forums where they regularly interact with their own player base. Money talks, not journalists.

 

Game devs in don't rely on journalists for publicity and journalists don't have that much power over that anyway, because ultimately the marketing machine comes from the juggernauts we call publishers who promote the game through commercials and ads on gaming websites, Youtube and social media. Gaming websites (and their journalists) are literally at the mercy of needing the publisher's ad revenue to function. So your entire hierarchy of who's really in control here is upside down.

 

Developers and the publishers have complete control to decide how much of the game they want to reveal to the journalists, even if it's a misinterpretation of what the game will eventually be (eg. Colonial Marines). Which brings us to a situation where even if a journalist is completely impartial and objective, they are not going to be able to give an accurate review of what's being given to them, and yet they're still going to get the flak from people like you regardless. They are the middle-man, the easy scapegoat.

 

Your interpretation that the game devs are somehow victims is a joke. They aren't saints with good intentions who are misled by journalists to make bad games, and is more likely due to them being simply lazy, incompetent or unprofessional.

Do you know what happens to unskilled unprofessional devs? They drop out of the market and someone more qualified fills in the gap, which eventually improves the quality of the products in the industry. That happens when consumers vote with their wallets and make rational purchasing decisions.

 

I'd really wish you'd stop defending devs as if they are all victims with your cognitive dissonance because you're afraid of criticizing the hand that feeds you games. You should be able to research on their merits/bullshit and act accordingly by buying/not buying their products.

 

I have no polite way to put this, but the entire idea that devs are relying on journalists for information on how to make their games is downright retarded and I don't know why I'm even entertaining this idea with a response. Please stop making excuses and learn to make rational purchasing decisions.

Your money shapes games, not journalists. I cannot stress this enough.

[windpl]

 

 Please stop making excuses and learn to make rational purchasing decisions.

Your money shapes games, not journalists. I cannot stress this enough.

 

 

As that worked before, dlc, season passes, ect.

Journalist should be first line of defence of gamers.

[Derpakiin]

 

 

 Please stop making excuses and learn to make rational purchasing decisions.

Your money shapes games, not journalists. I cannot stress this enough.

 

 

As that worked before, dlc, season passes, ect.

Journalist should be first line of defence of gamers.

 

 

Which further proves my point. The DLCs weren't boycotted by gamers which otherwise would have stopped the trend. Instead, gamers simply bought them and created a demand for it. They voted with their wallet that they were willing to throw money at DLCs. Devs took that as a sign that it was okay and profitable to sell you that junk. 

Journalists weren't involved, they didn't force you to buy them nor did they make lengthy reports on them. The DLC market shaped itself.

 

Journalists to gaming are what safety locks are to guns. They are only as good as the user and are not substitutes for stupidity.

 

YOU are the first of defense. YOU are responsible for your purchasing choices. YOU affect the gaming market.

[GrimReaper]

I like what they guy from the worthabuy channel in youtube said in his review of The Evil Within: The game industry is full of people that work there because that's where money can be made, they don't do it necessarily because they love games and care about them, they are in it for the money and the money alone. I don't think that the 'journalism' about games has much to do with anything. The 'journalism' is more or less just a prediction if a game is popular or not, the CoD-fanboys don't want an honest review about the newest CoD, they want to hear their opinion approved. You give CoD a bad score, millions of fans won't visit your site anymore.

[windpl]

 

 

 

 Please stop making excuses and learn to make rational purchasing decisions.

Your money shapes games, not journalists. I cannot stress this enough.

 

 

As that worked before, dlc, season passes, ect.

Journalist should be first line of defence of gamers.

 

 

Which further proves my point. The DLCs weren't boycotted by gamers which otherwise would have stopped the trend. Instead, gamers simply bought them and created a demand for it. They voted with their wallet that they were willing to throw money at DLCs. Devs took that as a sign that it was okay and profitable to sell you that junk. 

Journalists weren't involved, they didn't force you to buy them nor did they make lengthy reports on them. The DLC market shaped itself.

 

Journalists to gaming are what safety locks are to guns. They are only as good as the user and are not substitutes for stupidity.

 

YOU are the first of defense. YOU are responsible for your purchasing choices. YOU affect the gaming market.

 

 

I didn't bought armour for a horse, and still we have dlc this days. So looks like you are wrong

 

[Derpakiin]

I like what they guy from the worthabuy channel in youtube said in his review of The Evil Within: The game industry is full of people that work there because that's where money can be made, they don't do it necessarily because they love games and care about them, they are in it for the money and the money alone. I don't think that the 'journalism' about games has much to do with anything. The 'journalism' is more or less just a prediction if a game is popular or not, the CoD-fanboys don't want an honest review about the newest CoD, they want to hear their opinion approved. You give CoD a bad score, millions of fans won't visit your site anymore.

 

This is exactly my sentiment. I find that most people don't go to reviews to get information before buying a product, but they tend to go to reviewers to get validated on their purchasing choice on something they've already bought.

 

[Derpakiin]

 

 

 

 

 Please stop making excuses and learn to make rational purchasing decisions.

Your money shapes games, not journalists. I cannot stress this enough.

 

 

As that worked before, dlc, season passes, ect.

Journalist should be first line of defence of gamers.

 

 

Which further proves my point. The DLCs weren't boycotted by gamers which otherwise would have stopped the trend. Instead, gamers simply bought them and created a demand for it. They voted with their wallet that they were willing to throw money at DLCs. Devs took that as a sign that it was okay and profitable to sell you that junk. 

Journalists weren't involved, they didn't force you to buy them nor did they make lengthy reports on them. The DLC market shaped itself.

 

Journalists to gaming are what safety locks are to guns. They are only as good as the user and are not substitutes for stupidity.

 

YOU are the first of defense. YOU are responsible for your purchasing choices. YOU affect the gaming market.

 

 

I didn't bought armour for a horse, and still we have dlc this days. So looks like you are wrong

 

 

 

Oh gee, I didn't die of lung cancer when I smoked, so therefore lung cancer doesn't exist... Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse with me?

 

I mentioned a focused boycott by gamers (plural) and not gamer (noun). Which means it's a collective effort in order to get market forces working to your favor. Citing you're the exception to the rule to disprove a point is borderline trolling.

 

[Guest Omega1084]

 

This is exactly my sentiment. I find that most people don't go to reviews to get information before buying a product, but they tend to go to reviewers to get validated on their purchasing choice on something they've already bought.

Basically just a terrible coping mechanism for Buyer's Remorse when you've really no excuse or way to lie to yourself and say "No no, Watch_Dogs is totally fine. Look at all this fun I'm having."

[legendarytoyou]

 

 

 

 

-snip-

 

 

The gaming industry is not dictated by journalists. It's dictated by your wallet as a consumer, and you are responsible for the products you buy that influences the market. It's your responsibility to educate yourself as much as possible about the product you are about to buy.

 

The only thing that could possibly be a problem is that journalists can influence you to buy a product that isn't good. But that should NEVER be a problem in the first place if people had half the intelligence to do their homework on their purchase.

 

It's not that complicated, and the issue is being over-dramatized.

 

o.0...you completely missed the point.  The consumer is smart enough (at least SOME of them are) to differentiate on what game is good what is bad.  The signature problem is the one you either flat out ignored or are aware of it but don't want to admit it; the reason why games journalism is under fire is NOT because of the consumers only bias.  I stated that quite clearly in my other post;

 

Bad journalism + Bad Information = Bad games.  Developers and publishers get misinformation on what is popular.  They also get bad publicity if the development department isn't running on all 8 cylinders making the super charger smoke by over-inflating hype over a game aka: Watch Dogs.  This ruins the industry, games come out POORLY optimized and on occasion just flat out awful (Ride to Hell Retribution).

 

In short there NEEDS to be more ethics and morality in games journalism otherwise publishers and developers are usually left fumbling around in the dark.

 

 

Oh... So now it's not about misleading consumers, it's shifted to journalists misleading devs and publishers. That sounds even more crackpot than rumors of Half Life 3.

 

Devs don't get their information from journalists to tell if their games are good or bad, that's a ridiculous conspiracy theory based on zero facts.They tell if their games are good based on their sales numbers, profits and their own dev forums where they regularly interact with their own player base. Money talks, not journalists.

 

Game devs in don't rely on journalists for publicity and journalists don't have that much power over that anyway, because ultimately the marketing machine comes from the juggernauts we call publishers who promote the game through commercials and ads on gaming websites, Youtube and social media. Gaming websites (and their journalists) are literally at the mercy of needing the publisher's ad revenue to function. So your entire hierarchy of who's really in control here is upside down.

 

Developers and the publishers have complete control to decide how much of the game they want to reveal to the journalists, even if it's a misinterpretation of what the game will eventually be (eg. Colonial Marines). Which brings us to a situation where even if a journalist is completely impartial and objective, they are not going to be able to give an accurate review of what's being given to them, and yet they're still going to get the flak from people like you regardless. They are the middle-man, the easy scapegoat.

 

Your interpretation that the game devs are somehow victims is a joke. They aren't saints with good intentions who are misled by journalists to make bad games, and is more likely due to them being simply lazy, incompetent or unprofessional.

Do you know what happens to unskilled unprofessional devs? They drop out of the market and someone more qualified fills in the gap, which eventually improves the quality of the products in the industry. That happens when consumers vote with their wallets and make rational purchasing decisions.

 

I'd really wish you'd stop defending devs as if they are all victims with your cognitive dissonance because you're afraid of criticizing the hand that feeds you games. You should be able to research on their merits/bullshit and act accordingly by buying/not buying their products.

 

I have no polite way to put this, but the entire idea that devs are relying on journalists for information on how to make their games is downright retarded and I don't know why I'm even entertaining this idea with a response. Please stop making excuses and learn to make rational purchasing decisions.

Your money shapes games, not journalists. I cannot stress this enough.

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________ 

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~., 

. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-., 

. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:, 

. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\, 

. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,} 

. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.} 

. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./ 

. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./ 

. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./ 

. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/ 

. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .} 

. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../ 

. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../ 

. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-” 

. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\ 

. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__ 

,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-, 

. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ 

. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__ 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==`` 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\

 

Nevermind....

[GrimReaper]

Publishers usually rely on analyzing the market, not on reviews from wannabe journalists. There is no ehtics involved here, games that sell get copied over and over again with the occasional attempt to make it even more profitable. Publishers and developers don't want to make good games, they want to make games that make a lot of money. And if you make more money by releasing the same game every year than trying to establish a new IP or god forbid doing something really innovative, why bother? Can't blame then. If you could make the most money by selling your feces in a paper bag why do anything else?

 

I'd say that popular mainstream games get good scores because they are popular mainstream games. They're not popular because they get good scores. The poor quality of gaming journalism (doesn't feel right to write that without quotes) is merely a symptom, not the cause.

[windpl]

 

 

 

 

 

 Please stop making excuses and learn to make rational purchasing decisions.

Your money shapes games, not journalists. I cannot stress this enough.

 

 

As that worked before, dlc, season passes, ect.

Journalist should be first line of defence of gamers.

 

 

Which further proves my point. The DLCs weren't boycotted by gamers which otherwise would have stopped the trend. Instead, gamers simply bought them and created a demand for it. They voted with their wallet that they were willing to throw money at DLCs. Devs took that as a sign that it was okay and profitable to sell you that junk. 

Journalists weren't involved, they didn't force you to buy them nor did they make lengthy reports on them. The DLC market shaped itself.

 

Journalists to gaming are what safety locks are to guns. They are only as good as the user and are not substitutes for stupidity.

 

YOU are the first of defense. YOU are responsible for your purchasing choices. YOU affect the gaming market.

 

 

I didn't bought armour for a horse, and still we have dlc this days. So looks like you are wrong

 

 

 

Oh gee, I didn't die of lung cancer when I smoked, so therefore lung cancer doesn't exist... Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse with me?

 

I mentioned a focused boycott by gamers (plural) and not gamer (noun). Which means it's a collective effort in order to get market forces working to your favor. Citing you're the exception to the rule to disprove a point is borderline trolling.

 

 

 

Maybe it have to do something with your approach to journalism, which is - they have no influence on gaming.

Yeah maybe it is that, or I'm being retarded, duno.

And what you described, never happened - at last it was not successfully.

Every gamers boycott failed - meaning companies didn't change a shit.

[GrimReaper]

Every boycott failed because it never happened in the first place.