Game critics don't like being criticized

>game critics don't like being criticized
Why are they such pussies?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9yYp8ZeQ-I8&t=
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>e-celebs
>game reviewers watching youtube e-celebs
>tweets by game reviewers watching youtube e-celebs
>screencapping tweets by game reviewers watching youtube e-celebs
>making a shit thread with your screencapped tweets by game reviewers watching youtube e-celebs

how many levels of pathetic are you on, my dude

...

The kikes are just mad someone called them out on their bullshit.

Do you have a tiny rydia

>e-celeb criticizes game journos
>OMFG BASED AF!!!
>Sup Forums criticizes game journos
>holy fuck just kill yourself you fucking autistic piece of shit

Game journalism is basically one of the lowest tiers of journalism. Think about what you're doing as a games journalist. You're essentially a corporate whore who poses as a thinkpiece writer. You have next to no merit because of the fact that you get paid to not give certain games bad scores.

Fuck these guys, the industry would literally be better off without them.

I just love seeing bad critics squirm

here you go, fampai, for real this time. PFF art one of the few good things to come out of SE mobage dryhumping

Spotted the niGGer.

Thank you, good sir.

...

Am I supposed to think they're wrong or something? The video was shit

...

>video was shit
>9/10 - IGN

>'a body of work that you can get to know'

In Patricia Hernandez's case, you know her works like the plague mixed with cholera

>Review video games for a living
>Can't handle being reviewed
lol

>no consistency in big outlets
Yeah, no shit. Does he know that he can just follow individual writers instead? This is like asking why every youtube channel doesn't share the same opinion, because they're on youtube. It's a bunch of writers that are collected on one site, you were never promised that they would have the same opinions

>says that the best reviews are entirely subjective when he already said earlier that someone can be "consistently wrong"

>shitty rat race to get your review out first
Does he know what an embargo is?

>first part of the video is all about how big gaming sites are staffed by tons of different writers and you can't treat the website as one person
>then goes on to treat the website gamespot as one person that "isn't good at platformers"
>literally looked at the bio of the guy who wrote the crash review, and saw the guy who reviewed nsmb, but still treated them as the same person

>says that the amount of time needed to explain a point should correlate to the final verdict for some reason

>if you want good game reviews you should watch angry joe

>you just don't understand the economic models of the review sites!!!!!!
lmao

>Does he know that he can just follow individual writers instead?
Not every IGN/GameSpot/etc critic is going to review every game, so you rely on the company's voice which can be inconsistent as fuck

>there are people in this thread right now that have a twitter account

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm saying not to treat them as a collective because there are so many writers

Kek, one of them literally says
>pls no bully

I don't understand what draws these people into reviewing games if they don't like games or don't pay them.
Is it literally just "I couldn't get a real journalism job" because video game journalism "isn't real journalism" or some shit

Reminder we have two threads on Sup Forums right now about Giant Bomb. I don't think they're negative ones, either. I don't follow them, or any of the shit OP's on about, but I hate them all just the same. I'm curious, were the journalists criticized in OP/by the e-celeb Giant Bomb staff?

Your entire point was invalidated when you suggested that his criticism was invalid because you can just follow individual writers instead.

A youtube reviewer won't review EVERY game, but they'll do most of the big ones. An individual reviewer on IGN or similar sites will do maybe 1 or 2.

There's a difference- YouTube is a platform, its own form of media. Individual youtubers are not remotely comparable to the staff of a single site, even a big one like IGN.

People respect Giant Bomb because its a small staff that personalities you come to love with their Quick Look vids or UPF.

Where IGN and Gamespots just have some random editors you have no idea what their personality is like

Who the hell needs or wants to read or watch an actual review? Like just type gamename gameplay nocommentary watch 5 minutes and make up your mind. I'm not joking.

There is literally nothing wrong with someone having sided with Gamergate.

Just 1 or 2, then they quit

You get that I wasn't actually comparing them, right?

I concur. What the fuck is Sup Forums's problem anyway?

gamer gate failed. get over it

tumblr and Neofag invasion

Your opinion is not wrong, but within the confines of this thread it's very close to being considered shitposting. You may be correct by some people, or wrong by others, but the point is that this thread is about videogame reviewers; said CONVERSATION is about the quality of those reviews, and your go-to is basically to stop game reviews. It's tertiary and besides the point.

I for one don't believe that all reviews should be canceled out in a sort of psuedo-spiritual kumbaia moment where we all suddenly stop caring about AAA opinions, but the BETTER alternative would be to simply foster and spread a trend of "higher quality" reviews, instead of simply abandoning the notion altogether.

I love neo-Sup Forums.

What year are you in, 2012? It's all about nu-Sup Forums

>people still bring up gg
It's fucking done, it exposed the faggots like it should've and then it went away to be the eternal boogey man for you retards to blame when your feelings get hurt, fuck off everybody knows you shitholes are corrupt already

what the fuck, what grown up still takes game critics seriously??? (exluding people who want good score so their shit sells)

The fact that you automatically associate bad criticism with Gamergate means that it was right.

I would say that you forgot to add reddit to that, but then I remembered that we sort of invited them over.

Giant Bomb tends to dodge these criticisms because it's run by Jeff Gerstmann, who was fired in 2007 for giving a game Gamespot was shilling a middling review.

He's kinda the gold standard for integrity in video games journalism.

Gamergate destroyed the discourse in the board and invited all sorts of undesirables onto it, such as r*dditors and Sup Forumsacks.

>unironically giving any game "journalist" attention

Are we being raided by reddit, or did you people learn absolutely nothing from gamergate?

UGH, can we literally not?

I don't even watch Dunkey, just got linked the video by a friend, and he was absolutely right. Game journalism is in a pathetic state because it's all about clicks, and the majority of people in games journalism don't actually give a shit about video games.
>Journalists rush through games as fast as possible to try putting out their review before anyone else to get more clicks
>This leads to them playing on the easiest mode and doing absolutely nothing but rushing through the story
>They can't accurately critique mechanics/difficulty because they only play on easy mode
>Because the entire business is based on getting clicks, AAA games will NEVER receive a score below 7/10 in fear that they won't receive a review copy of the next game
>Devs have also been proven to give out free swag to reviewers for good reviews
And then there's the fact that they all have a fucking mailing list of journalists to talk about what agendas they should push.
Reminder that GAMERS ARE DEAD articles popped up on nearly every major review site on the same fucking day. They didn't even attempt to hide the fact that they were pushing that story.

i know it was right in the beginning. but it failed. GG didnt save vidya journalism from itself. the treatment didnt work. its dead. forget about GG and stop giving traffic to games journalism

>Adam goldman

The discourse falling apart was due to a cultural schism. That schism couldn't have possibly existed without militant left wing opinions making it their job to be offended on other people's behalf. It's anti-consumerist behavior, and their opinions are self destructive because of it. Why would anyone hold an opinion that doesn't seek to benefit itself?

What's an embargo

Gamergate sought out to prove that gaming journalism is corrupt, and it proved it was. It proved that everyone covers everyone's asses: Everyone's except the consumers.

Any further movements made by it were not required, and suffered diminishing returns because of it. It was correct, and it did its job accordingly, the only thing that needs to be maintained now is a vigil of people trying to tell people that it "was" about journalism and ethics, and to actually post proof of it.

Reminder that games journalists are threatened by youtubers because they do the job better, with an actual unbiased unpaid review.

>Bernstein
Who could have been behind this?

> Yeah, no shit. Does he know that he can just follow individual writers instead? This is like asking why every youtube channel doesn't share the same opinion, because they're on youtube. It's a bunch of writers that are collected on one site

But no one treats game sites like they do YouTube. You can view them as just a bunch of writers collected on one site, but the important point is that their reviews and coverage are treated like a single/collectiveauthoritative voice when it comes to something like review scores, which have actual consequences given how they're handled and how broken they are as a way of measuring a games quality.

Everyone's biased to some degree, and journalists are paid for their work, while youtubers often do it for fun. Conversely, they also PLAY games for fun, and often have more weighted opinions because of it.

what's a question mark?

>Gamers are dead articles
You mean like?

>their reviews and coverage are treated like a single/collectiveauthoritative voice
By idiots

A review embargo is purely used to hide reviews for shit games until the preorders are cashed in.
Also you're fucking dumb if you think game journalism isn't corrupt as shit.
I mean they don't even actually play video games for fun. Reminder that this happened youtube.com/watch?v=9yYp8ZeQ-I8&t=
And they had to disable comments and the like/dislike bar because they were getting fucking ass blasted from people pointing out how fucking bad they are at games

Most people are idiots, user. Surely you know that by now

You might not want to swing that generalization around too hard, a lot of people often have to make the conscious separation of employees from their workspace BECAUSE it's set up in such a way that the individuals "become" the whole. It's like this on purpose.

>Gamergate sought out to prove that gaming journalism is corrupt, and it proved it was.
Everybody already knew games journalism and the indie scenes were giant circlejerks well before all that gamergate shit went down. I think gamergate started with the right idea but it got too preachy and missed the point when it started harping on "MUH ETHICS IN GAMES JORNALISUM". Everyone should have let it die after a few weeks of calling those fuckers out for being right cunts, and then moving on with their lives.

Actually it's to stop what you just described from happening

>all embargoes are set after the game is released
Wow you're well informed aren't you?

Review embargo is to give reviewers a chance to actually play the game before publishing a review. Without them everyone would just pre-write the article to be the first.

There are still a handful of respectable gaming review sources. Edge for one.

Metacritic is completely worthless as a way to determine great games though.

hahaha how butthurt can they get over nothing

Exactly. The fact that the journalists across multiple sites all communicate with each other to decide what agendas to push should be a massive red flag for fucking everyone. This is why you don't trust them.
It's much easier, and unbiased, to just look up gameplay videos and decide for yourself if it's good or not

That's exactly what dunkey was saying, you mouthbreathing retard.

Kek, did they think they weren't hacks?

I think it's funny they actually call themselves journalists when I read blogs with better writing than most video game sites.

>it's set up in such a way that the individuals "become" the whole. It's like this on purpose.
How?

Yes, because somehow everyone who doesn't like extreme Left wing identity politics is automatically a Sup Forumsack. It's not like there are ideological fuckmuppets running around at Evergreen or Mizzou trying to turn higher education into a Maoist kindergarten.

Except they still don't actually play the game beyond just rushing through it on easy mode. You can obviously tell this considering the majority of reviews from the major sites are shallow as fuck

Yes, and everyone knows that politics, the entertainment industry, and small councils are all corrupt too, that doesn't make it right.

Very often the reason outrage doesn't happen is because corruptors are often very good at covering themselves. The people in the Videogames Industry are bad at covering themselves because THEY DON'T. It's blatantly obvious, and their hubris, what with going around taking down well meaning websites like the Fine Young Capitalists is what eventually spiraled into the misunderstood movement Gamergate.

Corruption is bad and never accepted ever, period: And movements AGAINST it are rare because it requires proof, which there almost never is. Gamergate was what happens when people get proof.

No, he said to go watch angry joe

So they play on easy mode, and you know this because you just know

Not him particularly, but he said find somebody whose opinion you trust and ditch the corporate review sites that never give a AAA title a shitty score because they're worried about advertising relationships.

For one, if you're looking for a review from IGN for example, and put in "IGN" review, the review is what pops up first, and very rarely is the reviewer itself more eye-catching than the IGN logo. Just a singular, simple example of course, but it's much easier to say that, when someone asks "Hey, have you seen the IGN review?" they will almost never tell you who made it.

"Who? IGN. Their review." and so on. Same goes for third party youtube videos. "IGN REVIEW 3 minutes long" whatever the fuck, with their name almost never being center stage. It's like this on purpose.

Whole > Individual.

>Yes, because somehow everyone who doesn't like extreme Left wing identity politics is automatically a Sup Forumsack.

That's just how the left operates, they lack the depth and open mindedness to see people as individuals. They see everything as a collective so if you aren't with them, you're obvious against them. It's exactly the same as a religious cult.

The right is pretty shit but at least their is diversity of though on the right.

Whyvis that one on the far right included? She looks to pretty much agree that mainstream gaming journalism is broken.

eg. Angry Joe, the paragon of truth and justice in Video Game Journalism

>when someone asks "Hey, have you seen the IGN review?" they will almost never tell you who made it.
How is that IGN's fault? They put the review's bio at the end, do you want their name in the title too?

You know what reviews are, and why they exist, right? They do not exist for heavy deliberation, they exist for its exact opposite. If someone wanted an informed opinion, then they would inform themselves, and the need for reviews would be 0. As it stands, reviews exist, they are easy to find, and the people looking for them go for the review, and will remember nothing of the reviewer other than their corporate logo.

Exceptions will not disprove that rule.

He never said that. Why are you creating this strawman?

If you don't trust Joe, find someone you do trust.

How is that a bad thing?

I found ACG on youtube and haven't used any other reviewer since. I don'; get why anyone uses the big name sites these days.

I know this because of basic fucking evidence. Please tell me how the experts at polygon who can't even fucking walk and aim at the same time play on hard mode youtube.com/watch?v=9yYp8ZeQ-I8&t=

Or how about this example?The majority of people working in gaming journalism don't actually like video games, you need to accept this fact

>by idiots

That still doesn't change how they're treated, versus how they should be treated/how we'd like them to be.

GamerGate only failed because feminists twisted it to be all about targeting them.

>will remember nothing of the reviewer other than their corporate logo.
Their fault

>game critics are such infantile children that when a single youtube video made by a guy with 3m subs sends them into a frothing fucking rage

GG saved gamers from that shit though, gave a big boost to youtube reviewers. it pushed me away from the bigger sites at least.

>someone made a gameplay video, all game reviewers are instantly invalidated
Yep that's how it works alright

Who is the Armond White of video game reviews?

"They" are the majority, and in the corporate world, if the minority isn't vocal, it doesn't exist.

We're talking about a pragmatic effective 0%. The only reason this thread even exists is because Sup Forums loves E-Celebs.

Not really. More the fault of the medium of games journalism. It's outdated, opaque.

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore

did you watch the video
its about how people who get upset about reviews are idiots

>It's outdated, opaque.
GAMES JOURNALISM DEBUNKED

"Game critics" are over. This is the death of an identity
But seriously, who the fuck cares about IGN scores and such? User views are where it's at, faggots

You said that individual reviewers at a company like for example, IGN, are important, and that the readers of those reviews should take into account their varying opinions and not pin them to the whole of the Company.

I'm simply stating that they don't have to, it takes extra work to, there's very little reason to, and there's no benefit. "Cuck McGoldberg of IGN's Review" is IGN's Review. No one cares about the individual reviewer, and no one SHOULD care. This thread should not exist.

>retards killing themselves on v4.0 and blaming healers
God I hate DF

>Polygon put out a gameplay video clearly displaying that the people at polygon don't even know how to play a game
>Point this out
>NO THIS DOESN'T APPLY, STRAWMAN!
Why not just accept the fact that at the very least no one at Polygon actually enjoys playing games? Whoever they had play the game has clearly never played games for fun before, only for their work.
How can you even attempt to defend someone who can't walk and aim at the same time and try saying they totally enjoy video games and aren't just there for a paycheck?