Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Silphy enDiabel of the Syndicate used to be one of the Sisters of EVE? For more, read here.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11

Author Topic: Games Journalism is over.  (Read 15606 times)

Aedre Lafisques

  • Terrible Caillian
  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
    • Aedre Logs. Writing
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #105 on: 28 Sep 2014, 11:09 »

...Games journalism ever began?

Rather than contribute to the conversation here, I just want to put forth that I'm not sure games can have journalism to start with...? I don't think 'movies' have journalism per se either. These things are made with such secrecy there really isn't anything to cover until everything is said and done. What's the point of reiterating press releases?

And you can't dig up any dirt about anything or anyone because it'll foist you out of the inner circle you need to be in to get anything at all. The whole thing doesn't really leave much to be said. I have NDAs that supposedly tie me up for the rest of my life. (I'm sure that's not legal somehow, but that's what that one said. I considered not signing it, but I thought it was hilarious. It was dark times.)

And reviews don't work any better than most movie reviews do. I don't think there's a way around it being subjective, no matter how much technical issues you try to talk about. I mean, Jurassic Park got three stars in my paper when it came out. That movie's technical bits are still good even today, regardless of potentially only subjectively amusing dinosaur action. How many people play certain games even though they're grindy as heck (that is now considered by many circles to be 'bad game design')? --Dude, if you put EVE under so much as a pair of spectacles it might as well be a (admittedly curiously detailed) rag (perhaps worthy of some anthropological study I guess), but people still love the game (not a game) and would claim that some of the stuff you could pick at doesn't really matter to the whole of it if you're going to 'play or not play'.

Reviews just aren't journalism to begin with. Saying 'the controls are bad, it was challenging/it made sense/everything else was great and I can't think of anything better they could have done?' is exactly the same as saying 'the controls are bad, seriously why would you do this to yourself/why/it ruined everything obviously?', -- but just saying the 'controls are bad' might be a report (but compared to what standard, which constantly changes?) it isn't in itself a review (because that needs a context - which is inherently subjective, as above) -- and it definitely isn't it 'journalism'.
I think?! Right? No?!

Logged
Hangout Channel: Gallente Lounge

Jace

  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #106 on: 28 Sep 2014, 11:18 »

Actually, if gaming reviews moved closer to film reviews than I would actually be interested in some of it. There are some film critics whose opinion and criticism I find interesting. But it's not 'journalism' in that annoying idealist sense of the word, it is criticism of a medium.
Logged

Kala

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #107 on: 30 Sep 2014, 02:49 »

Quote
How it looks is hard to quantify objectively. Everyone will have tastes and just reading most descriptions done by people on the same game will generate as many different answers. It's funny that sometimes a gorgeous game will get defined by someone as ugly.

As much as I really try to rationalize the very work that I am doing everyday - which is graphics and art - even I have currently a LOT of troubles with my art director since I find some of what he does awful, and vice versa.

Ah, when I meant graphics there I didn't necessarily mean design or aesthetics - which I would agree is completely subjective.
I meant more in the technological sense of how high end it is, what hardware it would use, how it benchmarks or (what tends to be the most positive thing applied to looks, for some reason) how 'realistic' it is.  (Such as when people say "it had good graphics for it's time" they aren't necessarily talking about whether it looked good/bad stylistically, they mean the technological limitations at the time affecting how it looked).

So there are some sheer technological things you could rate.

It's just telling me how good the sound quality is in a 1-10 spectrum, or how realistic it appears or intensive it is out of 1-10 spectrum, doesn't really tell me anything in-depth.  It's the very bare bones.  I'm not sure what would be purely objective, in a technical sense, and not the bare bones, to review? It tells me very little about the experience of playing the games content.

You could comment on pure mathematics, you could talk about lines of code.  But that doesn't tell me what it's like to play.

Which is what I want to know, and is something that's experienced subjectively.

I do not understand why something experienced subjectively should be seen to be written about objectively, or why that's a goal or sacred tenet of reviewing to be adhered to.  This becomes artificial, to my mind, and open to exploitation.

There is no neutral or objective way that someone can tell you what's worth spending your money on.  There is no neutral, objective inherently 'good or bad' game, aside from possibly the criteria of it being able to run. There are only opinions.  But they tend to be dressed up as fact.

Quote
The same way rating is purely subjective. It's the same thing I loathe with media journalists in general, especially TV news. They spend their time inserting stupid comments and positively/negatively oriented comments instead of just commenting the reality. If they want to make a debate and present their opinion they can do it after, thankyourverymuch...

Well, I would agree with you in the sense of TV news.  It isn't their job to give an opinion largely, it's their job to report the news.  What used to irritate me most was the people telling you which tv show is coming up next, giving you some kind of joke or opinion on that tv show. No! That is not your place! Rar. Etc.
But those are examples of how giving personal opinions are inappropriate to what you are doing.
I don't think reviewing a game is one of those things.  I don't see how you can just comment on the reality without any opinion, you would be left pretty much saying "this is a game.  this is the genre the game is in.  it comes out in september." as far as I can tell - and even that middle statement is likely to be somewhat subjective.

Quote
Well I don't care at all what someone else will think about it. It's someone else, it's not me, and it's subjective. And that subjectivity means that I will maybe not like it.

Also, that's why I added my last emphasis on the subjective part of a review. When you share affinities and like the reviewer, usually that's precisely when his opinion will start to prove interesting and valuable to you. Or to the contrary when you read it from someone you can't stand his opinion. Either way you know why he doesn't like it, that it's actually the same reason that makes you like that kind of things, and that's precisely what will make you like it.

Well, that comes down to how good the writer is, I feel.  Their opinion is an informed-opinion.  It's how well they articulate the information that made them arrive at their conclusions about the game. 
I'd agree that someone saying "I liked this" "I disliked this" is pretty much worthless on its own - there's no critical content.  The key word becomes "I liked this because" "I disliked this because" (or "this worked well because" or "this didn't work well because" - as they are exactly the same statements, however one is phrased in more neutral terms)and the reasons, well articulated, allow you also to know if you would like it.

Because you, presumably, already know what you do and don't like about certain games, or that you might be able to tolerate weakness in one area if another area is strong.

Quote
But I want to keep both separate. I'm just fed up trying to get an overview of what I will find inside before reading someone opinion. Sometimes I just don't want someone's opinion. Most of the time actually. I look for it when it's about someone I trust, like a friend, for example, or a reviewer I like, and the latter I have yet to find. Maybe TotalBiscuit, I like him.

I'm unsure what an opinion-free objective overview of the inside of a game would look like - other than a comment purely on the underlying technology - though that is part of what makes games interesting, in that they're straddling a line between technology and (broadly) art.  The former normally discussed (relatively) objectively, the latter subjective by definition.

Re: what I mean about avowedly self-declared biased and subjective reviews being less corruptible than ones that pretend they are objective.  Take Yahtzee, for example.  His biases are obvious - largely, he is essentially having little entertaining rants, but still manages to tell you a lot about the game he's talking about.  But after watching about 3 of those videos, it becomes apparent what sorts of things he's liable to like and dislike.  It would be very difficult for him to suddenly start praising a game he would normally rant about because he's getting advertising revenue on his website - it would become obvious, people would notice.

Which is an extreme example, ofc.  Yahtzee is Yahtzee.  But the principle can apply for longer format stuff as well, which is, fundamentally, someone having an authentic voice being harder to corrupt.  I don't think you can have an authentic voice by pretending to be objective where objectivity does not exist, because people are used to or prefer the format of scoring. That makes it easier to be a shill or mouthpeice, from what I can tell. Not harder.


Quote
Actually, if gaming reviews moved closer to film reviews than I would actually be interested in some of it. There are some film critics whose opinion and criticism I find interesting. But it's not 'journalism' in that annoying idealist sense of the word, it is criticism of a medium.

Yep.
Though I think it is moving in that direction, and there's a bit of a backlash about it.
« Last Edit: 30 Sep 2014, 03:15 by Kala »
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #108 on: 30 Sep 2014, 15:05 »



Ah, when I meant graphics there I didn't necessarily mean design or aesthetics - which I would agree is completely subjective.
I meant more in the technological sense of how high end it is, what hardware it would use, how it benchmarks or (what tends to be the most positive thing applied to looks, for some reason) how 'realistic' it is.  (Such as when people say "it had good graphics for it's time" they aren't necessarily talking about whether it looked good/bad stylistically, they mean the technological limitations at the time affecting how it looked).

So there are some sheer technological things you could rate.

It's just telling me how good the sound quality is in a 1-10 spectrum, or how realistic it appears or intensive it is out of 1-10 spectrum, doesn't really tell me anything in-depth.  It's the very bare bones.  I'm not sure what would be purely objective, in a technical sense, and not the bare bones, to review? It tells me very little about the experience of playing the games content.

You could comment on pure mathematics, you could talk about lines of code.  But that doesn't tell me what it's like to play.

Which is what I want to know, and is something that's experienced subjectively.

I do not understand why something experienced subjectively should be seen to be written about objectively, or why that's a goal or sacred tenet of reviewing to be adhered to.  This becomes artificial, to my mind, and open to exploitation.

There is no neutral or objective way that someone can tell you what's worth spending your money on.  There is no neutral, objective inherently 'good or bad' game, aside from possibly the criteria of it being able to run. There are only opinions.  But they tend to be dressed up as fact.

Ah, that... Well i'm not sure that a lot of people really care if a game is made under Unity, Unreal, Cry, or whatever else homemade engine it uses. It's interesting for me because it touches me professionally, and probably fascinating to a few computer nerds here and there but... I don't think it interests a lot of people.

I don't really ask for grades or ratings actually anyway. I don't like them. It's always subjective, unless you start to push really hard into how a certain graphic engine can handle better lightmaps, shaders or whatever else than the other one, rated on FPS and performances alone... Honestly I tend to go on hardware specialized sites if i'm interesting in that (like to buy the next GC for my rig...). I'm not really looking for that on a game review  :D

Then if we start talking about how this or that game looks gorgeous because "oh it's the latest technology in cutting edge graphics" and all that crap, it means absolutely nothing. What is important is the art direction, for that without it even the best technology can look crappy (even if it certainly helps something looking gorgeous...). Remember the Witcher, the first one ? Still gorgeous, not because of its tech, but because of its art that gives it life and a lot of feelings. Well for me, at least, and it has already become completely subjective the moment I spoke about that anyway. And then, why would a game like the last battlefield with all the shiny tech systematically look better than a game like say, Transistor ? It's not even comparable. Tastes, tastes, tastes...

That's why I have a hard time imagining what kind of objective review we could have on graphics alone.



I don't think reviewing a game is one of those things.  I don't see how you can just comment on the reality without any opinion, you would be left pretty much saying "this is a game.  this is the genre the game is in.  it comes out in september." as far as I can tell - and even that middle statement is likely to be somewhat subjective.

Well if you think that if it's already subjective when giving a game a genre to describe it, then well, ok... It's objective to me, not because the genre qualification itself is 100% objective in the first place, but because it's close enough to be qualified as objective and, maybe a better word then, neutral, flat, not judgemental. At least at a minima.



Quote
But I want to keep both separate. I'm just fed up trying to get an overview of what I will find inside before reading someone opinion. Sometimes I just don't want someone's opinion. Most of the time actually. I look for it when it's about someone I trust, like a friend, for example, or a reviewer I like, and the latter I have yet to find. Maybe TotalBiscuit, I like him.

I'm unsure what an opinion-free objective overview of the inside of a game would look like - other than a comment purely on the underlying technology - though that is part of what makes games interesting, in that they're straddling a line between technology and (broadly) art.  The former normally discussed (relatively) objectively, the latter subjective by definition.

What I am expecting is neither about the art nor the technology, at least directly. I'm not asking them about the game sourcecode and also not asking them about what makes it great or not. I will be interested to read their opinion on the game afterwards, on their classic review because I like their reviews, but on most general sites like IGN I don't give a shit about their crappy corrupted/sheepish/fanboy opinion, to speak bluntly, so I would like to see the objective description first for that precise reason.

Generally I read reviews for two very different cases. Maybe it's just me, but that I do :

- Reading a review before buying a game. I want to know the raw facts about the game. I want to know what I will find inside. Not the spoilers to the story or whatever, but the key points, the features of the game. It doesn't have to be very subjective and certainly doesn't need the opinion of the reviewer for me, it can be perfectly neutral and clinical. Then reading the reviewer opinion (if I like the reviewer usually) can prove to be interesting to validate my thoughts or actually to demonstrate what makes the features interesting that I initially found 'meh, not my thing'. Then maybe I will think 'I didn't think of that, that could make sense'. Hell, it has happened several times on this very board when speaking to people, like on the SC thread. But usually i'm looking for opinion when i'm not sure myself after having read about the features.

- Reading a review from a pure cultural stand point. Here I will try to find as many opinions and reviews as I can. But maybe that's my benchmark/metacritic/professional side that speaks... Dunno.


Now then if you are not sure what it would be for me, then I can try to do something about a game. Don't expect it to be 100% mathematically objective with the Absolute truth or whatever in that vein, just objective in its lesser, more common meaning.

Of course, for some games you probably have a lot to say on features (like RTS, RPG, 4X, etc) while on some others like FPS or racing games, it's true that you don't have much to tell. Even on Star Citizen, if you only speaks about the space combat side without even talking about the game modes available and what they consist of, you don't have much left to say, but you still can speak about things like "it's a game that tries to emulate various independent thrust points for the flight model of the ships", "some weapons are gimbal mounted, which means that they have a certain degree of rotation that doesn't require the ship to directly face its target", etc etc. Even in racing games i'm pretty sure that you can find things to say, but I honestly have very little clues about racing and sports games so... vOv

But they already do it to some degree in a lot of reviews, you say ? Well, that's true, in a way. I'm a little harsh on them for that, for sure. But I think they mix everything by always using it only to back up their opinions everywhere, and overall, they don't speak a lot about what you do in the game. Maybe it's on purpose ? Maybe it's to let you discover it by yourself ? Or just to tease you and makes you want to try it ? Perhaps. But overall it also makes me feel like i'm always talking to advertisement and teasing rather than a simple overview of the FEATURES. I mean, it can even be said in a few lines if you just feel like you don't want to learn about every feature of the game. It can be a bit more exhaustive too, depending on the audience, I don't know... Honestly I think it's rather obvious when it's not describing anymore but major spoiling. And reading a review is by itself already spoiling in a way. If you want a total surprise just buy a random game and launch it. xD

Anyway, let's do something really rough and perfunctory, on let's say, Civ 5. Not doing something exhaustive because ffs, it's a full job...

Let's start by the start. You start to explain that Civ 5 is a 4X game as a genre, and what a 4X means. You DON'T explain what you do in a 4X since it's too broad in itself and here it will become extremely subjective since you will only focus on a few titles you know.

Then, you say it : there is solo gameplay, multiplayer, easy modding, whatever. You can go into details or not.

The player chooses a civilization between a certain amount, and they all have their little unique bonus and unique units/buildings. You DON'T say that it gives each flavor, even if it's obvious. It's unnecessary at this stage and is again, highly subjective. That's for example where most reviews will start to tell how it's awesome because :flavour: and different gameplay for each, some other will tell you that's it's not enough for that actually and so that sucks, etc. Don't care about their opinion here for now. Let's just unveil the facts, shall we ?

Once the civilization is chosen, the player can start with different starting conditions and customizes the world he will play in : you can speak or not about the configuration of the landmasses, oceans, mountains, etc. You can even start to talk about all the little options that are available to choose to change the starting conditions in various ways.

Then you speak about the game itself because it's the next step ? Starting with a settle, unit that can build cities, so you build your first city, and then start to build things into your city like buildings to improve its capabilities, or other units like new settles, workers, or military units. You can build or not other cities, etc. Well, that's the basics. For someone that doesn't know anything about a 4X, it's nice. For someone like most of us I believe, that's useless. That's where you do the different between a review with the objective to make a game known to neophytes, and a review that will directly go to details and more complex and specific features when it's addressing connoisseurs. Question of audience as usual.

So, for the connoisseurs, you can speak about what makes Civ 5 specific and different from other 4X and its Civ previous titles. Like the doctrine three and how it works, etc.

Well, i'm already tired so I won't do the whole game because lol.

Hope you get the idea. Not saying that it's impossible to find those over the internet. Actually, you can. Especially in wikis. But wikis are not here or actually filled with info when the game is just released, or before it gets released.

Anyway, that's it. That's what makes me want to play a game or not. I will start to tell myself 'omg we can do that and even that ? That's awesome !' or 'I am not sure to like their system and what they plan to add', like it has already been the case for me recently about Beyond Earth, leaving me clueless about things and making me hesitate seriously to buy it. If I hadn't had all the reviews they did themselves through twitch, I would have bought it without any hesitation because I was expecting to find inside some things that are not.

Edit : Or to take another example : recently I was looking for good 4X to play. Those are not legion, as you can imagine, especially these days. I looked up a list and picked up a few of the most interesting. Galactic Civilizations retained my attention. I didn't know anything about that game except its name before. I didn't go look for a generic old review done on a journalist site. I went directly on the wikipedia general page, and then on their damn wiki. That's eventually what convinced me to buy it. Then of course, I tried to get a bit of the subjective side of it, by looking for the feel and atmosphere on youtube records, that kind of stuff.
« Last Edit: 30 Sep 2014, 15:17 by Lyn Farel »
Logged

Jace

  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #109 on: 30 Sep 2014, 15:21 »

You forgot the tl;dr at the end.
Logged

Kala

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #110 on: 30 Sep 2014, 15:35 »

Ok, I think I see what you're saying here.
Rather than any comment on the possible quality, you just want a run-down, a description of the game itself - in a neutral tone.  At least, that's what I got from your civ example...? 

Rather than the experience someone had from playing it and how good they consider the game to be.
...Almost like a table of contents, rather than a review of the book?

:open snark: could you not just get that from the back of the box, though?  :P :close snark:

Quote
Then if we start talking about how this or that game looks gorgeous because "oh it's the latest technology in cutting edge graphics" and all that crap, it means absolutely nothing.

Agreed - but people do this.  There is some imagined scale where pong is at one end and photo-realism at the other.
Which is, I agree, absurd.  Given you can have something like minecraft, something made entirely out of blocks looking retro as all hell, looking breathtakingly stunning.


Quote
That's why I have a hard time imagining what kind of objective review we could have on graphics alone.

A very empty, and a very clinical one.

Quote
Well if you think that if it's already subjective when giving a game a genre to describe it, then well, ok... It's objective to me, not because the genre qualification itself is 100% objective in the first place, but because it's close enough to be qualified as objective and, maybe a better word then, neutral, flat, not judgemental. At least at a minima.

But you do make a judgement, don't you...?
(I mean, not always.  Most are cut-and-dry, by which I mean, commonly accepted.  Though you have still made a choice to accept that common label as valid).
Are half-life and bioshock first person shooters, in that they are first person and you shoot?
When call of duty and counter-strike are first person shooters also, but completely different style of games?
It's a nitpicky, sure, but when we choose to call something a genre we are categorising it by various rules.  And some things fit comfortably within those boundaries, others deliberately try and eschew them.  (same with film and music). It's a choice to agree with a category or not, though, and therefore not objective fact.

I think, possibly, we maybe need to have our definitions of objective and subjective on the table though  :)
Because a lot of the things I see said in a neutral, flat, not judgemental tone - i.e seeming to be objective, is actually opinion phrased a certain way ("this is" instead of "I think") which, personally, I find has the possibility to be misleading and dishonest, when opinion is presented as fact. 

For example, I have seen people argue that a high score automatically means a good game.  This idea makes me baulk.

(and I'm unsure on your lesser, more common definition, as the former tends to be how I understand objectivity, tbh)

I would agree with you on uncritical fanboyism, mind.  I find that immensely off-putting.
But the kind of clinical detachment you require has a level of emptiness to me it for me - a lack of engagement.
I honestly think someone's personal response, if well-written, will tell me more about the game itself and if I'll like it than merely listing the things that comprise it.

Different strokes, mind.
I don't mind if you get the cold clinical feature list if I can also have the personal long-form games criticism essay; and neither one exemplified as the one true way to talk about games  :P


edit:
Quote
I didn't go look for a generic old review done on a journalist site. I went directly on the wikipedia general page, and then on their damn wiki. That's eventually what convinced me to buy it. Then of course, I tried to get a bit of the subjective side of it, by looking for the feel and atmosphere on youtube records, that kind of stuff.

I don't see that as a bad way of doing things actually - seems much the same as reading around a subject.
« Last Edit: 30 Sep 2014, 15:41 by Kala »
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #111 on: 01 Oct 2014, 03:03 »

Yah, it's mostly why I am all for both. I just miss the lack of the former, which is sometimes just the thing I am looking for before anything else.

As for games that do not fit nicely into labels, I definitely agree. I don't like putting games into labelled boxes usually. Sometimes maybe it's better to avoid describing them by assigning them a genre to begin with ?

You forgot the tl;dr at the end.

I don't think i'm entitled to add tl;dr's at the end of everyone of my posts... :ugh:

I don't even see how I could make one here to begin with...
Logged

Kala

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #112 on: 01 Oct 2014, 05:46 »

Tl;dr is a symptom of the internet's gnat-sized attention span and skittish reading comprehension.
I say this, of course, because I'm a rambling motherfucker who wouldn't know brevity if it bit her on the arse  :D
(Probably why I'm such a fan of the long-form critical essays to begin with ¬.¬)

...But yeah, I find personally, if you want to explain your stance properly (and someone has already asked questions which preclude simple answers!) sometimes you can't be brief.  All you're going to do by being brief, is having other people either misunderstand what you're trying to get across, or want clarification, which is going to be another 3 or 4 posts of back-and-forth where you have to further explain yourself.  Might as well get it all out there as much as possible to pre-empt that, imo.

Suspect Jace was being a wee bit facetious, mind  ;)

(My tl;drs would probably be "if it's too long for you to read, you probably wouldn't have understood it anyway.  so jog on, you illiterate monkey-brained spacktard.")


Quote
Sometimes maybe it's better to avoid describing them by assigning them a genre to begin with ?

I think it's fine to have those classifications, as long as simultaneously being aware that one-size does not always fit all.  I don't think being subjective is inherently bad, either, as some seem to.  My issue is portraying something subjective as something objective, i.e opinion as fact.  Because that makes it seem uncontestable, when (certainly in some cases) genre has the potential to be a fairly fluid concept (open to debate, comprising more than one genre, subverting the genre, and so forth).  But that said, I think those classifications can be useful in identifying the sort of things you like and finding more of those things. It's an organising method, and helpful in this way. It's just they can also be limiting or misleading if applied strictly, or as any kind of...well, fact.
« Last Edit: 01 Oct 2014, 05:55 by Kala »
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #113 on: 01 Oct 2014, 08:12 »

Yeah, thus the 'sometimes'. In my case it would be best avoided since you are describing the game from scratch anyway.
Logged

Nmaro Makari

  • Nemo
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 605
  • SHARKBAIT-HOOHAHA!
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #114 on: 02 Oct 2014, 13:52 »

Logged
The very model of a British Minmatarian

Kala

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #115 on: 02 Oct 2014, 14:13 »

Quote
Such brave
Very #gamergate
So integrity
Sarcastically wow

...free form haiku?
Logged

Tiberious Thessalonia

  • Everyone's favorite philositoaster
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 800
  • Panini Press
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #116 on: 02 Oct 2014, 15:19 »

Dogeku


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
Do you see it now?  Something is different.  Something is never was in the first part!

Kala

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #117 on: 02 Oct 2014, 15:59 »

Quote
Dogeku


Genuinely thought it sounded a bit poetic >.>

(though yeah, bit of a ball drop from Intel there)
Logged

Vikarion

  • Guest
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #118 on: 03 Oct 2014, 17:41 »

Such brave
Very #gamergate
So integrity
Sarcastically wow

I don't think that a company which makes money by selling high-end chips to "gamers" is obligated to support a publication which runs around saying "gamers are over". In fact, sticking with such a publication is probably less smart than, at least temporarily, pulling the campaign.

In any case, I suspect that my next processor, as my current and last, will be Intel. They just seem to work well without any drama, unlike some AMDs.
« Last Edit: 03 Oct 2014, 17:43 by Vikarion »
Logged

Aedre Lafisques

  • Terrible Caillian
  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
    • Aedre Logs. Writing
Re: Games Journalism is over.
« Reply #119 on: 05 Oct 2014, 14:23 »

It kind of works in English-standard haiku (laugh):

So integrity
Very hashtag gamergate
Sarcastically wow
Logged
Hangout Channel: Gallente Lounge
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11