It’s an unpopular opinion in most forums, but I love most gaming journalists. I prefer their podcasts and their articles and their opinions way more than any YouTuber/streamer. I just get more insightful and less bias information from them.
People should just stop thinking about gaming journalism as a monolith, and start thinking of it as any other job. Some people are capable of doing it and they show it, others are completely incapable of writing a decent article without resorting to snarky comments or biased opinions.
A local website in my language employs a YTuber as a reviewer for reviews on games that he is a sponsor of on his channel, and those articles are laughable to say the least (I’m not going to name the games nor the person). But I’ve also read good articles on the same website, written by people who actually care about their job and have the skills to do it well.
But for some reason, gamers keep parroting this awful opinion of gaming journalists being incapable of playing games or having opinions on things. No, it’s just that certain journalists are better than others. (And for god’s sake, people should stop using the Cuphead video as a talking point. It was not a true review, it was a joke video, ffs)
There’s a reason for the early rise in popularity of independent gaming reviewers and it isn’t the hard-hitting, honest quality of mainstream entertainment journalism at the time. With the advent of influencers though, it feels like everyone is just regurgitating the same pre-approved, publisher-friendly nonsense. I’m sure there are exceptions, but it feels more difficult today to find an honest review when every random internet personality is signing sponsorship contracts that require them to praise the game every 20 minutes.
The author apparently doesn’t know that BG3 (and a lot of other games) has an honour mode that doesn’t allow save scumming, so people can choose to play the exact same way if they want to.
Yeah for these things I think having an option is best. I personally don’t play this way but I can see the appeal. I don’t really see the harm in letting people play how they want to play
I’m not understanding. As this is the first I’ve ever heard of this, I went to their site and it looks like freebies for games you play and games from other developers.
Did Amazon make their own games? If not, what were these 180 workers doing exactly?
I played at launch and yeah the bugs is what drove most people away. They were exploited pretty hard, there was like a 4 or 5 day period there where 3 seperate dupes were discovered and they didn’t do any roll backs
Not entirely well versed in the New World Saga but from what I’ve heard and read here’s roughly what happened:
The dev team was developing a hardcore always-on PvP MMO, which is fine but not for everyone
Playtest rolls around and the devs get back player numbers you would expect for a hardcore PvP MMO
Speculation: the higher ups really don’t like the projected return on their investment given the abysmal (for their ideas) player numbers and force the Studio to pivot to PvE content
At this point the entire game has been designed around PvP and the devs now have only ~1 year to somehow shove PvE content in there
Launch comes and since the devs had to spend all available time on forcing in PvE content what is present is buggy and doesn’t fit the game mechanics
Ensue several months of panicked back and forth patching of the game by the devs, making the entire mess worse because everyone is pissed by one change or another
To be fair, a lot of the game breaking launch bugs that hurt the game for me were with PVP (specifically, the instanced wars). I do know there were others but those PVP bugs are what I’ll always remember. The lag, the broken healing, the hatchet exploit, and a few others.
If I buy a game that requires a launcher I immediately return it and give a very long and detailed description as to why that’s not a product I can buy as I do not own it.
I just want to remind you all that Gary Bowser, switch modder, owes 30% of his income to Nintendo for the rest of his life. He also is in a wheelchair and has kids.
I’m not sure I understand what’s happening here, but I’m looking forward to the five hour hbomberguy video explaining the whole thing in about 8 years.
Last year's TGA was somewhat exciting because they gave away a bunch of Steam Decks. I normally just see the winners posted the next morning, along with any new game trailers.
I’m so disappointed, but not at all surprised. I feel for them. :( Thank you for sharing this here. The game sounds awesome. I hope they’re successful with it and it gets really popular and helps educate people.
I have a lot of issues with the BDS boycotts having no actionable end states but… there are a lot of reasons to not want to give any business to microsoft at all at this point (borderline weekly layoffs at this point) and… their market share sure ain’t what it used to be.
Open ended boycotts don’t work. People MIGHT boycott until they see nothing changing and give up and companies are under no incentive to change anything because it won’t make a difference. It is just a storm to be weathered.
Whereas a boycott with an actionable end state gives the company something to change if they don’t want to try to outlast the outrage, as it were.
Its why the traditional protest call and response is “What do we want?” “X!” “When do we want it?” “Now!”. It immediately makes it clear what will make the angry people go away.
For the BDS boycotts? Microsoft is sort of “Break these major contracts in ways that will make every single potential business partner wary going forward”. The Disney boycott, from what I can gather, is basically “tell gal gadot et all to fuck off”. Which… agreed. But you can also just look at the ongoing lawsuits from the last time they fired a chud for why there will be no public statement and the best we can hope for is to silently stop hiring zionists.
Which is my problem. Most of the BDS boycotts are effectively “burn down your entire company and then we’ll give you money again”. Which… yeah. I still try to support them to some degree (most of what I have settled on is “I’ll grab what I want later so that I don’t contribute to the big numbers on launch”) but there is no end and it is just going to fade away as more and more people decide they want their shiny.
And, for what it is worth, I think at least some of the folk behind these boycotts understands that. The MS boycott discussion was particularly good about stuff like “If you can’t stop using Teams of Office, consider changing to this business plan that is cheaper and turns off copilot”. Which speaks to “We know you aren’t going to drastically change your life but you were probably going to do this so you might as well do it and claim it is related to human rights”
Surely the actionable end state for Microsoft is to cease their AI support in Palestine? Of course they won’t so functionally this doesn’t really matter, but I agree that it makes sense to have a stated goal even if it’s just for the purposes of explaining the boycott to other people.
aftermath.site
Ważne