Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[Bartimaeus]

 

Hey, I like shooters...just usually not arcade-y ones like Call of Duty. If someone wants to resurrect/make a clone of Stalker (and keep it similar to Stalker in gameplay and tone: it can change in other ways, what do I care), I'm more than happy to support that. Just don't make it unbearably awful like the Fallout resurrection (which switched primary genres, IMO, for no apparent reason, and did it horribly). Like I said before, we all have our tastes...the industry should be able to satisfy us all.

Well, shooters should be arcade-y in that twitch is all you need for the most part, at least for MP anyway which is probably the main reason anyone plays CoD or BF games. I mainly like ones such as R6 or GR1. Was being a bit facetious, but I do always wonder a bit at why people always look down at shooters and want 'better' in some nebulous terms (I assume this will be 'experience' games ). For some, you do need a fair amount of skill to be good, though for some reason they keep wrapping them with unlocks.

 

Because, as aluminiumtrioxid and I were discussing earlier, people have a tendency to smugly look down on which they don't understand/enjoy. The only "arcade-y" shooter I've really ever liked is TF2...and they ruined that for me by throwing in so much crap I didn't want via updates after release that I couldn't much enjoy that anymore, either.

[Malcador]

Because, as aluminiumtrioxid and I were discussing earlier, people have a tendency to smugly look down on which they don't understand/enjoy. The only "arcade-y" shooter I've really ever liked is TF2...and they ruined that for me by throwing in so much crap I didn't want via updates after release that I couldn't much enjoy that anymore, either.

True enough, probably would explain the whole 'walking simulators' deal (though people speaking on those as being transcendental or some buzzish nonsense helps some )

[BruceVC]

 

Malc GTAV is a cool game hey?

 

The game is pure genius and art. I love the random quests and I've had some interesting encounter like hunting and yoga...oh and I was killed by a wild cat !!!

 

I love just exploring the world and the radio stations genuinely make me laugh. I love the radio talk shows with lazlo and that Doctor who keeps wanting to meet his dad in the jail when people phone in..also that conservative and racist Blair County radio channel, " The only foreign policy decision I agree with is a carpet bomb " ...the parody in the radio stations is brilliant 

Well, it's full of stuff to do and they sure put in a lot of detail. Though I get a laugh at having to bike and exercise to up my stamina, in a game.  Does give me the urge to visit LA, though I liked LIberty City better for some reason.  As for it being 'art' well, I don't know, not sure what would make it so or what that would be in a game like GTA.

 

Oh I don't play it all time, every second or third day. Thats why it never gets boring 

[Amentep]

 

Also, what is it that you want them to do? Stop making big-budget games and start making only low-to-medium budget games (where they can take more risks) instead? What exactly would that gain us compared to the risky low-to-medium budget games which, as you've said, already get made thanks to Kickstarter & co?

 

Usually, the SJW criticism of the AAA gaming segment boils down to "[insert demographic here] should have big-budget versions of their favored types of games too, supply-and-demand be damned!". But you seem to have a problem with the concept of the risk-averse big-budget model itself?

 

Which just brings me back to: Why do you care? The fact that AAA publishers create by-the-numbers big-budget games, does not prevent others from creating more varied games on smaller budgets. When they satisfy different audiences, it's not a zero-sum game. Why do you consider the mere existence of the big-budget games a problem?

 

 

I do have a problem with the risk-averse big-budget model; it's been stifling creativity in the medium since its inception. That's not a good thing, and it won't magically turn into a good thing just because we now have the tools to circumvent it.

 

(Also, while I don't consider myself to be an expert on movie history, didn't Hollywood operate on a similar principle until the... I think seventies? when the bubble suddenly burst and studios were forced to return to low-to-mid-budget productions with a strong authorial vision?)

 

In any case, it's not the existence of big-budget games that irks me, it's the public perception of "gamers" as people who consume those big-budget games exclusively (and to the exclusion of all other activities).

 

Film industry originally worked on the studio system were the studios made the pictures, owned the picture-houses and contracted stars to be in their films. The studios owning the theaters and block booking titles was ended by law in 1948 after an antitrust suit over block booking was levied against Paramount by RKO (albeit in practice ending in 1954).

 

The result of this was that it became harder to get time for a "Prestige Film"; in the past if a theater wanted to sell a new star or a hard concept, they'd tie it to an existing star (so if a theater wanted the next two Mary Pickford films, they also had to book 5-10 other films that the studio was doing).  This led to the ability to make a financial go of less popular fare being drastically reduced.

 

It also meant that you needed to have prestige stars, directors and writers - or other hooks - to sell a successful film.  While this led to a Renaissance in a way in the late 60s (as stars were able to make personal projects happen because their name guaranteed boxoffice and as most of the older stars were retiring new stars were taking their place with more modern and socially relevant to the times fare) it also set the stage for the blockbuster.  When JAWS came out, it re-wrote the way the studios did business; you could run for years provided you can get a blockbuster to hit every now and then.

 

This leads to now where a blockbuster can make a profit but not be blockbustery enough - the studios don't want to spend 10 mil to make 30 mil, they want to spend 10 mil to make 100 mil and so we get weird situations of films that actually make money being perceived as flops.

[Nonek]

Why listen to the immoral preaching about morality in games? Why listen to those whom want less content, reactivity and interactivity in games preaching about how games should be more like their regressive walking simulators? Game journalism is a joke that is irrelevant and going extinct, they demonstrate this more and more, their rabid attempt to hold on to the status quo, and defend their power base is hopeless.

[BruceVC]

Why listen to the immoral preaching about morality in games? Why listen to those whom want less content, reactivity and interactivity in games preaching about how games should be more like their regressive walking simulators? Game journalism is a joke that is irrelevant and going extinct, they demonstrate this more and more, their rabid attempt to hold on to the status quo, and defend their power base is hopeless.

Hi Nonek "waves " 

 

Where have you been ? I missed you even though all we do is argue 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Why listen to those whom want less content, reactivity and interactivity in games preaching about how games should be more like their regressive walking simulators?

 

Why indeed? Away with them, I say! Away!

 

...Oh, um, wait a sec. Who was advocating for those things in this discussion?

Edited July 15, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Nonek]

Whom was stating that anyone in this discussion was? Perhaps read the full post if you wish and you'll maybe know whom it was aimed at.

[Bartimaeus]

Off-topic: Nonek, why do you always use "whom" in place of "who"? It's curious, since most people have the opposite problem and use "who" when "whom" is correct: are you compensating for them? I remember wondering this a few times in the past, and since it's still happening, I'm afraid I must inquire now as to whether it's intentional or not. My apologies in advance!

Edited July 15, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

Whom was stating that anyone in this discussion was? Perhaps read the full post if you wish and you'll maybe know whom it was aimed at.

Geez Nonek just be direct ...people don't want to guess or try to decipher your post around who you are referring to

[Nonek]

Off-topic: Nonek, why do you always use "whom" in place of "who"? It's curious, since most people have the opposite problem and use "who" when "whom" is correct: are you compensating for them? I remember wondering this a few times in the past, and since it's still happening, I'm afraid I must inquire now as to whether it's intentional or not. My apologies in advance!

 

Whom is being enormously ignored in modern English, I feel bad for the old chap and hope to propogate its use and revival.

[Bartimaeus]

 

Off-topic: Nonek, why do you always use "whom" in place of "who"? It's curious, since most people have the opposite problem and use "who" when "whom" is correct: are you compensating for them? I remember wondering this a few times in the past, and since it's still happening, I'm afraid I must inquire now as to whether it's intentional or not. My apologies in advance!

 

Whom is being enormously ignored in modern English, I feel bad for the old chap and hope to propogate its use and revival.

 

 

Yeah...but if you want people to start using it correctly again, shouldn't you lead by example instead of just using it always in place of "who"? Or is your goal just to remind everybody that it exists to begin with?

Edited July 15, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Nonek]

Oh I don't alway use whom, just when the specified object is unknown. However my grammar was taught forty or so years ago so it may now be out of date, who knows.

 

Edit: Or misremembered.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Nonek

[Bartimaeus]

I didn't think of that. I should definitely not be correcting you on it, since I just realized I don't actually know the technical rules for using it myself: just feel like...that I know that your first usage of it was incorrect in "whom was stating that anyone in this discussion was", but was correct in "you'll maybe known whom it was directed at". Feel like it's also incorrect in one of your earlier posts when you said, "why listen to those whom want less content", too. I've always had a good intuitive sense for English and understanding what things meant and how they should work, but have, very contrarily, always been absolutely...um...mentally deficient in actively learning English and all its little technical distinctions. Good intuitive sense doesn't always lead you to being correct - particularly when English is the subject - so I definitely should not be trying to correct you when I don't actually know. Guess that's what the "apologies in advance" was for.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Nonek]

Oh I may well be misusing the word Mr Bartimaeus, i'm as fallible as the next individual when it comes to my grammar. I'm becoming inexact and lazier as I age i've found. 

 

In my youth I was somewhat of a:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjLrFLYGdPM

Edited July 15, 2015 by Nonek

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Whom was stating that anyone in this discussion was?

 

...Then why bring up the subject if it's not directly relevant to the discussion at hand?

[Nonek]

 

Whom was stating that anyone in this discussion was?

 

...Then why bring up the subject if it's not directly relevant to the discussion at hand?

 

 

Exactly.

[BruceVC]

I didn't think of that. I should definitely not be correcting you on it, since I just realized I don't actually know the technical rules for using it myself: just feel like...that I know that your first usage of it was incorrect in "whom was stating that anyone in this discussion was", but was correct in "you'll maybe known whom it was directed at". Feel like it's also incorrect in one of your earlier posts when you said, "why listen to those whom want less content", too. I've always had a good intuitive sense for English and understanding what things meant and how they should work, but have, very contrarily, always been absolutely...um...mentally deficient in actively learning English and all its little technical distinctions. Good intuitive sense doesn't always lead to being correct - particularly when English is the subject - so I definitely should not be trying to correct you when I don't actually know. Guess that's what the "apologies in advance" was for.

 

Barti my darling why are you polite and acquiescent to Nonek yet you think I'm condescending   ? And I feel I have done more for you than he has ....I just get no loyalty 

[Bartimaeus]

Barti my darling why are you polite and acquiescent to Nonek yet you think I'm condescending ? And I feel I have done more for you than he has

 

 

Edited July 15, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

 

Barti my darling why are you polite and acquiescent to Nonek yet you think I'm condescending ? And I feel I have done more for you than he has

[spoiler

 

:lol:

 

That really made me laugh....very funny and appropriate 

[Volourn]

"In any case, as the newfangled kickstarter renaissance has shown, there absolutely is a demand for low-to-mid-budget games of the kind publishers are not willing to fund, even though they're proven to be profitable ventures. Making said publishers' reluctance to do so... baffling, to say the least."

 

Define 'profit'. AAA publishers don't want to make 1 mil per game. They want to make 10mil or 100mil per game. They don't want to live game by game. Small companies do that and its why many go under.

 

 

"Barti you guys must really get over your aversion to Romance, its irrational....its this sheep mentality. Suddenly BSN is not cool, and of course Romance is weird 

 

 

But you guys are just parroting what you heard ...I bet you can't give me a decent reason that is convincing why you don't like Romance ?"

 

Youa ccusing others of being parrots is hilarious since that almost all you. How many times have you 'apologized' for being mistaken simply because all you do is parrot the SJW mantra even when its wrong.

 

 

"Dialing down the pointless hostility would be helpful in making this conversation more productive."

 

L0L Hypocrisy in action.

 

 

"(Also, while I don't consider myself to be an expert on movie history, didn't Hollywood operate on a similar principle until the... I think seventies? when the bubble suddenly burst and studios were forced to return to low-to-mid-budget productions with a strong authorial vision?)"

 

\Yet, they make big budgets now and are WINNING with huge numbers. So much so that even films that make 100-200mil are considered subpar perfromers. You aren't even considered a blockbuster unless you make 500mil. L0L

[Amentep]

 

'Who' is the subject of the sentence

 

'Whom' is an object of a sentence

 

Generally speaking, if you can replace it with "he/she" then "who" is correct.  "Him/Her" then "whom" is correct. (Note some sentence structure elements may need to change, but generally it works).

 

As an example, something is done "for him" or "for her", therefore "Do not ask for whom the bell tolls..." is correct to use "whom" rather than "who" as "for" makes "whom" an object of the sentence (reworded "Do not ask if the bell tolls for him/her...")

 

This digression was brought to you by the letter Q and the number 42.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Amentep

[Bartimaeus]

I think that means...I was correct in my examples? I hope?

 

(e): I'm serious about being really bad in actually understanding how English works: I don't even know how to distinguish a "subject" from an "object" in a sentence.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

"In any case, as the newfangled kickstarter renaissance has shown, there absolutely is a demand for low-to-mid-budget games of the kind publishers are not willing to fund, even though they're proven to be profitable ventures. Making said publishers' reluctance to do so... baffling, to say the least."

 

Define 'profit'. AAA publishers don't want to make 1 mil per game. They want to make 10mil or 100mil per game. They don't want to live game by game. Small companies do that and its why many go under.

 

 

"Barti you guys must really get over your aversion to Romance, its irrational....its this sheep mentality. Suddenly BSN is not cool, and of course Romance is weird 

 

 

But you guys are just parroting what you heard ...I bet you can't give me a decent reason that is convincing why you don't like Romance ?"

 

Youa ccusing others of being parrots is hilarious since that almost all you. How many times have you 'apologized' for being mistaken simply because all you do is parrot the SJW mantra even when its wrong.

 

 

 

Yes I have been mistaken around some SJ campaigns like removing the hookers in GTAV, Ban  the Bossy word campaign  and Hulk Hogan but I don't retract my view often 

 

And you have proven my point ...you can't think of a valid reason why you don't like Romance ...Volo its sometimes hard  being me and realizing you are right all the time 

[BruceVC]

I think that means...I was correct in my examples? I hope?

 

(e): I'm serious about being really bad in actually understanding how English works: I don't even know how to distinguish a "subject" from an "object" in a sentence.

I believe you Barti....its obvious you are not good at basic English comprehension. But I wouldn't feel bad about this, its not like English is your first language