Game journalists love to navel gaze. As an avid game site visitor and podcast listener for years, I can say I am WAY over this topic.
Just write, if it's interesting, I'll read it. It's not that fucking complicated. How many times are we going to have to rehash this, frankly boring and meaningless, story?
I'm with you on that, which is why I'd hoped to avoid that somewhat by involving a developer directly.
It's still boring, and masturbatory.
I'm in the same exact boat as @DFSVegas. The only reason I can see for this article existing, is that if Mass Effect 3 ends up getting less than expected scores, this is the article that everyone will link to when discussing the internet hiccup that that will create. That situation of course being completely trite and totally uninteresting, as well.
I like a lot of what you do Patrick, but these invented news articles are total garbage. You might as well run all the rumor articles that the the other sites do, it's just as wrote.
True as true can be. Patrick really seems to love riding the popular online opinion bandwagon. I guess its one of the quickest ways to get people to love you though.
But at least it provides sycophants and suck-ups the opportunity to try and gain the attention of a staffer by bestowing comically exaggerated praise (this is how social hierarchies are formed...)
Even a 5 point scale is inflation: who wants to play a 1 or 2 star game? What's the difference between 1 and 2 stars anyway? A 5 star system ends up being a 3 star system whereby 1 is good, 2 is very good and 3 is excellent. What 2/5, 4/10, 40% etc. game ever made it to the hall of fame?
Now before you sycophants inundate me with your hate-bukkake, you should be well advised to remember what Patrick Klepeck wrote: " I do not need my opinions validated, I need my opinions challenged."
Many comments point out how some people get very angry when an upcoming game from a franchise they like or a game they hope to like receives a less than outstanding score/review. I feel this applies to anything people promote (as they are inevitably vaunting themselves making it personal) and this includes Giantbomb staffers as well. So...
I do not think this article is "spectacular", "amazing", "fascinating", a "great read" whose "points were made eloquently" or any of the other undue hyperbole I have read in many of these comments. I think the piece is adequate and the subject matter mildly interesting but it doesn't deserve the overpraise many bestow upon it. I do not think Patrick Klepeck is as good a writer as some claim and his command of English leaves much to be desired.
Yes, I know Giantbomb is supposed to be a personality driven review site that distinguishes itself by being more marginal and effervescent than more conventional sites. And that is exactly why I cringe when Patrick Klepeck describes himself as a journalist. Being a personality on Giantbomb is fine, but it can be difficult to reconcile the work of journalists and articles whose spelling mistakes and awkward grammar seem to suggest they were first drafts, not to mention casually informing us of the authors football team preferences before moving on to the topic at hand which is sometimes expressed with swear words. Now don't get me wrong: I have nothing against swearing and I don't think Giantbomb would be what it is if they censored innocuous profanity like Gamespot (at least, the last time I checked) but strictly in terms of journalistic pretense, it doesn't really fit.
Either one abides by the ideals of a profession and its standards or one does not. I see Patrick Klepeck more as a columnist or what the Internet calls a blogger and that's fine but I just don't think his work is "spectacular", "amazing", "fascinating" etc.