The Vita is a great little system, but many of its best games are things that are also available (if not better) on other platforms -- usually PC and/or PS4, at least. The 3DS' best games, on the other hand, are mostly things you aren't going to find anywhere else, and if you ask me there are a lot of those. I don't know why you're worried about most of the good 3DS games being Monster Hunter clones... There are actually a lot more of those on Vita. I feel like the 3DS has a pretty solid variety in the exclusives it offers.
Sargus's forum posts
Yeah, if you wanna play Monster Hunter or have an interest in Xenoblade Chronicles 3D, spring for the New 3DS XL. That C-Stick does make a significant difference in the former, and the latter will only be available on the new hardware (and it's a good game, if you missed it on Wii).
why did they even bother with episodes when it comes out next month and the retail version gets exclusive content, like what. will be interesting to see how they price it.
Online Multiplayer isn't exclusive to the retail version, it's just not coming until the retail release -- i.e. when all the episodes are available. It will be patched in for everybody else at that time. In the meantime you can play split-screen.
I had been meaning to import a Vita copy of Puyo Puyo Tetris during most of 2014, but never got around to it (mostly because of my budget). As soon as the Quick Look went up, though, I rushed to Play-Asia knowing what would happen.
PS4 and Vita versions were sold out, so I just grabbed it on Xbox One. No regrets.
Is it normal for enthusiast press to have some sort of ethics policy to follow? I'm a journalist, been in the business for 15 years (freelancing now), and my old newspaper adopted an ethics policy about six or years after I was hired. It followed SPJ guidelines, with addendums concentrating on conflicts of interest, like having a political sign in your yard. We weren't even allowed to sign petitions of any sort, which twisted some knickers. Has GB ever put a stance out there on this topic, officially or otherwise?
Every site I've written for has had a policy (which mostly mimics SPJ guidelines). Not all of them are public. I've actually seen a lot of people saying GG might go away if sites would "post an ethics policy and stick to it," but Polygon has a link to their ethics policy at the bottom of every review and they've remained one of GG's primary targets regardless. (Joystiq is another site that comes to mind with a detailed policy that's online.)
... but what about the day 12 video games media sites all released similar story's that essentially said the same thing (the term gamer is dead), in a 24 hour period, all pointing to the exact same blog post? Is that not collusion? or atleast really, really fishy? Again I'm not implicated GiantBomb in this as I don't think they released an article that day, just saying this as games media as a whole.
That's only weird or suspicious if you don't read a lot of other news outlets where this happens all the time when something controversial happens. The guy behind Dilbert says something misogynistic and everybody scrambles to write an article. A group decides to boycott Ender's Game in theaters because of Orson Scott Card and everybody scrambles to write an article. You've got people writing about Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby and guess what? A whole bunch of those articles make a lot of the same points, at about the same time.
There have been a couple of pretty good breakdowns of the "gamers are over" articles, a detailed one here and a more simplistic breakdown here. Not only are there not actually 12 articles in a 24 hour period (Edit: I guess you could say there are if you lump in even more non-game outlets like Jezebel), but not all of them were on "gaming" sites and one (the first one, actually) was actually a Tumblr post by a non-journalist.
On some level I can understand reading one or several of those and disagreeing with the points made -- even getting a little upset if you think the "gamer" being referenced is you (which it might not have been). But as much as I've looked at this particular GG grievance I simply cannot understand why these articles generated the reaction they did. Would I have personally written them differently? Yeah, probably. There's some language in a few of them that I think is too strong, and that paints with too broad a brush. But welcome to the world of opinion writing. This 'aint new.
As for the "collusion" angle: What would be the point? Seriously. Why would a bunch of writers get together and say, "Let's all bash gamers together on the same day! That will show 'em!" I don't understand what on earth would be accomplished by planning such a thing.
Disclosure, I'm someone who writes for gaming websites sometimes, so you can dismiss me as someone who's just trying to defend other games writers, but this particular GG issue tends to bug me.
@kurokeima: The GameJournoPro mailing list was literally just a mailing list a bunch of writers used to talk about the news of the day and do basic networking with other industry professionals. If you believe it was anything else, you're listening to a pile of ridiculous lies.
I understand where your coming from, but some of the leaked correspondence made it look like some of those using were trying to push for a untied front from all those who used the list, which made me concerned when I first saw it, as it seemed like possible collusion.
I trust you and this website to be honest and not lie to me, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt over it. I hope you understand why looking at that without context, it might worry people thinking about ethical journalism.
Hi. I hope I'm not stepping on the toes of the staff here, but as someone who was on the GameJournoPros list I want to clarify something beyond Alex's to-the-point statement: Everybody on that list still had other people to report to. Nobody who you saw talking in the e-mail leaks was somebody that could dictate rules or content free of any oversight. For example, if I wanted to say, "Let's delete this entire thread of comments," I would still have to go through several bosses to get that done. Even Greg Tito, who is Editor-in-Chief of The Escapist, has to report to his publisher.
So even if certain members of the group were trying to "bully" other members (which wasn't true, in this case. Tito himself said on a GamerGate stream hosted by Erik Kain that he solicited the opinions of his peers), it wouldn't have been the deciding factor on any outlet. In reality, it was a group of peers looking at a situation we don't see every day (we cover video games, not relationship drama) and asking each other, "How do we cover this? What's right in this situation?"
Another, much more important point: "Press Clubs" exist all over the country/world (as well as nationally), and as far as a "journalistic integrity" angle goes they're not considered a problem in everyday journalism (I'm talking "real," mainstream journalism here). So I don't understand why you would be upset to see writers you respect on the list of people in such a club (as GJP was), but maybe there's something I'm missing. As I said, I was in the group, so maybe it's hard for me to look at it as an outsider would... But I first found out the group existed via Twitter, and it didn't surprise me nor did I ever see it as a problem, even as someone who just likes reading video game coverage.