Gaming journalism is competitive because people want an easy ride so they can hang out with people and play video games. If you do get work somewhere they will probably exploit you as an intern. I don't really get why there's unpaid positions because there's not exactly a whole lot to learn. You can gain valuable experience in computing or networking from an intern position, what would I gain from an unpaid internship at IGN? Pretty much nothing. Well, maybe they can teach me how to give bad episodes of The Walking Dead 9/10s.
It's a small community where everyone knows your name. Of course it's going to be hard to get your foot in the door. Being a writer is easy, being a journalist is harder, being a games journalist(with a living wage) is really hard. Just like joining the Army is easy, joining the Rangers is harder, and joining Special Forces is hard.
Being a writer doesn't imply having a job so obviously that's easy. Few should even be called journalists when it comes to gaming because it's rarely more than regurgitating press releases and news from somewhere else while occasionally doing interviews. Investigative journalism it is not.
The Xbone is pretending it's a PS3 to fuck with you with PSN-like download speeds.
Sony improved things a bit, but holy shit I remember in 2007 Tekken 5 taking 7 hours to download, meanwhile my PC was downloading 15GB games in 20 mins. (Tekken was like, under a gig)
PSN is still average on the PS3, but on the PS4 I get good speeds at least.
I remember trying to get into Smash with Brawl. I imported the game to get it early and played it a few times, so underwhelming.
I don't get the party appeal either, we always used to play Mario Kart instead. 8 is almost enough to tempt me to get a Wii U but not until it's even lower in price.
I don't like tattoos at all, my mum has like 5 or 6 now and I don't get it.
I think a lot of the actual art is very cool but to me it's incredibly tacky to put that shit on your body.
You can justify them any which way you want, just think long and hard about the repercussions...whether they be socially, for job seeking or if you might start hating the sight of it yourself after a while.
This is coming out a year after the original game. Even with all the DLC included, I don't think it should be $60.
Well it's a high quality 'blockbuster' game and if they do a good job porting it, it's gonna look better than most games out on the PS4. I think it's fine. I'd rather pay $60 again for Last of Us than ever play Infamous again.
A year old or not, there's not exactly a lot else to play on the system is there? And many people will have missed it because it was an exclusive, Microsoft lost a lot of Xbox people to the PS4.
Was it a technical marvel on PS3? It looked good for the system sure, but I don't think it was much of an improvement over Naughty Dog's previous efforts and boy did it chug at times. It had great design but the graphics were definitely rough around the edges.
Not sure why people are complaining, ACIV is $60 and is nothing more than a slightly better looking version of the PS3 and 360 games, you can say that for a lot of the cross gen titles right now, one exception being Battlefield 4. At least Last of Us is compelling and felt quite fresh, can't say the same for AC games of the last 4 years.
I think all exclusive games from very late in a console's life should get pushed to the new systems.
@humanity: Shockingly many, going by the many forums I hang on. None of them whined about it being $60 which is weird.
Well why should they whine? Just because it's about a year old doesn't really change anything, these new editions are primarily for people that missed them and/or traded their old consoles in.
Yeah these are last gen games on current gen systems, but does that make it any different to ACIV? That's a slightly better looking version of the PS3/360 game, nobody seems to care about that being 60.
Log in to comment