TruthTellah's forum posts

#1 Edited by TruthTellah (9323 posts) -

@promanari: I've liked @yukoasho in the past and enjoyed talking to them at times, and I'm going to be straight with them if I think they are being counterproductive.

I hope you will understand if I don't let a random day-old user who has only posted about GG tell me how I should or should not comment.

(I do appreciate your use of puppy images, but come on)

Online
#2 Edited by TruthTellah (9323 posts) -

I've been around long enough to see that Twitter isn't the real issue. I mean, you're not on Twitter, but you're still using excessive hyperbole and misrepresenting women's views, muddling the reality of a situation.

I know you've been frustrated lately, @yukoasho, but a post like this doesn't help you or your cause. You've seemed to mean well in the past, duder, and I hope you'll rethink a lot of this.

Online
#3 Posted by TruthTellah (9323 posts) -

How is calling someone by their last name edgy? Did I miss something somewhere?

It was an odd thing that happened back when he first got hired. Folks embraced "Patrick", and then a bunch of others that disliked him referred to him as "Klepek" instead. Over the years, I've seen a lot of people be critical of "Klepek", perhaps because using his last name feels more impersonal.

Online
#4 Edited by TruthTellah (9323 posts) -
@trianglehard said:
I don't know. Am I being unreasonable? Am I just being one of those "misogynistic gamer" here? Or am I just a reader that is sick and tired of this controlled media censorship? Why don't you tell me?

Yes, you are being unreasonable.

They spoke out in defense of women being attacked and pointed out how ridiculous a lot of this is in that Letter from the Editor. You are correct to mention how central Giant Bomb is to genuine concern over journalistic integrity in gaming, and their lack of endorsement or concern toward all of this should give you an indication of how much they think this actually has to do with journalistic integrity.

If you respect Jeff and Giant Bomb more than random accusations from Internet commenters, I think their position is worth putting a lot of weight on. Their Letter and subsequent comments in the thread about it give a rather clear picture, and I'd encourage reading through those again to better understand why they may not agree with you in this instance.

Online
#5 Edited by TruthTellah (9323 posts) -
@jeff said:
Lastly, since someone brought up the Official mags, I'm not 100% sure how they operated. But having spoken with people who have worked in editorial at official pubs before, they sound like they were on the up and up. But that's at the Associate/Senior Editor level. No idea if the suits at the top were doing weird stuff or not. You should ask Giancarlo about it, I think he did stuff for OPM and he also had a brief stint at Nintendo Power.

Thank you so much for weighing in here, Jeff. I would love to hear more often about your thoughts on this subject(and just the industry in general). You're a rather trusted fellow, and you tend to keep it real.

As for Official mags, I'm glad to hear you heard some of them might have been on the up and up. I don't know if many would say it was necessarily corruption as much as rather convincing marketing on publishers' part, but over the years, I've heard many people who grew up enjoying those magazines say they later realized how deceptive and manipulative that kind of coverage may have been for kids and teens.

I know I've felt that way after looking back at the old magazines I still have. There seemed to be a relatively common theme of "This system is the best and all you need, [specific console] fan! And here's a glowing review of the latest and greatest game on it you should buy today!" or "Look at this game that is gonna blow [competing console] out of the water!" or "Can you believe the graphics on [publisher's new console]?!" (with a shocked cartoon face or something next to it. ha) that stands out when you look at seemingly "fairer" coverage from unofficial sources. Unofficial folks were enthusiastic, but official magazines seemed to make enthusiasm an art. I mean, you mentioned the normal pressures from publishers on independent magazines and sites, and one can only imagine even greater pressures when you are literally owned by a publisher.

You think Giancarlo Varanini would be willing to discuss how it was back then at OPM and Nintendo Power? That sounds really interesting. I'd be curious to hear how it really was. Perhaps he could help dispel what I've seen as a rather widely accepted view of the old official magazines.

Online
#6 Edited by TruthTellah (9323 posts) -

@hunter5024 said:

@juno500 said:

@hunter5024 said:

You're making it sound a lot simpler than it actually was in order to make him look bad. I'm not saying I condone what he did either, I just think every option he had in that situation was shitty. If you really wanted to I could argue this point further, but it has nothing to do with the current topic. As I said, regardless of our disagreement about the way he acted, that doesn't change the fact that there's clearly some evidence of legal wrongdoing here.

What's simple is that it is absolutely an ethical breach to reveal information that can potentially put a person in harm, and outing somebody as a trans does exactly that. When you have several shitty options, you take the least shitty option then. Outing her was absolutely the most shitty option in that situation.

If you think the action is illegal, then report it to the authorities, because it's obvious neither of us are really experts on this.

You know that she forced him into silence by threatening suicide, and that he only confirmed the accusations leveled against her when it appeared that she had already carried out her threat right? He didn't do this out of maliciousness, and the two of them are actually on good terms after all of this. Sure what he did was unethical, but it was also unethical not to reveal it, and as he claims in the article, his bosses were really shitty about helping him figure this situation out.

I think it's fair to say his bosses were likely shitty or less than great about helping him figure this situation out. Clearly things could have been handled better. Though, to get back on the thread topic, I don't think that's exactly corruption in gaming as much as some level of incompetence or callousness amongst multiple people, and I'm only glad it ended up with a better result than there could have been.

Online
#7 Posted by TruthTellah (9323 posts) -

Fatal Frame V has some noticeable butt jiggle, as well. Along with DOA breast jiggle.

Considering there is also a mechanic where you're encouraged to get your character wetter so she gets stronger but her clothes get tighter and more transparent, these systems are especially significant.

Online
#9 Edited by TruthTellah (9323 posts) -

Obviously, Jeff Gerstmann's firing from Gamespot years ago was an example of corruption(which was seemingly rectified to his satisfaction). Though, we'd likley be fooling ourselves to think that highly-publicized example is the only time an advertiser ever successfully influenced a gaming outlet.

Really, the advertising angle of the gaming enthusiast press has always been a challenging issue, as I think many would attest to. Though, a lot of these examples have less to do with willful corruption than potentially detrimental influence. I think the ethics of "sponsored" posts are questionable. And when a site is plastered with huge banner ads and even video ads on their site above a glowing review, it raises understandable concerns. Timed exclusives for reviews and blacklisting are also potential issues which reveal the tough spot many outlets are in to keep up with publisher-favored outlets.

I'd consider "official" gaming magazines to have been an example of corruption to some extent. For a lot of people while growing up, stuff like "Nintendo Power" or "Official PlayStation Monthly" were hugely popular and their main source for gaming news, and these were -official- sources. I even loved these magazines, and looking back, it's so obvious how much they were designed around promoting the official products and guiding you toward the biggest new games. You'd open up EGM and find a full ad for the same game reviewed on the page next to it. The official magazines got favorable treatment and became almost necessary purchases to keep up on the latest and greatest in gaming. Unfortunately, so much of it was hype, hype, and more hype.

Now we've still got Game Informer, and that's part of GameStop's promotional wing. You think they'd sell it in stores if it wasn't driving more sales to them? Sites at least have some genuine autonomy to decide for themselves, but stuff like Game Informer couldn't survive if they were too critical of games. They wouldn't get exclusives and they certainly wouldn't be sold on every GameStop shelf. That doesn't mean every review in them is necessarily corrupt somehow, but it does raise concerns which should be taken into account when reading it.

I've heard a decent number of people say "games journalism" was better when it was simpler back in the 90s, and that couldn't be further from the truth. I may have enjoyed it back then, but that's because I didn't know better. The current gaming enthusiast press is so far better than what existed back then. All the top sources were official, and I doubt a Nintendo Power reviewer could keep their job if they didn't like a Mario game enough. Just think about how often these sources portrayed their coverage as some kind of objective take on games and reflect on what folks are saying now.

Do people really think outlets back then would have been so willing to muck up the favor of publishers out of concerns they had about sexism or racism? Or the social messages and perhaps gross aspects of games? Recent willingness to actually question developers and express individual opinion has been a boon to efforts against potential corruption. The big concern of corruption is collusion with game publishers and advertisers, not with a writer's willingness to criticize them and potentially step outside the norm by giving a big new game an unfavorable score.

If anything, reviews are still -too- homogeneous, and things like Metacritic and the way some companies are tying bonuses to review scores is bound to lead to more problems as we move forward. The way reviewers are sometimes flown around to fancy places to get "early" opportunities to review games or new consoles is suspect, as well, and there's a reason Giant Bomb has shied away from a lot of that in recent years. For new people getting into gaming coverage, that is especially a concern, because these are willful attempts to influence reviewers and get more favorable reviews and higher sales. It isn't known corruption, but they are things to be concerned about.

It's also worth mentioning YouTube sponsorships at a time when more and more people are looking to YouTube for their info on games. The fact is, that is basically the wild west of gaming coverage, and it is -known- to have serious reasons for concern. For a young guy posting some videos online, a publisher reaching out to offer some swag or sponsorship is bound to have some influence, and if they aren't very upfront about it, viewers will hardly know. Placing [This was sponsored by such and such] in your video description isn't good enough. There are some real reasons to worry when looking at YouTube and smaller blog coverage which is ever-increasing in their influence. For the most part, this open opportunity for anyone to garner that kind of influence is bound to end up favoring publishers with plenty of money to toss around. And this is the area of coverage many expressing concern about corruption lately are pointing to despite them being one of the more potentially problematic areas of coverage today. That is worrisome.

We've seen an end to a lot of the actual corruption in gaming coverage, but since many people have good memories of simpler times, that's somehow seen as less corrupt. I can actually trust individual voices now; I can't say that about gaming coverage back then. There are still plenty of concerns today, but a lot of them are the same advertising concerns as ever or they involve newer, more casual voices. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that publishers are as interested in influencing coverage and scores today as they ever were, and that is likely going to continue to be one of the most important areas of gaming coverage to be mindful about.

Online
#10 Edited by TruthTellah (9323 posts) -

Ah yes, I remember this game from a comic a while back. (6 years ago)

Online