TruthTellah's forum posts

#1 Posted by TruthTellah (8803 posts) -
@pr1mus said:

Yes even though they aren't as good anymore without small businessman.

Once we get a Bombcast East, he will rise again!

#2 Posted by TruthTellah (8803 posts) -

Absolutely. As Telliot said, they feel more like sponsored little bits of entertainment than traditional ads.

They should have more. If it means more support for Giant Bomb, I will gladly partake in more.

#3 Posted by TruthTellah (8803 posts) -

@exfate said:

@truthtellah said:

@exfate said:

@truthtellah said:

@exfate said:

@truthtellah: I think Jeff and a lot of other people might be missing the whole point. Patreon isn't about buying a game or any other product. It is basically a donation to a person, with no real liability on their part to produce anything in return. What I'm saying is that supporting a game/product is different to supporting a person. If a journalist is prepared to give a developer money directly in this way, how can we trust them to cover that same developer without bias? They obviously have a desire to see that developer succeed. Disclosure is needed, but the best solution is to just disallow it entirely as company policy, just as Kotaku have now done and as Joystiq have been doing for some time.

Don't most people who write and comment about games have a desire to see developers succeed?

It's not like in Politics where you're picking some kind of side. In general, we're all gamers reporting and commenting on what's going on in gaming; so, we're automatically on the side of hoping developers will make more cool games. I agree with outlets discouraging investment in Patreon while someone is reporting on them, but I do think we shouldn't mistake gaming as something it's not.

People writing about art generally want to see more of it and desire most artists to succeed. That's different from writing about governments or stories of murder. Obviously, someone writing about games probably wants everyone in gaming to succeed, because one succeeding isn't to the detriment of others. I want every developer out there to make great games, and I naturally have an enthusiasm for games simply by the fact that I am here talking about them.

Disclosure of support with something like Patreon or even Kickstarter can help, because it's additional information for people to better understand a story. But I think we should be careful to not try to prevent or discourage gaming news writers and entertainers from being gamers like we all are. In the end, we're all interested in having fun with games, and being an active part of the gaming community goes hand in hand with that.

I think the problem is about what the media are choosing to cover and why. It's a question of if they're serving the interests of their audience or their own interests and that of their friends. The reason this is an issue at the moment is because there is a perception that the developer around which this whole crapfest started receives disproportionate coverage in the media when compared to her actual output as a game developer. There is a large segment of the of the audience that feels that certain developers and games are being pushed on them by the media, and that other developers and their games are just ignored, regardless of quality.

I agree, it's not really about taking sides, but that doesn't mean their can not be hidden agendas.

Games that gaming news writers and commenters like or find interesting naturally receive more coverage, and games that can afford a lot of promotion tend to get more coverage, as well, simply by the sheer amount of content they put out about a game.

Popular games, either by size or interest have always gotten more exposure. Unfortunately, there is a perception amongst some gamers that games they don't like or games that are made by people they don't like shouldn't get as much coverage as games they do like. That difference in preference causes some to feel like the club they were once a part of isn't quite as aligned with them as they might prefer. As those who write and comment about games reveal more and more about themselves and their own preferences, many are finding that they are more different from them than they thought.

I've enjoyed it as gaming news writers and commenters have been more open in recent times, in part because I share many concerns and perspectives a lot of them have, but it makes sense to me that it might distress some who see how they are not as represented by them in some areas of games coverage and commentary.

Most of us share similar feelings on loving games in general, but when social and personal perspectives come in, it makes sense that our differences might be even more divergent than our console and genre preferences. How we strike a good balance between greater personal openness and traditional reporting will continue to be a big part of managing coverage and commentary going forward.

It's absolutely fine for people in the games media to focus on on what interests them. However, they should be disclosing their bias.. If someone likes a game so much that they want to cover it multiple times, then that's fine given the assumption that they're clearly showing a bias that they're in to the game. If they like the developer so much that they decide to pay that developer a monthly sum, not for their game, but just to support them, then the audience has a right to know because it provides important context.

"Popular games" is an interesting notion. The media has the ability to build hype and interest around a game and make it popular. This happens all the time. TotalBiscuit just put up a great video about this, and I thoroughly recommend it. Popularity, of course, is not always an indicator of quality.

As I said, I can totally understand giving people more info on things like Patreon backing or even Kickstarter funding. More understanding is always good. Though, I don't think any of them have to justify them giving some games more coverage because they like them. If the only stake they have in a game is that they think it looks cool, it's natural for them to cover it as they will.

Some people seem to hate the idea of games they don't like getting more coverage than they think they deserve, but that's mistaken. Obviously people writing about games will talk more about the games they are interested in and less about things they aren't. We're on Giant Bomb, and we should be more aware of that reality than most. We may not always or even often feel the same way about what games are and aren't worth the time of day, but that does not invalidate people's coverage or commentary on such games.

Plenty of people in gaming like different games than I do and even get different things out of gaming, and that's okay. Not everyone has to feel the same way as I do about every part of games, and as time goes on, I know I'm going to see even more instances of people with different perspectives from my own covering and commenting on gaming.

#4 Posted by TruthTellah (8803 posts) -

@exfate said:

@truthtellah said:

@exfate said:

@truthtellah: I think Jeff and a lot of other people might be missing the whole point. Patreon isn't about buying a game or any other product. It is basically a donation to a person, with no real liability on their part to produce anything in return. What I'm saying is that supporting a game/product is different to supporting a person. If a journalist is prepared to give a developer money directly in this way, how can we trust them to cover that same developer without bias? They obviously have a desire to see that developer succeed. Disclosure is needed, but the best solution is to just disallow it entirely as company policy, just as Kotaku have now done and as Joystiq have been doing for some time.

Don't most people who write and comment about games have a desire to see developers succeed?

It's not like in Politics where you're picking some kind of side. In general, we're all gamers reporting and commenting on what's going on in gaming; so, we're automatically on the side of hoping developers will make more cool games. I agree with outlets discouraging investment in Patreon while someone is reporting on them, but I do think we shouldn't mistake gaming as something it's not.

People writing about art generally want to see more of it and desire most artists to succeed. That's different from writing about governments or stories of murder. Obviously, someone writing about games probably wants everyone in gaming to succeed, because one succeeding isn't to the detriment of others. I want every developer out there to make great games, and I naturally have an enthusiasm for games simply by the fact that I am here talking about them.

Disclosure of support with something like Patreon or even Kickstarter can help, because it's additional information for people to better understand a story. But I think we should be careful to not try to prevent or discourage gaming news writers and entertainers from being gamers like we all are. In the end, we're all interested in having fun with games, and being an active part of the gaming community goes hand in hand with that.

I think the problem is about what the media are choosing to cover and why. It's a question of if they're serving the interests of their audience or their own interests and that of their friends. The reason this is an issue at the moment is because there is a perception that the developer around which this whole crapfest started receives disproportionate coverage in the media when compared to her actual output as a game developer. There is a large segment of the of the audience that feels that certain developers and games are being pushed on them by the media, and that other developers and their games are just ignored, regardless of quality.

I agree, it's not really about taking sides, but that doesn't mean their can not be hidden agendas.

Games that gaming news writers and commenters like or find interesting naturally receive more coverage, and games that can afford a lot of promotion tend to get more coverage, as well, simply by the sheer amount of content they put out about a game.

Popular games, either by size or interest have always gotten more exposure. Unfortunately, there is a perception amongst some gamers that games they don't like or games that are made by people they don't like shouldn't get as much coverage as games they do like. That difference in preference causes some to feel like the club they were once a part of isn't quite as aligned with them as they might prefer. As those who write and comment about games reveal more and more about themselves and their own preferences, many are finding that they are more different from them than they thought.

I've enjoyed it as gaming news writers and commenters have been more open in recent times, in part because I share many concerns and perspectives a lot of them have, but it makes sense to me that it might distress some who see how they are not as represented by them in some areas of games coverage and commentary.

Most of us share similar feelings on loving games in general, but when social and personal perspectives come in, it makes sense that our differences might be even more divergent than our console and genre preferences. How we strike a good balance between greater personal openness and traditional reporting will continue to be a big part of managing coverage and commentary going forward.

#5 Posted by TruthTellah (8803 posts) -

@exfate said:

@truthtellah: I think Jeff and a lot of other people might be missing the whole point. Patreon isn't about buying a game or any other product. It is basically a donation to a person, with no real liability on their part to produce anything in return. What I'm saying is that supporting a game/product is different to supporting a person. If a journalist is prepared to give a developer money directly in this way, how can we trust them to cover that same developer without bias? They obviously have a desire to see that developer succeed. Disclosure is needed, but the best solution is to just disallow it entirely as company policy, just as Kotaku have now done and as Joystiq have been doing for some time.

Don't most people who write and comment about games have a desire to see developers succeed?

It's not like in Politics where you're picking some kind of side. In general, we're all gamers reporting and commenting on what's going on in gaming; so, we're automatically on the side of hoping developers will make more cool games. I agree with outlets discouraging investment in Patreon while someone is reporting on them, but I do think we shouldn't mistake gaming as something it's not.

People writing about art generally want to see more of it and desire most artists to succeed. That's different from writing about governments or stories of murder. Obviously, someone writing about games probably wants everyone in gaming to succeed, because one succeeding isn't to the detriment of others. I want every developer out there to make great games, and I naturally have an enthusiasm for games simply by the fact that I am here talking about them.

Disclosure of support with something like Patreon or even Kickstarter can help, because it's additional information for people to better understand a story. But I think we should be careful to not try to prevent or discourage gaming news writers and entertainers from being gamers like we all are. In the end, we're all interested in having fun with games, and being an active part of the gaming community goes hand in hand with that.

#6 Edited by TruthTellah (8803 posts) -

For the most part, I like how it is now and the general direction it is going. A lot of the artifice and pretense is going away. Different outlets have their own style, and despite some complaints, I frankly haven't felt like too much has been lacking or I've somehow missed out on much that matters.

I like to look at Giant Bomb and Kotaku, and on occasion, I check Polygon and Destructoid. With just those sources, I see pretty much everything I'm interested in. They all have little issues, but none of them are inherently deficient. Destructoid is a bit old school, but they do have their own irreverent take on things. Kotaku covers most of the stories Destructoid covers along with more art, music, and silly things. They seem to understand that it's okay to be both silly and serious at times, because at the end of the day, we're talking about videogames. This is entertainment that we should be enjoying.

Giant Bomb is more of a video and personalities site, but Patrick and Alex do keep people up-to-date on big things. The whole staff also discuss what is going on in games on the Bombcast and many videos. As far as big stories go, I've seen enough of Patrick to know I trust his coverage, and I understand his particular quirks. Understanding outlets and those who report things is important when considering news and reviews they provide. Jeff's often-mentioned policy of greater trust and understanding through getting to know the people saying things on the site makes a big difference.

The site Polygon, though, still seems to be struggling to find what it wants to be, as their long form articles haven't gotten the reception they appear to have expected. So, they've been mixing things up with more video and less emphasis on those big articles. Which is a shame in a way, because so many people often shout that they want more of such articles. But people don't consume them nearly as much as random stories about the hottest games despite them taking far more effort. It's kind of like the classic game company dilemma of people asking for more of a niche thing and then it not really ending up being financially viable. This is still ultimately a business like any other.

I think gaming news in general is facing similar challenges as all kinds of news have had in recent years, and many have struggled to redefine what kind of news outlet they want to be. Giant Bomb is a newer kind of site that combines fun video and actual commentary on games and gaming. A site like Kotaku rattles off every story imaginable with their own personality added to the mix. Between them, I get both basic information on most things and more opinion and analysis. Talking to commenters at both places also frames stories in the context of the community that cares about them.

As far as recommendations go, I would continue to encourage greater connections to the community and those invested in the sites, and greater openness on people's personal styles and perspectives breeds helpful expectations for understanding what they say and do. We are no longer as disconnected as we were in the past, and personal connections to news sources will continue to be a bigger and bigger part of news. And in gaming news where people are inherently tied together within a fandom, the best avenue is in transparency and understanding of those sharing and commenting on what is going on in gaming, not distancing the people sharing news from what they are reporting.

A mix of simple reporting and opinionated analysis in an upfront and transparent way is what I'd love to continue to see more of in gaming news and commentary.

#7 Posted by TruthTellah (8803 posts) -
@pierre42 said:
Should I pre-ord

Nah.

Unless you really care a lot about the pre-order bonuses and you're confident the game will be great, there is little reason for you to support the institution of pre-ordering games. It sounds like you're cautious; so, as a general rule, I'd recommend holding off on pre-ordering it.

#8 Posted by TruthTellah (8803 posts) -

#9 Posted by TruthTellah (8803 posts) -

@marokai said:

@cagliostro88 said:

I don't follow kotaku, but they stated that they will not allow their writers to fund developers through patreon anymore and to disclose any personal connection between writer and developer if it is such case http://kotaku.com/a-brief-note-about-the-continued-discussion-about-kotak-1627041269

It seems a little like damage control, considering how Nathan Grayson was at the center of the scandal, but I'm happy some of the criticism went actually through all the storm of harrassement and we see some progress. Let's hope other outlets will follow

This is a good step. Polygon has supposedly added some "ethics disclosures" section to their site, though some of their contributors seem to be taking it less than seriously. Nevertheless, it's good that some part of this has actually made it through.

I gotta give it to Totilo, he impressed me. Through all of this he actually acted responsibly and listened to some of the criticism and opinions of what was said in the last week (just acknowledging it and listening to another POV is important) as opposed to some other writers/journalists/critics might have just labelled it as a some sexist tirade and dismissed it as misogyny and went back to everything as usual.

I've been a fan of Totilo for a long time, and I think his posts addressing both the thing with Nathan Grayson and this thing about Patreon have been well done. I know many people aren't a fan of Kotaku, but I have appreciated what his influence has brought in the last few years. I think he knows how to strike a good balance.

Obviously, there is that "sexist tirade and misogyny" angle to a lot of this, but as Patrick has said before about a lot of criticism he has seen, you can still try to find the reasonable concerns beneath all the bullshit. Finding a way to get some good out of even crappy responses is a valuable skill to hone.

#10 Edited by TruthTellah (8803 posts) -

Hopefully this gets fixed in time. Though, if they're still only -targeting- 60 and 1080p at best, that is bound to disappoint many people on PC. I can hardly imagine a scenario where they release a modern PC game with a 1080p max. If Soda Drinker Pro can get higher than 1080p, so can a Ubisoft game.