VinnyVania: Bloodstained - Part 01
No Gods, No Kings. Only Chainsaws... and Friends
Nov 9, '16
Videos Playing FromThe Archive. 24/7.
6 days ago
591: WOLF MERLIN WOLF
07/18/2019 - Mordhau
Breakfast 'N' Ben
6 hours ago
Streets of Rogue
11 hours ago
The Giant Beastcast
Flagpole Sitta Midi Files with Jeff and Ben
Giant Bombcast Aftermath!
592: Extra Ribcage Edition
2 days ago
The Community Spotlight 2019.07.13
5 days ago
The Community Spotlight 2019.07.06
The Community Spotlight 2019.06.29
The Community Spotlight 2019.06.22
Giant Bomb At Nite Tee (2019)
New Logo Charcoal Tee
1C Logo Black Hoodie
New Logo Mug
User Lists: 1
@casepb: I'm critical because I'm a critic.
@engineno9: Normally I don't like to respond to comments like this, but I take umbrage with the notion that I ever go into games wanting to hate them. I don't. Sometimes games people call out as bad surprise me, and I always try to keep an open mind when initially playing any game. Devil's Third is not such a game.
I've played a lot of bad games in my career, so I try to reserve my actual distaste for stuff that warrants it, and Devil's Third warrants it. This is one of the worst things I've played all year. If we were having GOTY deliberations now instead of a few weeks ago, I'd have raised this as a viable contender for worst game of the year. I don't think it would have made it to the top three, but we would have had a conversation about it.
Just because something is working mostly as intended doesn't mean it can't be awful. Devil's Third seemingly works mostly as intended, and the way it's intended to work is awful.
@benmo316: No, I said at the top that it does feature tilt controls.
@existence: We have a ton of GOTY work going on this week, especially on the video editing side, so we unfortunately won't be able to resume our Life Is Strange playing for a while.
@threeoct: Yes, correct, got my math wrong there. But yeah, based on the lineage there, I can't imagine it's him.
@strikerz: I definitely considered that, but I read up on Jacob's history and he eventually gets married and becomes grandfather to Lydia, so unless they're gonna take a hard turn at the end of this thing, I don't think it can be him.
@dudeglove: I don't really have a lot to say about anything in your post because to be honest, my defense of what Totillo's post explained has very little to do with Kotaku or Gawker in particular, and a lot more to do with having worked for outlets that have experienced similar "blacklistings" for issues of similar, or even less significance (IE bad review scores, and the like). I've seen this go down many times over and I find it personally frustrating whenever it does.
Despite having multiple friends who have, and do still currently work for Gawker, I certainly still have my issues with that company and aspects of its direction. All of their sites have done great work at various times, but there have certainly been a number of stories they've published over the years that grossed me out to no end.
If you want to take umbrage with Totillo's post because of whatever's been happening with Gawker of late, sure. But for me, it's not that this happened to Kotaku. It's that this sort of thing has happened to all of us who cover games at various points over the years, and I can easily identify with the frustration he's described.
@sammo21: As I've said in other replies in the comments here, it's not illogical for a company to cut off a company that they feel has "harmed their brand" or whatever. But A. I still think cutting off a company without so much as a word to say "we no longer want to work with you" is lousy and, yes, petulant, and B. These grudges don't stop outlets from writing about your company. You can restrict access via official channels, but it doesn't solve leaks, nor does it prevent them from ultimately covering your games.
@humanity: No problem, man. I understand where the disconnect is here, and I'm not upset if people thought my stance was unusually hard or dismissive of the publisher's perspective. I just have some strong feelings on this one, as someone who's had to go and buy a number of games by publishers who were mad at us at various points, usually just for us doing our jobs. Giving us the silent treatment never solved anything. Talking it out usually did.
@humanity: Again, I'm not suggesting what Bethesda and Ubisoft did here was illogical. It's not illogical to cut off relations with a company you are upset with. But I also think cutting off a major outlet for long periods of time because of something like this ultimately gets you nowhere. You know what's happened in every case I've ever seen of a publisher getting mad and cutting off an outlet? They reconcile. Eventually. It always happens. Even with the most mercurial companies, the bridge eventually gets rebuilt.
Publishing this story might be the thing that starts that rebuilding process, or it might just harden their resolve even more. I have no idea. I've never seen an outlet discuss something like this in such a forthright way, so I don't know what the end result will be.
There is a convention in the industry that things told to you off the record are not fair game to just be published. Like, we do adhere to some measure of decorum there. But when assets/information comes to you in the form it did in these leaks, that's a different situation. I don't think there's a definitive right/wrong answer to those situations. It's entirely up to the outlet to weigh the likelihood of anger from the publisher vs. the benefit of publishing.
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment