I must be ignorant here - what exactly does 'burning out' in this context imply? That can't be a psychological phenomenon that hits different people the same way. Is it working until you pass out? Working so hard up to a point that you are unable to function in performing that task thereafter? I'd appreciate if someone could help me understand why exactly this is something that could be considered remarkable or commendable.
In this context "burning out" means that you've dealt with things like crunch and unpaid overtime for so long that you quit the game industry entirely. Talent retention is a huge problem in the game industry because more experienced workers tend to also have personal responsibilities like families and homes that they can't keep leaving at the drop of a hat to make a deadline. They also can't just uproot their family because a company went out of business or they were let go after a release. So after putting up with game industry nonsense in their early 20s and 30s, a lot of experienced devs leave the industry for higher-paying and more stable jobs in other software industries. This creates an experience vacuum in the industry since the people with the most experience are constantly leaving, only to be replaced by young folks with a lot of passion and little experience.
In some cases burning out is working to the point of physical break, but it's often an emotional breaking point where the toll of a video game job is no longer worth the sacrifice.
@ez123: It matters if a 2/5 (or 40% if you insist) on this site is a passing grade (a low passing grade, but a passing grade none the less) and a gigantic, red-flag-inducing failure on another site. Making the two numbers directly comparable does not make the messaging equivalent.
Think of it this way: if school A had a passing grade of 20% and school B had a passing grade of 60%, you can't compare a 40% from school A with a 40% from school B. If you get a 40% from school A, you still get to graduate. If you get anything less than a 60% from school B, you fail and the different scores below 60% are just variations on failure.
Comparing GB's scoring system with average critic and metacritic scores is a pure exercise in frustration. The messaging of the two scales don't line up , even if the numbers do.
@mike: I know Jeff said something like that on twitter but it doesn't really make sense. 2/5 and 40% would mean the same thing if metacritic didn't exist at all.
The problem with assigning a score of 40% to a 2/5 star review is that the only score on the GB scale that means "DO NOT PLAY EVER" is the 1 star review. On most other game sites, a score below a 70% means that the game is generally something you want to avoid and a score below a 50% is likely equivalent to a GB 1 star review. So trying to equate the two scales by conforming the numbers doesn't actually conform the message the review is trying to convey. It's an exercise that only muddles the message of how GB uses it's 5 star scale.
I added pictures of the long lost merch that Rorie is chipping in to the GBCER prize pool! thanks again to the GB staff for helping so much with this year's event!
For all of the people in these comments claiming to have the smoking gun on Alison Rapp, you clearly didn't even listen to the Beastcast discussion if you think that's going to change the crew's opinions of the situation. They commented on the digging and the harassment, not whether Nintendo was justified in letting her go. They were talking about support and timing, not whether she should have been allowed to stay with the company despite whatever dirt her harassers found.
The problem wasn't with Nintendo's decision. It was with the timing of their decision and the lack of support they showed their employee during a months long harassment campaign.
thatpinguino's comments