Ars technica joins the WP discussion

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Like Kotaku, Ars Technica joins the discussion on the Washington Post article. Unlike Kotaku, Ars Technica isn't trying to shift the blame, but goes "honestly, guys, who do we have to blame for the bad rep this gives us other than ourselves?"<blockquote>I had a knot in my stomach after reading this; while I knew this went on, it's still not fun to hear about it laid out like this.

Of course, I'm jealous of things like trips to Vegas and Russia to promote a game, who wouldn't be? But editorial policy at Ars Technica restricts us from accepting free airfare or accommodations though; it makes everyone involved look bad. Even if readers agree with what you say, it's hard to argue how you say it isn't affected by a nice flight, a good hotel, drinks, and food...none of which you paid for. There are lines of course. Everyone accepts review code for games, and I'm not going to turn down the occasional free drink at E3, but what's described in the Washington Post article is excessive.

Here is what I would like to see from my fellow game journalists: if you feel like it's ethical to accept these junkets, or if you think they honestly help your readers, great; but in order to make sure your readers have all the information, if your airfare or room was provided to you, simply say so in the article. That way it's all above board, and everyone has the information about how the coverage was attained.</blockquote>Link: Ars Technica Free plane tickets and lavish parties: how the gaming industry wines and dines the press.

Thanks Briosafreak.
 
What does this line mean: "Everyone accepts review code for games," ?

I wonder if part of the difficulty with journalistic integrity and gaming mags is that they are JUST gaming mags. I mean, if I want an unbought review of a movie, I don't buy a mag devoted entirely to movies. Those mags are by nature fan and hype publications. And, to keep readership, those kinds of mags need to generate a TON of content: exclusives, sneak peaks, behind-the-scenes, etc. Where do they get such content? The studios. A movie review published in a newspaper is just a movie review. The author's job is not in any way dependant on giving a good review.
 
Misteryo said:
What does this line mean: "Everyone accepts review code for games," ?

I assume it means they accept free games to review.

Good article.
 
Well, this seems a lot more honest than the Kotaku article. Still, it goes on, we all know it, so whatever. We can't change how it works, we can only change how we digest these "previews".
 
Just to be clear, dear journalists (and I mean all of you):

I'm not judging your words upon your fancy diners, luxury apartments and hot waitresses paid by anyone. Also, my judgement won't be based on your fire exchanges, as it does looks like now. Nope. Your words can only be judged by your words. What you were saying yesterday, what are you saying today and what are you going to say tomorrow.

Everything else is finesse. A cherry on the top of it.
 
lisac2k said:
Your words can only be judged by your words. What you were saying yesterday, what are you saying today and what are you going to say tomorrow.

Good point. Mind you I'd almost prefer finding out that the reviewers are sell outs rather than that they actually believe the stuff that they're writing about FO3.

Mick
 
Apologists, mostly in the comments of these articles and the Beth forums, keep making the same damn argument: "In my industry we have to wine and dine clients if we want to secure a sale or a contract, so grow up. It's real life."

These aren't CLIENTS or RETAILERS. They're fucking critics. They're being treated, and act, like salesmen for these games. If a movie reviewer was flown from Knoxville to L.A. to see a screening of a film, all of his expenses were paid, and they threw a fucking party for him and the rest of the reviewers, how much credibility would his review have? Of course, by and large they would be less impressionable from dinner and parties than the socially inept children that review video games. That's why they don't screen shitty movies for film critics.
 
Mick1965 said:
lisac2k said:
Your words can only be judged by your words. What you were saying yesterday, what are you saying today and what are you going to say tomorrow.

Good point. Mind you I'd almost prefer finding out that the reviewers are sell outs rather than that they actually believe the stuff that they're writing about FO3.

Mick
I agree. I somehow can't believe that every single one of the "journalists" who's written a preview honestly believes that Oblivion is the pinnacle of RPGs and that Fallout 3 is going to be exactly what diehard Fallout fans are yearning for.

I think they're simultaneously being influenced by the success of Oblivion, Bethesda's fancy-shmansy press events, and their own cluelessness about what makes a Fallout game. Maybe a few of them know that what they're writing is utter tripe, but hey, it pays the bills.
 
Forhekset said:
I agree. I somehow can't believe that every single one of the "journalists" who's written a preview honestly believes that Oblivion is the pinnacle of RPGs and that Fallout 3 is going to be exactly what diehard Fallout fans are yearning for.

Half of them say that, the other half says diehard fans should be ignored because they're all fanatics who want Fallout 2.5 in 640x480 resolution.
And then there are the ones who say we should all die. Painfully.

Boot-licking ass kissers, all of them.
 
Vault 69er said:
And then there are the ones who say we should all die. Painfully.
Mind you, it can't be this guy?!?!

allenrauschnp9.jpg
 
Back
Top