[ SECRET POST #2868 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2868 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 075 secrets from Secret Submission Post #410.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

But would "fixing" entertainment journalism really make that happen? People don't keep going to see movies with recognizable names or buying reboots because they were talked into it by a journalist. They do it because it's familiar (so they think they have some idea of what they're getting into, as opposed to trying out something completely new, which could burn them) and because they remember liking the original or the actor or what-have-you. And studios keep making them not because of the journalists, but because they sell (and they sell, again, because they're familiar). Riding the coattails of a successful predecessor or a successful actor is safe. And when we're talking about major motion picture and video game studios, we're talking about businesses that are going to want to play it safe to guarantee returns.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, it theoretically could. If gaming journalism was fixed to talk more about the content flaws and such, and be truthful, people can have a better idea of what they're going into.

See: how many people got pissed off at DMC reboot, again, because of just how it was virtually a different game with names slapped on.

Maybe it's wishful thinking. But if the content became more important in gaming journalism, and there was a push to research from legit sources, then we wouldn't have so many horrible reboots and more content that's, well, good. because very few reboots are actually good, I've found.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I really don't think content would improve much if at all if journalism improved (and I can say I pretty distinctly remember reading a lot of things about the content of the new DMC, and all of it made it pretty clear that it was gonna be very different. Maybe I just got lucky, or maybe there were more pieces misrepresenting it than talking about what it was actually about, but I remember a lot of people being upset about it before it was even released). A lot of people who buy these games (and go to the movies) don't do the kind of reading that's suggested by what you're saying. They make the decision to purchase a game/go to a movie/read a book based on a far more superficial understanding of what it's going to be about.

I think the bigger reason why games don't seem to be of as high a quality is because they're being bought by a much wider swathe of people than they used to be, and the majority of those people are, for lack of a better word, "casual."

[(Anonymous)]

But there are already outlets that analyze video games critically (Polygon, for example) and try to present balanced and objective reviews based on content. (Btw, do you know what they get when they criticize a popular IP? Threats from gamers.) Critical voices in games journalism have always existed.

It's not a coincidence that gamer gaters very rarely talk about actual video game reviewing.

[(Anonymous)]

pfft

you mean the site that posts this sort of crap: http://40.media.tumblr.com/cb5c9343d49dec5478b2acc85718ccbb/tumblr_nab3fiJOeg1re1sgdo1_500.png

critically my ass

[(Anonymous)]

here's some more critical thoughts from gaming journalism's finest: http://41.media.tumblr.com/83b2d9f4391871376e1e8429490dbe81/tumblr_n9m5gpC2cJ1re1sgdo3_500.png

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I don't know why you're blaming gaming journalism for DMC. Capcom was disappointed that DMC4 wasn't a megahit. As far as I recall, every review of it was very honest about its flaws (level design, story full of holes, hell, Dante himself was the biggest disappointment). No one gave DMC4 a pass because of its name, not after the disaster that was 2.

But Capcom ignored all the valid crit those reviews presented and decided to simply start over. After the first trailer debuted everyone from journalists to fans said it was a bad idea, and Capcom went ahead anyway. And what happened is exactly what everyone said would happen: the game was fine, most reviews admitted it was a good action game, but a lot of people left it alone because it wasn't what they wanted. We all voted with our money on that one. They're not going to follow up on DMC.

So what do the journalists have to do with it?