surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
I'll say good writeup, even if I got a bit confused about what you were talking about in the middle of it. I was just writing the makings of a blog trying to read through the hype on an upcomming game when I saw this.
Thanks. I must watch the blogs for this post.
I was just trying to provide a sum of forces upon the problems with hype. Also how it seems muddled secrecy with a gilded layer of said hype is much troubling to everyone, specifically dealing with journalists, as it merely confuses.
It's kind of why I added the picture.
I was just trying to provide a sum of forces upon the problems with hype. Also how it seems muddled secrecy with a gilded layer of said hype is much troubling to everyone, specifically dealing with journalists, as it merely confuses.
It's kind of why I added the picture.
To report objectively whether these hyped games are over hyped or not.
The problem is, how does one determine that objectively? Whether or not someone enjoys a game and feels it lives up to the hype is subjective. That's why I feel most video game "journalists" are really just reviewers/commentators. The site I think most frequently comes close to true objective journalism is GamePolitics, but even they will sometimes inject personal opinion into their stories.
The problem is, how does one determine that objectively? Whether or not someone enjoys a game and feels it lives up to the hype is subjective. That's why I feel most video game "journalists" are really just reviewers/commentators. The site I think most frequently comes close to true objective journalism is GamePolitics, but even they will sometimes inject personal opinion into their stories.
To report objectively means that one has no vested interested as to the outcome of the story at hand. Of course a writer writes with the intent to report, but the journalist should use their best ability to determine whether the game is good. It is up to the reader to determine whether they have good taste or judgment in terms of reporting quality.
However, hype doesn't really come under those tow banners. One investigates (or at least asks questions) to find such comments about upcoming games. In commentating or reviewing, the subject matter isn't the game, but the instance the hype occurred. Under what circumstances were these words uttered? By whom? Why would they do such a thing? That one is obviously the telling factor, but usually you use facts to reach the why, bias comes out of finding facts from some assumption about the future why.
"Why did the puppy run into the road?"
"Because puppies are dumb."
"No, maybe cause there was a bicyclist scared him into the road and he had no other choice. That is why this puppy is no more."
Or are you looking at a video game as a single developing concept, which over time builds. Such as "hype, demo, preview, review, and then commentary." As one single linear event like any football game?
I can understand that, but what about the fact that apart from a single football game, where everything that happens on the field makes that specific game the story, how about everything in between? Reporting on a star quarterback's injury is not commentating nor is it reviewing. That is where journalism steps in, where opinion and narration bow out. It seems that there can be a video game journalist in this sense, but hype is phenomenon of an industry, not a product thereof, which is what I'd like to investigate. Where it itself stands in journalism, especially for video games, since this is a video game web site.
Sorry about the severely long reply, but I'm all loose in my writing since this semester is finally beginning to wind down.
"Why did the puppy run into the road?"
"Because puppies are dumb."
"No, maybe cause there was a bicyclist scared him into the road and he had no other choice. That is why this puppy is no more."
Or are you looking at a video game as a single developing concept, which over time builds. Such as "hype, demo, preview, review, and then commentary." As one single linear event like any football game?
I can understand that, but what about the fact that apart from a single football game, where everything that happens on the field makes that specific game the story, how about everything in between? Reporting on a star quarterback's injury is not commentating nor is it reviewing. That is where journalism steps in, where opinion and narration bow out. It seems that there can be a video game journalist in this sense, but hype is phenomenon of an industry, not a product thereof, which is what I'd like to investigate. Where it itself stands in journalism, especially for video games, since this is a video game web site.
Sorry about the severely long reply, but I'm all loose in my writing since this semester is finally beginning to wind down.
Again, determining whether or not a game is "good" can not be objective any more than reviewing films, books, or any other form of media. It is completely dependant on the reviewer's personal tastes.
Objective reporting has to be based on solid facts, such as "Halo 3 was released in North America on September 25th, 2007." Saying that the game lived up to the hype or not is going to vary according to who on who you ask. I might think Halo 3 or SSB:Brawl was ridiculously overhyped, while another person could feel they were somehow underhyped. Objective opinion is an oxymoron.
Objective reporting has to be based on solid facts, such as "Halo 3 was released in North America on September 25th, 2007." Saying that the game lived up to the hype or not is going to vary according to who on who you ask. I might think Halo 3 or SSB:Brawl was ridiculously overhyped, while another person could feel they were somehow underhyped. Objective opinion is an oxymoron.
whoops, I switched it up "In reporting (not commenting or reviewing), the subject matter isn't the game..."
Amazingly this is will be short. Reviewing a game based upon "internal" hype is ridiculous. My story's point is not that, it's more about whether it's truly useful to mention what a developer said.
No, this is a great discussion, I'm enjoying it. I think whether or not it's appropriate to mention a publisher or developer's claims in a game review is one of those things that should be determined on a case by case basis. For example, "Peter Molyneux/John Romero/Jade Raymond said this game would be the best ever and I think it's not!" is usually silly to bring up. However, if a publisher promises specific content up to the day of release (such as a functioning multiplayer mode) and fails to deliver this, that is something that should definitely be touched on in a review.
Good point. I guess in terms of future reference it's important for the readership to keep in mind. Hm.
Yeah, I guess appropriate behavior is up to the journalist. It comes down to the old scenario of, "WILL this be more helpful than hurtful?" If it is not helpful and you're wrong, then learn from that mistake.
Yeah, I guess appropriate behavior is up to the journalist. It comes down to the old scenario of, "WILL this be more helpful than hurtful?" If it is not helpful and you're wrong, then learn from that mistake.
