My good friend Grim
just showed me this article by the Daily Texan's Hudson Lockett. Lockett poo poo's all over Gametrailers TV, stating the show is full of misinformation and is completely unorganized, yet manages to shit all over himself in presenting any proof to his claim that the show is such.
In the article, he says that Gametrailers TV is a "bad show, paved with good intentions." If he were talking about the stupid non-gaming bitch of a cohost that Keighley has on the show with him, I'd be willing to agree, but instead Lockett says that the thirty minute game show fails to "encapsulate relevant gaming news and analysis."
Okay, I'm game Mr. Lockett (if that is your real name, it sure does sound like a spiffy fake name, like Jim Sterling or I used to be on Road Rules
). Let me know what, in your opinion, makes Gametrailers TV a mega failure.
While commentary comes from generally respectable sources, some appear uninformed about certain subjects. Shane Satterfield, editor-in-chief of Gametrailers.com, is particularly noteworthy. No one buys the Wii as their primary console," Satterfield said of Nintendo's popular platform, ignoring the company's appeal to a demographic that doesn't usually play video games. Satterfield insisted that the Wii is bought largely in addition to competing consoles rather than on its own.
Okay...so your argument is that because an EDITOR has an EDITORIAL OPINION, he is wrong?
My fair Communitoid, I ask you this: how many of you own ONLY a Wii? How many of you consider the Wii to be your PRIMARY (read: most played video game system on a weekly basis overall) game system. Nintendo fanboys need not apply, I already know what you're going to say.
Alright, so one strike so far, Mr. Lockett. Let's see what else you've got.
Meanwhile, the show's featured previews are essentially ads. A segment for "MLB '08: The Show" adeptly points out, "Baseball wouldn't be baseball without the teams, players and stadiums." Perhaps most telling is the narrator's suggestion that the game will drop "just in time for the new season." Each preview also points to more substantial coverage at the program's partner site, Gametrailers.com.
Uh...so is this an argument? You're saying they fail because they preview games, and tell people to go to their site to watch more content? Thank god you're on the scene, Matlock!
How could a preview of a video game be anything other than a fucking ad for the game? The point of a preview is to allow consumers to see the game before it comes out, give them what the game hopes to achieve gameplay and etc wise at retail, and then allow the consumer to decide for themselves whether or not they want to buy the game. Had it been a REVIEW, I'm sure it would have featured a grading scale comparable to stars 1 to 5, or llama's balancing on a ball, whatever your feeble mind needs to process information of whether a game is bad or not.
Also, they TEND to release sports games near the start of that particular game's season. You know, when the most rabid fan is willing to buy whatever assorted goodie there is out there that is associated with their beloved team. That's called a marketing strategy, Mr. Lockett. If they released a baseball game during football season, the game would probably not sell very well, I would imagine.
Thirdly, the show is, as you already stated, thirty minutes long. Obviously they can't fit EVERYTHING they want about the game into the show, otherwise they wouldn't have time for anything else. Also, considering Gametrailers.com came BEFORE Gametrailers TV, why the hell wouldn't they link to their own damn site? I'm sure your business card reads "Jackass, Journalist for Dailytexanonline.com." Or do you just bring printed out versions of everything you've ever written everywhere with you, so people don't have to fully research your bullshit on their own?
Okay, so that's two strikes, Mr. Lockett. Your closing paragraph is about how Keighley is a "competent proponent of video games as a respectable medium." (unlike you, who is a competent example of why children shouldn't eat paint chips as a child) Then you poopoo on his show by using his own quote about Mass Effect to sum up. Brilliant, I'm sure you were on the Dean's list at whatever technical school you attended to get your writing degree. (DeVry FTW!)
So that leaves us with two strikes though, doesn't it? What could I possibly come up with to add for the final three strikes?
Your third and final strike has to do with that picture you used to accompany your article. What the fuck does it have to do with anything? EA and Rockstar are never mentioned once, not even Best Buy is mentioned. Nor pricing, alphabetical order in retail stores, games you wish you could play if you didn't have the intellect of a marmoset. I don't get it, and I'm sure you don't either. Thank god for the subquote to explain to me what the fuck it was, but even then, why use it? Did you just buy a new camera that day and that was the first picture you took with it? You're a regular fucking Savant, but even he can read better than you.
Mr. Lockett, three strikes and you're out. If you were trying to encapsulate relevant reporting of a television show about gaming, or wanted to comment on video game tv shows and how they confuse you with their bright colors and talking hosts, you failed on both accounts. I blame your breakneck pacing and unfocused format for it.
[Via Fucking Idiots
, thanks Grim!]