Re: 1st HL2 game memories from 2004...

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 11:36:25 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

But part of the problem also lies with the audience, who /demand/ day
one reviews. The only way this is possible is if the reviewers are in
direct contact with the publishers, which leads to a worry about
LOSING that contact if the reviewers say the wrong thing. And even if
the reviewers are trying to be objective and avoiding this sort of
conflict of interest, the very fact that they have to rush to get
their review out to meet the publisher's release date (often running
pre-release code to boot!) is problematic. Gamers' obsession with
getting the game right away is part of the problem.

Exactly. In the afforementioned article I wrote about Gerstmann, this was
my primary point. The main problem was the audience, not the
publications. To wit:

What is at issue is credibility and the collected ire of the
readership. The perceived integrity of the gaming publications
business is clearly not in good shape. This is independent of its actual
integrity, which is fine, given the audiences the publications are
serving. It seems that a large portion its audience is ready and
willing to believe that publications and editors have given up
integrity in the name of more profitable relationships with their
sponsors. When the public faith in game reviewers is at that sort of
low, it doesn't matter if there is journalistic integrity or not.
Readers will believe anything they want about the subject, _a priori_.

As you say, the audience demanded too much. Then they turned on the
publications when they couldn't keep up. Then they turned to Ben
"Yahtzee" Croshaw, who was constantly taking the piss but was thought to
give "honest" reviews.

I didn't get what I deserved, but the royal "we" sure did. Actual
corruption took root eventually.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten