Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gaming News
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »Totally forgot about that, but............ wasn't the first game developed by Obsidian and the new one being done by one of the Ubi teams. That gives me some concern.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 28169
Sorry, meant to say they simply gave much better reviews to people they liked and knew. Let's not split hairs. A positive review is really just another way of saying 9/10.
Can you offer some examples of this? I am fully aware of a handful of cases a few years ago where some of their writers offered positive coverage to friends/acquaintances (in non-review articles / blog posts) which the site's editor publicly addressed, but I'm not aware of any allegations or, more importantly, evidence of reviews with 'conflicts of interest'? Certainly not in the last number of years have I seen anything along those lines...
Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again, most great critics (and I think very few if any of the writers in Kotaku fit that bill, incidentally) in all other mediums actively celebrate, analyse and promote the work of artists they like and reflect their own personal world view's in their writing. Personal preferences and robust analysis are if anything essential traits for a good critic, and help raise awareness and understanding of a filmmaker/author/musician's work. Only in gaming is this considered unforgivable 'bias' for some reason
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 28169
Robert ninja wrote: »Stephen Totilo - Kotaku, Editor-in-Chief
Luke Plunkett - Kotaku, Editor
Kirk Hamilton - Kotaku, Editor
Nathan Grayson - Kotaku, Writer
Not a single example of a conflict of interest review there, as was claimed by Sonics2k 0 -
johnny_ultimate wrote: »Not a single example of a conflict of interest review there, as was claimed by Sonics2k
What? They admitted it was an issue even back in 2014 https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2enldd/kotaku_responds_to_the_conflict_of_interest/
It was a well known issue in both Kotaku and Polygon and was one of numerous sparks of the stupid gaming controversy a few years back.
Anyway. I think we can all agree that this is the gaming news thread, and this should be discussed elsewhere, if at all.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 28169
What? They admitted it was an issue even back in 2014 https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2enldd/kotaku_responds_to_the_conflict_of_interest/
It was a well known issue in both Kotaku and Polygon and was one of numerous sparks of the stupid gaming controversy a few years back.
Anyway. I think we can all agree that this is the gaming news thread, and this should be discussed elsewhere, if at all.
Yeah, totally aware of Stephen Totilo's comments on the matter, and indeed the incidents that led to it. Patricia Hernandez was quite rightly required to retroactively reveal her friendship with Anna Anthrophy in a few articles, and Nathan Grayson clarified his position in relation to Zoe Quinn (although the initial allegations were wrapped up in malicious lies and hyperbole). The site clarified and updated their ethics policy quite clearly, and have since seen several examples of writers there very clearly disclosing any potential friendships they have with people they interview etc...
But again none of these incidents were in relation to actual reviews, as you claimed. Sorry if you feel this is splitting hairs - I don't believe it is - but you said they boosted scores and "gave much better reviews to people they liked and knew". I just think that's an incredibly unfair claim to make without any evidence (although I don't think 'liking' a developer and their work is in any way a sin for a reviewer)
I certainly have had my issues with Kotaku in the past - although they've been one of the more open outlets in actively discussing and rectifying concerns - and lord knows that's quadruply so with Gawker (who certainly reaped their own demise with some very poor choices, although I'd also be slightly concerned about the Silicon Valley billionaire's initially anonymous role in the legal campaign against them). But yeah, I don't think claims of actual reviews being actively influenced by writers' relationships is fair or supported by evidence.0 -
johnny_ultimate wrote: »Yeah, totally aware of Stephen Totilo's comments on the matter, and indeed the incidents that led to it. Patricia Hernandez was quite rightly required to retroactively reveal her friendship with Anna Anthrophy in a few articles, and Nathan Grayson clarified his position in relation to Zoe Quinn (although the initial allegations were wrapped up in malicious lies and hyperbole). The site clarified and updated their ethics policy quite clearly, and have since seen several examples of writers there very clearly disclosing any potential friendships they have with people they interview etc...
But again none of these incidents were in relation to actual reviews, as you claimed. Sorry if you feel this is splitting hairs - I don't believe it is - but you said they boosted scores and "gave much better reviews to people they liked and knew". I just think that's an incredibly unfair claim to make without any evidence (although I don't think 'liking' a developer and their work is in any way a sin for a reviewer)
I certainly have had my issues with Kotaku in the past - although they've been one of the more open outlets in actively discussing and rectifying concerns - and lord knows that's quadruply so with Gawker (who certainly reaped their own demise with some very poor choices, although I'd also be slightly concerned about the Silicon Valley billionaire's initially anonymous role in the legal campaign against them). But yeah, I don't think claims of actual reviews being actively influenced by writers' relationships is fair or supported by evidence.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Johnny. I get your point and do understand it, but personally I've seen accusations like this far too often with Kotaku to be a mere coincidence. I personally don't like how they twist their own political beliefs into a video game review and have distorted things to suit their own need as part of Gawker.
In terms of Gawker, I'm happy to see them go. I support free speech completely, but that ends when you start "outing" people as gay before they've had a chance to do so themselves, or releasing celebrity sex tapes. That's not free speech, that's click bait for money.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 28169
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Johnny. I get your point and do understand it, but personally I've seen accusations like this far too often with Kotaku to be a mere coincidence. I personally don't like how they twist their own political beliefs into a video game review and have distorted things to suit their own need as part of Gawker.
Definitely not a 'mere coincidence' - a small handful of definitive incidents have been blown out of all proportion by a sect of people wholly against any 'progressive' or left-leaning influence in the gaming media - 'no politics' often translating to 'no politics I don't like'. Hence 'accusations' that often have no basis in reality. Frankly, even if I do align closer with the site's political leanings (and will always continue to believe it's absurd to think there should be no political or social dimension to game criticism) I don't think the site is particularly worthwhile when it comes to actual criticism, and instead respect many examples of their actual journalistic and news reporting (some examples of which have seen them properly backlisted by the big name corporations).
We can certainly agree to disagree on their political viewpoint, but above all if you're going to criticise them it's only fair to use the examples where they definitively deserve criticism as opposed to hearsay and conjecture. After all, any good journalist would be unwilling - and indeed unable - to post accusations that couldn't be backed up 0 -
Advertisement
-
johnny_ultimate wrote: »Not a single example of a conflict of interest review there, as was claimed by Sonics2k
It is. Primarily it's corruption and secondarily conflict of interest. A lot of it is cronyism. Kotaku have a long list of that.
Patrick Klepek - Kotaku, Writer
Wrote about Jenn Frank, plugging her dishonest "On leaving" article. Although he discloses their personal ties, he doesn't disclose his financial support of Frank.
Wrote about Iron Galaxy studios and their game Divekick without disclosing his personal relationship with the studio's David Lang — defined as "friendly" by Lang himself.
Patricia Hernandez - Kotaku, Senior writer
Wrote two times about Sunset, without disclosing her friendship with fellow journalist and occasional Kotaku contributor Leigh Alexander, who was involved in the game through her consulting company Agency for Games.
Wrote about her former partner Christine Love in three articles, originally disclosing their relationship only in the first. Disclosure was added to both other articles after its absence was publicly pointed out.
Wrote two articles about games by the controversial Mattie Brice, initially disclosing their friendship only in the first one — which is liked in the second. Article was updated with disclosure as well in 2015.
Wrote six times about her roommate Anna Antrophy, originally without disclosure.
Wrote two times promoting Kickstarters by GaymerX, originally without disclosing her friendship with its president Tony Rocca and other staff.
Wrote two times about her friend Zoe Quinn, originally without disclosure.
Chris Suellentrop - Kotaku
Positive coverage of Sacrilege, a Twine game by Cara Ellison, without disclosing he was supporting her financially on Patreon.
And this isn't even talking about their former employees (although I'm guessing almost everyone I've mentioned is to be a former employee given the current news) such as Leigh Alexander whose list of dishonesty, intimidation, corruption, cronyism and collusion would fill this page from a wall-o-text that it already is to a monument-o-text. Also note the points on previously mentioned Kotaku staff are not exhaustive and journos who work for multiple outlets or freelance only haven't been included.
(in starship troopers voice) Would you like to know more?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ori3qL_C8zk
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement