The lights are on
Veteran Member - Level 13
Yes, it is time for yet another installment in the never-ending saga that is the stupidity of some game journalism critics.
I don't mean stupidity *of* the critics. What I'm talking about is those who disagree with said game reviewers and claim that they must be company shills for some gaming company.
Yesterday, after finishing my achievements post, I was reading through the first couple of pages of Game Informer articles on the home page. While doing that, I found Andrew Reiner's post extolling the virtues of the Sleeping Dogs open world.
I have been hiding a secret from you all. I've been giving hints about it, but none of you have probably realized this. I'm actually a big fan of the game. Shocking, I know! I'm big with these out of the blue revelations.
Anyway, since I am a fan, I had to read it and revel in what Andrew was saying, nodding in total agreement. I even read through all of the comments, which I normally don't do for news stories. This is where I saw something that sent my annoyance meter to overload.
User "Ed" (if that is his real name) disagreed with Reiner (it's on Page 2 of the comments), saying that the open world was incredibly boring to explore, fighting the groups of bad guys around some of the lockboxes and in the drug busts is repetitive, and the health shrines only let you absorb a "hit or two" extra (which is totally wrong, but anyway...). He said much more than that, of course. I'm just saving myself about 1000 words (ok, I exaggerate...a bit). He then said this, which is what has set me off (bolding is mine):
"There is literally nothing interesting to do in this open world, and I find it hard to believe that you, Mr. Reiner, disagree. Are you sure this article isn't some sort of required advertisement for Sleeping Dogs or something? There's no way anyone can find the open world in the game interesting or fun to explore. "
(The best movie of all time, and I'm not a Jeff Bridges shill, Ed)
Ok, disagree with Andrew all you want. Find it hard to believe that somebody as wonderful, thoughtful, and intelligent as Andy may actually find some enjoyment out of all that (is that enough sucking up?). But seriously? Accusing him of being a Square Enix shill? Because he likes some stuff that you don't, Ed?
Have we seriously graduated from accusing games journalists of selling reviews to now accusing them of selling positive web articles?
Hey, Ed. You may have heard of something, though maybe not. You obviously haven't absorbed it, even if you have heard of it.
It's called an "opinion." I realize that there are a lot of letters in that word, but do keep up. See, everybody has one of these things. Some of us have a lot of them! Some of us think that Tiffany is better than Debbie Gibson (Empty Chair: "There you go with the ancient references again"). While I think that those people are missing a few brain cells, I don't believe that Tiffany actually paid them to say that.
(Seriously, Debbie is so much better)
It's really getting old. I'm getting sick and tired of seeing games journalists being accused of being shills. Does it happen? Very probably. Is the fact that somebody gave a glowing review to a game that you don't like proof that they are a shill? Hell no! Does somebody actually saying something nice about a game that you disagree with mean that the game company is holding the journalist's family hostage in order to force him or her to write only positive things?
Hmmmmm....no, no, no, no, NO!
People are free to enjoy something that you don't, Ed. They might not have any ulterior motive to that enjoyment other than having better taste than you.
Yes, games journalism is rife with sensationalism. See many of the posts and articles on "controversial" topics. But sensationalism is an attempt to get readers and hits. It's not saying positive things about a game so that they can get a little more money from the game's publisher.
It's idiotic things like this which cause me to get hot under the collar.
And I've worn out way too many shirts that way recently.