Malstrom: Game Industry tries to justify corruption

[rocketpig]

vanatos said:

Bobbuffalo said:

scruffybunny said:
Those that agree with Malstorm's points should never ever read a game review again, ever. Those that disagree can find something less infuriating as a pass time.

I stopped reading videogame magazines and reviews way before reading malstrom's articles.

They were too pathetic to read. It was like listening to 20 clones of the Comic Book Guy from The simpsons with lots of homphobic jokes and Nintendo insults.Not to mention they started to use the terms "Hardcore" and "Casual" as we know them nowadays.There are many reasons to despise them.

He's the only person in the mental asylum that is the game industry that makes sense.

People don't like the way he writes? oh boo hoo.

He is right. I know it. You know it. Who cares if he doesn't uses flowers and candies to talk.And yes there are things that I don't agree with him fully but when is about the pathetic game industry and their croonies (game reviewers, analysts, god-like cry-babies developers) he's 100% right.

This generation of gaming has showed how screwed gaming has become. Is good to hear somebody to have his feet on the ground. And I don't give a damn if he talks pretty or not.Focus on the message, not the messenger.

I agree, do you know what ive noticed? Maelstrom is copping the same shit that a certain other person used to (and might still be) copping.

And that was Dan Hsu,he was an editor for EGM, and was the ONLY person i read that directly interviewed a microsoft (iirc) represantative and put actual tough questions, not 'oh whats your next game, oh what features does this game have' bullshit, but something like 'how are you addressing these problems in your etc etc'.

And you know what he got? same shit Maelstrom is getting, 'your being too harsh, stop being mean'.

Fucken stupid.

You'd think someone finally voicing the bullshit in the industry would be met by praise by gamers.

I swore off this thread but you don't see a difference between directly interviewing a guy and asking tough questions that he can respond to versus taking a quote from another website and spinning what the person said?

One is good, tough, ol' fashioned journalism while the other is cheap and petty and smells of the typical "I can get away with saying this because the other guy doesn't have a voice" type of journalism we see rampant on the Interwebz.