Isn't that something you would bring up with spdk1?

no? (unless of course he's JJ) but it's not up to me to bring it up.

I'm not clear on how the contributor hierarchy works; as the Features Editor I thought he'd have something to do with editorials.

Theres a disclaimer at the end :-?

Anyway, this particular article may not be that good, but this one I agree with -

http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/82667/stop-supporting-broken-games/

Looks like the guy has balls to say what he wants to say. I respect that.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/75965/ssdninja/

I'm incredibly surprised that people from big gaming sites read the articles here, let alone respond to them. Looks like I missed a lot in the two(?) years I was gone.

I assume the article is in reaction to the writer's favorite of four "major" releases getting less then perfect review scores recently. You know the ones.

My main issue with the article is that he complains about games journalism, then goes off to cite three glorified blogs as what's wrong with it. Joystiq and Kotaku are not IGN and 1up. The sites' intentions are different, and should be judged accordingly

VGChartz or "Gamrfeed" does the misleading stuff more than any site i know, its quite ironic.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had problems with this piece. I wanted to make some comments on it but didn't want to come across as rude. The research on this piece is just so vague that it is almost useless. The research might actually be good, it is just defined so broadly that the piece seems incredibly subjective. Examples are the sections on offensiveness and editorializing. There is not even a definition or discussion of what qualifies an article as being editorialized.

Even the section on coverage could be inaccurate as defined. The piece does not say what classifies an article as covering Nintendo or Microsoft. It is easy to see how an article could be covering EA and Microsft or Nintendo at the same time if EA is making a game for either company's system. The coverage section just seems to ignore the fact that an article can cover more than one topic, and coverage of EA is not opposed to coverage of NIntendo or Microsoft. Those are just some of my issues with the piece. I think the author is touching on some good issues, it just comes across as being poorly researched and poorly explained. 

It was funny to read author attacking Kotaku for non gaming news when that's precisely what characterises their blog as diffrent from milions of other like this.