^Actually I didn't think he was that bad to Gerstmann, as Gerstmann in the original Kotaku article tries to act like what they are doing is actually good for the consumer and whining about how hard his work is. The original article makes Gerstmann and other reviewers look pathetic on its own.

But that's not what malstrom is doing, he's referring to those who aren't aware of the disruption shift and aren't reading his articles or blog, those who are praising the games industry

What we all need to ask ourselves, though, is if he'd have written this if Nintendo didn't have the lowest average review scores of this generation? I don't think he would. He's snowballing his conspiracy theory. Having already pointed out (many, many times) that the mainstream industry is evil and also two of this generation's console manufacturers all he needs now is a complete discredit of reviewers to drive home the point.

I know a few of you resent this idea but can't you see where he's going with all his articles in summary? He's almost like a fanboy, blogging version of Michael Moore in my opinion. Dammit, I'm attacking his person and not the points again. Ah well, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he hasn't made a single new point since his first popular articles and is coasting on a large stream of similar write-up's depicting the exact (or almost exact) same thing with the same means to a same end?

You do realize that Maelstrom is responding to a kotaku article ABOUT the ethical concerns of company-paid trips to reviewers/journalists?

and that Gerstmann's comments is IN THAT KOTAKU ARTICLE?

When your going to make an opinion piece about game reviewers/journalists and companies paying their trips to games you have to talk about

1.Game reviewers/journalists

2.The companies

And Maelstrom's article IS ABOUT reviewers/journalists downplaying what is (in his opinion) an ethically wrong situation?

It is like you want Maelstrom to talk about reviewers without talking about reviewers.

^Actually he would, he's bashed Galaxy and the reviews it got incessantly

So your idea that he's just coasting or playing bias for Nintendo is flawed

If a website was about why the Iraq war is wrong, and those who supported it were blind, do you even think it is a legitimate complaint if those who support the iraq war, go read the website, and complain it is its readership?

That is your logic.

Yes, because commenting on game reviewers requires one to talk about soldiers in Afghanistan, as if that has the slightest bit of relevance in regards to Gerstmann not enjoying traveling and being sequestered for a game review.

As I said earlier, Malstrom has a point. The way he wrote it only confirmed that he gets off on being an ass.

^He was pointing out how Gerstmann has no reason to complain, when he has a cushy assignment

It does have relevance if one is calling out reviewers trying to state how difficult their job is, especially how painful it is to go on company-paid trips to review games (with paid hotel, food etc).

Once again i see your twisting stuff to suit your particular bias.

And you complain about Maelstrom doing that.

No, but it was a lot more fun because of it!  Malstrom is trying to get people's attention and it absolutely works.  If he'd written a piece like "Oh, this is missing the point - I don't care if you had fun or not, you're still accepting lavish gifts and that's a conflict of interest." nobody would be posting it in forums.

Lately I've been getting sick of his negative attitude myself.  I prefer the Malstrom that was cocky about Nintendo's success in a way because he was doing something other than whinging.  That said, Malstrom has been in sales and he's definitely selling people on his writings with this over the top stuff.