|
AriadneThread posted:don't worry, the writer will do something This is really not bad. And I hadn't realized you could do something like this with Twine.
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Yeah, there are good options if you are thinking of computer games. But when it comes to console games, unless your game is emulated, you are out of luck. And emulation is really, really hard to do well, the more stringent your accuracy requirements are. This interview with someone who is dead set on perfectly emulating the SNES is very illuminating in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Everblight posted:I think this is probably germane to the discussion: Please take this kind of posting out of D&D, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
I've been reflecting on some of the posts here, and I have to wonder: now that we have the possibility of seeing people review a game on Youtube, with all the live gameplay footage that entails, is there really a need for written reviews, as opposed to critiques? I know that if a game comes to me through other than "this is good" word-of-mouth, what gets me to play a game is seeing people actually play through the start of it, and their reflections as they play. I also know that I rarely read anything by games media, IGN or Kotaku, especially not when I'm making the decision of whether or not to play a game.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Well, that's the whole point of Polygon - sell long-form editorial content to The Millennials (tm) by coating it in slick marketing and aesthetics. I don't think there's going to be an enormous market for that going forwards, but certainly enough of one to support a few major publications. But yeah, your average 14 year old CoD player has moved on to Youtube and Twitch Have Millennials (pat. pend.) not moved on to Youtube and Twitch, as well, except watching entirely different videos from different reviewers? Or possibly the same ones when those are covering different genres?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Reviews can be as wrong as any other opinion statement is. Plenty of people have opinions s that are "wrong" in the sense that everyone with a lick of sense disagrees. Opinions can also be morally or ethically wrong (for example, racist opinions), can be ruled wrong by someone else with a different opinion and more authority (judicial opinions that are overturned), or can be premised on facts that are demonstrably false (don't sail to China! You'll go over the edge!) I'd summarize it by saying that reviews are open to critique, and critiques are open to critique in turn. It's critiques all the way down.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I think you'll have a full spectrum from long-form editorial content, maybe even something approaching the prestige of a book review periodical, down to the Youtube critic personalities like the Nostalgia Critic or the British guy with rear end cancer and finally to people playing Minecraft and making wacky faces for an audience of 13 year olds. That sounds like you're talking about critique. I'm really talking about reviews, as in a summary that is supposed to answer the question: "do I want to play this", as opposed to critique, which is where I would expect more of "how does this fit within the context of the genre and/or society at large." quote:Polygon seems pretty successful, I think the great die-off of written game journalism has already happened and we're in a fairly sustainable state, as long as you don't expect to be paid anything for being a critic I don't feel like uncompensated content creation is sustainable, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I don't think you can really separate the two. Consumer Reports style 'should you buy this Y/N' reviews is a fake category made up by nerds who can't stand to see their toys be criticized. So Consumer Reports is a fake category?  quote:And I think it is sustainable. Big outfits like Polygon can afford to pay (some) people, midlevel people use Patreon, Pewdiepie begs on the street from 12 year old children and does well for himself. If the market says the price of content is nearly free that's what it is Much like with teaching, though, if the market says the price is low to an unsustainable level, eventually people will stop doing it. Polygon is one outfit who can afford to pay X amount of people. Since everything's on the internet, you don't need more than one or two such outfits to cover everybody. Where does the money come from? How do people eat? None of the models you're describing is sustainable in a world where potentially everybody in the English-speaking world is competing with Pewdiepie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I'd argue it's unhelpful in many cases. And it won't stop the nerd rage from happening as soon as their first beloved AAA gets a no buy rating for "political" reasons. I don't really care whether it affects nerd rage or not. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I get that, but the point is it's a bad plan since the compromise from a more substantial review. You lose the fidelity of being able to suggest anything other then buy or not, and the main offenders will still cause trouble as soon as their AAA ego replacement isn't praised. I don't think you're going to lose anything by more clearly labeling what the aim of your piece is. If it's a review there is an expectation that this was written with the view of whether or not it is worth playing, with conditionals on what genres and gameplays the reader likes. For example, I would expect a review of Undertale to focus on the effectiveness of the main mechanics in drawing the player in, while it would not be out of place for a critique to talk almost entirely about how the game is inspired by Homestuck and Toby Fox's experiences within that community. The latter would be out of place as anything more than a side-note in a review. I think those are reasonable expectations. Edited for clarity(?) V for Vegas posted:There are still written pieces that straddle the line between review and critique that kind of have to be thought about and written down - not just narrated on the fly. When you read a review like something from Tom Chick you get a point of view on a part of the game you wouldn't have necessarily thought of or been able to articulate yourself. I always like reading his reviews as he has a deep knowledge of games and usually teases out a certain feature or mechanic in the game and explains why he likes or dislikes that particular aspect. Interesting to see that he is attempting to start a direct funding model via Patreon (doing pretty good on $1,700 a month already). I have never read anything by Chick. Could you suggest one to start with? I have noticed that Patreon is becoming more and more common as a funding model among critique creators. I hope it works out. Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Oh god, CineD is leaking into D&D. Yeah, how about we not derail too much towards film analysis/review/criticism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:They're all at his site - here's the list http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/review-list/ Thanks! I will be sure to give them a read.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
Satire can be good, and yet quite a few people don't get it. That's the risk in satire, irony, really anything humorous that requires critical thinking by the audience.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 01:55
|
|