Topic: The PATHETIC state of the gaming 'media'

[BlackNMild2k1]

But anyway I can't think of ANY Wii third party game, mature or not, that I think would have been a big deal on the PS360 and bombed on the Wii.

Deadspace
....no that wasn't a big deal on PS360 and they changed the genre of Wii version

Dead Rising
....no they gimped the hell out of the Wii version on that too, not to mention it was really late

Modern Warfare
....LOL 2 years late and buried under the MW2 advertising

Raving Rabbids
....no that bombed on the PS360 not the Wii

Final Fantasy
....no that's really not the same game

You know what, I can't think of any either.

[broodwars]

I might put Silent Hill: Shattered Memories as a game that would do well on the PS3/360 but not on Wii just because it's a familiar name on those platforms and a new IP on Wii.

[Peachylala]

Considering the game is a first on Nintendo, I would agree with Broodwars. But will it sell well on the other systems? The last few game in the SH franchise weren't that great, and weren't that popular.

[Deguello]

So are they really trolling?  Not really. Just delivering the content their audience wants.

Apparently not.  That's quite a lot of site traffic they've lost since 2008.  Maybe they do have an agenda to troll the Wii in exchange for Site hits.  What's funny is I don't think it worked.  Again, any publicity is not always good publicity.

If you read the comments on the Wii is lazy article, clearly the vast majority say somthing like " right on, I've got a Wii too and I couldn't agree more.".

Participant bias.  You don't know if that's all they people that read or listened to it.  Considering their site didn't get any worthwhile bump, I can imagine anybody disgusted with it would leave, make no post,  and never come back.  If you take a consumer behavior class, they'd teach you the those are the most dangerous consumers, because they'll leave without telling you why, leaving you with a smaller group of nothing but praising sycophants which will give the impression of doing a good job when in reality you've just sealed yourself inside a posh coffin.

[Peachylala]

I had no idea fan fiction made good articles.

[D_Average]

Apparently not.  That's quite a lot of site traffic they've lost since 2008.  Maybe they do have an agenda to troll the Wii in exchange for Site hits.  What's funny is I don't think it worked.  Again, any publicity is not always good publicity.

If you read the comments on the Wii is lazy article, clearly the vast majority say somthing like " right on, I've got a Wii too and I couldn't agree more.".

Participant bias.  You don't know if that's all they people that read or listened to it.  Considering their site didn't get any worthwhile bump, I can imagine anybody disgusted with it would leave, make no post,  and never come back.  If you take a consumer behavior class, they'd teach you the those are the most dangerous consumers, because they'll leave without telling you why, leaving you with a smaller group of nothing but praising sycophants which will give the impression of doing a good job when in reality you've just sealed yourself inside a posh coffin.

A posh coffin that's made them a lot of cash the last decade.  But I guess that their days are short lived since most gamers will now probably go to Malstrom and Jack Loftus for non pathetic articles.  Guess I'm screwed.

[Peachylala]

Can't spell IGNorant without IGN.

Can't have money hats on the interwebs without trolling the Wii nowadays.

[Deguello]

Apparently not.  That's quite a lot of site traffic they've lost since 2008.  Maybe they do have an agenda to troll the Wii in exchange for Site hits.  What's funny is I don't think it worked.  Again, any publicity is not always good publicity.

If you read the comments on the Wii is lazy article, clearly the vast majority say somthing like " right on, I've got a Wii too and I couldn't agree more.".

Participant bias.  You don't know if that's all they people that read or listened to it.  Considering their site didn't get any worthwhile bump, I can imagine anybody disgusted with it would leave, make no post,  and never come back.  If you take a consumer behavior class, they'd teach you the those are the most dangerous consumers, because they'll leave without telling you why, leaving you with a smaller group of nothing but praising sycophants which will give the impression of doing a good job when in reality you've just sealed yourself inside a posh coffin.

A posh coffin that's made them a lot of cash the last decade.  But I guess that their days are short lived since most gamers will now probably go to Malstrom and Jack Loftus for non pathetic articles.  Guess I'm screwed.

Is this supposed to mean anything?  Isn't money "not everything" and not an indicator of quality?  Isn't a main indicator of "brainwashed" Nintendo fanboys that they talk about "profit" instead of game quality?  Who's "brainwashed" now?

Ironically, IGN has disdain for Nintendo making money.  So why should anybody care if IGN does when they meltdown and troll everybody?  Why should that excuse their elitist insulting behavior when it doesn't even excuse Nintendo making New Super Mario Bros?

And LOL "a lot of cash."  Plz 2 B researching before posting.  Being a subsidiary of NewsCorp is not "a lot of cash."  They got bought out because they sold out.  But I guess selling out isn't so bad when you're not Nintendo, eh, even if Nintendo's only called that for making games those other sell-outs don't like.

EDIT: Who is this Jack Loftus guy?  The whole point in creating a strawman is that you take a familiar, yet unpopular person or label and use that as the easily reviled strawman in place of the position.  But who is this guy?  Is he some random blogger?  Why is he mentioned in the same breath as IGN as an antipodes?  Do they have the same style of caustic editorial?  Is this why IGN lost half its readers from 2008 to 2009, because they act like fanboy bloggers?  Lots of questions.

[NWR_DrewMG]

Jack Loftus write for infendo.com and often posts Malstrom articles and refers to Malstrom in his posts.  He's known, by those who read him to... well, basically to follow the exactly same industry philosophies of Malstrom and from what I can tell you and KDR. 

Not my cup of tea, but man am I tired of this old debate.

[Deguello]

Jack Loftus write for infendo.com and often posts Malstrom articles and refers to Malstrom in his posts.  He's known, by those who read him to... well, basically to follow the exactly same industry philosophies of Malstrom and from what I can tell you and KDR. 

Not my cup of tea, but man am I tired of this old debate.

Well that's nice about Jack.  Doesn't seem that important though, definitely not one to obsess over and use as an example.  Seems kinda like a small fry, don't know why he'd be in anybody's rolodex.

And Me?  Follow Malstrom?  Nah.  Interesting fellow though.  Has a batter track record than IGN and Pachter.  Drives certain people batty.  But no, despite the books he cites (he didn't invent Blue Ocean Strategy or Technological Disruption or Upstreaming), he's sometimes a curmudgeon drunk on nostalgia, and that's his prerogative.  Simply understanding what he says and cites doesn't make one an acolyte.  I understand Karl Marx pretty well, but that doesn't make me a Marxist. (Completely anyway.)

What's embarrassing for IGN, though, is that he's done a better job covering Nintendo than they have, and he posts infrequently and has no press connections.  And IGN, with their "lots of cash" and "industry connections" can't do anything more than forecast doom and crack "casual" jokes.  THAT gets old, especially when they mock people who mail in asking why they haven't done their jobs.  Why put up with that when you can get trolled on a blog for free?  (Heck I don't even need to leave this forum.)

Of course I'd get tired of argument too if it sometimes didn't get really funny.  Also, I like applying myself and keeping the little grey cells sharp, dig?  Gotta keep that critical mind functional.  And, finally, I don't think things can be explained in little snarky soundbites all the time.  No need for casualizing forum posts, right?

[NWR_DrewMG]

Covering?  I'm not sure that's the right word.  Maybe he was able to better predict the outcome of the sales race, and maybe he has a better understanding of what makes Nintendo a unique business, but when you say the word cover, I think of all the reviews, previews, and news stories that IGN puts up on a daily basis. 

I have no horse in this race.  I'm not really following this thread.  I know where I stand, and I don't feel compelled to defend myself to anyone.  I just think there's a difference between analyzing business trends and writing about video games.  I'm more interested in the latter.

[Deguello]

Maybe so, perhaps I should have said "editorial coverage."  I'm not gonna knock the review writers and preview writers, I man heck I used to do some of that.  And it's hard work.  Which is a shame because the editorial side of it really kills any credibility and the hard work those guys do.  Would anybody take your review or preview seriously when your boss just called most of your readers fools and idiots?

But part of games journalism is to follow the business side at least as much as the editorial and preview parts.  And unfortunately this is where the big websites have been boning it pretty hard.  Analysts can become fanboys in a heartbeat when proven wrong, just ask that Michael Pachter fella.  There is no intellectual curiosity as to how or why Nintendo succeeded.  They just repeat themselves and change the dates, hoping this time it'll be true.  It's just not good form or even good business.  Who wants to hear an analyst or an editorial guy who got it wrong and won't even own up to it, and instead blame others?  But maybe business discussion and its ramifications have no place in this generation, as evidenced by a plethora of decisions being made without thinking of opportunity or even basic business sense?  Which is fine, I guess, but that doesn't mean the business side doesn't exist anymore and won't have major ramifications for the future. 

For instance, did you know that Sony's Game Division has lost almost all of the money that they have ever made since 1996?  You may think "who cares" but a cash-strapped Sony isn't going to be very competitive on the qualities people have been expecting from them.  Heck they may even have to leave the console market and YES, that is possible, as they have less money now than when Sega called it quits in 2001.  This isn't fanboy partisanship.  This is just numbers.

This is stuff they should at least have somebody covering instead of sneering at and denouncing profitable companies.  I mean think about it.  Not only is Nintendo insanely profitable, but even without the insane part, they're the only one of the Big Three to even pull down a profit this entire generation, while the other two have lost billions, sending one almost back to square one.  Even if you like the current state of the industry, that's just not a healthy prognosis.

[NWR_DrewMG]

It really is a very crucial time for the video game industry, and I agree that all players have made mistakes along the way, some bigger than others.  I hope they can get their **** together, because I like their products.  I want them to keep making products.  Games like 2008 Prince of Persia, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Portal, Bioshock, Half Life 2... I'm not getting those games from Nintendo, so I sincerely hope that the gaming industry can recover. 

However, this isn't about the mistakes that the other companies have made, this is also about mistakes that Nintendo has made.  Just because they're the only one making serious money at the moment doesn't make them exempt from mistakes, and to cite their sales figures as rationale for them as some sort of perfect, ideal business model, well I don't buy that.  Nintendo's had a lot of good fortune, but I don't think analyzing their sales success is as easy as simply saying "Well, look at blue ocean.  Obviously they succeeded because they followed blue ocean strategy.  It was pre-ordained."  I'm sure there are plenty of business strategies that are just as logically sound as blue ocean that DIDN'T pan out.  Nintendo got one right, but they've gotten them wrong too, in the past.  The industry is cyclical.  Nintendo is not impervious to this.  I have my doubts that Nintendo's current success will last into the next generation. 

This thread is about how the gaming media is not doing a good enough job of covering Nintendo, but I have no problem with the way they're covering Nintendo.  They're pointing out their frustrations with the product, and I share those frustrations.  Just because Nintendo has managed to outsell the competition does not automatically give them the better product, it merely gives them the more popular product.  IGN picking on the flaws of Wii is really no different than film critics picking on the flaws of whatever movie is the most popular of the moment. 

Sorry, I'm getting off topic here and I really have no desire to sit here and click refresh all day (which is what I think this is going to turn into) so I'm trying to stay as rational and level headed as possible.

[D_Average]

Well said Drew.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

This topic is basically about reviews, I was going to make it about how it sucks as a whole, but it got too depressing. We all know that Gamespot / IGN / 1up etc. all offer completely terrible reviews, have crap staff, and just plain embarrass themselves on a daily basis in almost every "opinion" piece they put up.

Reviews are one part, opinion pieces make up the rest.  All are depressing.

[Kairon]

Nintendo got one right, but they've gotten them wrong too, in the past.  The industry is cyclical.  Nintendo is not impervious to this.  I have my doubts that Nintendo's current success will last into the next generation. 

Yeah, that's a really interesting thing about this industry though. You can go from 3rd place to 1st, and 1st to 3rd, in a signle generational transition. Nintendo's seen plenty of that in their history, and I think Iwata's even been making statements that show he's very aware of how easy it would be for them to complacently fall to that effect.

This thread is about how the gaming media is not doing a good enough job of covering Nintendo, but I have no problem with the way they're covering Nintendo.  They're pointing out their frustrations with the product, and I share those frustrations.  Just because Nintendo has managed to outsell the competition does not automatically give them the better product, it merely gives them the more popular product.  IGN picking on the flaws of Wii is really no different than film critics picking on the flaws of whatever movie is the most popular of the moment. 

I have no problem with IGN exercising their editorial prerogative. But in the realm of this topic as a whole, it seems like the gaming media as a whole seems lop-sided, without a balance of opinion. If there's a lack of objective interest in gaming journalism about how Nintendo really differs in values, execution, and audience, then I think that's definitely something that I would be concerned about. If all that gaming journalism is is a self-referential soundboard for only one niche of gaming subculture, then that's definitely something I would be concerned about.

Sorry, I'm getting off topic here and I really have no desire to sit here and click refresh all day (which is what I think this is going to turn into) so I'm trying to stay as rational and level headed as possible.

Good man.

[KDR_11k]

The news industry really does seem hell-bent on finding flaws with Nintendo to prognosticate doom. While that could be alright they aren't doing anything like that with the other two console makers despite their situations being significantly worse.

[Deguello]

Well, I like your post Drew.  It's respectful and tactful, and doesn't involve insults or failed attempts at snarky sarcasm.  Quite a rarity, even here.

I disagree, however, because the games media last generation wasn't so averse to writing about the business side.  I particularly remember IGN posting stories about that one quarter in 2003 where Nintendo posted a small loss and that was seen a huge news.  And that's where all the "Nintendo is going third party" crap came from.  They grilled Nintendo executives about release schedules and business strategies, and I thought it was odd because they didn't do this for Sony and MS.  They had reasonable cover because the GC was a bit of a failure (though it sold the same as the Xbox and actually made money), but now simply reporting the business side would read like a pro-Nintendo article.  So they don't anymore.

And while this

Just because Nintendo has managed to outsell the competition does not automatically give them the better product, it merely gives them the more popular product.

can be true, you wouldn't have known it last generation.  IGN and other such gleefully boasted the PS2's sales success in most articles, even ones about Nintendo.  The sudden lack of interest in market position from last generation to this one is pretty stark.

And I also disagree with your somewhat fatalistic attitude that "it's cyclical."  Companies don't switch positions just because it is "pre-ordained" so to speak.  For one that strips responsibility of the companies for any flaws they have making these crappy editorials even more pointless, and for two it's easily refuted by Nintendo's handheld successes, in which they've been Top Dog forever.

And KDR's right, too.  For some reaosn Nintendo's always "doomed" even when they are making record profits while the others are fine even when one has lost so much money as to undo the work of a whole decade of dominance.   It's this kind of contempt for readers' intelligences that causes such massive drop-offs in viewership.  Even the "casuals" can read and google things.

[Guitar Smasher]

And KDR's right, too.  For some reaosn Nintendo's always "doomed" even when they are making record profits while the others are fine even when one has lost so much money as to undo the work of a whole decade of dominance.   It's this kind of contempt for readers' intelligences that causes such massive drop-offs in viewership.  Even the "casuals" can read and google things.

Maybe they're aiming to become the FoxNews of the gaming world.  The journalistic bias is uncanny.  Anytime Obama/democrats do something, it's going to doom America, according to FoxNews.  Anytime Nintendo does something, it's going to doom gaming, according to IGN.

The one tolerable aspect to FoxNews is that we have the Daily Show and Colbert Report poking fun/satirizing them.  We need something similar for gaming.

[BlackNMild2k1]

NWR needs to step-it-up and be the Daily Show to IGN's Faux News
I have no idea who is going to play the Jester in Kings Clothing though (Colbert is a hard act to mimic)

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Both Fox and IGN are owned by News Corp...

[mac<censored>]

...soooooo.... NWR just needs to get themselves bought by MTV!
Brilliant!

[Peachylala]

EVIL IDEA.

[Deguello]

I don't know if IGN has a FoxNews-like agenda or anything like that.  If they aren't trolling for hits to beef up their advertising rates, they could be threatening Nintendo with the bully pulpit unless they get some kind of payoff from them or something.

All I know is they aren't doing their jobs.  For instance, they have pretty high access to publishers, and I'm sure their readers would like to ask why third parties make such awful games when they are universally reviled and they don't sell, despite their "understanding of the Wii market".   But they don't, they usually just lob leading softballs and parrot whatever the publisher says.  That could be because they don't want to ruin the media relationship, but what that means we get instead is a spineless media who won't stand up to anybody, unless they aren't being advertised to, of course.  And as the economy puts the squeeze on more, they'll be even less willing to ask hard questions of the people paying them and more willing to grind down on the people who aren't.

[NWR_Lindy]

I think part of the issue, in terms of unfavorable or unflattering coverage, is that Nintendo isn't as chummy with the press as other companies are (not just Sony  and Microsoft, but third-party publishers as well).  Nintendo is very aloof in its dealings with the press, and I'm sure there is an element of, "Nintendo doesn't scratch our back, so why should we scratch theirs?"

Nintendo doesn't always "play ball", so to speak, and I'm sure the press resents that to a certain degree.  I can tell you that, from my experience in dealing with Nintendo, their secrecy is at times baffling.