Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane So Matt was free to crap on Nintendo when it was justified and is free to just get back into things as they improve.
No, he isn't.
Matt isn't like you or me: he's a part of the media. His influence is capable of swaying many potential buyers and that includes encouraging people to stick with their Nintendo systems instead of buying other consoles which is what he spent most of his time insisting people do.
There were plenty of reasons to be positive about the GC. The console had a slew of excellent games over its lifespan and anyone who tried them would have considered it a worthy purchase, but I'm sure that many thousands of people DIDN'T try the GC because of pigheaded media members like Matt who don't seem to grasp the concept of defending the company they write about.
This sh*t has a cumulative effect and that's what no one seems to grasp. The GC did so poorly because Nintendo was already being dismissed as the loser by the same media chimps who were supposed to be its fans. When it came time for developers to decide which console to release games on, do you honestly think that media backlash
by the very people who are supposed to like the GC didn't play a factor in determining where those games went? Do you think it didn't influence potential GC buyers?
By comparison, the IGN Xbox and PS2 editors could say no wrong about their consoles, even when things were looking bad and I'm sure many readers of IGN chose to buy Xboxes over GCs because the Xbox editor was infinitely more confident in the console than the GC editor. If nothing else, IGN should hire someone who holds Nintendo in the same regard to be the Nintendo editor because then we'd at least see consistency throughout.
For all intents and purposes, the GC should have clobbered the Xbox in sales, but it didn't because of its image and it's gaming media icons like Matt who, instead of defending the console from these criticisms, were too intimidated that they would be labeled as fans of a kiddie console and took every chance they could get to establish that they wanted to be on the winning team and, if that wasn't Nintendo, so be it.
Matt can hate Nintendo behind closed doors all he wants, but if his f*cking job is to be a Nintendo enthusiast, then he should do his job instead of acting like Nintendo would be dead in a few years and hoping that he could land a new job as an Xbox correspondent because that's pretty much how he behaved right up until Nintendo came back into their own again.
When push came to shove and Nintendo's image was on the line, Matt rolled over and played dead instead of trying to defend the company, and I remember seeing many review scores out of the f*cker which were likewise unjust, while the Xbox and PS2 editors almost always padded the reviews they gave even the sh*ttiest of Xbox/PS2 titles.
Yeah, the IGN editors are, for the most part, a bunch of mindless troglodytes who blindly defend their consoles, but they're troglodytes people
listen to. Matt, on the other hand, is a jellyfish, buckling at the first hint of pressure.
Given that, for whatever reason, many people have no doubt listened to the reviews and opinions of IGN for their purchasing decisions, I would MUCH rather the Nintendo branch be manned by a troglodyte than a jellyfish.
Topic: Matt C. teasing again (Read 24545 times)
