[Jeslijar]

Based on the link it sounds like they want to carry on with what they've always done but get more money. I get the desire but I doubt the content is going to go back to what it was 25 years ago.

The way I see it today, ideological reviews are what is mainstream. It's not about how the game is, it's how inclusive they are to minorities that is what reaches the front page. It's fucking bizarre but it makes sense when the goal is to reach as many people as possible. On both sides of politics it's just rage bait depending on which way the needle swings. Rage bait creates the clicks that brings the mass appeal not just "nerdy gamers."

I'm a nerdy gamer. I just want to know how good of a game stuff is. When you go to actual niche forums you find real information without the bullshit. You aren't going to find that at all on mainstream mass media sites like the Verge, Motherboard/Vice, Kotaku, et al. I think the goal of aftermath is to just create another mainstream outlet. I hope they prove me wrong.

[izzydata]

I'd rather watch some gameplay footage with no commentary. I don't find that a person reviewing a video game contributes anything meaningful to the decision of whether or not I want a game or not unless I know them personally and we have similar taste.

I have a suspicion that the only way such content has any value today in a world with quick and easy access to online video is that they are given copies prior to the release of the game. They get clicks because of peoples impatience to learn more despite being able to see effectively infinite amount of content as soon as a game is officially released.

But the problem here is that game reviewers livelihood is entirely dependent on getting early access and if they don't speak highly of the game then their livelihood can be cut off. They are basically all bribed into giving positive feedback. I think it is actually worse than nothing at all. It is actively harmful to finding out what a game is actually like.

I guess my point is that we should just wait until a game is released. There are infinite copies and there exists more games than anyone could ever play. Reading some heavily biased opinions about a video game a week before it comes out is not meaningful.

[PurpleRamen]

> I'd rather watch some gameplay footage with no commentary. I don't find that a person reviewing a video game contributes anything meaningful to the decision of whether or not I want a game or not unless I know them personally and we have similar taste.

Are you really willing to watch 10+ hours of footage, just to figure out the worth of a game? Because that's the actual worth of a review, telling you not just about the game itself, but also how well it continues after the initial tutorial-phase.

[miamibre]

I don't think that is very accurate, in my experience the most popular reviews are Personality Driven and it is largely done in the youtube space, the next most popular writen sites are also more neutral when it comes to their reviews (Gamespot, IGN, Gameinformer, Eurogamer). Honestly people just want two things, to hear their favorite content creator talk about the game or have someone say how great it is. But in my opinion the best way to sort out all the noise is to just find a content creator you share tastes with since IGN et al have such a massive cast of reviewers constantly shifting around so it doesn't make sense to rely on that.

You could also use a review aggregator if you just want to see what the overall consensus is: https://opencritic.com/

My other advice which has worked very well as a PC Gamer is to look up Steam reviews, there are a LOT of underappreciated games that were poorly received by critics but players actually enjoyed. It is also review bomb resistant since you actually need to buy the game,will allow you to filter out by time periods, and notify you if there have been a noticeable change in review patterns.

[torginus]

I guess modern gaming journalists are journalists first, gamers second. It used to be the other way around.

I miss the sh*t out of printed specialist journalism. Growing up, we had a couple of printed magazines. You could tell they were incredibly well written, with great reviews, walkthroughs, interviews with people in the local industry, as well as surprisingly in-depth exposes about things like for example, how CG animations are made etc.

Unfortunately, thanks to a leaky water pipe, I can only cherish the memory of said collection.

Their business model was exchanging product (the magazine) for money. Based on that business model, they could pay their employees, a couple of passionate and talented people a living wage. something that I'm not sure modern internet-based outfits accomplish.

[542458]

> ideological reviews are what is mainstream. It's not about how the game is, it's how inclusive they are to minorities

This seems like a pretty heavy exaggeration to me. I just spotchecked several reviews on IGN, PCGamer, and GamesRadar (top 3 sites I get when googling "games reviews"), and found nothing of the sort. I'm sure if you go digging you could find that content somewhere on the site, but to claim it's the crux of their review model is just false.

For example, the new MW3 is a game where there's lots you could comment on in terms of the ideology of their portrayals of the war on terror and "ends justify the means"... but not one of the mainstream reviews I can see spends time on it, other than to mention the villain's vague motives. Or on the flip side, take Fae Farm, a game that explicitly advertises itself as inclusive - only one paragraph of GamesRadar's the nine page review is on the topic of inclusivity, and it doesn't go any ideologically deeper than "there's a lot of customization here, including androgynous options and things like dreadlocks and turbans". The entire rest of the review is about gameplay and graphics.

[lelanthran]

Yeah, agreed.

The first name in that list is a guy who gave great reviews of a game by a developer who was sleeping with him.

Of course, due to one (or both? I forget which) of them being married, of course that fact had to be a secret.

In any other publication, the author's sexual liasons with the subject of the piece is considered a clear conflict of interest. Not so in gaming, it appeared.

[pr0zac]

What, there are still people that believe this? That Nathan Grayson never wrote reviews on any game by Zoe Quinn is easily verifiable, like you can just go look at the webpage. The claim has had zero veracity for years, that its false is widely known and documented, theres multiple Wikipedia articles discussing how and why its wrong.

I don't think I've ever read an article on Kotaku, I never read any games news and barely even play them anymore other than occasional Doom Eternal to blow off steam. But I know Grayson and Quinn's names because of how widely and loudly this argument getting disproved was.

I'm honestly kind of amazed to see someone still claiming this. Like I'm back editing more stuff into this because my brain is so confused and still thinking about it.

[hightrix]

Wow! I thought you were joking but the first name is the dude at the center of what started “gamergate” and everything that followed it.

Thanks for pointing that out.

This site is just another in a long list of game journalism sites that is worthless.

[teh64]

Could you post a link to this review? I would like to verify this information.