Fucking Kotaku

[Strangelove]

http://kotaku.com/58...city-or-does-he

 

I know this is weird, but Im with Kotaku on this one. People are way too butthurt. If anything, it's the developers fault for showing that part of the game. Those people are fucking reporters, theyre going to report on it and they know it. Not only that, but its a big deal. They wouldnt be good reporters/journalists/bloggers/assholes if they didnt do the most eyecatching thing possible with this news, which is post it as the title.

 

Not to mention its a fucking comic book character. Those shitheads never die.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Strangelove

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

You have a valid point. Besides, we already knew something would happen. Mark Hamill has said numerous times that this would be his last Batman project.

[Thursday Next]

Any developer who tells Kotaku anything deserves to have it splashed all over the internet. Those guys have a proven track record of not keeping to NDA's, so why would you expect them to keep anything not covered by an NDA under wraps?

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

Wasn't just them. Almost every other site posted it, too. Destructoid did have the common sense to remove the spoiler from the headline afterward, and put a spoiler warning at the front of the article.

[RockyRan]

Wasn't just them. Almost every other site posted it, too. Destructoid did have the common sense to remove the spoiler from the headline afterward, and put a spoiler warning at the front of the article.

 

I think this is what people are complaining about more than anything.

 

Personally I like to have a media blackout when I'm anticipating a certain game, because I've found that when I know nothing about a game I tend to enjoy it more.

 

So suppose I browsed Kotaku (yeah, I know, crazy. Bear with me here) and I'm anticipating Arkham City so much it's on my "media blackout" list. I'd be pissed too if they put a plot development in bigass letters right on the headline in the front page as well. It's common courtesy to put this kind of info further into the article. But hey, it's Kotaku. Deliberately pissing off their readership for the sake of page hits is the order of the day over there.

[CorgiShinobi]

Having a media blackout with Arkham City is practically masochistic with how much Rocksteady reveals each month.

 

Seriously, I believe they've revealed every single villain in the game at this point. Not to mention a few twists and turns you face in the game.

[madbassman39]

Alright, I know this is a Kotaku hating (EDIT: I wrote site, but I meant thread) thread, but there is an article on Gizmodo that wasn't that bad, Until I read the comments. The story pretty much goes that Sam Biddle (a writer for Giz) went to try out a terrible dating site of 3 on 3 blind dates to see how it went. He complains that the site was poorly put together, the owner of the site was needy and the women got scared off within 10 minutes. In the end he feels that he was ripped off by some guy trying to make a quick buck.

 

Not that bad of a story to be honest. I was worried it was another OK Cupid like story. The real issue I took was one of the comments which I will copy and paste below. Before you read this, it is important to know that the comment was promoted but not replied to by Sam Biddle, the writer.

Commentor okayjulia writes

Hi. I was one of the women on the "date" and I blame the reporters from Gizmodo as much as I blame Grouper.

 

We were supposed to meet with the guys at a swanky bar in Chinatown. When we arrived, we sat at our table and waited. We were soon approached by 2 men, one holding an iPad and one holding a camera. They said they were our Grouper dates for the evening and that a third guy was on his way and a fourth guy would be joining us via skype.

 

The guy holding a camera started snapping photos of us, and the other guy opened his iPad and explained that they were reporters from Gizmodo there to do a story on our Grouper date. They were doing a story about "how sad our lives are...being nerds and trying to date."

 

Needless to say, my friends and I were shocked. We were completely shocked, appalled and pissed. When we got angry and explained how rude this was, Kyle admitted that they "hadn't really thought this through." I asked if an editor pitched this story to them, perhaps in an effort to capitalize on the page hits of the recent story about Jon Finkel and the okCupid date. He said that he pitched the story to his editors.

 

(in a separate comment)

 

continued:

 

I don't want to explain why this was unacceptable, but I will. When people go on dates, be they blind or not, they are putting themselves out there in a huge way. For 2 guys and an Ipad to show up at a bar and tell me and my friends that we were in effect, guinea pigs in a social experiment, is very upsetting. The guys tried to convince us to stay for drinks but there was no way we would stay at a bar with people like that: people who use such bad judgement and ultimately don't care about other people's feelings. The "date" was a huge waste of my time. My friends and I paid $20 each to have a fun experience and meet some cool guys. Instead we paid $20 to be disrespected by these men.

 

I would like an explanation from someone working at Gizmodo. I want to know why you let these guys do this to me and my friends. Did you think it would be funny to make 3 women feel really shitty about themselves? Because it isn't funny. I spoke to Grouper after we left the bar and they said they never had an agreement with you guys. So I can only assume that what your employees did was under the radar?

 

(End of Comment)

 

The fact that the writers not only thought it was OK to do so, they are upset about not be apologized to, yet they don't apologize to the girl who they not only disrespected, but don't even refute what she says and just promote it! That's not just terrible journalism, but also just wrong on a social level.

 

Are they proud of what they did? They didn't talk about it in their article, but yet when the comment came in, they promoted it, gave her a star and let it be. What does that mean? Its very upsetting to me, in all honesty, because by promoting and starring her they pretty much said "Yup thats what we did hehe."

 

EDIT: Link to article http://gizmodo.com/5...160171#comments

Edited September 30, 2011 by madbassman39

[madbassman39]

another comment by the same girl, just as upsetting as the other ones.

 

I was on this date. It was terrible and offensive and I think Gizmodo is at fault as much as Grouper. I sent this email to Gizmodo right after our date and received no response.

 

Hello,

I'd like to speak with someone regarding a terrible experience my friends and I had last night. My friends and I (I won't divulge their names out of respect for privacy and I request that my name is kept private as well), booked a group date through a new dating site called Grouper. The concept is that 3 girl friends go on a date with 3 guys friends, completely blind.

 

We were supposed to meet with our randomly assigned dates at 9pm yesterday evening at a swanky bar in Chinatown. When we arrived, we sat at our table and waited for the guys. We were soon approached by 2 men, one holding an iPad and one holding a camera. They said they were our Grouper dates for the evening and that a third guy was on his way and a fourth guy would be joining us via skype.

 

The guy holding a camera started snapping photos of us, (I believe his name was Woody) and the other guy (whose name I forget...maybe Kyle?) opened his iPad and explained that they were reporters from Gizmodo there to do a story on our Grouper date. They were doing a story about "how sad our lives are...being nerds and trying to date."

Needless to say, my friends and I were shocked. We were completely shocked, appalled and pissed.

 

Kyle went on to say that they were working with Grouper and with our permission would take notes on the date, take photos, and then blog about it. Obviously my friends and I did not want to be part of this and we requested immediately that Woody delete any and all photos of us on his camera. Kyle said his fellow Gizmodo buddy Andrew Tarantola was skyping with us from San Francisco but there wasn't a strong enough wifi signal to continue. We had no idea why somebody would be skyping on an ipad during our date and Kyle offered no explanation.

 

When we got angry and explained how rude this was, Kyle admitted that they "hadn't really thought this through." I asked if an editor pitched this story to them, perhaps in an effort to capitalize on the page hits of the recent story about Jon Finkel and the okCupid date. He said that he pitched the story to his editors.

 

I don't want to explain why this was unacceptable, but I will. When people go on dates, be they blind or not, they are putting themselves out there in a huge way. For 2 guys and an Ipad to show up at a bar and tell me and my friends that we were in effect, guinea pigs in a social experiment, is very upsetting. The guys tried to convince us to stay for drinks but there was no way we would stay at a bar with people like that: people who use such bad judgement and ultimately don't care about other people's feelings. The "date" was a huge waste of my time. My friends and I paid $20 each to have a fun experience and meet some cool guys. Instead we paid $20 to be disrespected by these men.

 

I would like an explanation from someone working at Gizmodo. I want to know why you let these guys do this to me and my friends. Did you think it would be funny to make 3 women feel really shitty about themselves? Because it isn't funny. I spoke to Grouper after we left the bar and they said they never had an agreement with you guys. So I can only assume that what your employees did was under the radar?

 

Please answer these questions and provide me some explanation.

 

Thank you in advance.

[deanb]

Wow that's both shitty to the women and like a huge WTF to Gizmodo. Gizmodo the Go-on-Date guide? That john finkel one must have been really popular if they're doing it again. I guess they weren't able to afford the iPhone 5 this time around?

[madbassman39]

I hate linking to this article, but i went through the comments and saw that the founder of the site dating had also commented, confirming what the women had said, and Sam's only retort was "you didn't show me an algorithm." Below is the link to the thread started by the founder of said dating site. Really though, there is not much need to read it unless you want to see how people have been upset at the response, and see Sam ban a few for what they said (not worthy ban worthy but still some of it is pretty insulting to the writers of Giz). Its all disgusting to me.

http://gizmodo.com/5845467/how-i-was-nearly-seduced-by-grouper-the-biggest-sham-in-online-dating?comment=43150713#comments

[Mal]

Got a screencap of it? I'm personally not giving them any hits whatsoever.

[madbassman39]

I do not, sorry. I did my best to copy paste, but its a long thread, and I don't know how to take a screen capture beyond my computers screen.

[excel_excel]

People putting themselves out there for dates only to be called "how sad our lives are...being nerds and trying to date". Pretty fucking shitty

[deanb]

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ckibcdccnfeookdmbahgiakhnjcddpki - For Chrome (requires a helper plug-in too to actually output images)

 

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/fireshot/ - and the firefox equivalent.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

The article below bugged me more than it had any right to.

 

First off, Kirk says the RTS genre "doesn't lend itself to the sort of political machinations and storytelling" of ASOIAF. Now, I could rattle on about RTSes with great storylines, or pick on the fact that RTS/TBS are perhaps the only genre that can do much in the way of major political happenings, but instead what really irked me was his dismissive attitude toward the game in question. The RTS is extremely loyal to the espionage, sabotage, and political intrigue of the novels. The verdict's still out on whether it's any good, but the author of this post clearly had not played, watched anyone play, or perhaps even read the Wikipedia article on AGOT: Genesis. He closes with: "I'm heartened to hear that Cyanide is working on something that feels closer to the spirit of both Martin's books and the excellent HBO series." He's referring to the RPG, which earlier on he says he "confirmed" that Cyanide is working on it. BREAKING NEWS.

 

Trouble is, they announced it 2 years ago and have had it on their site (there are even some early screen shots floating around) for who-knows how many months. Shouldn't have let the small things get to me, but they did. Le sigh. I'm not a perfect writer either. So I will complain in this thread and forget about it. Thanks for letting me get things off my chest.

 

http://kotaku.com/5845578/the-game-of-thrones-rpg-is-actually-happening

[Strangelove]

http://kotaku.com/5849974/goodbye-kotaku-and-thanks-for-everything

 

Well, Mcwhertor is gone. That kind of sucks for them, I think he was one of the better guys there.

[MasterDex]

http://kotaku.com/58...-for-everything

 

Well, Mcwhertor is gone. That kind of sucks for them, I think he was one of the better guys there.

 

Hopping in the lifeboat before the ship sinks. I wonder who'll be next. Something tells me it's be Good.

[Thursday Next]

Any chance that Crecente will go down with the ship?

[Mal]

That would be a funny and sad thing to see. Imagine him going all ranty and shit.

[fuchikoma]

I kind of liked Crecente. Early on he did the immature/insecure banhammer thing, but loosened up in time. I think he was just kind of green and feeling his way around this blog thing, but I got the feeling he spent a lot of time on it and wanted to do it well. I've even criticized him and how the site was run on occasion, but didn't even get a warning since I always explained my point (did get him to reply a few times though.)

 

One of the reasons I left was that I kind of felt like he'd just given the keys to the site to Johnson, who'd appeared one day out of nowhere and started calling the shots, and the site started sliding downhill faster than ever before. Eventually I figured "I'm not getting much out of this, and I may even be hurting my reputation by posting here..." and decided I should quit - which didn't really happen until Joel wrote his ridiculous Razer article. Then MasterDex warned me that the way I'd criticized him could get me banned and I thought "if this is what the site has come to... that's fine. A ban would help me kick this habit for good."

 

But I think Brian was alright. Sometimes he had some bizarre viewpoints compared to the mainstream of gaming, but that stuff was interesting to consider too. It was interesting having one of the biggest gaming sites run, maybe not by a casual gamer, but by someone whose tastes seemed to center around "casual-focused" games. It was probably actually more mainstream than our usual "enthusiast mainstream" sources.

[Strangelove]

I dont think Crecente was as bad as people said he was. He could be petty at times, but it seemed he was only that way towards members who would constantly attack him on his own site. In my opinion his biggest flaw is how mainstream his tastes in games are. I guess as the head honcho of the site he has to play the big AAA titles himself, so all his opinions always involve CoD and Gears of War and shit like that while the other writers would talk a lot about the smaller games, which guys like us really appreciate.

[fuchikoma]

I always remember when he suggested Dance Central could be the "most important game of E3."

[Strangelove]

Like i said, his tastes kind of suck.

 

Then again, Kinect was still filling people's brains and hearts with all sorts of magic and wonder over the possibilities of that "revolutionary" tech. He fell for it like everyone else at the time. I doubt he would say that now.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Strangelove

[Mr. GOH!]

Man, those Gut Check articles really grind my gears. They are aggressively meaningless. I mean, little mini-reviews are fine, but making them suggestions to buy games was probably not the best idea. I mean, it just make Kotaku look like shills and hucksters. They are linkbait, though, which works in Gawker's favor.

 

But should Kotaku really squander what editorial power and pull it has by giving tons of games its stamp of approval? The standard for a yes is really... amorphous, I suppose. Every half-decent game with an audience will pass it; only the very worst will get a 'No.'

 

 

Edit: Here's their latest for the new Spyro game. You can find the others yourselves. I believe in you.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Mr. GOH!

[VicariousShaner]

 

Edit: Here's their latest for the new Spyro game.

 

My favorite part of that is the featured comment, which has Luke vehemently disagreeing. Also, that King Kellog got unstarred, finally.