A conversation with a gaming journalist

[Fallout_Fan_VII]

I honestly don't know if I should laugh or cry. It's not like I had any respect for GameSpy to begin with, but this guy just validates everything I thought of the place.

Calling Gamespy the evil empire is so 1998.

First off, I have no respect for GameSpy (either its webmaster, its staff, its writers, period). No where did I go: Liek OMFG GameSpy iz zee eViLLLellle!!! LOLZ im da koolz!!!

It may be "so 1998" but I dislike them for more reasons than "it's the in thing." It's dull, boring, and utterly uninteresting, in terms of web design, writing, game coverage, services, etc.

I would also like to go on record saying that at least two Gamespy writers are stand-up guys (Magedragon and Kyote).

I judge a company, that is supposed to be providing a service, by the whole. There may well be lots of great, "stand-up guys" on the writing staff, but we have had an EDITOR (a position of some sort of authority) use a service of his company to angrily lash out at potential customers.

We've had another here who can't seem to grasp the difference between a layman (Vault Dweller, Codex Posters) and a professional (someone who does what they do for GAIN or LIVELIHOOD; their CAREER), and instead thinks the latter is some sort of shield that protects him from criticism and accountability.

I'm glad there are stand-up guys on the writing staff, but that doesn't make me like GameSpy, as a whole, any more or less than I all ready do.

Gamespy is no worse than any (well, most) of the other commercial gaming press, online or offline.

I agree. So what, though? Would you have liked it if I had generalized, and said "This just validates everything I thought about gaming journalism."? I chose to keep it specific to GameSpy, as that is for whom this particular journalist works.

I responded to your post because you tried to imply I hate GameSpy because it's the "in" thing to do. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not some mindless drone that follows behind others. If I jump off a bridge, it'll be because I'm committing suicide, not because everyone else is doing it! :wink:

 

[elander_]

This thread is EPIC

 

[Comrade Hamster]

My, my. I'd say being that pissy is not only rather unprofessional, but extremely unbecoming as well. Showing your emotional side in an argument does not help reinforce your self-promoting statements of professionalism.

 

[Calis]

(stuff)

Dude, chill. My main point was that the guy's still right in claiming he acts according to gaming press standards, however depressing that may be. Though I still meant to call you a snoob, since I haven't met my quota for that for the week.

 

[Vault Dweller]

... but these kinds of threads continue to show how Codex is at the best on the fringe of journalism...

I prefer the terms "trenches of journalism" myself. In the trenches there are no rules and "professionalism", only the bitter and often unpleasant reality. This thread is a window into the inner world of a "real" journalist, a guy who lives by "I don't have to prove this to you" mantra, a guy who makes claims like:

"If it was up to me, I wouldn't give it coverage, because I've seen two instances of deal-breaking unprofessionalism from you in less than a week..."

"....enjoy being unpromoted, unpublished, and having franchises you care about not give a second glance at what you want."

"I'm sure the Fallout you guys want will get made...anyyyy day now. Any day now."

Not that I'm saying the Codex should be anything other than it is, mind you. In other words, what Amasius said.

We do things differently around here. If the best way to describe it is "unprofessional", I'm fine with it. What's in a name?

 

[aboyd]

Well, I guess I'll go against the prevailing sentiment. You beat a journalist in a forum debate. Isn't that anti-climactic, a hollow victory? It seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face -- you win a forum debate, and lose any chance that GameSpy will ever again provide coverage. Yay?

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

I liked reading that but it needs a bit more back story. I'm assuming the "patrick" was the guy who wanted fallout fans to die?

 

[Joe Krow]

(stuff)

Dude, chill. My main point was that the guy's still right in claiming he acts according to gaming press standards, however depressing that may be. Though I still meant to call you a snoob, since I haven't met my quota for that for the week.

Agreed. This exchange did a good job of proving this stooge is in fact a stooge but didn't do much to show him why. He gets to walk away feeling that we "don't get it" when he should now be wondering why he dosn't.

So let me get this straight. He's arguing that he is a "journalist" and his opinions deserve some deferance when that staus is created by advertising dollars provided by the company who's product he "professionally" reviews? How does he propose to compensate for this glaring conflict of interest? In light of this, why would anyone value his opinion as a proffesional journalist more then say, someone who reviews games out of love for them? It's almost as if he's saying the ads on his web site (for the games he "objectively" reviews) makes those reviews more valid then reviews found on a website that recieves it's funding elsewhere. That can't be right. Is that what he's saying?

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Wow. Patrick's a bit full of himself, isn't he.

Sorry, but the tag stays. There are plenty of dumbfucks here who have been tagged and still post. If weasel wants to pull a Bryce and disappear because he got called on his bullshit, that's his choice.

 

[Joe Krow]

Yeah. Don't let the tag bother you. It's how they compensate for their weak arguments. It's childish but it makes them feel special.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, I guess I'll go against the prevailing sentiment. You beat a journalist in a forum debate. Isn't that anti-climactic, a hollow victory? It seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face -- you win a forum debate, and lose any chance that GameSpy will ever again provide coverage. Yay?

What did you expect me to do? I asked him nicely about some coverage. I argued with him in a friendly manner for awhile, but Patrick went on a power trip and didn't come back.

 

[aboyd]

I would expect you to do what I would have done -- understand his point, even if he worded it like crap. He's a human being, not a machine, and if I were in the discussion, I would have simply extended some grace as he spoke ineloquently. In normal human interactions, we have some give and take, and I don't think that's a weakness.

This discussion struck me as our side being aloof and uninterested. That's okay, it is. But then expect the other person to say "screw it" and head elsewhere. And as an observer who didn't participate, I'd not chalk that up as a win for the Codex, though you certainly may.

It may simply be that we have different goals. If your goal was to be perceived as clever or right, maybe you achieved that goal, based upon responses here. But my goal would have been to foster a relationship. So it feels like we lost that one.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's kinda hard, in my experience, to foster a relationship with someone who:

a) thinks that he is always right
b) thinks that you are always wrong
c) looks down on what you do (see his numerous "indie" quotes)
d) misunderstands what he's supposed to be doing (what a journalist should be doing)
e) mixes up personal and professional ("I don't like you anymore, so I won't cover your game" stuff)

Patrick doesn't care about indie games. In his opinion, they aren't worth covering and people who make them deserve no respect. Not from him. Could I have pretended to be his new best friend and shielded him from the horrors of the Codex to get some coverage? Absolutely. It's not my style, however, and it wouldn't have been fair to Patrick in the first place.

 

[Gambler]

I don't know about "professionalism," but publishing private conversation is just a shitty thing to do. It's a matter of ethics. Not game developer or journalist ethics, but human ethics.

 

[aboyd]

It's kinda hard, in my experience, to foster a relationship with someone who:

a) thinks that he is always right...
>>>snip<<<

Yeah, relationships are messy and imperfect. All the constraints you listed out would not have felt too restrictive to me, in this case. But I understand your feeling. I've been looking for work over the past month, and there have been a couple of managers who I just rejected as irredeemable. I knew I would never get along with them, and my employment would suffer. If you're at that point-of-no-return with Patrick, then that's where you're at. I get it. But in both your case and mine, there is an outcome that some could say is regrettable -- I don't have a job, you don't have GameSpy in your corner.

In any case, I was not at all suggesting that you pretend to be his new best friend. If I were in that position, I would have been able to genuinely cut him some slack. But I am not in that position, so perhaps I shouldn't second-guess.

 

[OccupatedVoid]

I don't know about "professionalism," but publishing private conversation is just a shitty thing to do. It's a matter of ethics. Not game developer or journalist ethics, but human ethics.

Ethics? THIS IS THE CODEX!

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't know about "professionalism," but publishing private conversation is just a shitty thing to do. It's a matter of ethics. Not game developer or journalist ethics, but human ethics.

Why? I've heard enough empty statements for one day. Care to actually explain why? For the record, I've stated my position in one of the PMs I posted above: there is a huge difference between posting confidential info and posting a generic conversation about nothing, basically. Here, let me hit a new level of low and post the last super private email in my mailbox:

Chris Avellone: Sounds good, will do. Hope cartoons are okay.
....

I bet Chris will be devastated when he learns that I made this email private. He should have never trusted me like that.

If you're at that point-of-no-return with Patrick, then that's where you're at. I get it. But in both your case and mine, there is an outcome that some could say is regrettable -- I don't have a job, you don't have GameSpy in your corner.

Agree with everything you said.

 

[Amasius]

Chris Avellone: Sounds good, will do. Hope cartoons are okay.

 

[spacemoose]

its amazing how this some people can sustain such levels of cognitive dissonance.

VD: who are you writing for? where do your loyalties lie?
guy: I'm a journalist, not a marketing tool!
VD: then why not write what you see, without omitting the bad stuff?
guy: you don't know how its done in the industry! I scratch their back, they scratch mine. there's jobs and money at stake here!
VD: so then you're more worried about how many copies the companies you cover sell, rather than informing the consumer ABOUT their product?
guy: you're not professional! that's not how we do it in the industry!

 

[AnalogKid]

I would expect you to do what I would have done -- understand his point, even if he worded it like crap. He's a human being, not a machine, and if I were in the discussion, I would have simply extended some grace as he spoke ineloquently.

You should read the original thread all the way through (as painful as that may be). There are a bunch of LOOOONNNGGGG posts by codexers making very good points about what everyone (including the asshat) was trying to discuss. That's one of the reasons multiple folks posted asking to archive the thread somewhere. I think I was the first to be just a complete asshole and call him a liar and a fraud, and that was on PAGE 8! Sometime between there and the end, most of the other codexers lost their patience with his antics and ... eventually ... we ended up here. I can't stress it enough: He really was THAT BAD, that stupid, that fake, that ... I can't hardly describe it.

The codex was being aggressive, but fairly well content-oriented until he proved through his own posts that there was no other choice. The PMs are just a little glimpse into the ashes and aftermath, not the starting attitude of VD, Section8, DU, or any of the other guys who were actually trying to have an interesting disucssion. I think VD said it very well (speaking directly to numbnuts):

I know. You like stating things. Proving is beneath you.

That wasn't something the codex knew or assumed apriori, our boy dickless taught us that all on his lonesome.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I would expect you to do what I would have done -- understand his point, even if he worded it like crap.

Sorry, but what is Patrick's point? We tried understanding his points before and got told we were misquoting him. Even after we pointed out that he was quoted in full and even after, when that wasn't good enough, VD quoted him in full again. The attitude from him so far has been akin to sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming "I'm not listening" over and over and over again.

 

[Section8]

I wish there was a conclusion to all this.

I suppose its too late now, but most gaming journos offer "happy endings" for a nominal fee. Well the professionals, that is.

 

[aboyd]

I would expect you to do what I would have done -- understand his point, even if he worded it like crap. He's a human being, not a machine, and if I were in the discussion, I would have simply extended some grace as he spoke ineloquently.

You should read the original thread all the way through (as painful as that may be). There are a bunch of LOOOONNNGGGG posts by codexers making very good points about what everyone (including the asshat) was trying to discuss.

Oh, I read it. I got my posts in on page 5 or so, when I could foresee the whole thing was going to Hell in a hand basket. I tried to provide an alternative (Devil's advocate) viewpoint to help others see it from a different set of eyes. But that's all I could think to do at the time, and then I just watched it all blow up.

Anyway, my point was not that when it got bad, the Codex screwed up. Some members had eloquent arguments. My thinking was that back on page 3 or 4, if we had just understood what he was getting at -- rather than lambasting him for sloppy execution -- it might have never got bad in the first place. Anyway, somebody else asked how I would have handled it, so I'll make a post about that, and if you think I'm full of crap, write me off. That's a luxury you have. I just want to suggest that there was an alternative to having a bad outcome ("bad" being my label, you may have loved the outcome).

 

[EliotW]

I bet Chris will be devastated when he learns that I made this email private. He should have never trusted me like that..

Even if its innocuous you really should ask the other party first. Its a courtesy at the very least.

 

[aboyd]

I would expect you to do what I would have done -- understand his point, even if he worded it like crap.

Sorry, but what is Patrick's point? We tried understanding his points before and got told we were misquoting him.

I'll give you a couple of examples of how I would have tried to understand Patrick. My thinking is that if we (collectively) had done what I'm about to write, everyone might have stayed calm. As usual, I may be wrong. Here's the first big quote, followed by what I would have tried to do.

Patrick, I listened to the whole 'podcast' and if you're supposed to be a 'journalist', you're almost as much of a disgrace as him. Stick around, read some newsposts and maybe learn how to do your job. Or go back to GameSpy, collect your paycheck and continue being a worthless loser/hack.

But don't expect to get a lot sympathy for such a pathetic statement as "I love Fallout". You honestly think anybody cares whether you 'love' Fallout? Are you fucking retarded? No, we just want you to do your fucking job...

In this case, I probably have written something like this instead: "Patrick, I listened to the whole podcast and it didn't convince me as you may have hoped. I'm grateful that you said you 'love Fallout.' But that should translate into action -- you could have suggested that some of us are making valid points. You could have gotten into some really interesting topics that way. So what's done is done, but for round 2 maybe characterize the community (or the arguments they put forward) in a more legitimate light?"

As opposed to a lot of response I have seen here, and on NMA, this weekend. Which has included choice bits like Allen should have a poker shoved up him, or that I should have (the post just before this one, I believe) retroactively aborted his children? Honestly, with responses like that, why would he feel any other way about the community?

Ok...first off, NMA has a policy against threats against people. Read their rules, they don't allow them. Not even towards Chuck Cuevas and Herve Caen. Nice spin job though. Are you gunning for Pete Hine's job as Master of Lies?

As for here versus your podcast. Let's have a little reality check bucko. This forum is a mostly obscure place in the internet. You guys happen to be a "legitimate" media outlet. We're bound by the law to not post or say anything highly illegal. You guys are bound by journalistic ethics to be unbiased unless otherwise spoken to the contrary, and to not say highly offensive stuff among other things.

Instead, I would have responded like this: "Yeah, the comment about doing a retroactive abortion is maybe mean-spirited. But if GameSpy was going to print hyperbole, you must have expected that people might react in kind. Right? So there's no harm, no foul on both sides if we speak this way. Or maybe, both sides should find a better way to speak about each other. Wouldn't that be right? For example, NMA has a policy against threats. Couldn't GameSpy have a similar policy? It might have diffused the response you're experiencing in the community."

I'm not saying those responses are perfect. It's 11 PM and I'm still trying to keep going on 4 hours of sleep. But at the very least can you see what I'm deliberately doing? I'm conceding points that obviously stir his emotion (and points which I would otherwise ignore, so it's not like they were big debates -- it's just an olive branch). I'm trying to take him at his word that he's a true Fallout fan, and treat him like an ally that might strategize with me on how to do the next interview. And I'm trying to state my disagreement without calling him names.

Maybe changes in tone similar to what I just tried would have gotten us somewhere other than written off. Maybe.