It's funny that Aftermath is writing about bad game journalism practices when they themselves have an initial "you must register to read our articles," but then after registration, hit you with an actual hard paywall after a couple of articles.
If they want to paywall their content, that is their prerogative, but they could at least be up-front about it, instead of only telling me about it after I went through the trouble of creating an account.
I think there may be some room for improvement on messaging there.
I'm not entirely sure what connection your comment has to the article itself?
Aftermath is a crap site that also practices the things they complain about?
I quite enjoy this site. On my journey to replace a lot of my content consumption with RSS feeds, Aftermath found a home in my RSS reader. We are human and humans can be hypocrites but there’s no need to dismiss an entire publication because of a single author's hypocritical stance.
Where in the article did they complain about registration or paywalls?
How would they fucking know? The article is behind a paywall!
Honestly, I hadn't realized there was a paywall on the article after having signed up a couple weeks ago.
I'll actually avoid posting their articles here then. Thanks for the callout.
Edit: Though I'm still interested in hearing about where they are hypocritical. People keep saying Aftermath writers say paywalls are bad, but I haven't seen that anywhere that I've noticed.
LOL! I hope OP replies to this. Something makes me think /u/Goronmon@lemmy.world wont.
Edit: Ah, OP admitted to being a shill! This is a rare occurrence. Let's continue to observe
Ah, OP admitted to being a shill! This is a rare occurrence. Let’s continue to observe
They used Outer Wilds screenshots in their article and never even mentionned that game. Is this written by a language model or something?
Games journalism is a cringe phrase that came up during gamer gate to try and justify sexism.
Y'all write fan reviews that are meant to help advertise products. That is all that has ever existed in the genre and is all anyone wants from it.
That is all that has ever existed in the genre and is all anyone wants from it.
I don't remember you appointing you as the sole representative for all gamers.
Personally, I think games can be written about beyond "game good" and "game bad". Or maybe it comes down to whether you find gaming something important, or just a silly way to waste time.
You missed my coronation? That's on you.
I dont think the fact that you only read product reviews has much weight on game reporting.
In the same way that you only eating carrot cake doesnt really mean that the only thing people bake is carrot cake
"Ethics in games journalism" was a phrase invented to make gamergate's sexist attacks on women in gaming sound legitimate and I cringe every time people use the term now. Nobody used the term "games journalism" before then.
No one used the specific sentence "ethics in gaming journalism," is what you meant to say.
The concept of gaming journalism wasnt invented by kiwi farm and 4chan chuds. Because "gaming journalism" is literally that. Journalism. About the industry and artwork involved in video games.
You sound like you bought into their gamergate bullshit.
"Hurrrr, no one writes about games unless its an ad!!" Do you get how stupid this makes you sound? The woman targeted by gamergate is literally a games journalist.
This is pedantic, but journalism is a specific thing and it is not generally considered to be what we see in writing about games.
As an oversimplification: Opinion pieces and reviews aren't journalism. Reporting on facts and information with research and sources is.
While there may have been a few pieces here and there that qualify, the industry around writing about games has never been heavy on facts and research, and it doesn't need to be. It's like any other entertainment section writing.
Inventing the phrase "games journalism" was done to try to legitimise a movement that was about sexism. We just didn't use that term before and nobody was bothered by that, because it doesn't really apply.
Its not what you see. Because you are only reading paid for review work. There is no we here. You are in a bubble.
Have you ever even seen anitas work? She was harassed, specifically, for starting a running series of deep analysis pieces about how women are portrayed, discussed, and interpreted within gaming culture from both its players and the games they play.
Just because you never bothered to read her work until someone on an xbox mic screeched about it doesnt magically make her work vanish.
I dont overly care that you only read the paper scraps that flitter past the rock you live under. But the rest of the world isnt your rock. Quit lying about something so easily and obviously disproven.
Anita Sarkeesian's amazing work as an academic theorist is not journalism just because it involves words. Not all writing is journalism. This isn't a value judgment of her incredible work that I am fully aware of and found very educational.
Maybe take a step back and realize you're being incredibly rude to a random internet stranger who has a different opinion than you on what constitutes the term "journalism."
If after you take that break you can come back without hurling insults at me, then we can have a conversation about it?
So thats a yes, you have literally never actually read her work. You could have at least come out and said so from the beginning. "Just words" what a spit in the face of her work.
Is there any point in discussing a topic with someone who apparently learned of its existence about 20 minutes ago? Go shit talk some other professional bud, youve made enough of an ass of yourself here.
Insane to see someone try and neg anita by pretending to be offended about gamergate
I don't see how you got "negging anita" out of me complementing her incredible academic work. I was a huge fan of her Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series, as well as the content she was writing at the time. I am sure she's done other work that I'm not familiar with, too. I am not claiming to be an expert on her entire body of work, but I definitely have seen and read her academic-oriented work.
It's not journalism, but one could argue it's more important because it has a thesis and provides evidence through careful academic arguments and research.
None of what I've said has warranted how you're treating me, so I have to ask, what's going on? are you OK? Why does my definition of journalism threaten you this much?
Why are you still here? Did you not say I hurt your feelings too much to continue?
We already established you do not understand what you are talking about and that you have no interest in changing that. Did you want to insult a different journalist real quick? Do you need an audience for that?
I'm sorry you're like this but I wish you well.
You know what I realized?
Youre the guy who refuses to call non medical phD holders doctors, and then acts like the indignant victim when people rightly call you out for insulting people by refusing to use their earned title.
You dump tons of praise on a journalists work to deflect from the fact that you dont actually respect the work. Its not of a high enough standard for her to have earned her title to you.
Youre a dick here just like I am sure youre a dick to any doctorate in chemistry. And yet, you pretend so vehemently that your insults cant possibly be rude, so surely its everyone else who is wrong.
Its pathetic, bud. As is the disengenuous well wishing. That kinda cements my point
It's funny that Aftermath is writing about bad game journalism practices when they themselves have an initial "you must register to read our articles," but then after registration, hit you with an actual hard paywall after a couple of articles.
If they want to paywall their content, that is their prerogative, but they could at least be up-front about it, instead of only telling me about it after I went through the trouble of creating an account.
I think there may be some room for improvement on messaging there.
I'm not entirely sure what connection your comment has to the article itself?
Aftermath is a crap site that also practices the things they complain about?
I quite enjoy this site. On my journey to replace a lot of my content consumption with RSS feeds, Aftermath found a home in my RSS reader. We are human and humans can be hypocrites but there’s no need to dismiss an entire publication because of a single author's hypocritical stance.
Where in the article did they complain about registration or paywalls?
How would they fucking know? The article is behind a paywall!
Honestly, I hadn't realized there was a paywall on the article after having signed up a couple weeks ago.
I'll actually avoid posting their articles here then. Thanks for the callout.
Edit: Though I'm still interested in hearing about where they are hypocritical. People keep saying Aftermath writers say paywalls are bad, but I haven't seen that anywhere that I've noticed.
LOL! I hope OP replies to this. Something makes me think /u/Goronmon@lemmy.world wont.
Edit: Ah, OP admitted to being a shill! This is a rare occurrence. Let's continue to observe
I don't think you know what "shill" means...
They used Outer Wilds screenshots in their article and never even mentionned that game. Is this written by a language model or something?
Games journalism is a cringe phrase that came up during gamer gate to try and justify sexism.
Y'all write fan reviews that are meant to help advertise products. That is all that has ever existed in the genre and is all anyone wants from it.
I don't remember you appointing you as the sole representative for all gamers.
Personally, I think games can be written about beyond "game good" and "game bad". Or maybe it comes down to whether you find gaming something important, or just a silly way to waste time.
You missed my coronation? That's on you.
I dont think the fact that you only read product reviews has much weight on game reporting.
In the same way that you only eating carrot cake doesnt really mean that the only thing people bake is carrot cake
"Ethics in games journalism" was a phrase invented to make gamergate's sexist attacks on women in gaming sound legitimate and I cringe every time people use the term now. Nobody used the term "games journalism" before then.
No one used the specific sentence "ethics in gaming journalism," is what you meant to say.
The concept of gaming journalism wasnt invented by kiwi farm and 4chan chuds. Because "gaming journalism" is literally that. Journalism. About the industry and artwork involved in video games.
You sound like you bought into their gamergate bullshit.
"Hurrrr, no one writes about games unless its an ad!!" Do you get how stupid this makes you sound? The woman targeted by gamergate is literally a games journalist.
This is pedantic, but journalism is a specific thing and it is not generally considered to be what we see in writing about games.
As an oversimplification: Opinion pieces and reviews aren't journalism. Reporting on facts and information with research and sources is.
While there may have been a few pieces here and there that qualify, the industry around writing about games has never been heavy on facts and research, and it doesn't need to be. It's like any other entertainment section writing.
Inventing the phrase "games journalism" was done to try to legitimise a movement that was about sexism. We just didn't use that term before and nobody was bothered by that, because it doesn't really apply.
Its not what you see. Because you are only reading paid for review work. There is no we here. You are in a bubble.
Have you ever even seen anitas work? She was harassed, specifically, for starting a running series of deep analysis pieces about how women are portrayed, discussed, and interpreted within gaming culture from both its players and the games they play.
Just because you never bothered to read her work until someone on an xbox mic screeched about it doesnt magically make her work vanish.
I dont overly care that you only read the paper scraps that flitter past the rock you live under. But the rest of the world isnt your rock. Quit lying about something so easily and obviously disproven.
Anita Sarkeesian's amazing work as an academic theorist is not journalism just because it involves words. Not all writing is journalism. This isn't a value judgment of her incredible work that I am fully aware of and found very educational.
Maybe take a step back and realize you're being incredibly rude to a random internet stranger who has a different opinion than you on what constitutes the term "journalism."
If after you take that break you can come back without hurling insults at me, then we can have a conversation about it?
So thats a yes, you have literally never actually read her work. You could have at least come out and said so from the beginning. "Just words" what a spit in the face of her work.
Is there any point in discussing a topic with someone who apparently learned of its existence about 20 minutes ago? Go shit talk some other professional bud, youve made enough of an ass of yourself here.
Insane to see someone try and neg anita by pretending to be offended about gamergate
I don't see how you got "negging anita" out of me complementing her incredible academic work. I was a huge fan of her Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series, as well as the content she was writing at the time. I am sure she's done other work that I'm not familiar with, too. I am not claiming to be an expert on her entire body of work, but I definitely have seen and read her academic-oriented work.
It's not journalism, but one could argue it's more important because it has a thesis and provides evidence through careful academic arguments and research.
None of what I've said has warranted how you're treating me, so I have to ask, what's going on? are you OK? Why does my definition of journalism threaten you this much?
Why are you still here? Did you not say I hurt your feelings too much to continue?
We already established you do not understand what you are talking about and that you have no interest in changing that. Did you want to insult a different journalist real quick? Do you need an audience for that?
I'm sorry you're like this but I wish you well.
You know what I realized?
Youre the guy who refuses to call non medical phD holders doctors, and then acts like the indignant victim when people rightly call you out for insulting people by refusing to use their earned title.
You dump tons of praise on a journalists work to deflect from the fact that you dont actually respect the work. Its not of a high enough standard for her to have earned her title to you.
Youre a dick here just like I am sure youre a dick to any doctorate in chemistry. And yet, you pretend so vehemently that your insults cant possibly be rude, so surely its everyone else who is wrong.
Its pathetic, bud. As is the disengenuous well wishing. That kinda cements my point