Before I begin, first thing I wanted to say was that I have very much enjoyed the warm welcome from the community here at Techraptor. I look forward to producing content and writing articles for you for a good long while, so getting off to a good start was nice.
Though I plan on continually putting forward more editorials, one thing that I would like to do on a weekly basis is provide a follow up article for just about every video that I put forward. If you haven’t yet, please have a look at Reviewing With An Agenda before you read further. I’m going to mention a few things that will require the context of the video for everything to be completely and totally understood here.
I imagine that there are probably readers and viewers out there that won’t be too pleased with me discussing anything Jim Sterling oriented or dissecting his review of Kane and Lynch 2, but I’d ask politely for everyone to hear me out on this one. I do know that there is a lot of anger towards Eidos for what they did with Gamespot and Jeff Gertsmann, but we also have to keep a timeline in mind. Jeff was dismissed from Gamespot in late 2007, and then launched Giant Bomb in March of 2008. Since then, Giant Bomb has established itself as one of the premiere gaming outlets, and they do great work more often than not. It’s safe to say that Gertsmann came out pretty well, if not better than he was before.
Now, let’s have a look at Sterling’s article within that context. Since Kane and Lynch 2, Eidos had been folded into Square Enix by now, and it’s hard telling whether or not the people responsible for what happened to Jeff were even there. So, now we’re left with a situation where we don’t know who was responsible, Gertsmann had moved on from what had happened, and ultimately all we’re left with is a product produced by a solid development house as they try to continue a new franchise. Beyond that, when a consumer is reading a review of a video game, more often than not they have arrived at a point where they have tossed these faux politics aside and simply want to know if a game is good.
But Sterling had to get back at ‘em for Jeff! And what was accomplished by this? We get a half hearted review that tells the consumer nothing except that Jim cannot be asked to do his job, and he won’t recuse himself and let someone who is willing to do the job come in. You, as the consumer, have now been shafted by the reviewer. Beyond that, IO interactive, who did nothing but make a game that they wanted to make, could have also been shafted by Destructoid because they won’t do their jobs. Luckily, Sterling’s review and angst were worthless. Kane and Lynch 2 went on to sell over a million units.
As for the editorial/review over at The Verge in regards to Shadow of Mordor, and Polygon’s review of Tropico 5, we find ourselves in a fun situation. Both places have decided to make video games the targets of “social justice” rage, and feel like an example needs to be made. Clearly beating and mind-wiping a barely sentient cockney accent having monster is evil. Nevermind that they want to destroy the world and their leaders murdered your family. Also, torture now means beating someone in a fight and the victor claiming the spoils, just so you know. As for Polygon, nobody look up the history of Cuba and their reliance on other nations to keep them even halfway steady. That would ruin the narrative.
Allow me to bring forth some rare disclosure and tell you that I am both a devout Evangelical Christian and a staunch Conservative. I am a businessman by day, journalist by night. I’m like Bruce Wayne, but much more body fat and I beat people up with words. With that said, one would realize that I’ve got a bit of insight into business. If I go in to my job and tell a client about my product and half-ass the pitch, I’m either screwing myself out of money, or if the guy signs on the dotted line he has done so without all of the information. This is information that consumers have a right to have.
Jim Sterling, Ben Kuchera, and many others in their circle of friends love to throw around the term “anti-consumer.” They love it because they’ve subscribed to an ideology that ultimately is what they say they’re against. They don’t want you to make an informed decision when they don’t like someone. They want to pick economic winners and losers, and thus you suffer as the potential buyer. Speaking as all of the isms and anity’s that I listed above, I want a world where the free market reigns, and we journalists simply give you what you want: information on the product. So let’s drop the doublethink and stop deceiving consumers, eh?