fathoms (User)

  • Contributor
  • 5 bubbles
  • 28 in CRank
  • Score: 300670


Mr. Pumblechook: I see. So, your analysis - dead flat wrong, but as you're omnipotent, we have to accept it - must be the only one. And I never called you any names. All I said is that you're obviously ignorant of reality and because of that, you just got mad and continued your base accusation. I already refuted it and explained why. You decided to stick with your overview, which is wildly insulting in and of itself (a symptom of every gamer alive thinking they can be a better c... #1.1.11
11d ago by fathoms | View comment
These days, given the increasingly fluid nature of games, I don't think that's a very good policy. #17.1
11d ago by fathoms | View comment
Cobra: You are correct. It is troubling but this is the way it is. Unfortunately, nobody really knows how to correct it. It has always been the problem with any sort of 100 percent digital enterprise where you're not actually selling anything:

Everything you produce is free for all. Yes, you have to be on the Internet but it's not like GameSpot gets a portion of the money you give to Comcast. All reviews are free because you don't need to have a subscription... #1.1.8
11d ago by fathoms | View comment
Baloney. Sites only exist with traffic, and you only get that traffic by issuing reviews as soon as possible. The site that waits to produce all their reviews has resigned itself to volunteer writers and no income whatsoever.

We all wish it wasn't like this (and it shouldn't be) but this is the digital world. #9.2
11d ago by fathoms | View comment
Mr. Pumblechook: As per my statement about the absurdly self-righteous, you make my point perfectly.

Your entire post is anti-game journalism and fueled by these grand ideals that unfortunately don't - and in fact, can't - exist in the industry today. And why? Because the gamers won't allow it.

Those who have worked in the field know what I'm talking about. Unless you work for one of the major sources, you're probably on part-time pay (... #1.1.5
11d ago by fathoms | View comment
Yes, game journalists don't play games.

That's just...brilliant. #5.1
149d ago by fathoms | View comment
Yes, and the people at fault are those baiting the trolls, but never the trolls, right?

If gamers were more mature and didn't freak out so easily, and if a journalist with half a brain couldn't SO easily predict these freak-outs, maybe that would force journalists to put out articles that have actual substance.

When they do, nobody reads it. Whose fault is that again? #1.2.1
149d ago by fathoms | View comment
As for the latter part, I think that's probably very uncommon. The problem is that gamers seem to think that ALL journalists are somehow shady, stupid, or insulting to gamers (or all three). That's an overblown perspective. #4.1.1
149d ago by fathoms | View comment
Yeah, newsflash for the elitists of the world: A game's difficulty doesn't automatically make it hardcore, nor does it mean that anyone who doesn't play them can't be hardcore. #5.1
162d ago by fathoms | View comment
Good to see most gamers have about three brain cells to rub together.

A 10 doesn't mean the game is literally perfect, genius. In fact, if you just took the time to read the scoring policies for the sources and publications, you'd know how each source uses their rating system. The maximum score allowed doesn't imply perfection; no critic every said it did.

That's like saying any movie, album, or restaurant that lands four stars is completely... #26.1.1
213d ago by fathoms | View comment
Yeah, I don't bother with the shockingly self-absorbed, I-know-more-than-everyone-else , all-game-journalists-are-idiot s mentality I find around here.

Go enforce your wavering ego on someone else. #2.1.2
218d ago by fathoms | View comment
Way to take it completely literally and assume I meant that every last gamer alive should never buy a console a launch.

What a tool. LOL #2.1
218d ago by fathoms | View comment | Personal attack
Thanks for the lesson.

And as someone already said, the article does reflect the content. Next time, try reading before lecturing. #16.1.2
226d ago by fathoms | View comment
A sea of comments from people who clearly never read one word in the article in question. #16
226d ago by fathoms | View comment
Exaggeration and lies.

Know how long I've been reviewing games in this industry? 16 years. 4 different websites. Know how many times I was told to alter a review score because the site was receiving ad money from a company?

Zero. This doesn't happen. Now, the GameStop/Gerstmann thing was a definite fiasco but of course, any time something like that happens, gamers choose to treat it as the rule and not the exception.

99% of all c... #16.1.2
227d ago by fathoms | View comment
It makes no difference whatsoever that critics get their games for free. None.

The myth that critics and sources are "bought out" REALLY needs to stop. It's hugely insulting to those who actually work in the industry. #16.1
228d ago by fathoms | View comment
I think the definition of "real gamer" is crazy subjective, which makes this question tough. :) #2.1
228d ago by fathoms | View comment
No. #2
230d ago by fathoms | View comment
The sites wouldn't report on any of it if the readers (aka YOU) didn't give it so much attention every time it came out.

Has nothing whatsoever to do with the sites. Nothing at all. They deliver the content people want to read, and after people read it, they whine that they "had" to read it. #1.1.1
231d ago by fathoms | View comment
I think the problem with this idea is that the novelty of LBP appears to be wearing just a little thin. Even the most amazing games have a certain novelty that wears off, no matter how imaginative the developers are. #12
232d ago by fathoms | View comment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Showing: 1 - 20 of 132