Whats disturbing is how high a trust rating Fox News received, being in the top ten. ITs scary to think there's so many people who consider it a legitimate news source

Quote from: TristramEvans;804651Whats disturbing is how high a trust rating Fox News received, being in the top ten. ITs scary to think there's so many people who consider it a legitimate news source

It's also got one of the highest distrust.  Definitely the most polarizing.

I'd like to see a chart that listed "Error rate per 100 stories reported"

Quote from: Ladybird;804646Erm, context? Dates, source, sample size?

Apologies; Pew Research Journalism Project, Oct 21, 2014

NOTE: and looking at it on the webpage, Breitbart is listed (a whooping 4% trust level!).

QuoteIt's also got one of the highest distrust. Definitely the most polarizing.

I'd say Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh earn that distinction, their Trust: Distrust rations are nearly 1:3

Here is a new gaming site.  It seems to be doing a lot of different things that the mainstream gaming sites don't seem to be doing.

Quote from: Snowman0147;804681Here is a new gaming site.  It seems to be doing a lot of different things that the mainstream gaming sites don't seem to be doing.

Well, there's another victory for Gamergate. I'm impressed. Good stuff

They've got better (The original version of the site was essentially Objective Game Reviews, but without the realisation that OGR was a joke), but the biggest problem with the site is that the writers are boring; I only looked at a few articles, but they spent too much time apologising for themselves and regurgitating things they thought their readers might think, rather than having opinions of their own. I don't want to go to a site to read what I think, or what I might think, I want to know what somebody else thinks. That's rather the point.

They also don't pay their writers, which is... bad. Very bad. If you're writing quality content, you deserve to get paid for it; doing it for free devalues writing for everyone else, and also only leaves you with hobbyists (Who aren't likely to care enough to write reviews for games they don't have a strong opinion on) or people looking for their break into the industry (Who won't be very good yet, and will leave when they can get paid... or could just write on their own site instead).

So it's not exactly going to be the next RPS. But what annoys me the most is their segregating "indie games" into their own category, rather than giving them the full billing they deserve. It's a way to technically cover them, but subtly insinuate that they're not "real" games.

Ladybird: Also, in a debate / roundtable-type article. using coloured text to indicate specific speakers, without other indicators as well (Like prefacing a paragraph with it's speaker) is a bad idea.
Ladybird: I agree! It's an especially bad choice if your site's target audience is male (As with most games sites), is a poor design choice (Hint : Visual condition, massively more common in men than women).
Ladybird: I don't think they'd have intentionally written in their guidelines "Also, the colourblind can just fuck off". It likely just didn't occur to them.
Ladybird: They certainly need to check their privileges, all right.

All that said, they've lasted longer than I thought they would.

Quote from: Ladybird;804746But what annoys me the most is their segregating "indie games" into their own category, rather than giving them the full billing they deserve. It's a way to technically cover them, but subtly insinuate that they're not "real" games.

I don't mind this too much. Indie games tend to have a certain aesthetic and budget, if you happen to be into that. It's nice to have an exclusive space dedicated to them.

I don't want opinions.  I want objective facts and truth that can be proven.  I don't care how boring it is to be frank about it.  I just want the news and unbiased game reviews that is unbiased as humanly possible.  If there is some biased I want to be told about it first before I go on to read it.

If you go on saying you don't like a news site that is trying to achieve to be unbiased, political free, and worthy of trust because it is boring well here are news for you.  You are part of the problem that makes the other gaming sites into shit.  You may not be as bad as a big publisher that force, threaten, and bribe gaming sites.  You may not be as bad as social justice warrior journalists that force, threaten, and bribe indie games.  You are, however, one more cog in the machine that makes gaming journalism corrupt.  You need to change.

Games are recreation. There exists a site that someone finds boring. You tell a person they are a bad person and need to change, because even though this person finds the site regarding their recreation boring, you believe it has good ideals.

That's really weird.

A difference in opinions is weird to you? Huh.

Quote from: Snowman0147;804764I don't want opinions.  I want objective facts and truth that can be proven.  I don't care how boring it is to be frank about it.  I just want the news and unbiased game reviews that is unbiased as humanly possible.  If there is some biased I want to be told about it first before I go on to read it.

If you go on saying you don't like a news site that is trying to achieve to be unbiased, political free, and worthy of trust because it is boring well here are news for you.  You are part of the problem that makes the other gaming sites into shit.  You may not be as bad as a big publisher that force, threaten, and bribe gaming sites.  You may not be as bad as social justice warrior journalists that force, threaten, and bribe indie games.  You are, however, one more cog in the machine that makes gaming journalism corrupt.  You need to change.

Tish tosh. I don't mind opinions or bias. In fact, I kind of love them. I like it when a commenter or reviewer puts an entertaining spin on a criticism about a particular AAA flop, or *gasp* even a feminist yarking about jiggle physics.

What I do not like, and what I personally think is one of the underlying problems that steered things towards Gamergate occuring, is someone trying to put across their subjective bias as fact. Like Anita making some claim without any kind of evidence, or with some pretty fucking flimsy conjecture about how titty physics turns young boys into rape monsters.

And to be clear, I'm fine with Anita spewing her garbage. What bothers me is how criticism of her stuff gets shut down in the name of Social Justice.

Quote from: Novastar;804776A difference in opinions is weird to you? Huh.

Well, thinking someone needs to change, thinking that someone is "part of the problem" because they find a website regarding a recreation of theirs boring, yeah, that's the weird part. People have differences of opinion all of the time. That's the normal part.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;804755I don't mind this too much. Indie games tend to have a certain aesthetic and budget, if you happen to be into that. It's nice to have an exclusive space dedicated to them.

Huh? There isn't any form of indie aesthetic; they're all over the place, possibly moreso than recent AAA's. 2D, 3D, primitive ("Highly stylized" ), advanced... you could probably exchange assets between Torchlight 2 and WoW, and nobody would notice. Bastion and Transistor are probably the two most gorgeous games ever made. Prison Architect and Dwarf Fortress are all about the underlying engine, rather than the visuals (And probably wouldn't work with "better" visuals anyway). Hotline Miami and Super Hot have distinctive visual styles as an aesthetic choice. Nethack's characters tell you everything you need to know, with a minimum of fuss. Minecraft's gameplay wouldn't work with less blocky graphics. Depression Quest is a gamebook, so... text. Cactus' games... are fucking wierd. Amplitude's 4x games are very pretty, and compare favorably to Civ; Dungeon of the Endless has a clean look to it, that's distinct from the others, but it's also a distinct genre change.

The segregating of games off into an "indie game" category demeans them; it's not giving them their full due, and it also isolates AAA games from having to compete with them. These are titles that can stand alongside the AAA market in terms of their gameplay, which is ultimately the most important thing, and that's why they should be rated there, not dropped off under another header (And the indie games that can't match up, gameplay-wise, can get bad ratings, alongside the bad AAA titles). All are games; all should be lauded or trashed on their own merits.

Quote from: Snowman0147;804764I don't want opinions.  I want objective facts and truth that can be proven.  I don't care how boring it is to be frank about it.  I just want the news and unbiased game reviews that is unbiased as humanly possible.  If there is some biased I want to be told about it first before I go on to read it.

Then you are in luck my friend, as I posted the link to Objective Game Reviews. Enjoy.

However, pure objectivity fails when discussing artistic mediums. Breaking down the elements of a game; we already know that people have widely-varying tastes in the traditional artistic mediums (Music, paintings, sculptures, writing). They can't be numerically quantified. Same comes to levels, characters, moves, items... it's just a number. Is a game with 30 levels twice as good as one with 15? Maybe, depends on the levels. Is it twice as big? Well, Elite : Dangerous has 1 level, and it's the entire galaxy. So, um... yeah, that's not a useful number either. Is it better to have more characters? Torchlight 2 has four classes; Diablo 2 has five (Or seven, with the expansion). Is that good? Is Diablo 2 25% better? 25% longer? 25% more varied?

When it comes to gameplay, though... firstly, different people like different sorts of games (This isn't new information, right? I don't need to prove this empirically?). Fans of a particular genre aren't necessarily going to like other genres; and it's not enough to say "I played Metal Gear Solid 3 and it was good". If I'm reading a review, I want to know what the reviewer thinks of the genre, what their biases are, what they like and what they don't like, because the more information they give me, the better informed I am to make a decision on the game. Could be we value some features very differently! A good reviewer can write up exactly why they hate a particular feature, and sell an interested reader on it at the same time.

Frex, Polygon's review of Bayonetta 2 may have had a 7.5 at the end of it (Which, in AAA-gaming reviews, means "worst thing ever made"), but I read the fucking text too and that's why I bought my brother a copy for christmas; the author clearly enjoys action games, and clearly thought it was a very good action game. That they objected to the boobies, well, I'm an adult; I can judge information for myself and come to my own conclusion about it.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;804778Tish tosh. I don't mind opinions or bias. In fact, I kind of love them. I like it when a commenter or reviewer puts an entertaining spin on a criticism about a particular AAA flop, or *gasp* even a feminist yarking about jiggle physics.

What I do not like, and what I personally think is one of the underlying problems that steered things towards Gamergate occuring, is someone trying to put across their subjective bias as fact. Like Anita making some claim without any kind of evidence, or with some pretty fucking flimsy conjecture about how titty physics turns young boys into rape monsters.

And to be clear, I'm fine with Anita spewing her garbage. What bothers me is how criticism of her stuff gets shut down in the name of Social Justice.

Yep. thats my thoughts on the matter in a nutshell. I like opinionated reviews. Otherwise its not a review, its a news bulletin. I just can't abide opinion paraded as irrefutable truth.

Quote from: Ladybird;804804Huh? There isn't any form of indie aesthetic; they're all over the place, possibly moreso than recent AAA's. 2D, 3D, primitive ("Highly stylized" ), advanced... you could probably exchange assets between Torchlight 2 and WoW, and nobody would notice.

Okay, maybe. But I think they are distinctive from your typical AAA title.

http://indiegamereviewer.com/

My impression of them is always that they have a low budget look to them, and they tend to have more "out of the box" premises in terms of gameplay or theme.

I actually like that I can go to a site like the above directly to find this kind of thing.