My Life for Aiur
There's a hilarious/awesome new measurethat will be on this fall's election ballot in San Francisco -- a move to rename a sewage treatment plant after George W. Bush. I think a landfill is more symbolically correct than a sewage treatment plant. After all, the latter is actually useful and productive, unlike its (soon-to-be) namesake. But I'll settle for this one I guess.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/18/bush-sewage/
BTW, I've been meaning to make a post about E3 -- this past one is the first one I've missed in 10 years. And as the guy in Office Space says, "I wouldn't say I was MISSING it, Bob!" Will get around to comments when I get back from Seoul in a couple days.
Maybe I should make this a recurring series. I recently looked over Crispy Gamer's most recent feature, and while it was mildly amusing, the obvious question comes up: how wise is it, exactly, to make a feature mocking 10 of the industry's most important people when you are a gaming publication that is generally hungry for interviews and content?
This is the kind of thing editors will talk about around the water cooler, but how exactly does a piece like this get past the managing editors of a site and get posted? Is it worth the few chuckles you get knowing that none of these 10 guys are likely to want to talk to you again?
"Hi CliffyB, John Q. Writer from Crispy Gamer here, just wanted to ask you a couple questions about Gears of..."
"Oh, Crispy Gamer? Aren't you the guys that said I should shut the f--- up? Well then, your wish is granted. I'm shutting the f--- up, and you in turn, can f--- off."
Doesn't seem like such a funny article anymore, huh? *shrug* What do I know? I'm just a sellout PR flack now =p
PS: I really like how they broke up the piece into 7 pages of about 50 words each when it should have been 2 pages max.
The response to the D3 announcement has been overwhelmingly positive. But the Gut Reactions feature from today, as well as some other articles got me thinking:
\April 2007 - "It's been 9 years since StarCraft! Where's my StarCraft II?!?!"
May 2007 - "OK there's my StarCraft II. Now where's my Diablo III?!?!"
July 2008 - "How come you guys never do anything different?!?!"
There's the saying that "you can please some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time." When it comes to the online gaming community, I don't think that really applies anymore. It's more like "no matter what you do, everyone will find something to ***** about." =p
It's ok. I still lub you guys. And don't kid yourselves -- we'll all be zerg rushing and barbarian whirlwinding together in the future. 
What's most upsetting to me isn't what the Fallout 3 guy said about D3. He's a talented guy working on a much-anticipated game that I'm personally excited about. Dude's entitled to his opinion.
What's upsetting about this situation is the way media and readers are just jumping all over it. Poor Ashley even feels the need to update his blog with an apology. Why does he need to do that? Is this really legitimate news? Or are we just casting bright lights on small things in a way to attempt to generate maximum drama?
I've been in this industry for almost 10 years now. A little more than 7 as a writer, and the last 2 in PR. The hot topic these days is trying to get people to take games more seriously, to see them as a true art form. We have professional editorial for media like film and music that helps shape public attitude toward those forms of entertainment. We don't really have it yet for games. Are we going to get there doing "stories" like this?
With the media shift from magazines and big websites going increasingly to blogs, it just seems more and more that players want information and they want it now. Speed is all that matters. They don't care if it's correct info. They don't care if it even matters. They don't care if it's been properly researched. They don't even care if someone made it up. It just has to be now.
As readers, we do not properly value professional journalism in our industry. I mean, for God's sake, it takes too long. Fact checking stories? Editorial oversight? Checking in for comment? Doing research to put things in proper context? Who needs it, amirite?
That's fine and dandy, but just remember that there are consequences for our choices in what we consume. If you're OK with our flagship gaming media looking more like TMZ and Perez Hilton vs. say...I dunno...Rolling Stone? The New York Times book review? By all means, let's all continue down the path we're going. We can all adjust. Just don't act surprised when gaming spokespeople have increasingly less interesting things to say, and decide it's better to go with safe and politically-correct vs. honest and outspoken.
This is exactly why I'm afraid to write things in my blog. Heaven forbid I do a review of a game I didn't particularly enjoy, and I find the next day a headline on a blog that says "blizz hates [game x]!" This is why I get invited to do fun/awesome Penny Arcade Expo panel discussions, and I feel forced to turn them down, because I'm deathly afraid of creating drama that negatively affects my employer. And it's why you can't get interesting answers anymore.
