Each of the missions allow players to tackle them in there own chosen way, there is no scripted pre determined route or at least for the vast majority of them, there is however and quite naturally a more scripted yet not entirely set in stone route when missions require Tanner to chase or apprehend specific foes.
-From MS XBox World's review of Driv3r
This is your friendly neighborhood Video Game Ombudsman reminding you to use periods where appropriate.
Expect something more substantial from me on this whole alleged Driv3r review buying mess shortly. In the meantime, here's some recommended reading on the subject.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Monday, June 28, 2004
Rob Fahey Vs. Microsoft
In a story published June 21, Rob Fahey at GamesIndustry.biz cited "sources close to Microsoft's senior Xbox executives" as saying the company's next system would not be backwards compatible. The story got picked up by a number of sites around the 'net.
Breaking from tradition, the usually quiet-on-rumors Microsoft responded to the story, blasting the report as irresponsible speculation.
I conducted an e-mail interview with Mr. Fahey to find out more about how the story was reported and to gauge his thoughts on the controversy surrounding it.
Video Game Ombudsman: So, first off, who's your source?
Rob Fahey: Nice try! Seriously, I'd love to be able to reveal who my sources on this were - it would end the discussion about it straight away, frankly. However, I have made a promise to a source and I obviously cannot go back on that - even if that anonymity is causing me a headache right now.
VGO: OK, OK, you can't blame me for trying. But how did you get in contact with this "extremely senior member?" When did you talk to him? What exactly did he say (if you can reveal that)?
RF: Actually, he got in contact with us directly and we had a fairly lengthy discussion about Microsoft's general plans for Xbox 2. One of the things which emerged from that discussion was the whole attitude to backward compatibility within Microsoft, which while it wasn't surprising, exactly, was certainly worth following up. I confirmed the
story past a number of developers who are in the loop on Microsoft Xenon development plans for confirmation, so while we certainly one primary source, the story has been corroborated past several different people.
VGO: Do you feel that video game journalism is too dependent on "official announcements?" Where should insider journalism (such as your story) fit into the mix?
RF: There's a fine balance to be struck; obviously reporting official announcements is important, and it's vital that journalists be able to take those official statements and put them into a proper context for their readers. However, it's also very important that publications do proper "insider" journalism - the games media equivalent of traditional "on the beat" stories, I guess - or they risk becoming nothing more than mouthpieces for the big companies in the industry.
The one thing that we need to be very careful about is ensuring that insider journalism - like speculative reporting or opinion-based commentary - is clearly delineated from reporting on official announcements. That isn't to say that insider reports are necessarily less reliable than official statements; just that the reader should be clear on which is which, so that they can draw their own conclusions.
VGO: What sort of ground rules do you use when a conflict arises between what inside sources are saying and the official company line?
RF: This happens less often than you might think, actually. In general, you don't get a company saying one thing, and an insider there telling you the opposite; what's much more likely is that you'll get a company making no statement, and an insider source giving you information that the company won't comment on. That's what has happened here; in these circumstances, our basic rules are to run the story past as many people who might be able to confirm it as possible, and then go to press with an article which reflects the degree of confirmation we've been able to garner for it.
Obviously that isn't a very strict rule, and a lot depends on how reliable and senior the original source for the story was.
VGO: Did you worry about breaking a story like this without confirmation from another source or without official comment from Microsoft? Why or why not?
RF: I would not have run this story without checking it past other sources first. However, their confirmation wasn't important - what was important was the direct information from our senior source about Microsoft's thinking on backward compatibility and its importance, not the simple technical confirmation from developers.
As for an official comment from Microsoft - I actually have a macro in Word for "Microsoft does not comment on rumours and speculation." (I'm not kidding!) That's their standard response, and I have never seen them deviate from it to actually furnish useful information about a story such as this, so we chose to run without their comment.
VGO: Microsoft usually gives a quiet "no comment" to stories like these, but yours got a quick, vociferous response. Why do you think this is? Do you think the lack of a direct denial of your story is significant?
RF: I think it's very significant. As far as I can gather, Microsoft are annoyed because a lot of information about Xbox 2 is leaking, and they see us as one of the publications responsible for finding and publicising those leaks. Which is probably a fair assessment.
As for the name-calling... Well, a journalist a lot older and wiser than I am once told me that if you don't have someone refusing to take your calls, trying to sue you or just calling you names in public, you aren't doing your job right. I'll take Microsoft's attack on my credibility as being a compliment, then!
VGO: Are you worried about any potential legal or other retribution from Microsoft for your story?
RF: No. I hope that we can continue to enjoy a good working relationship with Microsoft going forward, and I'd be disappointed if this spat damaged that relationship in the long term. Legally, though, I know exactly where we stand and I'm not aware of any action Microsoft could take over our reporting.
VGO: What is it like to report on a story where your story is the story? Do you think you were able to remian impartial?
RF: We certainly tried very hard to do so. However, it's something I'd rather not have to do very often. I think it's a failing for a publication when they stop reporting the news, and become part of the news, and it's a situation I'd like to avoid wherever possible.
VGO: Final question -- If you had to give a percentage figure for how sure you were of XBox 2's lack of backward compatibility, where would you put it?
RF: I am 100% certain that right now, the plans for the Xbox 2 don't include backward compatibility.
I'm also 99% sure that the console won't have this feature when it launches, because I'm aware of the technical and legal difficulties surrounding its implementation, and because I know that Microsoft doesn't think it's important. Like we said in our response to their statement last week - we absolutely stand by the story. The 1% doubt about their eventual plans comes from the simple fact that they're a company that is very quick to react, and if a lot of consumer opinion now suggests that backward compatibility IS important, they may well reconsider. That's a very remote outside chance, however; and as I said, I'm 100% sure that their CURRENT plans don't include the feature. I'm only a reporter, not a prophet :)
Breaking from tradition, the usually quiet-on-rumors Microsoft responded to the story, blasting the report as irresponsible speculation.
I conducted an e-mail interview with Mr. Fahey to find out more about how the story was reported and to gauge his thoughts on the controversy surrounding it.
Video Game Ombudsman: So, first off, who's your source?
Rob Fahey: Nice try! Seriously, I'd love to be able to reveal who my sources on this were - it would end the discussion about it straight away, frankly. However, I have made a promise to a source and I obviously cannot go back on that - even if that anonymity is causing me a headache right now.
VGO: OK, OK, you can't blame me for trying. But how did you get in contact with this "extremely senior member?" When did you talk to him? What exactly did he say (if you can reveal that)?
RF: Actually, he got in contact with us directly and we had a fairly lengthy discussion about Microsoft's general plans for Xbox 2. One of the things which emerged from that discussion was the whole attitude to backward compatibility within Microsoft, which while it wasn't surprising, exactly, was certainly worth following up. I confirmed the
story past a number of developers who are in the loop on Microsoft Xenon development plans for confirmation, so while we certainly one primary source, the story has been corroborated past several different people.
VGO: Do you feel that video game journalism is too dependent on "official announcements?" Where should insider journalism (such as your story) fit into the mix?
RF: There's a fine balance to be struck; obviously reporting official announcements is important, and it's vital that journalists be able to take those official statements and put them into a proper context for their readers. However, it's also very important that publications do proper "insider" journalism - the games media equivalent of traditional "on the beat" stories, I guess - or they risk becoming nothing more than mouthpieces for the big companies in the industry.
The one thing that we need to be very careful about is ensuring that insider journalism - like speculative reporting or opinion-based commentary - is clearly delineated from reporting on official announcements. That isn't to say that insider reports are necessarily less reliable than official statements; just that the reader should be clear on which is which, so that they can draw their own conclusions.
VGO: What sort of ground rules do you use when a conflict arises between what inside sources are saying and the official company line?
RF: This happens less often than you might think, actually. In general, you don't get a company saying one thing, and an insider there telling you the opposite; what's much more likely is that you'll get a company making no statement, and an insider source giving you information that the company won't comment on. That's what has happened here; in these circumstances, our basic rules are to run the story past as many people who might be able to confirm it as possible, and then go to press with an article which reflects the degree of confirmation we've been able to garner for it.
Obviously that isn't a very strict rule, and a lot depends on how reliable and senior the original source for the story was.
VGO: Did you worry about breaking a story like this without confirmation from another source or without official comment from Microsoft? Why or why not?
RF: I would not have run this story without checking it past other sources first. However, their confirmation wasn't important - what was important was the direct information from our senior source about Microsoft's thinking on backward compatibility and its importance, not the simple technical confirmation from developers.
As for an official comment from Microsoft - I actually have a macro in Word for "Microsoft does not comment on rumours and speculation." (I'm not kidding!) That's their standard response, and I have never seen them deviate from it to actually furnish useful information about a story such as this, so we chose to run without their comment.
VGO: Microsoft usually gives a quiet "no comment" to stories like these, but yours got a quick, vociferous response. Why do you think this is? Do you think the lack of a direct denial of your story is significant?
RF: I think it's very significant. As far as I can gather, Microsoft are annoyed because a lot of information about Xbox 2 is leaking, and they see us as one of the publications responsible for finding and publicising those leaks. Which is probably a fair assessment.
As for the name-calling... Well, a journalist a lot older and wiser than I am once told me that if you don't have someone refusing to take your calls, trying to sue you or just calling you names in public, you aren't doing your job right. I'll take Microsoft's attack on my credibility as being a compliment, then!
VGO: Are you worried about any potential legal or other retribution from Microsoft for your story?
RF: No. I hope that we can continue to enjoy a good working relationship with Microsoft going forward, and I'd be disappointed if this spat damaged that relationship in the long term. Legally, though, I know exactly where we stand and I'm not aware of any action Microsoft could take over our reporting.
VGO: What is it like to report on a story where your story is the story? Do you think you were able to remian impartial?
RF: We certainly tried very hard to do so. However, it's something I'd rather not have to do very often. I think it's a failing for a publication when they stop reporting the news, and become part of the news, and it's a situation I'd like to avoid wherever possible.
VGO: Final question -- If you had to give a percentage figure for how sure you were of XBox 2's lack of backward compatibility, where would you put it?
RF: I am 100% certain that right now, the plans for the Xbox 2 don't include backward compatibility.
I'm also 99% sure that the console won't have this feature when it launches, because I'm aware of the technical and legal difficulties surrounding its implementation, and because I know that Microsoft doesn't think it's important. Like we said in our response to their statement last week - we absolutely stand by the story. The 1% doubt about their eventual plans comes from the simple fact that they're a company that is very quick to react, and if a lot of consumer opinion now suggests that backward compatibility IS important, they may well reconsider. That's a very remote outside chance, however; and as I said, I'm 100% sure that their CURRENT plans don't include the feature. I'm only a reporter, not a prophet :)
Tuesday, June 8, 2004
The Sincerest form of Flattery
Slashdot Games recently had a story pointing to two sets of reviews for the new Famicom Mini Series 2 that just came out in Japan. Slashdot called the set from 1up "intriguing," and called the set from IGN, "stuttering," probably because the latter features an unintentional repetition of, "We review the latest NES-to-GBA games that hit the scene this May," a ridiculous eight times in a row on the main page.
The stuttering comment may as well have been referring to the extremely similar content of the reviews, though.
Consider, first, that IGN's three reviews, for Mario Bros., Balloon Fight and Clu Clu Land, are all dated June 3. The reviews for these three games on the 1up page are dated June 1 and 2; the rest are dated June 3 and later.
Then consider the following quotes (culled using "..."s to make similarities more apparent):
From 1up's take on Mario Bros.:
"...the Famicom Mini version of Mario Bros.... exists three years into the life span of the Game Boy Advance, a time in which Mario Bros. has been reprised as a free extra in not one but five other GBA titles (specifically, the four Mario Advance games and Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga)."
From IGN's take on Mario Bros.:
"But Nintendo's got serious cajones expecting that Japanese gamers will front the full price for a game it's not only updated and packaged a current total of five times in the Super Mario Advance series as well as in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga"
This one's not so bad... any decent review would probably point to the endless repackaging of Mario Bros. on the GBA. I could even see them potentially using similar language to do it.
But consider as well these introductory paragraphs:
From 1up's take on Balloon Fight:
"Nintendo is a company known for its ability to create stunningly original ideas... Balloon Fight serves as a cheerful reminder that even the Big N hasn't been above the time-honored art of knicking someone else's idea wholesale. In this case, that idea was John Newcomer's arcade classic Joust."
From IGN's take on Balloon Fight:
"Let it be said that Nintendo isn't always the innovative and creative company it's always been viewed as. Case in point: Balloon Fight... In the US, we had already been playing Balloon Fight in the arcades, and on the Atari systems as Joust..."
Some thematic similarities definitely, but nothing that falls definitely outside the realm of coincidence.
But also consider the dueling reviews for Clu Clu Land:
From 1up's take on Clu Clu Land:
"The word "classic" has suffered terrible abuse over the years. For instance, some people refer to any car that's more than 25 years old as "classic." Were it still alive, my very first car (a 1981 Buick Estate Wagon) would be reaching that vaunted age in a couple of years... "Vintage," yes. "Old," definitely. But classic? The mere thought cheats the word of its integrity. So it is with video games..."
From IGN's take on Clu Clu Land:
"That doesn't matter, though, as the game has been relegated to "classic" status simply because it's an "ancient" design, at least in videogame terms...not because it's any good...
Different? Yes. Classic? Debatable."
Now, to me, this seems like a relatively unique angle to take in a review -- namely the differentiation between "old" and "classic" in terms of game design. To have two reviews of the same game use this same idea strikes me as a little odd, if not a little disturbing.
Was there any conscious or unconscious plagiarism of ideas between the 1up and IGN reviews here? It's hard to say. I certainly wouldn't definitively say there was without more evidence. But since the IGN articles are unsigned and I am going to Europe for two weeks, I will leave this one open for now. Please post your thoughts on the matter while I am gone, especially if you are the author of any of these reviews.
Also... remember all that E3 coverage I promised. Yeah, it's still coming, but it's gonna be really late (obviously). So sorry.
The stuttering comment may as well have been referring to the extremely similar content of the reviews, though.
Consider, first, that IGN's three reviews, for Mario Bros., Balloon Fight and Clu Clu Land, are all dated June 3. The reviews for these three games on the 1up page are dated June 1 and 2; the rest are dated June 3 and later.
Then consider the following quotes (culled using "..."s to make similarities more apparent):
From 1up's take on Mario Bros.:
"...the Famicom Mini version of Mario Bros.... exists three years into the life span of the Game Boy Advance, a time in which Mario Bros. has been reprised as a free extra in not one but five other GBA titles (specifically, the four Mario Advance games and Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga)."
From IGN's take on Mario Bros.:
"But Nintendo's got serious cajones expecting that Japanese gamers will front the full price for a game it's not only updated and packaged a current total of five times in the Super Mario Advance series as well as in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga"
This one's not so bad... any decent review would probably point to the endless repackaging of Mario Bros. on the GBA. I could even see them potentially using similar language to do it.
But consider as well these introductory paragraphs:
From 1up's take on Balloon Fight:
"Nintendo is a company known for its ability to create stunningly original ideas... Balloon Fight serves as a cheerful reminder that even the Big N hasn't been above the time-honored art of knicking someone else's idea wholesale. In this case, that idea was John Newcomer's arcade classic Joust."
From IGN's take on Balloon Fight:
"Let it be said that Nintendo isn't always the innovative and creative company it's always been viewed as. Case in point: Balloon Fight... In the US, we had already been playing Balloon Fight in the arcades, and on the Atari systems as Joust..."
Some thematic similarities definitely, but nothing that falls definitely outside the realm of coincidence.
But also consider the dueling reviews for Clu Clu Land:
From 1up's take on Clu Clu Land:
"The word "classic" has suffered terrible abuse over the years. For instance, some people refer to any car that's more than 25 years old as "classic." Were it still alive, my very first car (a 1981 Buick Estate Wagon) would be reaching that vaunted age in a couple of years... "Vintage," yes. "Old," definitely. But classic? The mere thought cheats the word of its integrity. So it is with video games..."
From IGN's take on Clu Clu Land:
"That doesn't matter, though, as the game has been relegated to "classic" status simply because it's an "ancient" design, at least in videogame terms...not because it's any good...
Different? Yes. Classic? Debatable."
Now, to me, this seems like a relatively unique angle to take in a review -- namely the differentiation between "old" and "classic" in terms of game design. To have two reviews of the same game use this same idea strikes me as a little odd, if not a little disturbing.
Was there any conscious or unconscious plagiarism of ideas between the 1up and IGN reviews here? It's hard to say. I certainly wouldn't definitively say there was without more evidence. But since the IGN articles are unsigned and I am going to Europe for two weeks, I will leave this one open for now. Please post your thoughts on the matter while I am gone, especially if you are the author of any of these reviews.
Also... remember all that E3 coverage I promised. Yeah, it's still coming, but it's gonna be really late (obviously). So sorry.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
The Ombudsman Lives
Here are my favorite theories for why there have been no new posts here since I left for E3 nearly two and a half weeks ago, as proposed by the imaginary readers who have been e-mailing me asking what's going on.
I do have some coverage planned for my first trip to the show, including a first-time journalists guide to E3, reviews of some of the 27 free game magazines I managed to haul away from L.A. and some analysis of the coverage. The news hasn't stopped either, so there are quite a few non-E3 stories filling up in my queue. They'll all have to wait till next week, though, as I'm going away for the Memorial Day weekend tomorrow morning.
To hold you over, here's Dan Hsu, executive editor of Electronic Gaming Monthly, as quoted in a New York Times story on movie-based games. Discuss!
"These licensed properties get a lot of mainstream press because they are easily recognizable to the masses," Mr. Hsu said. "Most of the mainstream media are new to covering games and so they're going to want to cover the The Lord of the Rings or Spider-Man game before they are going to want to cover Zelda or Metal Gear Solid."
- I realized just how horrible the video game journalism industry was at E3 and decided to give up.
- I got trampled to death when the U.S. Army invaded E3 and the government covered up the story.
- I had finals, graduation, an apartment hunt, a new fullish-time job and trips to Philadelphia and New York to worry about first.
I do have some coverage planned for my first trip to the show, including a first-time journalists guide to E3, reviews of some of the 27 free game magazines I managed to haul away from L.A. and some analysis of the coverage. The news hasn't stopped either, so there are quite a few non-E3 stories filling up in my queue. They'll all have to wait till next week, though, as I'm going away for the Memorial Day weekend tomorrow morning.
To hold you over, here's Dan Hsu, executive editor of Electronic Gaming Monthly, as quoted in a New York Times story on movie-based games. Discuss!
"These licensed properties get a lot of mainstream press because they are easily recognizable to the masses," Mr. Hsu said. "Most of the mainstream media are new to covering games and so they're going to want to cover the The Lord of the Rings or Spider-Man game before they are going to want to cover Zelda or Metal Gear Solid."
Monday, May 10, 2004
E3-mail
The Personal Information that we collect is used to process your registration or may be used by E3 for marketing and promotional purposes to keep you informed with the latest news about the event.
The people at E3Expo.com weren't kidding when they put this notice in their privacy policy. Since my registration for my first ever E3 was confimed on March 18, I've received at least 53 e-mails from companies asking me to see their wares at the show. This doesn't include at least 27 more forwarded by my editors and co-writers at GameCritics.com (many of which duplicated messages I had already received).
There's no larger point to this post... just thought I'd share those quick stats as I prepare to jet off to sunny L.A. (just in time to miss the big three press conferences, unfortunately). If you want to look for me there, I look like this only in color. I'm sure the show itself will give me plenty of fodder for the blog (I've had a few story suggestions already), so be on the lookout for my thoughts, impressions and opinions (and other synonyms) when I get back. Ciao!
The people at E3Expo.com weren't kidding when they put this notice in their privacy policy. Since my registration for my first ever E3 was confimed on March 18, I've received at least 53 e-mails from companies asking me to see their wares at the show. This doesn't include at least 27 more forwarded by my editors and co-writers at GameCritics.com (many of which duplicated messages I had already received).
There's no larger point to this post... just thought I'd share those quick stats as I prepare to jet off to sunny L.A. (just in time to miss the big three press conferences, unfortunately). If you want to look for me there, I look like this only in color. I'm sure the show itself will give me plenty of fodder for the blog (I've had a few story suggestions already), so be on the lookout for my thoughts, impressions and opinions (and other synonyms) when I get back. Ciao!
Monday, May 3, 2004
Announcing... an Announcement!
** SAVE THE DATE ** SAVE THE DATE ** SAVE THE DATE **
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT ON DAY #1 OF E3
May 12, 2004 in SEGA Room
Mark your calendars for a "mystery briefing" event in SEGA of America's E3 Room.
This is your opportunity to hear the latest 2004 title announcements from company executives in addition to some explosive news -- something even YOU won't be able to guess!
If you're lucky enough to be attending E3 and you're a member of the press, you probably got a message like the one above in your e-mail box recently. If you're not an E3-attending member of the press, you still might have heard about the event from any number of sources (including at least three that posted the exact same article by Bryan Dawson.)
Now, if you're a member of the press planning on attending E3, the value of this announcement is apparent. If you're an average reader of a video game news site... well... it's not quite as apparent. The question then: Is the mere announcement of an announcement enough to warrant a news item?
The decision to run a story about the announcement is definitely justifiable. Even though Sega is not in the hardware business anymore, they're still an influential third-party and a major player in the video game business. When a company of Sega's stature says they're gonna talk, we should say we're gonna listen (A point I made when I linked to the GamerFeed story in today's GameCritics news update).
One could also make the case that, by helping publicize the information, the media is putting pressure on Sega to live up to their lofty promises. We're merely making sure the spotlight on Sega so everyone notices if (and when?) they trip up. If Sega can't deliver, they have no one to blame but themselves.
On the other hand, it's pretty easy to look at these pre-anouncement stories as nothing but free advertising -- unearned hype about an anouncement that we only think will be big because Sega says it will be. Despite having no idea what will be announced, journalists are all too willing to parrot Sega's words and call the announcement "explosive." If a smaller, no-name company made the same claim, would the media be so quick to believe them?
One could argue that the increased attention to Sega's announcement distracts from other developments in the busy pre-E3 season, giving an undue spotlight to a company simply because it had the time to craft a breathless press release. One could also say the attention helps make Sega's promise more of a foregone conclusion ("Hey, look at all the people at Sega's booth. They must be announcing something BIG!")
In the end, I think the decision comes down to one of audience. If your site caters to a hardcore crowd that really follows the industry closely and wants to know everything before it happens, then a small news item could be warranted. Most general sites, though, should probably wait until Sega actually makes their "explosive" announcement before deciding whether it's worth the readers' time.
Comments Question (A new end-of-post filler inviting answers in the "Comments" thread): Despite Sega insisting that the announcement will be "something even YOU won't be able to guess," everyone is already guessing what the announcement will be. Leading contenders right now seem to be the announcement of Shenmue III for the Xbox, a revival of the Dreamcast, or a shocking re-entry into the console business. Of course, if Sega's statement is true, then the mere act of guessing something automatically eliminates it from possibly being in the announcement. Ironic, no? Anyway, post your grossly irresponsible guesses about the announcement using the comments link below.
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT ON DAY #1 OF E3
May 12, 2004 in SEGA Room
Mark your calendars for a "mystery briefing" event in SEGA of America's E3 Room.
This is your opportunity to hear the latest 2004 title announcements from company executives in addition to some explosive news -- something even YOU won't be able to guess!
If you're lucky enough to be attending E3 and you're a member of the press, you probably got a message like the one above in your e-mail box recently. If you're not an E3-attending member of the press, you still might have heard about the event from any number of sources (including at least three that posted the exact same article by Bryan Dawson.)
Now, if you're a member of the press planning on attending E3, the value of this announcement is apparent. If you're an average reader of a video game news site... well... it's not quite as apparent. The question then: Is the mere announcement of an announcement enough to warrant a news item?
The decision to run a story about the announcement is definitely justifiable. Even though Sega is not in the hardware business anymore, they're still an influential third-party and a major player in the video game business. When a company of Sega's stature says they're gonna talk, we should say we're gonna listen (A point I made when I linked to the GamerFeed story in today's GameCritics news update).
One could also make the case that, by helping publicize the information, the media is putting pressure on Sega to live up to their lofty promises. We're merely making sure the spotlight on Sega so everyone notices if (and when?) they trip up. If Sega can't deliver, they have no one to blame but themselves.
On the other hand, it's pretty easy to look at these pre-anouncement stories as nothing but free advertising -- unearned hype about an anouncement that we only think will be big because Sega says it will be. Despite having no idea what will be announced, journalists are all too willing to parrot Sega's words and call the announcement "explosive." If a smaller, no-name company made the same claim, would the media be so quick to believe them?
One could argue that the increased attention to Sega's announcement distracts from other developments in the busy pre-E3 season, giving an undue spotlight to a company simply because it had the time to craft a breathless press release. One could also say the attention helps make Sega's promise more of a foregone conclusion ("Hey, look at all the people at Sega's booth. They must be announcing something BIG!")
In the end, I think the decision comes down to one of audience. If your site caters to a hardcore crowd that really follows the industry closely and wants to know everything before it happens, then a small news item could be warranted. Most general sites, though, should probably wait until Sega actually makes their "explosive" announcement before deciding whether it's worth the readers' time.
Comments Question (A new end-of-post filler inviting answers in the "Comments" thread): Despite Sega insisting that the announcement will be "something even YOU won't be able to guess," everyone is already guessing what the announcement will be. Leading contenders right now seem to be the announcement of Shenmue III for the Xbox, a revival of the Dreamcast, or a shocking re-entry into the console business. Of course, if Sega's statement is true, then the mere act of guessing something automatically eliminates it from possibly being in the announcement. Ironic, no? Anyway, post your grossly irresponsible guesses about the announcement using the comments link below.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
"Production Updates" Section Gets (Game)Spotted)
I was checking out the Gamespot News section this morning and was more than a little surprised to see a "Production Updates" section below the "Top Stories" headers. A whole separate section for Gone Gold announcements and shipping dates, set apart from the other news.
Long-time readers may remember that I recommended such a system way back in September. Apparently, Gamespot has been doing these things since back in early February and I've just been oblivious. So consider this a belated "thumbs up" to Gamespot for no longer trying to mix oil and water.
Long-time readers may remember that I recommended such a system way back in September. Apparently, Gamespot has been doing these things since back in early February and I've just been oblivious. So consider this a belated "thumbs up" to Gamespot for no longer trying to mix oil and water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)