I’m loving this format. Way to go, BB! Unfortunately, I fear that you’re right about Starfield. It’s probably going to get ugly. In the case of Redfall, I find that I’m able to enjoy the game and have a silly, good time with a friend while also being upset that everyone involved dramatically overpromised and underdelivered. Alas and alack.
The description of how people talk about Redfall is exactly why I'm such a fan of Into the Aether. The podcast is just more accurate most of the time compared to an hour of ripping into a 7/10 game.
Good stuff. The nintendo stuff should serve as a reminder that 90% of game “journalism” isn’t journalism. It is in fact partner marketing. Most outlets don’t even try to pretend it’s journalism anymore but a lot people still see it that way. The red fall part of this is really difficult. I don’t think games should be judged by what the studio has done previously but it’s also really hard to separate from the studios legacy. If redfall had been made by a studio no one had heard of it probably just slips under the radar as a mediocre freshman effort. I also found the fun in it though.
1. I've never played an Arcane game and while I've yet to play Redfall, all the criticism coverage about lack of stealth as a negative has been odd to me because I wasn't expecting that at all, nor did I realize it was lightly marketed as an immersive sim which I saw a lot of people criticize as well. I really dug your comments on critiquing something on its own terms as it is. I don't think Redfall will live up to the initial hype of "Left 4 Dead but vampires!" but I'm still willing to give it a shot later this year. 2. You laid out the Kotaku situation perfectly. Kotaku has definitely played fast and loose with spoilers in their headlines and preview images lately, but they were very careful and thoughtful with the TotK leak yet got absolutely torn apart. Unfortunate.
Probably impossible to ever know, but I wonder who makes up the people bashing Redfall? The longer you play games, the more likely I'd expect one to temper their expectations, especially when it comes to early AAA releases (relatedly: recent uproar over the Jedi Survivors PC port). I personally learned this in 2016 with No Man's Sky, and I've shifted my expectations since then. I don't pre-order games anymore, I take a healthy dose of skepticism for any marketing, and I wait to hear/watch/read review coverage before I purchase. Are people getting burned for the first time? Do we all just like to complain? Did the hype cycle over-promise and then under deliver? I'm particularly curious how this relates to the mass market that might only be buying a couple games per year and aren't investing as much time into the "Discourse"? Is it more likely for there to be a bigger gap between their expectations and the actual game implementation?
Engagement tax! I feel like both stories you covered are just a big indicator that there's just too many incentives to keep THE DISCOURSE going for the sake of keeping the discourse going, since it is something content creators that focus on that can keep milking. Mudding the water of the actual discourse....
I keep thinking back to your argument and no. They aren't doing their 'job'. It isn't an investigative piece or exposes lies or malpractices or leads the consumer away from any marketing lies. It's literally them making a list of things in the game. Something every single person would have access to on launch. All it does is drive traffic towards the site few days before everyone actually starts having proper discussions on the game. Nobody is entitled to information creatives don't want to reveal especially since they don't ask of you to pay money for them. For better or for worse the marketing is an inherent part of one's experience with media, it helps set expectations and that allows the creatives to further surprise them through things they didn't show. If exploration is the entire point of the game then Kotaku just disrespected everyone working on this for 6 years. It would be news if nintendo perhaps lied about a feature, this is just a scumbag way to make money for them on expense of another.
I think you're mis-characterising the issue people had with Kotaku. Other news media had reported that metroid was being emulated but Kotaku went a step forward to talk about how much better it is in emulation on. Day 1 of the games launch. They were in the wrong for disrespecting IP before it was even accessible. Keep in mind bad reviews don't get them blacklisted but actively promoting piracy does. People didn't even care much for this, the only reason people piled on Kotaku is because they whined about not being invited. (Which is an interesting detail you left out). People clowned on them for acting entitled Secondly, your rationalisation for kotaku's totk coverage is pretty bad. Nobody is owed access to knowledge about any IP or experience before the creators want them shown. People who pre-ordered did it on the basis of what was already shown and people who don't want to do that and can wait for the actual reviews to drop in. You know the things that are actually supposed to reveal stuff to the consumer. If the creator thinks certain details will ruin an experience that they have intended for their audience then nobody is entitled to it. Kotaku spits in the face of Nintendo and every one who's been at work on this for the last 6 years when it unveils all the secrets they've worked hard to hide till release.
I’m loving this format. Way to go, BB! Unfortunately, I fear that you’re right about Starfield. It’s probably going to get ugly.
In the case of Redfall, I find that I’m able to enjoy the game and have a silly, good time with a friend while also being upset that everyone involved dramatically overpromised and underdelivered. Alas and alack.
The description of how people talk about Redfall is exactly why I'm such a fan of Into the Aether. The podcast is just more accurate most of the time compared to an hour of ripping into a 7/10 game.
Good stuff. The nintendo stuff should serve as a reminder that 90% of game “journalism” isn’t journalism. It is in fact partner marketing. Most outlets don’t even try to pretend it’s journalism anymore but a lot people still see it that way.
The red fall part of this is really difficult. I don’t think games should be judged by what the studio has done previously but it’s also really hard to separate from the studios legacy. If redfall had been made by a studio no one had heard of it probably just slips under the radar as a mediocre freshman effort.
I also found the fun in it though.
Great programme. I hope there will be more :)
1. I've never played an Arcane game and while I've yet to play Redfall, all the criticism coverage about lack of stealth as a negative has been odd to me because I wasn't expecting that at all, nor did I realize it was lightly marketed as an immersive sim which I saw a lot of people criticize as well. I really dug your comments on critiquing something on its own terms as it is. I don't think Redfall will live up to the initial hype of "Left 4 Dead but vampires!" but I'm still willing to give it a shot later this year.
2. You laid out the Kotaku situation perfectly. Kotaku has definitely played fast and loose with spoilers in their headlines and preview images lately, but they were very careful and thoughtful with the TotK leak yet got absolutely torn apart. Unfortunate.
Probably impossible to ever know, but I wonder who makes up the people bashing Redfall?
The longer you play games, the more likely I'd expect one to temper their expectations, especially when it comes to early AAA releases (relatedly: recent uproar over the Jedi Survivors PC port). I personally learned this in 2016 with No Man's Sky, and I've shifted my expectations since then. I don't pre-order games anymore, I take a healthy dose of skepticism for any marketing, and I wait to hear/watch/read review coverage before I purchase.
Are people getting burned for the first time? Do we all just like to complain? Did the hype cycle over-promise and then under deliver?
I'm particularly curious how this relates to the mass market that might only be buying a couple games per year and aren't investing as much time into the "Discourse"? Is it more likely for there to be a bigger gap between their expectations and the actual game implementation?
Engagement tax!
I feel like both stories you covered are just a big indicator that there's just too many incentives to keep THE DISCOURSE going for the sake of keeping the discourse going, since it is something content creators that focus on that can keep milking. Mudding the water of the actual discourse....
I keep thinking back to your argument and no. They aren't doing their 'job'. It isn't an investigative piece or exposes lies or malpractices or leads the consumer away from any marketing lies. It's literally them making a list of things in the game. Something every single person would have access to on launch. All it does is drive traffic towards the site few days before everyone actually starts having proper discussions on the game.
Nobody is entitled to information creatives don't want to reveal especially since they don't ask of you to pay money for them. For better or for worse the marketing is an inherent part of one's experience with media, it helps set expectations and that allows the creatives to further surprise them through things they didn't show. If exploration is the entire point of the game then Kotaku just disrespected everyone working on this for 6 years.
It would be news if nintendo perhaps lied about a feature, this is just a scumbag way to make money for them on expense of another.
I think you're mis-characterising the issue people had with Kotaku.
Other news media had reported that metroid was being emulated but Kotaku went a step forward to talk about how much better it is in emulation on. Day 1 of the games launch.
They were in the wrong for disrespecting IP before it was even accessible. Keep in mind bad reviews don't get them blacklisted but actively promoting piracy does. People didn't even care much for this, the only reason people piled on Kotaku is because they whined about not being invited. (Which is an interesting detail you left out). People clowned on them for acting entitled
Secondly, your rationalisation for kotaku's totk coverage is pretty bad. Nobody is owed access to knowledge about any IP or experience before the creators want them shown. People who pre-ordered did it on the basis of what was already shown and people who don't want to do that and can wait for the actual reviews to drop in. You know the things that are actually supposed to reveal stuff to the consumer.
If the creator thinks certain details will ruin an experience that they have intended for their audience then nobody is entitled to it. Kotaku spits in the face of Nintendo and every one who's been at work on this for the last 6 years when it unveils all the secrets they've worked hard to hide till release.