Doritos

[noiseredux]

Wow some folks will get worked up over just about ANYTHING huh?

[MrPopo]

Wow some folks will get worked up over just about ANYTHING huh?

We don't take kindly to people who don't take kindly to people getting worked up about anything 'round here.

[Menegrothx]

We don't take kindly to people who don't take kindly to people getting worked up about anything 'round here.

Now Skeeter, he ain't hurting nobody.

[Balasubbie]

The Kane and Lynch 2/Gamespot jazz would serve as a fine example of corruption within the industry, and also, a fine template for any publication looking for what not to do when employing such practices.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/rumor ... lynch-rev/

There's also the case of Metacritic removing one of the sites it scales for its averages, due to corruption.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/31 ... blication/

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Publis ... 48395.html

A couple of the more prominent examples. I imagine it's pretty vital as a whole that critics are actually provided with the product they're supposed to be reviewing, lest the industry be in want of a point, but the issue with games journalism isn't so much the boons a reviewer may be furnished with, but the documented willingness in which they're prepared to compromise their views on something as a result is. I mean, I'm not saying that is the entire industry-that'd be stupid, and dog-brainedly conspiratorial, but the examples within the industry are prevalent, compared to likes of the New Review or Powerslam Magazine or whatever reputable publication you'd want to pick, who're happy to sell advertising space to a product they don't necessarily endorse, and still retain the right to trash it in the appropriate sections, yet gaming journalism does seem a lot more susceptible to the act of making their reviews accommodate the whims of whatever's filling their ad-space or providing the most lavish perks. It sullies the practice, and does the industry no favours either, frankly.

[dsheinem]

A couple of the more prominent examples. I imagine it's pretty vital as a whole that critics are actually provided with the product they're supposed to be reviewing, lest the industry be in want of a point, but the issue with games journalism isn't so much the boons a reviewer may be furnished with, but the documented willingness in which they're prepared to compromise their views on something as a result is. I mean, I'm not saying that is the entire industry-that'd be stupid, and dog-brainedly conspiratorial, but the examples within the industry are prevalent, compared to likes of the New Review or Powerslam Magazine or whatever reputable publication you'd want to pick, who're happy to sell advertising space to a product they don't necessarily endorse, and still retain the right to trash it in the appropriate sections, yet gaming journalism does seem a lot more susceptible to the act of making their reviews accommodate the whims of whatever's filling their ad-space or providing the most lavish perks. It sullies the practice, and does the industry no favours either, frankly.

So let me get this straight? Your examples are

1) The Kane and Lynch case from FIVE YEARS AG0 in which a journalist DID exhibit integrity by writing a fair review.
(Yes, Gamespot the website fired him for this and immediately caught the flak of the entire online gaming community for doing so. I haven't heard of them doing this since.)

2) The case from a few weeks ago in which some journalist reviewed newer games for a company that she worked with in some unknown advisory role about games that were released prior to her being in a position to review them.

3) A single case of Metacritic, s site which encompasses all kinds of laughable websites in its review score, deciding that a review was unfairly influenced.

That seems far from damning, and is not in any way evidence of widespread or even somewhat common "seedy underhandedness."

Again, the claim is something (now) like "the issue is...the documented willingness in which [game journalists] are prepared to compromise their views on something as a result [of perks and the like]" and that somehow "gaming journalism does seem a lot more susceptible" to this than other hobbyist fields.

I am sorry, but a few isolated examples, two of which fail to substantiate either claim, do not collectively support the accusations you are leveling.

[foxhound1022]

I'm pissed that they canned the Salsa Doritos; Those were great.

Hate to sound like someone's mom, but can't you just dip dorritos in salsa?

Not the same. Thats like dipping Lays in Ketchup. So not the same as Ketchup Lays

Thank you; someone else understands.

[Menegrothx]

Just look what professional reviewers said about Ultima IX

/Argument over

[dsheinem]

Just look what professional reviewers said about Ultima IX

/Argument over

[Balasubbie]

Indeed, I'll disagree respectfully and add a parting point, or a question, if Doritos-Gate, or whatever I listed above, haven't revealed any true, persistent nastiness in the game-journo field, why have two of the more notable gaming sites available, Guardian Tech Blog and VG247, revised their practices in light of it?

I'd imagine there's an element of PR, undoubtedly, but I'd not be as glib as to say it's not somewhat damning of the current system.

http://www.vg247.com/2012/10/31/doritos ... selves-up/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/ga ... sfeed=true

[brunoafh]

We don't take kindly to people who don't take kindly to people getting worked up about anything 'round here.

Now Skeeter, he ain't hurting nobody.

NO! I wanna know somethin'... how come these pro reviewer types have constantly failed to inform the public about the serious damage that can be caused to your controller by gamin' and dorito'n, at the same time?!

I played this at dsh's for like an hour and it's probably my GOTY 2012.