Actually, this quote illustrates my main point perfectly: everyone treats gaming outlets as one big reviewer, and differing opinions of individual writers are treated as signs of incoherence. This sticks out to me immediately as an issue with the reader's expectations, not with the game sites themselves. However, Dunkey heavily edits the videos (as he is really great at doing), obscuring the fact that in both videos, there were several members of the podcast who disagreed with the people saying Sonic was never good. To illustrate this point, Dunkey shows how IGN's review of Sonic 4 conflicts with the opinions of some of the members of two different IGN podcast videos. I want to illustrate this using a few points he himself made in the video.ġ. People have different expectations going into one of Dunkey's videos compared to when they check what IGN gave a game. He has the ability to deviate from the industry standard in ways that someone who gets paid exclusively to review games cannot. My general issue with his video is that Dunkey, as a youtuber, is entitled to so many more advantages when it comes to writing and publishing his own game reviews compared to the average writer for Kotaku or IGN.
I recommend you watch he video, preferably several times, before you even begin to read this blog. I've been watching Dunkey since his hilarious League of Legends videos from 2012, and his recent serious videos are really thought-provoking. I'm absolutely a small-time reviewer and not at all dedicated (or good) enough to write for a major site, but regardless I'd like to share some thoughts on a few particular points he made that were great and some very misguided.
It's garnered significant criticism and praise from different people, proving very controversial and generating serious discussion about gaming media.
If you follow Dunkey at all you've most likely seen his video "Game Critics", detailing issues he has with the way gaming outlets write their reviews.
0 kommentar(er)
