Don't Miss The Call of Duty Reveal From GamesCom

[DrStrangelove]

Don't Miss The Call of Duty Reveal From GamesCom

Today the talented people of Sledgehammer Games gave everyone a tour of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare's co-op abilities. So prepare for some exciting new gameplay that will be hitting some of you earlier than others.

Read Full Article

 

[fix-the-spade]

Out of curiosity, did (or how much if they did) Activision pay for this feature or what kind of schmooze did they do to make this a gallery of the day?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Out of curiosity, did (or how much if they did) Activision pay for this feature or what kind of schmooze did they do to make this a gallery of the day?

Still going off that particular gripe I see? So no one can drop an article about an upcoming game without it being paid for by a publisher? Wow... just wow. I shouldn't be amazed by this attitude anymore, but I guess its just a sign that I've too high a standard for people.
Evidence notwithstanding, people just come up with their own cynical bias to spout any time a game series they probably don't like gets featured.
My advice? Stop reading game news if you feel so cynical about any news stories or other articles/galleries/whatever.
People do happen to pen articles on things they might be interested in you know, and things they're excited for, even if you don't like the subject matter, shocking!

 

[fix-the-spade]

Still going off that particular gripe I see?

Your over reaction is impressive, it's what popped into my head whilst I was reading, so I asked it.

Games (and Games Journalism) are a business and I'm always interested in how the business works. This article doesn't contain anything much that we didn't already know and it's a departure from the normally quite broad subject matter of gallery of the day. Gamescom starts tomorrow and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that Activision prompted this piece, I also don't think it's particularly rude to ask if they did (don't ask questions, don't get answers).

Having re-read the article a few times I expect the answer is along the lines of I and a bunch of other journalists got invited to a pre-Gamescom presentation from Activision/Sledgehammer and my article is based on notes I took from that presentation. In which case Activision 'paid' for the article by putting on the event and reserving a seat for someone from the Escapist (or Themis media).

But I would still like to know from someone who actually knows if that's still how it works or not.

Also, in this day and age I think it's perfectly acceptable that when someone says (or publishes) something for the audience to ask whether or not they were paid to say that (and the writer should answer). Not being open about it can create problems with credibility further down the line, for either the publisher or the creator or the person paying for the exposure.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Still going off that particular gripe I see?

Your over reaction is impressive, it's what popped into my head whilst I was reading, so I asked it.

Games (and Games Journalism) are a business and I'm always interested in how the business works. This article doesn't contain anything much that we didn't already know and it's a departure from the normally quite broad subject matter of gallery of the day. Gamescom starts tomorrow and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that Activision prompted this piece, I also don't think it's particularly rude to ask if they did (don't ask questions, don't get answers).

Having re-read the article a few times I expect the answer is along the lines of I and a bunch of other journalists got invited to a pre-Gamescom presentation from Activision/Sledgehammer and my article is based on notes I took from that presentation. In which case Activision 'paid' for the article by putting on the event and reserving a seat for someone from the Escapist (or Themis media).

But I would still like to know from someone who actually knows if that's still how it works or not.

Also, in this day and age I think it's perfectly acceptable that when someone says (or publishes) something for the audience to ask whether or not they were paid to say that (and the writer should answer). Not being open about it can create problems with credibility further down the line, for either the publisher or the creator or the person paying for the exposure.

You implied the article was paid for, which isn't journalism it's a paid advertisement. Inviting journalists to preview a game isn't "paying" them either since said journalists have to provide transport to said event, pay for their own hotel rooms, etc. If they're receiving compensation in any way shape or form it violates ethics. Like the Ubisoft tablet incident. So implying that Activision paid for an article or Themis(Escapist) was paid to write the article is in fact a huge ethical violation against journalism.
The reason I said something is, if you haven't paid attention the last few years, just about any article that shows positive things about a popular game that is unpopular in the "gamer elite" circles is decried as being paid for, I even recall Greg Tito's high praise for Dragon Age II getting the same treatment. So I'd say my reaction to your post is well justified.
Also while we're talking credibility, any self-respecting journalist or news outlet would put a disclaimer on the article itself that said article is in fact paid for by .
In this day and age, transparency is something that should be up front, and not needed to be provided upon request. Also, do you read many articles? Every one that I have ever read that the writer in question was invited to or attended a presentation stated that in the opening of the article. Accuracy in reporting is journalism 101. Hell I learned that in high school and I don't write professionally.

 

[Extragorey]

This so-called gallery is assuming people have actually been keeping up with every iteration of the Call of Duty franchise... I mean, even the most loyal CoD-fans I know aren't that gullible. Forking out over a hundred bucks every year for DLC and a new lick of paint on a tired multiplayer experience just isn't fiscally responsible.

Seriously, who has put adequate hours into the multiplayer segment of every CoD game since Modern Warfare to actually benefit from hearing what the latest changes are?

All I see is that they're trying to leech off the success of Titanfall. It's escalation, pure and simple. Titanfall brought enhanced mobility into the formula; now its competitors must too. Just you wait, Battlefield will follow suit. They already have grappling hooks and ziplines in Hardline.