MGS fans (or, really, Hideo Kojima fans) are crazy about criticism. Any given gaming publication with a considerable readership would probably ratchet up the scores regardless of whether or not this kind of nepotism is actually going on.
Konami Shuns Kotaku Japan Over Corruption Comments
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
If your argument is a clear cut accusation of foul play, then you have to support it indeed, with proof. If you support it only with smoky conjecture, then I'm sorry, but that's not an opinion piece, that's libel.John Funk said:
It's not the first time that you use the moderator costume in order to try and win an argument. I posted no personal attack against any of the posters here, on the other hand, I've been target of gratuitous personal attack from a couple people. How comes you remind me to "tone the attitude down" and not them? You're getting a tad blatant.
What kind of attitude, if I may Ask? I've been laying down my opinion in a clear cut but absolutely polite way. I insulted or personally attacked no one here, while others didn't really manage to keep their cool. So I'm sure you can explain what kind of "attitude" I have to "Tone down".
Is expressing a different opinion an "attitude" that one has to tone down now?
Famitsu is IN THE GAME IT HYPED AS PERFECT! It's gaetting singled out cause it the only IRL magizine being in the game that giving nothing but gold medals to, if their were other in the same boot with them, then they would all be called out and it would be PROVEN konami was buying reviews.Abriael said:
If your personal attacks are just "getting warmed up" then i wonder how you are when you try to flame.vikeif said:
You can "want" to see it as much as you want, but this doesn't give you any right to demand it. So one day you wake up and decide to accuse your neighbor of peeping into your bathroom as you pee. You call the police and accuse him of stalking. Guess what? they're gonna ask YOU to prove it, they aren't going to ask your neighbor to prove that he didn't do it.
I'm defending no one. I'm just saying that
1: Kotaku is accusing a developer and a competing publication of foul play without any shred of proof. Since accusing without proof is wrong by itself, it doesn't matter if the accusations happen to be right. He has no proof, so his case doesn't exist.
2: give and take between journalists and developers has gone on in the industry for years. Everywhere. Japan, Europe, US, Online, offline. Every single developer has employees officially appointed to try and "sway" the opinions of the press. There's nothing new about it. That's why customers should ALWAYS take ALL reviews with a grain of salt.
3: Kotaku throws accusations in the face of others, but as I proved they did the same things multiple times, ergo, their article is hypocritical.
There's no need to even get into defending Konami and Famitsu, Kotaku is in the wrong on the whole spectrum whatever Konami and Famitsu did.
@powell86: thanks for the kind words. On the reason why I bother... well, first of all I can't seem to sleep. Secondarily, I'm tired of seeing wannabe journalists stirring controversy at the expense of people (game developers) whose professionality they can't even imagine.
But yeah, I guess it's moot. As we say here in Italy "There's no worse deaf that the one that doesn't want to hear."
Asking to prove that something that didn't happen actually didn't happen is a contradiction. That's why the burden of proof is always on the accuser.vikeif said:
I didn't see the review by Yahtzee you're talking about, but normally his statements aren't libelous. Even if he did some (again, I have to trust your words), him getting away with it doesn't make it any less wrong.
Many criminals get away with their crimes without getting jailed. This doesn't make their crimes acceptable.
Well if kotaku did some thing criminal,konami would send snake to kill them... or have brought out the lawyer, either way works.Abriael said:
Actually, you yourself said it was JUST op-ed, Yahtzee then has done nothing wrong in your line of logic, or they (like most big companies.) don't care what one reveiwer says.
Actually both me and powell86 answered to this question multiple times. You just don't like the answer, but that's not our problem no?vikeif said:
If they had proof, they would have laid it down in their articles. They didn't.
I called him a "wannabe journalist", that's quite different. I did nothing else than laying down facts. Which is much different than throwing wild accusations.
I'm not "attacking". I laid down facts: 1) Kotaku had tie-ins, 2) Kotaku didn't post a full disclosures about their tie-ins. 3) Kotaku demand that other publications write a full disclosure when they have tie.ins.
Result: Does not compute
Those three things are undeniable facts, and the proof is on Kotaku's own site. I didn't imply anything further than that. There's no need to, as the sole existance of those three facts proves my point fully.
From what I saw yathzee has one nothing ethically wrong. This doesn't mean I will appreciate what he does or that he might not have posted something libelous that I didn't see (but somehow I doubt it). You seem not to grasp the fact that Yathzee's reviews are a completely different cup of tea compared to Ashcraft's Anti-famitsu articles.
but as powell86 aptly explained, you're just arguing for argument's sake, without taking in consideration any of the counterpoints laid before you. So it's not really worth it. Every single point you continue to bring over and over has been answered already. You may as well just go back and reread our posts.
I said what I had to.
As long as we're busy singling out previous games we doubt deserved their perfect scores, I choose...vikeif said:
You know what, probably better that I don't do that here. Sounds like a topic for a different thread!
Which means the value of the reviews is diminished regardless of whether or not there were bribes involved.TheRocketeer said:
1. I didn't read to closely to powell, I'm gettig kinda cross-eyed from lack of sleep.Abriael said:
2. Never know, might have leak, or talking out their ass, either way it does look dubious for konami/Famitsu
3. Well Facts are also not looking good for Famitsu either, I'd have thought the same thing, but I personally would have been more suble.
4. Kotaku thinks... funny. Still They do have a point about that, though the "disclosure" is pretty dumb, It should be that if you have you hands in the creation, be proud and tell people about it, but to rate it perfect while have a rep for rarely rating things perfect is rather arrogant at the least.
Still, I'm not DEFENDING kotaku, just saying that it not worth a forum fight out, as much as you enjoy them.
Edit: Goddamnit Nappa!
This is neither an argument, nor is it libel. It's pure insinuation, as evidenced by the quote that says it "appears to be bought". Legally the guy has his bases covered due to the wording - although I am bearing in mind that I'm reading a translation, so I take it with the relevant grain of salt. If he was ever to be taken to court for it, his lawyers could argue that he was not implying directly that the review was bought, but that the lack of disclosure would give the appearance that it was bought. In which case it's definitely not libel, it's an observation. Unless maybe the legal system works a little differently in Japan.Abriael said:
My point is, if mere insinuation constituted libel our courts would be backlogged for years. Enough insinuations are thrown around by our politicians on TV each night to put a hundred law students into full time internships.
Eh, not really, the use of a mild conditional doesn't really cover his bases, expecially when the idea of foul play is reiterated multiple times through a lenghty article.Shamanic Rhythm said:
It's pretty much a clear cut accusation, expecially since the fact that they didn't post a full disclosure of something that was publicly advertised in a quite big press conference does not make the score appear to be bought. Hence, the libel.
The fact that many cases of libel aren't pursued simply because it wouldn't be cost efficent to do so, doesn't mean that there are no elements of libel in play.
The cost efficent way to pursue this kind of cases is to blacklist the offending party, and that's exactly what Konami did.
This, of course, without even mentioning that the articles being actually libelous or bordering libel doesn't make much of a difference, paired with the fact that kotaku's accusations are clearly hypocritical (since they do exactly the same), I'd say is pretty safe to say that in this case Ashcraft and Kotaku are completely in the wrong.
1) Either libelous or bordering libel accusations with zero proof (depending on how you interpret the word libel)
2) Exactly the same behaviour held by Kotaku and Gawker in multiple proven occasions
1+2= Kotaku's article is a pile of smoldering sensationalistic crap that should only be frowned upon and for sure not defended.
Same reason your still reply to them, can't sleep and nothing better to do.Abriael said:Then why exactly are you posting?vikeif said:
I do enjoy a good argument and you did deliver, and you did it without going to sailor talk (I did though so no cookies for me.) but again, I'm just arguing for the hell of it really.
Kotaku USA is so out of their depth taking on the Famitsu/Konami story.
First, how can Kotaku USA act like this is surprising? Japanese business culture has a totally different set of rules and social norms than western business culture. A major part of the foundation for the modern Japanese economy is based on the business model of the keiretsu. Keiretsus being tightly related groupings of businesses, which is to say a lot of Japanese business has been founded on relationships that most westerners would balk at and consider a conflict of interest.
The Japanese concept of "conflict of interest" is probably like the Chinese concept of freedom - utterly different from our western conception. So we can ***** and moan about the perceived injustice here, and hope that Kotaku JP lights the fire that causes the entirety of Japan to reconsider it's social values, or just accept that this situation is lost in translation and few people, least of all Kotaku, will be able to interpret it in any meaningful way for the rest of us.
First, how can Kotaku USA act like this is surprising? Japanese business culture has a totally different set of rules and social norms than western business culture. A major part of the foundation for the modern Japanese economy is based on the business model of the keiretsu. Keiretsus being tightly related groupings of businesses, which is to say a lot of Japanese business has been founded on relationships that most westerners would balk at and consider a conflict of interest.
The Japanese concept of "conflict of interest" is probably like the Chinese concept of freedom - utterly different from our western conception. So we can ***** and moan about the perceived injustice here, and hope that Kotaku JP lights the fire that causes the entirety of Japan to reconsider it's social values, or just accept that this situation is lost in translation and few people, least of all Kotaku, will be able to interpret it in any meaningful way for the rest of us.
Eh the problem here is that east or west don't really make a difference. Give and take has been going on in the relationship between gaming industry and gaming press as long as both existed. No matter where. When I worked as a gaming journalist I had to plug my nose several times while passing near crap, and went in trouble multiple times with the editors in chief for wanting to give a "big" game a lower score than the "targeted" one. Several publishers did anything they could short of bringing me the slippers when I walked out of bed in order to try and sway me into giving them better scores. And I definitely didn't work for Famitsu.tendo82 said:
I'm pretty sure that a big percentage of gaming journalists out there had similar experiences. Some will admit them, some will not.