"Luke Plunkett has destarred you"

By Jostein Johnsen · October 8, 2010

..*shrug*? ..and no link.

Why, though? ..I promoted someone wondering where the content was in their new "review" style. That was actually all that day.. A bit sore, are we?

Luke:
"If you're who I remember you were - I spent most of last night on commenting stuff - I de-starred you for using that star power to promote lame comments, which is a big no-no.

Remember you were de-starred. Not banned. Stars go around and come around, so the next time one comes around, try and remember that with that power comes responsibility ;)"

Which is funny. Because Luke can't write a review that doesn't contain the words "iPad", "Apple", and "I love it!". Luke also thinks I'm five years old, and likes his attention. How sweet.

Brian Crescente pitches in:
"Go back and look at your comments and let me know if you think that a bulk of your recent comments are insightful talking points that move the conversation forward."

Like this thought-provoking piece of autheurship, fresh off the mainpage?

"Watch Obama Bring The Rain In NBA Jam

US President Barack Obama is in the new NBA Jam, alongside a bunch of other prominent past and current politicians. Sounds like it's worth a chuckle when you read it, but man, you have to see it. More »"

..Yes. Thought-provoking stuff, Mr. Crescente.

Seriously, when did Kotaku turn into /only/ crap? I used to have good talks about games there, and feel somewhat confident the owners of the blog wouldn't disapprove of comments about their editorial decisions. Then they started starring people for fart-jokes, and banning folks who came up with suggestions as well as good reasoning behind them (deanb, for example). And they've really turned it into something from the gawker advertisment catalogue. As well as started sanitizing messages that has to do with the following subjects: war, republicans, politics, the US army.

Any original coverage has also started to become so lame that it's lost all it's punch. It used to be clever undertones in the Activision/Kotick interviews. Or pictures of burnt EA checks sent together with the review copy of Dante's Inferno. And then... ban anyone and anything that isn't baby-mush. Steven Totilo doing occlusion testing on the Move. AT SEVERAL TIMES A DAY, IN DIFFERENT LIGHTING CONDITIONS IN MANY OF THEM! Hard-hitting journalism!

All the while, of course, proclaiming that Kotaku has the highest possible standard for content. And enjoys thought-provoking commentary that "brings the discussion forward".

...Unless you're not randomly dissed by staff for some reason they can't actually tell you honestly.

Brian again:
"Take care."

Sure, Brian. I just hope I actually get the scoop on what the fuck happened to you one day.

Comments 8

joseph_valencia Oct 8, 2010

I've disliked Kotaku for a long time. What they do isn't really journalism, but more like hunting for links to post on their blog, which they profit off of through hits. They're useful as a general hub for gaming news, but beyond that… well, their original "features" are shit, especially the "guest" editorials.

fleinn Blogger Oct 8, 2010

..I don't know. Tim Rogers' column is pretty good, imo. (Very imo, I guess :D). Always focusing on a perspective having to do with mechanics in games, or else a (fierce) nod to some "insider" discussion about what appeals to gamers. His series about game-development in Japan is good and insightful reading..

They've also had some good commentary on different types of topical content, and on the creative process, by the guest-columnists and so on that do have some experience in the business.

...I've always thought about them as the tabloid version of the gaming press, and that they have dipped into discussions about themes in games (war, shooting, power-trip fantasies, obsession and addiction, etc.).. from that perspective, which is unique.

Lately.. I think they've ended up focusing too much on the retweet mode, and the sponsorship posts. The banning wave I mentioned in the post, that was essentially about how their original content didn't really pass the quality test, while the sponsored posts always had a slightly suspect angle that seemed to receive all the attention. Obviously, that makes sense in terms of business in the short term, but when it turns out they keep back content perhaps critical to their sponsors, and the sponsored posts are indistinguishable from the rest of the coverage, then something has happened.

I mean, I'm not a mind-reader, but it occurred to me that the kotaku staff tried the best they could to establish a small foothold for gaming journalism that wasn't dependent on being on the good side of the publishers. That the publishers should ask nicely about being allowed to have their game talked about, rather than that the blog should be begging to repost the press-releases.

*shrug* ..sorry, rambling again.

zigfried Oct 8, 2010

A lot of people lately seem to be finding reasons to dislike Kotaku. I know I've got mine.

//Zig

honestgamer Staff Oct 8, 2010

I actually like the new review format at Kotaku. It essentially requires the reviews to answer the questions that readers are most likely to care about without resorting to useless categories. Because of the way the format is structured, it highlights details taht are important to individual titles. It definitely has some value.

The main thing I don't like about Kotaku, honestly, is the "comments from the readers" section, which is always full of stupidity and politics and other things that really drag the site down a lot. I feel dumber than I was going in every time I read an article and let myself scroll down to reader comments.

zippdementia Oct 8, 2010

Eh, Kotaku is a little full of itself to be on my like list. I prefer the Escapist. They are opinionated bastards, but they'll readily admit to that and not try to kick others out for disagreeing with their big heads.

fleinn Blogger Oct 9, 2010

..honestly, their new reviews look like early sketches that might turn out to become good reviews one day. Like an abstract from a brainstorm session, or something you would write down to follow the text for people who can't be bothered to read the actual thing..

"Who should buy the game: people looking for cinematic experience"
"What is the game about: running around".
"Like what do you mean, running around? Running around with a hammer, beating Orcs over the head".

espiga Oct 9, 2010

Kotaku used to have an air of witty smarminess that I loved about it. As an example, Jack Thompson threatened to have Kotaku investigated by the fbi, to which Cresente posted a plaque he was given by the fbi during.a tenure there. Things like that always seemed to make me laugh, but lately Kotaku seems more interested in pretending like it's 4chan.

joseph_valencia Oct 9, 2010

..honestly, their new reviews look like early sketches that might turn out to become good reviews one day. Like an abstract from a brainstorm session, or something you would write down to follow the text for people who can't be bothered to read the actual thing..

That's exactly what I hate about the approach. Instead of writing an essay, use a lazy template and post it as a review.