PixlBit

Nintendo Power was just a joyous magazine to flip through, so those relatively minor "controversies" were a small price to pay, (and they weren't as sordid or persistent as today's scandals are).  I didn't even own a NES, yet I would borrow my friends' issues and pore over them. I don't know, I was obsessed with visuals of those 8-bit map layouts. 

Newspapers were't solely dependant on film coverage like games sites are on games; if Ebert slagged off a big movie, it made no difference to the fortunes of the paper, and thus didn't effect his pay grade.  Also, game sites don't chase their own stories, they are given them only if the publisher desires. No scoops that aren't purposely allowed, no insiders.

For sure. Actually, I've been using the term "electronic entertainment" for a long while. I don't know what inspired that, since I was using it before this new kind of software was anywhere on the map.

A man needs his space, needs his peace. Crowds make people crazy.

Why should we dispose of terms because some newcomers want to do things another way, though? Why can't we have "games" AND "interactive dramas," "digital theater," "virtual worlds," etc.  I just don't get the logic behind this, as if words are measures of worth instead of objective descriptions.  It's kind of silly to call Super Meat Boy anything but a game. What, "interactive cartoon?"  I'll pass

I kind of agree with you when you say "who cares" about this incident, on an individual level. As far as game coverage, I only consider the opinions of those I know and can speak fluently about whatever it is I'm looking to invest in.  There is a preponderance of evidence corroborating the accusations, if not the accusations from her former lover, then those of her being a lying opportunist (using Robin Williams death as promotion tool, for instance)and attempts by her and the gaming press to shutdown any discussion of the controversy. It's all really sordid, chicken-shit, low-class drama and I'm glad these people have no influence on any developers I give a damn about.

Sure, I remember some absolutely ridiculous scores handed out for games that didn' tdeserve them (Spiderman for Sega Genesis got the highest rating across the board from Gamepro. Just no).  But do you remember anything like this? or the Jeff Gertsmann Kane and Lynch debacle? Or the Lauren Wainwright scandal? Or Phil Fish?

Almost no one who isn't making the most noise or isn't banging the right people is going to get noticed in this medium if it's left up to the bozos we have as our public voice.  It's a miracle indie games, The Witcher, or Demon's Souls got any attention in this environment. 

Dying and being revived is the fail state. You don't progress until you are able to kill the enemy so that they don't keep sending you to the Vita-chamber. If you suck, you're not going to get anywhere. But the point was that Space Invaders and Pac-Man meet the criteria of a video game by every relevant standard - they set the damn standard. Rendering technique is not relevant. But with something like Deperession Quest, it gets a little sketchier.  You have a problem with the definition of the word "game" I'm using, complain to Merriam-Webster, Oxford, etc. Seems like the internet has given people the bad habit of trying to reform words to fit their agenda driven definitions. Doesn't work that way.

Your second paragraph is irrational. You're not one of the journalists in question, first of all. And second: you'd do anything for traffic? So that includes write click bait articles that have nothing to do with the products themselves, practice nepotism, spin facts, maintain compromising relationships with publishers,  not research what you are writing about, etc. etc. Is that who you are? If yes, shame on you. If not, why are you arguing with me? Explain to me how these actions don't reflect poorly on those involved.

And last but not least, Youtube and Twitch are making IGNorant and Shitaku less relevant by the day, and one reason is because the online rags have proven themselves un-trustworthy .

Hey Ben, remember when we had these things called "vidya game magazines," and they used to talk about vidya games? Remember when it felt like the coverage, even if you didn't agree with the opinions presented, felt honest and pro-consumer?  Remember when it felt like the editors cared about the games themselves?   Remember 1up before the Bob Mackey types infected it?  Or when IGN used to have intelligent content?  Or Gamespot even tried to be relevant?

Nowadays, I feel like Agent Smith when he was interrogating Morpheus :

"I hate this place. This zoo. This prison. This reality, whatever you want to call it, I can't stand it any longer. It's the smell, if there is such a thing. I feel saturated by it. I can taste your stink and every time I do, I fear that I've somehow been infected by it."   - the current Video Game Industry in a nutshell.

Does Depression Quest have any form of challenge, success and fail states like Pac-Man and Space Invaders. Are strength, skill, or luck required to win?  I think you're reaching here. 

Shame on the journalists involved though. They deserve an equal amount or more of the ire. These people do not care about the hobby, they care about getting any kind of hits, clicks ,and profits that they can. They are cancer to this hobby and this industry.

Best get used to restarting battles in XCom then. Losing soldiers is part of the design of the game, unless you're playing on the easiest mode. It's a game where complete campaign failure is possible.

Twice I've tried to play through Biosock. Twice I gave up and played better games.  The thing starts feeling like a repetitive chore at about the same point. It's the kind of game that convinces me that short games are not a bad thing.