LATEST CHATTY HEADER
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
New to Shacknews? Signup for a Free Account
Already have an account? Login Now
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=161126
Some stuff in there I did not notice.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 118 replies.
Shack's review provides a thorough critique of CVG's shambolic article, succinctly attacking and dissecting both the article itself, and the erosion of journalistic standards that has occurred since the collapse of gaming magazine sales and the rise of substance-lacking, attention-grabbing, pseudo-review blog sites.
What the reviewer, Chris "Extremo" Remo, may have failed to notice is that as of writing CVG's feature has received a colossal 1200 "diggs," internet jargon for "Letters to the Editor." This is noteworthy because a requirement for articles to appear on the "Digg" website is that they must be explicitly structured as a list of the "Top X" items related to a subject, where X is a finite number (usually ten). One can only assume that the bulleted format of CVG's review is a result of increasingly desperate measures to engage the ADHD sufferers that frequent the Digg website.
Remo's analysis is successful in pointing out CVG's seemingly cheap attempts at courting controversy by disputing easily accepted facts and simultaneously clinging devotedly to the most tenuous of logical jumps.
As the review progresses, it begins to lose focus, making the bold decision to discuss the game itself ("GTA IV") and even its developer ("Rockstar North"), without even mentioning the CVG publication for an entire paragraph.
The Shack's "GTA IV Trailer - Ten things you didn't see Review," the latest in a recent flurry of reviews produced by the increasingly fruitful Shacknews editorial team, is an accomplished piece of writing, a brave move in an industry where confident control of grammar and punctuation is treated with disrespect and even scorn.
Ultimately, however, the review fails: the author fails to provide a numeric score, thus preventing any potential reader of CVG's review from gaining any insight whatsoever.
84.682%
The post has been reported. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post.
You must be logged in to post.