AS far as this being news, it IS news simply because of the outrageous amount they are asking for.
Also, this is an mmorpg site and it's the site's business to report on what's going on in the mmorpg world. Regardless if people like it or not.
I would say that this game is an example of why crowdfunding should require developers/creators to supply an actual breakdown of why they are asking for their stated amount.
Remember, crowdfunding is not just making a product from scratch. It could just be asking for marketing money or money to help with testing or any number of things.
Obviously, that's not this game.
They are now closing in on $30k.
I'm skeptical about their initial ask.
As I've said before, all the games I've help crowdfund have launched with two mmorpg's pending and I'm still fine with "let it ride" as far as they are concerned.
I would not give money to this with this current offering.
Nor would I.
Did multiple people actually buy the $2k tiers? If those are legit then that's insane...
I suspect that's either their money or friends and family.
If you mean those 2k top tier pledges, there is no money there. Kickstarter only charges you at the end of the campaign and if successful. Until then, you're free to change your mind as often as you like.
Get a sock puppet KS account, "pledge" the ridiculous amount to get randoms to invest, cancel your pledge before the campaign ends. You don't lose anything and a few suckers have just transferred their cash to your account. Pure profit.
Even the fact their tiers jump from $100 to $2000 with nothing in between pretty much shows the purpose of the top tier: to help with the scam.
I can't believe some of you are attempting to defend MMORPG.com and MOP on this. No, they aren't making an article explicitly saying "back this game" but they're bringing the obvious scam more publicity, credibility and money.
I don't care about saving stupid people from themselves. If someone runs across this kickstarter and somehow thinks it's a good idea then go for it. But, these MMO sites shouldn't be bringing broader awareness to it.
When this crashes and burns, as all of us are in agreement it will, MMORPG.com and MOP are 100% culpable right along with these 2 assholes.
Probably the most ridiculous comment I've read this month.
So any game that a site reports on, and fails or in the opinion of the community is deemed as a scam, or will eventually fail, is the fault of the reporting site as much as those who created the project.
Wow. There are no words to describe how completely twisted some people's ideas are of what the responsibility of the media actually is.
I'm sorry if the article forced you to read it, then head over to the kickstarter and back it. I know it's hard taking neutral information on a "scam" and stopping yourself from impulsively spending money on it.
Thanks for being the protector the world needs. What would happen if we didn't have people to call out unbiased news articles, to save the (apparently) braindead masses from spending their hard earned money on kickstarter projects that have been community certified as a scam.
No, not any game. But, this one, yes. I didn't just decide it's a scam, all you have to do is watch the video, listen to the non-pitch and see that these guys have no clue what they're doing. There is no way the writers didn't pick up on this, but they did the articles anyways.
These devs are being willfully ignorant of their abilities to the point of malice. That is a scam.
Do you believe that they would have earned the same amount of money without the MMO site articles? Do you really think these articles have had no effect on this POS looking thing earning $30k so far?
What irks me isn't that they reported on this kickstarter, it's that they reported on this as if it is in any way legitimate. It's not, and no matter how much you might want to believe it is, it's still not.
Couple of thoughts...1st, I half way agree that reporting these things are detrimental.
But, if you really expect any type of "news" to do the picking and choosing, and add moral judgments to the things that they report, that would be even worse. You know, kind of like the "real" news is now?
You never know what you are getting news of is real, fake, totally made up, or just maybe, something true. It is particularly sad that some people still think that they can believe what they have seen reported by any news agency anymore.
Sad days for all that the news now are just like any other business, and have no pretense to try to stay objective. All they care about is their own agendas and keeping there audience share.
Lastly, do not blame this site, the real blame ls on the places like kickstarter and such, (steam is probably far worse) that will promote any and all things as long as they get a cut. I am really surprised that the "nanny state" we live in has not noticed what is going on and stepped in to "protect us all", you know by finding a way to fine them and get their cut too....
But a lot of times, you can tell the difference. The difference is evidence. When making scandalous claims, "anonymous sources" is often the media's preferred euphemism for "people who are making things up". When you have on the record sources, transcripts that give the context, or hard physical evidence, that can add a lot more credibility.
"The New York Times says X" doesn't mean much anymore. It could easily be completely fake news, or so far out of context that it might as well be fake news. Perhaps its unfair to pick on the NYT, as you could substitute a whole lot of other media sources into the same formulation and it works just as well, though they used to be known as the paper of record. "The New York Times can link you to evidence that proves X" is still meaningful. Of course, so is "some random blogger that you've never heard of can link you to evidence that proves X".
If you want to know if a game is real, don't believe sources. Believe evidence. Believe playable demos, or people who already have access to public (even if paywalled) alphas. Don't believe trailers, written ambitions, future timelines, or anything that could have easily been slapped together by using stock assets in a stock engine.
And then there are the people, usually politicians, who want you to believe that it's all fake news to undermine the credibility of the main group that can hold them accountable for their lies.
There's no one I distrust more than politicians. As soon as I hear one of them say "fake news" I know they did something they'd rather not have anyone know about but it was reported.
I know it's a low bar but I'll go with the credibility of news over that of politicians (or corporations, or MMO kickstarter game developers) 10 out of 10 times.
That's why I say to believe evidence, not media sources. If all they have is anonymous sources, then it's best to assume that any scandalous claims are fake news until proven otherwise. If they have real evidence, then that adds a lot more credibility.
If game developers want you to believe that their game is legitimate and can point you to a playable demo, or even are merely selling immediate access to a pre-alpha version, then believe whatever claims that evidence backs up. And if all that they have is promises of what they'd like to do in the future, then don't believe them.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Have to say can not believe getting $40,000 showing base assets from the Unreal asset market which would have cost them around $800 without changing a single thing. What a profit ! Totally Blown away how desperate people are for a new MMO!
"It isn’t the first time we’ve seen a company pop up out of nowhere run by people with no credentials or history in the gaming industry, and try to get funding for some massive project that multi-million dollar corporations haven’t been capable of producing, but it’s definitely the first time I’ve seen it done while using the default Unreal player model."
That's not news, that's an opinion. It literally says it's a rant.
Just want to say, if every news article was written from a biased perspective like this... well, I guess that tells you all you'd need to know about the kind of people who crave that kind of content.
It's one thing to report on something, it's another to have an opinion on it.
Its projects like these that makes people think all kickstarters are scams because kickstarter give these clowns a platform to raise money. Kickstarter fails to live up to their own rules because its obvious to anyone that this one will never make it.
Sites like mmorpg.com and massivelyop report on these projects further increasing the exposure of something that will never happen.
Give me a flamethrower so I can torch this scam dreamworld to the ground.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
That's not news, that's an opinion. It literally says it's a rant.
Just want to say, if every news article was written from a biased perspective like this... well, I guess that tells you all you'd need to know about the kind of people who crave that kind of content.
It's one thing to report on something, it's another to have an opinion on it.
You do know the difference between editorials (or as you call them "rants") and 5W plain reports don't you?
Do you also know that there is a time and a place for each equally valid type of news piece?
So when is an editorial more appropriate than 5W reporting in the context of informing readers?
You think on that and I'm sure it'll come to you eventually.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
That's not news, that's an opinion. It literally says it's a rant.
Just want to say, if every news article was written from a biased perspective like this... well, I guess that tells you all you'd need to know about the kind of people who crave that kind of content.
It's one thing to report on something, it's another to have an opinion on it.
If every news article summoned as much actual evidence as that rant does, I'd call that an improvement. Sure, he's biased, but look at what he isn't doing:
-relying on innuendo because he can't find any facts -relying on anonymous, uncorroborated sources making dubious claims -beginning by assuming his conclusion without ever making a case for it, then going off about how everyone who disagrees must be stupid or evil -plucking things so far out of context that you'd never guess the original context
Plenty of supposed "news" articles are no less biased, but compound the problem by doing one or more of the things I list above.
That's not news, that's an opinion. It literally says it's a rant.
Just want to say, if every news article was written from a biased perspective like this... well, I guess that tells you all you'd need to know about the kind of people who crave that kind of content.
It's one thing to report on something, it's another to have an opinion on it.
You do know the difference between editorials (or as you call them "rants") and 5W plain reports don't you?
Do you also know that there is a time and a place for each equally valid type of news piece?
So when is an editorial more appropriate than 5W reporting in the context of informing readers?
You think on that and I'm sure it'll come to you eventually.
Editorials are not news, they're barely considered journalism, and they would be categorized as opinion journalism. The article you linked is literally a rant. Or did you misread what you posted: MMO RANT: DREAMWORLD RAISES ALL RED FLAGS.
I didn't use the term rant as my own classification of their work, THEY did. It doesn't make it "more appropriate" to rant on something than report on something. They are two separate styles of writing, one is opinion based, attempting to display and change your opinion. It just so happens this time it coincides with *your* opinion so it automatically makes it "right".
But it's not news, and not respectable as a news piece. It's meant to garner a reaction. Thinking it's anything otherwise speaks more about your lack of understanding of journalism than it does the Rant writers opinions on the game.
That's not news, that's an opinion. It literally says it's a rant.
Just want to say, if every news article was written from a biased perspective like this... well, I guess that tells you all you'd need to know about the kind of people who crave that kind of content.
It's one thing to report on something, it's another to have an opinion on it.
You do know the difference between editorials (or as you call them "rants") and 5W plain reports don't you?
Do you also know that there is a time and a place for each equally valid type of news piece?
So when is an editorial more appropriate than 5W reporting in the context of informing readers?
You think on that and I'm sure it'll come to you eventually.
Editorials are not news, they're barely considered journalism, and they would be categorized as opinion journalism. The article you linked is literally a rant. Or did you misread what you posted: MMO RANT: DREAMWORLD RAISES ALL RED FLAGS.
I didn't use the term rant as my own classification of their work, THEY did. It doesn't make it "more appropriate" to rant on something than report on something. They are two separate styles of writing, one is opinion based, attempting to display and change your opinion. It just so happens this time it coincides with *your* opinion so it automatically makes it "right".
But it's not news, and not respectable as a news piece. It's meant to garner a reaction. Thinking it's anything otherwise speaks more about your lack of understanding of journalism than it does the Rant writers opinions on the game.
So your complaint is that the person who wrote it was honest that it was a rant, rather than calling it an "editorial" or "analysis" or even "news"? It's not hard to find supposed "news" articles from most major American media sources that are just as biased and a lot lighter on evidence, even if usually written in a somewhat less ranty tone.
That's not news, that's an opinion. It literally says it's a rant.
Just want to say, if every news article was written from a biased perspective like this... well, I guess that tells you all you'd need to know about the kind of people who crave that kind of content.
It's one thing to report on something, it's another to have an opinion on it.
If every news article summoned as much actual evidence as that rant does, I'd call that an improvement. Sure, he's biased, but look at what he isn't doing:
-relying on innuendo because he can't find any facts -relying on anonymous, uncorroborated sources making dubious claims -beginning by assuming his conclusion without ever making a case for it, then going off about how everyone who disagrees must be stupid or evil -plucking things so far out of context that you'd never guess the original context
Plenty of supposed "news" articles are no less biased, but compound the problem by doing one or more of the things I list above.
The news article you're commenting from now doesn't do any of those things you mentioned. The article from the "ranter" compiles evidence from other projects unrelated to this project. That's not news on one project, that's extrapolating evidence from other projects to make a biased point. Basically you're just requesting that every news piece be matched up to editorialized standards.
First thing, news and editorials are completely different. Writers get paid differently for them. If every news story was an editorial it's highly unlikely you'd have very many news stories at all unless you had a very large staff, and the ones you did have would be embellished, and hardly worth reading half the time, as they spend just as much time telling you what you should think, instead of just giving the facts of the situation as they stand.
Some of you seem to think every piece can be dug in further. That it's easy just to ring up developers and say "hey what's going on here" and they spill like a bottle of milk. Like there's always some sort of secret dark corner of a parking garage where envelopes should be exchanged, and that if you aren't doing that, then it isn't worth writing about.
Sometimes news is just news. You may want more, you may not want it at all. I find it strange the premise is so hard to grasp for some, it is what it is whether it's here or MOP. If you want editorials, well many sites have those too, but you should at least know the difference.
That's not news, that's an opinion. It literally says it's a rant.
Just want to say, if every news article was written from a biased perspective like this... well, I guess that tells you all you'd need to know about the kind of people who crave that kind of content.
It's one thing to report on something, it's another to have an opinion on it.
You do know the difference between editorials (or as you call them "rants") and 5W plain reports don't you?
Do you also know that there is a time and a place for each equally valid type of news piece?
So when is an editorial more appropriate than 5W reporting in the context of informing readers?
You think on that and I'm sure it'll come to you eventually.
Editorials are not news, they're barely considered journalism, and they would be categorized as opinion journalism. The article you linked is literally a rant. Or did you misread what you posted: MMO RANT: DREAMWORLD RAISES ALL RED FLAGS.
I didn't use the term rant as my own classification of their work, THEY did. It doesn't make it "more appropriate" to rant on something than report on something. They are two separate styles of writing, one is opinion based, attempting to display and change your opinion. It just so happens this time it coincides with *your* opinion so it automatically makes it "right".
But it's not news, and not respectable as a news piece. It's meant to garner a reaction. Thinking it's anything otherwise speaks more about your lack of understanding of journalism than it does the Rant writers opinions on the game.
You must have missed that in that site the category for that article is "Crowdfunding Editorials." It says so right under the picture
Editorials are barely journalism? Go argue that point at any school of journalism. You'll make their day when you tell them what is widely considered to be the heart and soul of a newspaper, written typically by their most senior writers, really isn't journalism.
I understand journalism just fine. You on the other hand...
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
That's not news, that's an opinion. It literally says it's a rant.
Just want to say, if every news article was written from a biased perspective like this... well, I guess that tells you all you'd need to know about the kind of people who crave that kind of content.
It's one thing to report on something, it's another to have an opinion on it.
You do know the difference between editorials (or as you call them "rants") and 5W plain reports don't you?
Do you also know that there is a time and a place for each equally valid type of news piece?
So when is an editorial more appropriate than 5W reporting in the context of informing readers?
You think on that and I'm sure it'll come to you eventually.
Editorials are not news, they're barely considered journalism, and they would be categorized as opinion journalism. The article you linked is literally a rant. Or did you misread what you posted: MMO RANT: DREAMWORLD RAISES ALL RED FLAGS.
I didn't use the term rant as my own classification of their work, THEY did. It doesn't make it "more appropriate" to rant on something than report on something. They are two separate styles of writing, one is opinion based, attempting to display and change your opinion. It just so happens this time it coincides with *your* opinion so it automatically makes it "right".
But it's not news, and not respectable as a news piece. It's meant to garner a reaction. Thinking it's anything otherwise speaks more about your lack of understanding of journalism than it does the Rant writers opinions on the game.
So your complaint is that the person who wrote it was honest that it was a rant, rather than calling it an "editorial" or "analysis" or even "news"? It's not hard to find supposed "news" articles from most major American media sources that are just as biased and a lot lighter on evidence, even if usually written in a somewhat less ranty tone.
It's titled as a Rant -- the article itself is an editorial. It's opinion based. You can stand here and say "well you can find major american media sources that..." you're just using a different yardstick to measure it. It doesn't change what it is, it's just moving the goal post.
They state what the article is clearly. It isn't meant as a news piece. Self described as a rant, listed as a "crowdfunded, editorial". It's a different type of article.
I wish I was a billionaire because I'd open a kick starter for a totally nonsense game and then pledge millions to it. People would be like: "How is this garbage getting so much funding?" and so on.
I'd be interviewed by game magazines - I'd constantly say contradictory things and betray an absolute ignorance of gaming. Each showing of a demo would be worse than the last with multiple crashes, stolen assets, and poor FPS.
I'd hire LazyPeon to play through an Alpha and it would be total garbage but somehow he'd end up with more pros than cons - because I would have purchased him a house.
Lazy Peon: "I like how the low resolution and slow FPS allow you to really focus on a battle instead of being distracted by over the top graphics and realism. The FPS is very low but you can tell that is because so much is going on underneath the hood of this complex, engaging game."
I'd then read meltdowns on this forum and laugh myself silly.
Where have I read this before?
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
That's not news, that's an opinion. It literally says it's a rant.
Just want to say, if every news article was written from a biased perspective like this... well, I guess that tells you all you'd need to know about the kind of people who crave that kind of content.
It's one thing to report on something, it's another to have an opinion on it.
You do know the difference between editorials (or as you call them "rants") and 5W plain reports don't you?
Do you also know that there is a time and a place for each equally valid type of news piece?
So when is an editorial more appropriate than 5W reporting in the context of informing readers?
You think on that and I'm sure it'll come to you eventually.
Editorials are not news, they're barely considered journalism, and they would be categorized as opinion journalism. The article you linked is literally a rant. Or did you misread what you posted: MMO RANT: DREAMWORLD RAISES ALL RED FLAGS.
I didn't use the term rant as my own classification of their work, THEY did. It doesn't make it "more appropriate" to rant on something than report on something. They are two separate styles of writing, one is opinion based, attempting to display and change your opinion. It just so happens this time it coincides with *your* opinion so it automatically makes it "right".
But it's not news, and not respectable as a news piece. It's meant to garner a reaction. Thinking it's anything otherwise speaks more about your lack of understanding of journalism than it does the Rant writers opinions on the game.
You must have missed that in that site the category for that article is "Crowdfunding Editorials." It says so right under the picture
Editorials are barely journalism? Go argue that point at any school of journalism. You'll make their day when you tell them what is widely considered to be the heart and soul of a newspaper, written typically by their most senior writers, really isn't journalism.
I understand journalism just fine. You on the other hand...
Editorials are literally opinion journalism. Not news. Full stop.
That's not news, that's an opinion. It literally says it's a rant.
Just want to say, if every news article was written from a biased perspective like this... well, I guess that tells you all you'd need to know about the kind of people who crave that kind of content.
It's one thing to report on something, it's another to have an opinion on it.
You do know the difference between editorials (or as you call them "rants") and 5W plain reports don't you?
Do you also know that there is a time and a place for each equally valid type of news piece?
So when is an editorial more appropriate than 5W reporting in the context of informing readers?
You think on that and I'm sure it'll come to you eventually.
Editorials are not news, they're barely considered journalism, and they would be categorized as opinion journalism. The article you linked is literally a rant. Or did you misread what you posted: MMO RANT: DREAMWORLD RAISES ALL RED FLAGS.
I didn't use the term rant as my own classification of their work, THEY did. It doesn't make it "more appropriate" to rant on something than report on something. They are two separate styles of writing, one is opinion based, attempting to display and change your opinion. It just so happens this time it coincides with *your* opinion so it automatically makes it "right".
But it's not news, and not respectable as a news piece. It's meant to garner a reaction. Thinking it's anything otherwise speaks more about your lack of understanding of journalism than it does the Rant writers opinions on the game.
You must have missed that in that site the category for that article is "Crowdfunding Editorials." It says so right under the picture
Editorials are barely journalism? Go argue that point at any school of journalism. You'll make their day when you tell them what is widely considered to be the heart and soul of a newspaper, written typically by their most senior writers, really isn't journalism.
I understand journalism just fine. You on the other hand...
Editorials are literally opinion journalism. Not news. Full stop.
And there's a time and place where opinions are more important... as I already said.
One of those times is when you report on this scam as if it were just like any other legit KS project or when you report on what Jeromy Walsh is up to as if he were legitimately developing a game.
Just the news is shit reporting for cases like that. As I also I already said there's a time and place in reporting for plain news and editorials.
You seem to be hung up on editorials or opinions being some low brow pseudo journalism. With that attitude you'll never understand why in this case an editorial is the much more appropriate way to cover it.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Editorials are literally opinion journalism. Not news. Full stop.
And there's a time and place where opinions are more important... as I already said.
One of those times is when you report on this scam as if it were just like any other legit KS project or when you report on what Jeromy Walsh is up to as if he were legitimately developing a game.
Just the news is shit reporting for cases like that. As I also I already said there's a time and place in reporting for plain news and editorials.
You seem to be hung up on editorials or opinions being some low brow pseudo journalism. With that attitude you'll never understand why in this case an editorial is the much more appropriate way to cover it.
No you seem to not know the difference between a news article and an editorial.
Editorializing something may be a better way, in your opinion, to express a position that you agree with on an article.
But you completely misunderstand the purpose of the two types of articles altogether, either willfully or by subconscious preference.
Saying "Well they should report on all scams as editorials then" -- because why? It somehow makes it better because, you just happen to agree with the opinion. But if the "rant" determined that "you should give it a chance" instead of "stay away from this scam" well, how would that editorial look to you?
Would you still agree with it, if written with the same passion?
Probably not. And now you understand the difference between news and editorials. That writer for the editorial could say anything.
While you may agree that one style is more appropriate, you have to understand the difference in the reports. Just because this particular editorial fell your way and you want to give two thumbs up to it, doesn't change what the article is. That's why identifying (and why they themselves pre-identified) an article is important.
I wish I was a billionaire because I'd open a kick starter for a totally nonsense game and then pledge millions to it. People would be like: "How is this garbage getting so much funding?" and so on.
I'd be interviewed by game magazines - I'd constantly say contradictory things and betray an absolute ignorance of gaming. Each showing of a demo would be worse than the last with multiple crashes, stolen assets, and poor FPS.
I'd hire LazyPeon to play through an Alpha and it would be total garbage but somehow he'd end up with more pros than cons - because I would have purchased him a house.
Lazy Peon: "I like how the low resolution and slow FPS allow you to really focus on a battle instead of being distracted by over the top graphics and realism. The FPS is very low but you can tell that is because so much is going on underneath the hood of this complex, engaging game."
I'd then read meltdowns on this forum and laugh myself silly.
For those of you who don't know Oath did what this game did years ago and LazyPeon was the source of a huge chunk of their funding. He made a glowing video for that obvious student project scam and got hundreds of people to back it which could be proven in his video's comment section. Then when it turned out the game was a scam to almost everyone he deleted the video entirely like the PoS he is. He didn't release an update video or any type of retraction but just ignored the fact that he made the video at all. Be cautious of crowdfunded games the same way you'd be letting a stranger into your house.
Editorials are literally opinion journalism. Not news. Full stop.
And there's a time and place where opinions are more important... as I already said.
One of those times is when you report on this scam as if it were just like any other legit KS project or when you report on what Jeromy Walsh is up to as if he were legitimately developing a game.
Just the news is shit reporting for cases like that. As I also I already said there's a time and place in reporting for plain news and editorials.
You seem to be hung up on editorials or opinions being some low brow pseudo journalism. With that attitude you'll never understand why in this case an editorial is the much more appropriate way to cover it.
No you seem to not know the difference between a news article and an editorial.
Editorializing something may be a better way, in your opinion, to express a position that you agree with on an article.
But you completely misunderstand the purpose of the two types of articles altogether, either willfully or by subconscious preference.
Saying "Well they should report on all scams as editorials then" -- because why? It somehow makes it better because, you just happen to agree with the opinion. But if the "rant" determined that "you should give it a chance" instead of "stay away from this scam" well, how would that editorial look to you?
Would you still agree with it, if written with the same passion?
Probably not. And now you understand the difference between news and editorials. That writer for the editorial could say anything.
While you may agree that one style is more appropriate, you have to understand the difference in the reports. Just because this particular editorial fell your way and you want to give two thumbs up to it, doesn't change what the article is. That's why identifying (and why they themselves pre-identified) an article is important.
Dude, the purpose of communication in any form is to inform honestly. A plain news article is totally inappropriate when it creates the impression that this is just another day in MMO KS news.
That impression that is created by leaving out the opinions of the presumably authoritative source, the writer, does harm when there are so many obvious red flags, that if not remarked on may influence someone to donate,
That's irresponsible journalism and why editorials exist.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Editorials are not news, they're barely considered journalism, and they would be categorized as opinion journalism. The article you linked is literally a rant. Or did you misread what you posted: MMO RANT: DREAMWORLD RAISES ALL RED FLAGS.
I didn't use the term rant as my own classification of their work, THEY did. It doesn't make it "more appropriate" to rant on something than report on something. They are two separate styles of writing, one is opinion based, attempting to display and change your opinion. It just so happens this time it coincides with *your* opinion so it automatically makes it "right".
But it's not news, and not respectable as a news piece. It's meant to garner a reaction. Thinking it's anything otherwise speaks more about your lack of understanding of journalism than it does the Rant writers opinions on the game.
While it didn't start out as a very professional piece and did seem like a teen boy rant (It's hard not to capitulate toward the thought that the game industry is just full of angsty little boys but stuff like that makes it easy to think it - of course it isn't) it could be rewritten to be a better piece.
The writer wasn't wrong his assessment.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Editorials are not news, they're barely considered journalism, and they would be categorized as opinion journalism. The article you linked is literally a rant. Or did you misread what you posted: MMO RANT: DREAMWORLD RAISES ALL RED FLAGS.
I didn't use the term rant as my own classification of their work, THEY did. It doesn't make it "more appropriate" to rant on something than report on something. They are two separate styles of writing, one is opinion based, attempting to display and change your opinion. It just so happens this time it coincides with *your* opinion so it automatically makes it "right".
But it's not news, and not respectable as a news piece. It's meant to garner a reaction. Thinking it's anything otherwise speaks more about your lack of understanding of journalism than it does the Rant writers opinions on the game.
While it didn't start out as a very professional piece and did seem like a teen boy rant (It's hard not to capitulate toward the thought that the game industry is just full of angsty little boys but stuff like that makes it easy to think it - of course it isn't) it could be rewritten to be a better piece.
The writer wasn't wrong his assessment.
"This could have been better" is basically my mantra in life.
Edit: Any publication should clearly distinguish between editorial and news so the reader knows what to expect. It would be irresponsible to inject the writer's personal opinion into what should be an objective news piece, but on the other hand one might see it as irresponsible to tacitly endorse by omission (reporting as if business as usual) a crowdfunding campaign when the writer knows or should know that there's a reason to be suspicious of the creator's motives. Different people are going to have different ideas on this.
Dude, the purpose of communication in any form is to inform honestly. A plain news article is totally inappropriate when it creates the impression that this is just another day in MMO KS news.
That impression that is created by leaving out the opinions of the presumably authoritative source, the writer, does harm when there are so many obvious red flags, that if not remarked on may influence someone to donate,
That's irresponsible journalism and why editorials exist.
"the purpose of communication in any form is to inform honestly" woooow you honestly believe that?
If that was the case, then every editorial would be "honest". An opinion needn't be factual, and most of the time, editorials don't even need to be an honest opinion of the writer. Writers, good ones, often take jobs by assignment, and they don't always get to choose their stance on what they're writing about. You really think that the writer talking about energy efficient light bulbs, expressing how great they are, really thinks they're that life changing?
Come on man, you're smarter than that.
And editorials do NOT exist simply because "leaving out the opinions of the presumably authoritative source, the writer, does harm when there are so many obvious red flags, that if not remarked on may influence someone to donate"
They exist solely to express an opinion, nothing more. If they come out as informative, great, but they don't have to. All that is required is that they express an opinion - it doesn't even have to be the honest opinion of the writer.
Again the only reason you think that the "rant" article is of use, is because you agree with it. There is nothing written in stone that A: the writer must be honest, or B: the information must be accurate.
The article could have just as easily come to the conclusion that
"DreamWorld not only has good intentions but the team is dedicated, and will wisely use the funds for further development. This is a gamble, but a gamble well worth your money."
And then what? Technically there's nothing stated that can be disproven. It's an opinion. And for all you know, it could be "honest" and from a "presumably authoritative source". So what of it?
Editorials are about opinion and perspective. Just because you agree (and there's nothing wrong with you agreeing) and want more editorials to cover topics that you agree with (because that's the entertainment factor of editorials) doesn't mean that a news article is "bad" because it does its job.
Which is the entire point of my argument. I'm not saying that you're wrong to like the editorial. I'm not saying that it's a bad "rant" either. But I am saying that there's news articles, like on MOP and the one that started this thread, which have their own purpose, love it or hate it, and then there are editorials that are meant to express an opinion.
In other words, Don't hate a fork for not being a spoon.
Comments
If you mean those 2k top tier pledges, there is no money there. Kickstarter only charges you at the end of the campaign and if successful. Until then, you're free to change your mind as often as you like.
Get a sock puppet KS account, "pledge" the ridiculous amount to get randoms to invest, cancel your pledge before the campaign ends. You don't lose anything and a few suckers have just transferred their cash to your account. Pure profit.
Even the fact their tiers jump from $100 to $2000 with nothing in between pretty much shows the purpose of the top tier: to help with the scam.
"The New York Times says X" doesn't mean much anymore. It could easily be completely fake news, or so far out of context that it might as well be fake news. Perhaps its unfair to pick on the NYT, as you could substitute a whole lot of other media sources into the same formulation and it works just as well, though they used to be known as the paper of record. "The New York Times can link you to evidence that proves X" is still meaningful. Of course, so is "some random blogger that you've never heard of can link you to evidence that proves X".
If you want to know if a game is real, don't believe sources. Believe evidence. Believe playable demos, or people who already have access to public (even if paywalled) alphas. Don't believe trailers, written ambitions, future timelines, or anything that could have easily been slapped together by using stock assets in a stock engine.
If game developers want you to believe that their game is legitimate and can point you to a playable demo, or even are merely selling immediate access to a pre-alpha version, then believe whatever claims that evidence backs up. And if all that they have is promises of what they'd like to do in the future, then don't believe them.
https://mmofallout.com/mmo-rant-dreamworld-raises-all-red-flags/
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
www.neojac.com
www.arcfall.com
"It isn’t the first time we’ve seen a company pop up out of nowhere run by people with no credentials or history in the gaming industry, and try to get funding for some massive project that multi-million dollar corporations haven’t been capable of producing, but it’s definitely the first time I’ve seen it done while using the default Unreal player model."
(link in the original)
Just want to say, if every news article was written from a biased perspective like this... well, I guess that tells you all you'd need to know about the kind of people who crave that kind of content.
It's one thing to report on something, it's another to have an opinion on it.
I give up.
Its projects like these that makes people think all kickstarters are scams because kickstarter give these clowns a platform to raise money. Kickstarter fails to live up to their own rules because its obvious to anyone that this one will never make it.
Sites like mmorpg.com and massivelyop report on these projects further increasing the exposure of something that will never happen.
Give me a flamethrower so I can torch this scam dreamworld to the ground.
Do you also know that there is a time and a place for each equally valid type of news piece?
So when is an editorial more appropriate than 5W reporting in the context of informing readers?
You think on that and I'm sure it'll come to you eventually.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
-relying on innuendo because he can't find any facts
-relying on anonymous, uncorroborated sources making dubious claims
-beginning by assuming his conclusion without ever making a case for it, then going off about how everyone who disagrees must be stupid or evil
-plucking things so far out of context that you'd never guess the original context
Plenty of supposed "news" articles are no less biased, but compound the problem by doing one or more of the things I list above.
I didn't use the term rant as my own classification of their work, THEY did. It doesn't make it "more appropriate" to rant on something than report on something. They are two separate styles of writing, one is opinion based, attempting to display and change your opinion. It just so happens this time it coincides with *your* opinion so it automatically makes it "right".
But it's not news, and not respectable as a news piece. It's meant to garner a reaction. Thinking it's anything otherwise speaks more about your lack of understanding of journalism than it does the Rant writers opinions on the game.
The news article you're commenting from now doesn't do any of those things you mentioned. The article from the "ranter" compiles evidence from other projects unrelated to this project. That's not news on one project, that's extrapolating evidence from other projects to make a biased point. Basically you're just requesting that every news piece be matched up to editorialized standards.
First thing, news and editorials are completely different. Writers get paid differently for them. If every news story was an editorial it's highly unlikely you'd have very many news stories at all unless you had a very large staff, and the ones you did have would be embellished, and hardly worth reading half the time, as they spend just as much time telling you what you should think, instead of just giving the facts of the situation as they stand.
Some of you seem to think every piece can be dug in further. That it's easy just to ring up developers and say "hey what's going on here" and they spill like a bottle of milk. Like there's always some sort of secret dark corner of a parking garage where envelopes should be exchanged, and that if you aren't doing that, then it isn't worth writing about.
Sometimes news is just news. You may want more, you may not want it at all. I find it strange the premise is so hard to grasp for some, it is what it is whether it's here or MOP. If you want editorials, well many sites have those too, but you should at least know the difference.
Editorials are barely journalism? Go argue that point at any school of journalism. You'll make their day when you tell them what is widely considered to be the heart and soul of a newspaper, written typically by their most senior writers, really isn't journalism.
I understand journalism just fine. You on the other hand...
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
They state what the article is clearly. It isn't meant as a news piece. Self described as a rant, listed as a "crowdfunded, editorial". It's a different type of article.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
One of those times is when you report on this scam as if it were just like any other legit KS project or when you report on what Jeromy Walsh is up to as if he were legitimately developing a game.
Just the news is shit reporting for cases like that. As I also I already said there's a time and place in reporting for plain news and editorials.
You seem to be hung up on editorials or opinions being some low brow pseudo journalism. With that attitude you'll never understand why in this case an editorial is the much more appropriate way to cover it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Editorializing something may be a better way, in your opinion, to express a position that you agree with on an article.
But you completely misunderstand the purpose of the two types of articles altogether, either willfully or by subconscious preference.
Saying "Well they should report on all scams as editorials then" -- because why? It somehow makes it better because, you just happen to agree with the opinion. But if the "rant" determined that "you should give it a chance" instead of "stay away from this scam" well, how would that editorial look to you?
Would you still agree with it, if written with the same passion?
Probably not. And now you understand the difference between news and editorials. That writer for the editorial could say anything.
While you may agree that one style is more appropriate, you have to understand the difference in the reports. Just because this particular editorial fell your way and you want to give two thumbs up to it, doesn't change what the article is. That's why identifying (and why they themselves pre-identified) an article is important.
That impression that is created by leaving out the opinions of the presumably authoritative source, the writer, does harm when there are so many obvious red flags, that if not remarked on may influence someone to donate,
That's irresponsible journalism and why editorials exist.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Edit: Any publication should clearly distinguish between editorial and news so the reader knows what to expect. It would be irresponsible to inject the writer's personal opinion into what should be an objective news piece, but on the other hand one might see it as irresponsible to tacitly endorse by omission (reporting as if business as usual) a crowdfunding campaign when the writer knows or should know that there's a reason to be suspicious of the creator's motives. Different people are going to have different ideas on this.
If that was the case, then every editorial would be "honest". An opinion needn't be factual, and most of the time, editorials don't even need to be an honest opinion of the writer. Writers, good ones, often take jobs by assignment, and they don't always get to choose their stance on what they're writing about. You really think that the writer talking about energy efficient light bulbs, expressing how great they are, really thinks they're that life changing?
Come on man, you're smarter than that.
And editorials do NOT exist simply because "leaving out the opinions of the presumably authoritative source, the writer, does harm when there are so many obvious red flags, that if not remarked on may influence someone to donate"
They exist solely to express an opinion, nothing more. If they come out as informative, great, but they don't have to. All that is required is that they express an opinion - it doesn't even have to be the honest opinion of the writer.
Again the only reason you think that the "rant" article is of use, is because you agree with it. There is nothing written in stone that A: the writer must be honest, or B: the information must be accurate.
The article could have just as easily come to the conclusion that
"DreamWorld not only has good intentions but the team is dedicated, and will wisely use the funds for further development. This is a gamble, but a gamble well worth your money."
And then what? Technically there's nothing stated that can be disproven. It's an opinion. And for all you know, it could be "honest" and from a "presumably authoritative source". So what of it?
Editorials are about opinion and perspective. Just because you agree (and there's nothing wrong with you agreeing) and want more editorials to cover topics that you agree with (because that's the entertainment factor of editorials) doesn't mean that a news article is "bad" because it does its job.
Which is the entire point of my argument. I'm not saying that you're wrong to like the editorial. I'm not saying that it's a bad "rant" either. But I am saying that there's news articles, like on MOP and the one that started this thread, which have their own purpose, love it or hate it, and then there are editorials that are meant to express an opinion.
In other words, Don't hate a fork for not being a spoon.