Does wildass forumfodder digs at well-known games passes as some kind of game journalism? I mean, this stuff is two bits above flamebait at best:
Talk about overrated. GTA: San Andreas offers little more than brand appeal and played-out stereotypes. This bloated, glorified expansion pack added a few noteworthy gameplay enhancements, such as the outdoor terrain and some enhanced drive-by shooting segments. But the sheer size of the game works against it: "more" doesn't necessarily mean "better." In the end, San Andreas has a fair share of cool moments, but it was really an excuse for developer Rockstar to milk the gaming community one more time.
-- Ten Hugely Over-rated [sic] Games [games.net]Yeah, it's not supposed to be hyphenated. I checked. That's great writing. If they can't even check the spelling on their title, I won't even bother jabbing at their half-ass opinion. It's not like you can't stumble on a "this popular game really sucks and you should listen to why I think so" post every other second on the net. Hey, about someone do a list of "Top Ten Worst Uses For The Games.Net Domain". That would be fun.
Between this and IGN offering candies of questionable origin, makes you wonder what it takes to get a job writing these days.
Posts
2 comments:
I admittedly do next to do editing when I first post something. I am usually writing stuff to CT while doing about 5 other things at the same time (compiling, pondering bugs, etc), so I generally don't proof anything.
But then I habitually re-read after posting to catch stuff (especially if I've poked fun at someone else's grammar...) and clean up. Just makes stuff more enjoyable to read.
Classic. That should be "next to no"
Post a Comment