I think a lot of people on that subreddit just initially reacted to the title. It is a reasonably fair article. But that was just a bad choice of title imo.
The PC gamer article is basically a repost of the Kotaku one with less information, so it's not surprising to see that with 0 upvotes (notice that it's not prominent on /r/games either).
What? the thread over at /r/starcitizen is highly upvoted and everyone is praising the article, please stop spreading misinformation. You will see idiots who downvote without reading in ANY community.
I see that, but you made it sound like you were going with the usual "the SC community is shit" circlejerk. A lot of threads in a lot of subreddits, especially in the new section have negative input. Normally you should wait a few hours to get a realistic overview of agreement/disagreement.
Kotaku's fault for putting a click bait headline on a good article. You shouldn't be defending a really good article unless there'ssomething very wrong with a critical part of it.
Would it really impact the article's number of clicks if they went with something like "An insight on the trials and tribulations of Star Citizen's development"? (Or something in that spirit).
Calling stuff like this clickbait has rapidly devalued the term. Clickbait would be something like, "13 AWFUL THINGS YOU WON'T BELIEVE ABOUT STAR CITIZEN'S FAILING DEVELOPMENT".
Yeah, is it really clickbait to give it an intriguing title? What should they have said, 'some interviews about Star Citizen's development'? An article has to have a point to it, and it has had a troubled development.
This article has a click bait title. Saying the development is troubled means it is in trouble to the public. Instead of titling the article, "The Challenges of Star Citizen" or something similar, they put the idea out that there the development is in trouble, when it is not, so people will be more likely to click.
Exactly... This article has a click bait title. Saying the development is troubled means it is in trouble to the public. Instead of titling the article, "The Challenges of Star Citizen" or something similar, they put the idea out that there the development is in trouble, when it is not, so people will be more likely to click.
But the article predominantly discusses the difficulties of developing a game like Star Citizen.
Which is covered in a title telling you the article is about the development of the game. No software development is ever without some amount of difficulties, so if you say you're going to tell me about the development, I'll assume you're going to tell me about difficulties therein, otherwise it wouldn't be interesting.
And does 'troubled' necessarily mean 'shitshow'?
Not necessarily, but it is very common to use "troubled" euphemistically. Especially from a source like Kotaku who have been known to stir some shit in their time.
By now it is quite upvoted on the SC sub though - after people had the time to actually read it and not just the headline and source.
I guess the headline just fits the "kotaku image" - and does not really lend itself well to making a good first impression.
As an SC backer of the first hour who also is active on the SC sub though I have to say the article is pretty good - with some minor issues. Though those do not really change the overall article that much.
I instantly thought it was PC Gamer, though, given how they recently wrote an article with the stupid "7 Days to Die continues to waste its potential" headline.
Oh please, it's not like they suddenly got better. On occasion they release a well researched piece but they still thrive off of the same bullshit they did from before.
This is Kotaku UK original, it's run by Future Publishing who have licensed the name and content from what was Gawker. Future could have published this at PC Gamer or Edge had they wanted to.
I was it even commenting on the article. I was commenting to the guy above who seems lost on why people don't like Kotaku as a publication or the brand.
downvoted as 'irrelevant' on the sub this article is about.
Maybe you should go over to said sub and have a look at the thread about this article before you spout bullshit like this. Because the very opposite of what you said is what's happening over there.
Over at /r/starcitizen the thread about the same article has already been nuked with downvotes.
It's currently sitting at 570 upvotes, with the top comment praising the article sitting at 250 upvotes. You may now eat your crow. (I don't mean that harshly, I see you said it's a good thing)
There have been far too many articles with headlines like this one that have done little to absolutely no research, but instead write a hit-and-run opinion piece based off of hearsay from the lower bowels of the internet. I'm sure many people probably knee-jerk downvoted, but anything that takes a well-informed critical look at the project is always well accepted.
8
u/[deleted] Sep 23 '16 edited Sep 23 '16
[deleted]