Jump to content


TSS Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


KHCast last won the day on July 8

KHCast had the most liked content!

About KHCast

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Keyblade's,light, samurai armor
  • Gender
  • Country
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

609,657 profile views

Single Status Update

See all updates by KHCast

  1. Antdude reviewed CTR Nitro Fueled, but be warned, he got a official review copy from Activision, so much like his TSR one, seems to avoid any criticisms within the game. Like really can’t help but feel he’s skirting around a bunch of things in order to stay on Activisions good side. Personally to me, can’t say I’ll take much stock in his review. When people get review copies from the official company, it’s VERY easy to become a marketing tool for them and sponsor vs criticize the products, and honestly, that’s the vibe I’m getting from Antdude when he brings up he got a review copy.

    1. Vertical Snoop [D.K.]

      Vertical Snoop [D.K.]

      AntDude tends to go extremely easy on new releases in general, review copy or otherwise. His Kirby Star Allies video never sat well with me for that reason.

    2. Dejimon11


      I think you Watch way too much Jim Sterling you get over cynical towards these things.

    3. KHCast


      I think companies have made it pretty obvious how they take advantage of YouTube and content creators, regardless of Jim or otherwise. Sponsoring and getting review codes is dodgy at times, especially with a company like Activision, so to those wanting to continue receiving codes, you typically have to stay on their good side, ie not criticize much the product. And there’s the potential issue of companies that send them also have written do’s and don’ts with reviews and previews and what is said in them. 

      That said Antdude does seem to have that “go easy” vibe I’ll agree. It’s just all the more a concern for me when YouTubers start getting product from AAA companies.

      I’m cynical sure, but the gaming industry doesn’t give me much reason to be optimistic, unless you’re Nintendo, and even then. Excessive monetization strategies, Crunch overworking, corporate smugness from executives and ceo’s, sheer ineptitude from certain companies, lying, etc. it’s all pretty gross and toxic, so again, I give what they put out. It’s fine if people are optimistic personally, awesome, but if overwhelming optimism is allowed, I think I can have my own personal negativity/cautious views.

    4. Soniman


      Don't like AntDude 

    5. PaddyFancy


      At least there's some people out there who get free copies of things from the developer/publisher, and go over it fairly and squarely with bad points as well as good points.

    6. KHCast


      @PaddyFancy Didn’t Dunkey do that with Microsoft?

    7. Tracker_TD


      Pretty much any reviewer you've actually heard of gets review code nowadays, including YouTubers. It's not an indication of them being bought but probably just an indication of their general style as has already been said. Legitimising YouTube reviewers in the same way huge sites are with this kind of thing isn't a bad thing unless the reviewer just sucks. 

    8. TCB


      Eh, I just see it as his style of reviewing really at this point. I think someone who can you against your point is Somecallmejon when he gets a review copy every now and then right?

    9. KHCast


      “Legitimising YouTube reviewers in the same way huge sites are with this kind of thing isn't a bad thing unless the reviewer just sucks. “

      most big gaming sites are pretty close to AAA companies though...so if anything that just makes me more wary of content creators and what they say when they’re getting codes and sponsored.

      It’s one thing if they’re codes from smaller companies that could use the marketing and attention, (while still being fairly criticized of course) but the EA’s, Ubisofts, Warner Bros.’s sending them to specific people they deem fit, just doesn’t sit right with me one bit

    10. Tracker_TD


      They're close in advertising but I have reasonable faith in most reviewers nowadays given the writers aren't some corporate hivemind. Like Sonic Mania Plus's IGN review for example, I know that Heidi Kemps is a fantastic writer who's takes are generally fairly well-informed and researched, so I no matter how many Mania Plus ads IGN have, I can read her review and be confident it's from a place of sincerity. If there is actual ethical breaches, it's usually called out contrary to what certain shitters would have you believe. 

    11. DanJ86


      It's true that a lot of people simply don't trust traditional journalism for them potentially being shills. If companies can get a hold of YouTube content creators to manipulate then they'd likely benefit as some content creators are seen as more trustworthy.

      It's getting harder and harder to know who you can trust these days.

    12. KHCast


      @Tracker_TD Companies don’t have breach ethics, they can subtly instill bias. Going back to Antdude, he was invited by Sega to a TSR tournament and received some trophy for winning. As cool as that is, it can psychologically lead you to going easier on a product.

      Another example, ton of critics were flown by jet to a luxury hotel iirc to play their review copies of a CoD game by Activision. So yeah, while there definitely is genuine journalism and critics, it’s not exactly difficult to fathom companies constantly use gaming journalism as marketing for them, and successfully get away with it. its part of the “hype culture” issue

    13. Tracker_TD


      It can lead to that, but it's not a sure thing. Again, that's more about whether you're reading a shit reviewer or not, because that's the most textbook and blatant example of bias imaginable. If they can't get past that, then of course they're not worth the time. 

    14. KHCast


      Also hasn’t it been stated by a few people within the game journalism industry that companies like EA generally only send their review copies to people that will guarantee positive reception?

      Again, to me personally it’s a concern on both ends that keeps me generally wary. Who’s the company, what’s their history, and does the site/content creator in question have a track record of coming off biased when receiving copies from said company. Looking at journalism as a whole, a lot of the previews, interviews, etc already reek of corporate meddling used to “build the hype”, so it’s already shaky ground unfortunately, so that skepticism unfortunately is a knock on effect that can bleed into the actual critique. It’s great to see when it’s not the case and still a genuine review, it definitely happens, but we’ve seen the power many of these AAA companies hold over that industry usually dangling the fear of loosing access early or any other benefits from their relationship via blacklisting over people, which can lead to skewered critiques, fluff piece articles that paint the company in positive lights(which IGN is certainly known for doing), etc.

      Cause, for example, hypothetically speaking, IGN, Gameinformer, etc as a entity want to keep that relationship strong in order to have that access and early exclusive news coverage, so naturally want to keep those companies happy, so individual writers if they have articles that negatively paint those companies could be more at risk of getting kicked off the job and replaced.

    15. Tracker_TD



      Also hasn’t it been stated by a few people within the game journalism industry that companies like EA generally only send their review copies to people that will guarantee positive reception?


      Then they're clearly not doing a very good job of it. 


    16. KHCast


       Maybe I heard that a few years ago then lol. However I still feel that doesn’t disprove the notion of critical bias on the whole imo. Even within some overtly critical reviews of AAA games I get the feeling there’s some off defensive stances taken, and in the past companies certainly had that firm handle on the journalist angle, and still in many areas do. (Usually when it comes to controversies, journalists typically take the companies word and don’t delve that heavily on the issues when talking to them in specific. See: whenever Bobby Kotick is interviewed) Basically, I still am gonna keep wary of these deals when disclosed. They have their merits, and aren’t always “bought out” situations, but I’ve definitely seen it happen where there’s evident subjective biases instilled that can devalue a review or website, with the whole fear of blacklists or job loss, and in the YouTube climate especially, which is still new and developing, for those wanting to make it a career, that can be a stress not having that convenient access to the latest and greatest, in a age of constantly moving news, games, and viewers that’ll jump to something else in an instant. It’s a tempting offer to take short term.

  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.