themagicalkitsune
Member
He does make serious vids from time to time. Anyone remember that depressing mario 64 playthrough where he talks about his ex
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
videogamedunkey (Dunky) Thread
- Thread starter MasterOfPastures
- Start date
He does make serious vids from time to time. Anyone remember that depressing mario 64 playthrough where he talks about his ex
It's a slur & is being treated as such. I'm aware that some groups try to argue they use it in a non-slur context, but the origin of the term is undeniably present in every use, & surprise surprise, the "other context" is always an insult.
So yes. It's upsetting to see someone whose content we appreciate use it. That's why we call him out on it.
To be fair towards that video, he had a contract with Microsoft. He may have been under an NDA until that video dropped, & threw in some general sticking points so the key argument I saw ("Microsoft burned me on a deal") appeared less personal.
Again, it's explicitly a slur. There is no context for that word that isn't an insult, nor one that magically undoes its history, even if some people seem to believe there is.
As for Sky, this feels like you're playing the "but it's ok, I have an unseen black friend" card for another person. I don't know if Dunkey's a total bigot (I've always feared this based on other slurs he's used & some people he's partnered up with, including a certain GamerGater we're already discussing), but you can absolutely be bigoted & have a friend from a population you marginalized that doesn't call you out for whatever reason.
If he tries to be taken seriously, we take him seriously. And this was another "Serious Dunk" video, incoherent as it may be. So we took it seriously.
To be fair, some of them have been good, although they would've been little more than lists & shower thoughts without the jokes.
DevilDog
Member
Yeah, this is pretty accurate.
Battlechili
Banned
Dunkey's video on game critics reminded me of how Polygon in particular had a huge amount of issues actually playing D44M, where they at least appeared to have gotten extremely poor players of first person shooters to play the game. It was embarrassing in a way for Polygon, or at least appeared that way, as it put into question whether they're really having the right people playing these games. I wish Dunkey had pointed that out; some reviewers are more fit to review certain kinds of games than others. There should be more specialization in a way, where certain reviewers stick to certain kinds of games.
I do wish Dunkey's video was more focused, but overall I agree with his general sentiment, though to some degree there's not much that can be helped since there are reasons for why some game reviewers act the way they do. I've found that the best reviews are negative ones that come out from end users after a game comes out; typically one can gain info on whether or not a game might be interesting from just gameplay footage. Negative reviews from random end users help avoid a lot of the problems that come with professional game reviewers, and they also help spotlight negative attributes of a game that may bother someone while playing. For me anyways, if a negative review points out things that I don't think would bother me, I know then that the game is for me. If the things pointed out do bother me, then I know the game probably isn't for me. Professional game reviewers aren't really of any use except for maybe entertainment value these days in my opinion.
But that's going a bit off topic; as for Dunkey's video itself....as he said it, I wish he had been more focused. He never really elaborated on any one point he brought up. I agree with his general sentiment however. Amusing video as per usual. Just not as informative as it could be. Jumped around too much to be very informative.
I do wish Dunkey's video was more focused, but overall I agree with his general sentiment, though to some degree there's not much that can be helped since there are reasons for why some game reviewers act the way they do. I've found that the best reviews are negative ones that come out from end users after a game comes out; typically one can gain info on whether or not a game might be interesting from just gameplay footage. Negative reviews from random end users help avoid a lot of the problems that come with professional game reviewers, and they also help spotlight negative attributes of a game that may bother someone while playing. For me anyways, if a negative review points out things that I don't think would bother me, I know then that the game is for me. If the things pointed out do bother me, then I know the game probably isn't for me. Professional game reviewers aren't really of any use except for maybe entertainment value these days in my opinion.
But that's going a bit off topic; as for Dunkey's video itself....as he said it, I wish he had been more focused. He never really elaborated on any one point he brought up. I agree with his general sentiment however. Amusing video as per usual. Just not as informative as it could be. Jumped around too much to be very informative.
A Link to the Past
Banned
EDIT: Replacing tawdry joke with the point that citing a black best friend of someone as evidence that they're not racist is really reductive and ultimately means nothing.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Yeah, but it's not like YouTubers are these moral bastions that can't get influenced by gifts. In fact they're probably easier to influence because they don't have a boss to answer to that gives them a steady paycheck.
Personally, I couldn't give less of a shit about the review sites and they've felt like they were on their last leg of relevance for years. Youtubers are doing to the websites what the websites did to magazines in the early 00s.
A Link to the Past said:
Holy hell. What is wrong with you?
A Link to the Past
Banned
You left out the part where I called it a joke
I'm making the point that citing your black best friend to say that you're not bigoted is a stupid argument.
I will apologize however that it was offensive.
jack_package_200
Banned
This mem has been unironically been getting shared
I have never seen this meme.
I don't know where to start dissecting that meme.
Isn't Giant Bomb mostly funded by Premiums subscriptions? Someone could correct me If I'm wrong.
Joystick no longer exist.
Spike doesn't cover games anymore.
I went to Associated Press and didn't find game coverage.
I bet if I do more research I would find many more of these sites don't cover games anymore or never did. I feel this "meme" is trying to push political agenda by using memes to push the younger/gamers generation towards other political identities and that's what worry me the most about some Youtubers pushing the same narrative.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
Yeah, I remember this video too. It really felt like he made it in 2009 and uploaded years later. I also felt it pretty childish for him to complain about them not using a video of him trashing the game he was supposed to promote. I mean, while they did say "be yourself," you can't seriously be upset when you basically say the game sucks.
the trust fund socialites are all writing terrible things about politics, i don't know many rich game writers
Jawbreaker
Member
Hah, this thread actually reminded me of something, the guy who only got ending A then gave Neir Automata a 5 :
but then gave Mass Effect Andromeda a 8.5. Game critics are painful.
Solution: Don't follow this particular critic. Problem solved.
Dangansona
Member
Fuck everything about this.
And if written reviews are dying and completely worthless, then why would Dunkey feel the need to make this video?
Edit: Oh man I shouldn't have searched Twitter.
Yup
Jawbreaker
Member
It's like an extension of the war against journalism we're seeing from alt-righters. Don't trust college-educated, so-called "professional" journalists; trust this one guy outside of the mainstream who tells it like it is!
PSlayer
Member
Probably because they still have the visibility even if their popularity is dropping.
For instance sites like Metacritic still use only Written reviews Scores AFAIK(no video exclusive review score is used by them).
So even if they are being replaced by youtubers like some poster mentioned earlier,they still have institutional privilege/relevance in the industry(they are the professionals while youtubers are "just fans").
This to me explains this current feud we are seeing between journalists and youtubers from a couple of years to now. They are constantly finding the minimum excuses to attack each other and it is probably because one side is losing power but still holding the image of authority and the other is raising in power but are still treated as not relevant/serious enough.
It's a battle of supremacy and the context is just an excuse to attack the other side.
Suzushiiro
Banned
I think Dunkey has a point in that traditional scored at-launch reviews have no real value unless you can read them in the context of all of the other games the critic likes/dislikes, and modern mainstream "proper" games journalism outlets like IGN and Gamespot fail at that. If you just want people to know if they'll like a game and if they should buy a game, an unedited/lightly-edited video of the game being played is going to be more valuable than a few hundred words of some random asshole, which is a big reason why independent Youtubers like Angry Joe and Jim Sterling and more video-based outlets like Giant Bomb are eating the "traditional" big guys' lunches.
I think the main value that more "traditional" non-video-based games journalism outlets can provide these days aren't in reviews but in things like Eurogamer's Digital Foundry stuff, Polygon's super-in-depth behind-the-scenes articles on games like their FF7 oral history, or Kotaku's press sneak fuckery that gives us info on shit that devs/publishers don't necessarily want us to know.
I think the main value that more "traditional" non-video-based games journalism outlets can provide these days aren't in reviews but in things like Eurogamer's Digital Foundry stuff, Polygon's super-in-depth behind-the-scenes articles on games like their FF7 oral history, or Kotaku's press sneak fuckery that gives us info on shit that devs/publishers don't necessarily want us to know.
ScientificPizza
Banned
this is embarrassing
Permanently A
Junior Member
uomoartificiale
Member
I think you misread what I wrote, or I was clear enough. What I mean is that, as it usually happens, as bad as using the slur is (and it's BAD), the later rationalizations and explanations of a fanbase are even more painful to witness. This dunkey guy could always come out and say that he was being an idiot, that it was a joke gone bad, and you can excuse or reject his explanation as long as you believe his sincerity.
But the guys here advocating for the word not being used with homophobic intent, or that calling someone faggot is an opinion that must be constitutionally protected... that cannot be undone.
Diablohead
Member
I still remember that Mario bros review, you can't stay all that negative stuff about the game directly and then give it a current-gen rating 9 out of 10 it just doesn't fit.
I see his point on the matter but it could have been done a little better, maybe.
I see his point on the matter but it could have been done a little better, maybe.
GoldenCrow
Member
I agree with the general premise that game critics do suck but it is poorly argued and likes to ignore the fact that he and the youtubers he champions are also game critics and engage in the exact same practices. I really dislike that independents are some how more honourable than companies who employ writers and content creators. Only difference is the employed critics don't get to choose which practices they engage in and independents have the luxury of not having to cover content they know nothing about (many still do though).
LinkSlayer64
Member
I see it more as... A joke, probably from lots of immature kids who at the same time may believe in it because lots of us as kids had dumb ideas, or were edgy. My generation was the one to ask for Shadow the Hedgehog lol.
I think those memes are supposed to be ironic no?
Well, the stick would win.
Even if you blow up the stick, it becomes ash, that then floats into the lungs of the Marines, playing the long game and slowly kills them from the inside. Stick always win.
FrontalMonk
Banned
I mean, I love that dumb bear, but I wouldn't ask his opinion on anything. Grizz could come out and say "I want to kill all black gay men" and Sky would defend him.
As far as Jason goes, I think he's funny as fuck but I won't defend him saying problematic shit. He needs to grow his vocab and find a different word to use like the rest of the civilized world.
Well, this is sort of like touching the third rail, but here goes...
I genuinely don't know what is in dunkey's heart of hearts. No one except him does, not even his gay friend. The problem is that he has used insensitive slurs in the past, AND he has not addressed that it is a problem. This means we have no idea where he is at. If he wanted to move past it, he was address it, acknowledge the concern, and take some form of corrective action (like, an apology and a promise to be more sensitive at least).
The truth is, online gaming culture is very comfortable with saying horrible things. And you never really know if someone is just massively insensitive/unaware or more problematically prejudiced. Not that either is an OK position to have. However, a lot of people, especially white dudes (at least in my portion of the universe) are going to start from a position of indifferent, insensitive, and/or unaware. I mean, if you haven't really experienced oppression, you tend to ignore it, minimize it, or shallowly refute it. Thinking about oppression isn't fun; thinking about how you may be unintentionally a part of a system of oppression isn't easy; acknowledging privilege, even when you've had difficulties in life, feels counter-intuitive. In that context, many people just avoid such lines of thought whenever possible. This leads to a shallow awareness of the issues and some level of defensiveness ("there are worse people; I don't see race; I have never benefited from privilege"). Again, I feel like this is a lot of people's starting position.
Add to that a context where people are rewarded for saying taboo and offensive things and you end up with people using slurs. Again, not acceptable, but it makes some sense.
Low awareness + No personal investment in the issue + rewards for taboo breaking = Higher chance of slurs.
What I'm trying to say is that his actions are worrisome and I would like for him to take time to demonstrate that there has been growth, if it has occurred. I think people are completely justified in turning away from him and his content if that doesn't happen (or staying away even if it does, personal choice). I think, what I'm trying to say, is that I have seen people grow and change from that position and am hopeful that he has done so. We should encourage him to acknowledge his actions as a problem and make amends; being a comedic personality does not excuse him. At the same time, I find it hard to burn him at the stake just yet, but I have had a lot dissonance about him for some time.
I genuinely don't know what is in dunkey's heart of hearts. No one except him does, not even his gay friend. The problem is that he has used insensitive slurs in the past, AND he has not addressed that it is a problem. This means we have no idea where he is at. If he wanted to move past it, he was address it, acknowledge the concern, and take some form of corrective action (like, an apology and a promise to be more sensitive at least).
The truth is, online gaming culture is very comfortable with saying horrible things. And you never really know if someone is just massively insensitive/unaware or more problematically prejudiced. Not that either is an OK position to have. However, a lot of people, especially white dudes (at least in my portion of the universe) are going to start from a position of indifferent, insensitive, and/or unaware. I mean, if you haven't really experienced oppression, you tend to ignore it, minimize it, or shallowly refute it. Thinking about oppression isn't fun; thinking about how you may be unintentionally a part of a system of oppression isn't easy; acknowledging privilege, even when you've had difficulties in life, feels counter-intuitive. In that context, many people just avoid such lines of thought whenever possible. This leads to a shallow awareness of the issues and some level of defensiveness ("there are worse people; I don't see race; I have never benefited from privilege"). Again, I feel like this is a lot of people's starting position.
Add to that a context where people are rewarded for saying taboo and offensive things and you end up with people using slurs. Again, not acceptable, but it makes some sense.
Low awareness + No personal investment in the issue + rewards for taboo breaking = Higher chance of slurs.
What I'm trying to say is that his actions are worrisome and I would like for him to take time to demonstrate that there has been growth, if it has occurred. I think people are completely justified in turning away from him and his content if that doesn't happen (or staying away even if it does, personal choice). I think, what I'm trying to say, is that I have seen people grow and change from that position and am hopeful that he has done so. We should encourage him to acknowledge his actions as a problem and make amends; being a comedic personality does not excuse him. At the same time, I find it hard to burn him at the stake just yet, but I have had a lot dissonance about him for some time.
Oh man... me goofing on Sonic games and crazy Sonic fans on an IGN show *months* ago is the gift that keeps on giving, isn't it?
I like Dunkey a lot, he's one of only two YT channels where I watch everything they upload. (The other is Matthew Matosis). So yeah it doesn't feel great to hear me and my colleagues to be called "fucking idiots" or whatever specific term he used. Specifically singling us out by name and listing them on-screen certainly felt pretty weird too. It goes with the territory of the job, for better or worse.
I'm pretty biased since it's a video tearing down essentially the entire job of me and my friends and co-workers, but I do truly believe he missed the mark on this one:
- Calling for *objective* game reviews.
- A YouTuber saying to not trust or read traditional reviewers and to instead trust... YouTubers. Yawn.
- "Too much water" joke. Yawn. Incidentally, IGN dropped pros/cons from reviews months and months ago specifically to prevent these out-of-context summary issues, which shows how old a lot of Dunkey's examples are.
- What a lot of people willingly ignore (or don't consider) when talking about IGN is that the site is over 20 years old. I can tell from the graphics packages and Editor VO in some of Dunkey's IGN clips that he's pulling from very, very old videos. I've been at IGN 6 years - longer than almost everyone on the current IGN staff, and many of these clips pre-date me, even. How responsible is an entirely new editorial staff for some goofy editorial decisions an entirely different group made years ago?
It's a challenge, to be sure. When a reviewer for an outlet gives Skyward Sword a 10/10, and then a *different* reviewer for that outlet reviews BotW, it can be tricky to give readers the proper context. One thing we're doing more and more often is embedding a slideshow in a high-profile review with all of IGN's previous reviews from that series, and whether the reviewer of the current game would have scored it higher, or lower. It's a fun bit of extra content and helps provide context at the same time.
So alllll that being said, the video is mostly fine. I laughed. The only part I'm *genuinely* upset about is Dunkey splicing audio make it sound like people, me included, said things we didn't actually say. I get that it's a comedy video and it led to some decent punchlines. But the video has millions of views and there is undoubtedly a very very big group of people not clued on on the joke, there.
I like Dunkey a lot, he's one of only two YT channels where I watch everything they upload. (The other is Matthew Matosis). So yeah it doesn't feel great to hear me and my colleagues to be called "fucking idiots" or whatever specific term he used. Specifically singling us out by name and listing them on-screen certainly felt pretty weird too. It goes with the territory of the job, for better or worse.
I'm pretty biased since it's a video tearing down essentially the entire job of me and my friends and co-workers, but I do truly believe he missed the mark on this one:
- Calling for *objective* game reviews.
- A YouTuber saying to not trust or read traditional reviewers and to instead trust... YouTubers. Yawn.
- "Too much water" joke. Yawn. Incidentally, IGN dropped pros/cons from reviews months and months ago specifically to prevent these out-of-context summary issues, which shows how old a lot of Dunkey's examples are.
- What a lot of people willingly ignore (or don't consider) when talking about IGN is that the site is over 20 years old. I can tell from the graphics packages and Editor VO in some of Dunkey's IGN clips that he's pulling from very, very old videos. I've been at IGN 6 years - longer than almost everyone on the current IGN staff, and many of these clips pre-date me, even. How responsible is an entirely new editorial staff for some goofy editorial decisions an entirely different group made years ago?
It's a challenge, to be sure. When a reviewer for an outlet gives Skyward Sword a 10/10, and then a *different* reviewer for that outlet reviews BotW, it can be tricky to give readers the proper context. One thing we're doing more and more often is embedding a slideshow in a high-profile review with all of IGN's previous reviews from that series, and whether the reviewer of the current game would have scored it higher, or lower. It's a fun bit of extra content and helps provide context at the same time.
So alllll that being said, the video is mostly fine. I laughed. The only part I'm *genuinely* upset about is Dunkey splicing audio make it sound like people, me included, said things we didn't actually say. I get that it's a comedy video and it led to some decent punchlines. But the video has millions of views and there is undoubtedly a very very big group of people not clued on on the joke, there.
LinkSlayer64
Member
I don't think he called for straight objectivity, he merely said there is an aspect of objectivity possible at the basis of a review. He even says literally before "the best type of review is one that is subjective."
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
What is it with Youtubers thinking IGN and Gamespot are their enemies?
Death Penalty
Member
Honestly, I think some of Dunkey's points were valid. The mismatch between review scores and actual text is a genuine problem, as is a lesser degree of transparency of who exactly is reviewing this game and what their tastes are. It requires extra effort on the part of the consumer to find the deeper truth of it all as opposed to a Youtuber or focused personality whose tastes you're more familiar with.
Beyond that though, a lot of fluff and even more logical inconsistencies really brought down the video. Guess the jokes were funny enough.
Beyond that though, a lot of fluff and even more logical inconsistencies really brought down the video. Guess the jokes were funny enough.
Because it's just an incoherent ramble. He disagrees with his own opinion multiple times in the video and doesn't take his own advice. On one hand he accurately describes the shortcomings of big review sites, acknowledges ways to be mindful of that and still get useful information out of a review, and then flips on that entirely and just rants about how big review sites are useless and can't be trusted.
Combine that with the clear conflict of interest here. He's an indirect competitor of big review sites, and advocates people trust his and other youtuber's opinions on games. That can come off as biased. I agree with the stance that you should be familiar with a reviewer's personal tastes to get the most out of their review, but being in the position he is and still making this video is poor judgement and poor form imo.
Something something "old media can't be trusted", something something "new media is better despite the lack of integrity on constant display i.e. #XB1, Shadows of Mordor, etc. by The New™". As someone who does video game reviews on their own YouTube channel, I really don't see why there's any need to be so antagonistic given that many YouTubers have demonstrated themselves to be far worse in terms of critique and integrity than most mainstream outlets, especially when it comes to disclosure.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/art...ys-video-about-game-critics-on-waypoint-radio
waypoint talked about the video today
waypoint talked about the video today
They're competition.
You are going WAY too far with this, I don't think that's what that is at all. Because while, I don't agree.... with a lot of dunkey's points. I don't think he is even looking at the bigger picture where he is at perspective wise, with his unique situation, he isn't looking at the multitude of sponsers and owners that youtube networks have. I think this video isn't well thought out at all.
But two parts that did stand out to me in the video were the sections with sonic and crash for different reasons. On crash's end, I agree that maybe not experiencing the whole of a game, or at least to like a normal completion, and then giving a review is unprofessional. I don't think that's good, especially for an outlet that wants to be seen as proffesional. On the end the thing with sonic, you can have the opinion there are no sonic games, but to be honest I don't think a lot of people actually have that opinion, those games do too well and are too well regarded, and are by different people in media are called to come back to various times, for that many people to have that actual opinion. I think its a meme, that gets regurgitated because its " funny to shit on sonic" , and I think... ya know when my friend says to me as a joke, its funny. When youtube joesmcho23 says that, its that guy. But when a guy is representing a larger company, its a little shitty, and kinda bad buisness because its the potential ostracization of a market... because memes. Because those dank maymays. And I think that's shitty, and its happened before, with other things, like that time with DmC where a lot of gaming outlets.. .just insulted the audience ( along with the studio itself ) for not being on board with that western reboot of something who's main appeal was , anime cheese. And we can go on and on.
But I think in this video that is a sea of , bad points, not being able to see other peoples perspectives, and a complete tone def ignorance of his own. Those two points, lead to other actual points that I feel is a problem.
And I don't think people are " better than professionals because they tell it like it is" , I was just watching a stream last night where Yo video games were just regurgitating lies about nomura and instead of informing themselves, they just decided to stay in ignorance. I'm not a gamer gater, I actively fight against that, and being a person of color, will when my voice is heard eventually in the work that I do , will probably a target for speaking on things.
I just think those two things are kinda ok...not points, but spring boards to a point.
And despite all this, if IGN whatever wants to make reviews of games folks ain't finishing , or decided " fuck this fanbase" today because the dank meme god decided so on this day. They can do whatever the hell they want. I just think that's kinda bad.
And to claim that this train of thought is some how an extenuation of folks actively antagonizing women because they are women in video games, because that's what gamegate was about really, is a level of gun jumping the best rocket jump in an FPS could only dream of reaching.
No, you are looking at the wrong way. Heck the latter should be more worried about the former.
They view themselves, as the little guy. They see, admittedly a lot of sometimes shitty or unprofessional and they go " wow that's shitty and unprofessional, I have a platform to voice my disdain on this thing " and a lot of times, those things aren't shitty and unprofessional, its just things they don't like
1. That poster didn't relate it to GG, you did.
2. Even if Dunk didn't intend for it to be used as some "war on journalism" hit piece that's what some organized malicious folk are going to latch onto and use it for.
1)That's fair , but he did use the term alt-righters to where I feel a lot of that springs from. But my bad on that part.
2) While Yes people with malicious intent can warp anything to mean anything, I don't the meme the original poster quoted was representative of that or a spin off of that, I think there are some folks unhappy with modern game reviews and that's it, and they said " yeah I agree with this" and that's it. Unless I'm missremembering the video that spawned this, most of its about games, nothing "social studies worriors", or sex , or gender, or race related. Its just about game reviews, and I don't think a lot of the people , for example sharing that meme are talking about any of that alt right stuff. They just don't like modern game reviews. And to just be like " this is an extension of the alt right" a little bit of a jump
Yoooooo, thanks for all the tech podcasting with Scott Lowe back in the day. I'll always remember your "as a father" joke. I also loved your interactions with Marty Sliva on podcasts when he first got hired at IGN.
Glass Shark
Banned
I for one agree that there has never been a good Sonic the Hedgehog game.
(Also this Dunkey fellow is really not saying anything new or unique. He's making the same specious arguments and false assumptions that random forum posters have been for years. He just happens to have an audience for some reason.)
(Also this Dunkey fellow is really not saying anything new or unique. He's making the same specious arguments and false assumptions that random forum posters have been for years. He just happens to have an audience for some reason.)
Messofanego
Banned
But why would you trust Youtubers who are more prone to corruption and brand deals than actual outlets that follow ethical guidelines to separate editorial and advertising?
rakkadakka
Member
They're playing against them like you would a political opponent.
The timing of this lines up with their agenda is all, though it's very likely all of this just stems from Crash Bandicoot for Dunk.
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
The problem with (most) of gaming Youtube is the shit they rail against the big sites for they do and worse. You would never see IGN or Gamespot pulling the shit the CSGO Lotto guys did.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Good video Dunkey. Lots of baffoons in the industry
Yea lol
PSlayer
Member
Because I can easily see inconsistencies on their reviews thanks to the fact they are only one person. Big sites can always use the bullshit excuse of "we are many so our opinions vary" to treat different games in different ways.Plus i don't really think most westerners journalists share my tastes for gamming so what they like,hate,find acceptable(or not) most of the time doesn't match with me.