YongYea's take on Kotaku's Andromeda Development article

So basically we have a video of an article that we already discussed to death, what is the point of this thread?

Yongyea does not bring anything new here, he just retell the text of jason's article. The discussion should continue on the threads about jason's article of the troubled development, because here we are having a discussion about a video that just tells word for word jason's article without any new details or revelation, so yeah its kind of pointless.

I'm not sure the focus group was wrong. The focus group was rating the game on a vacuum. The metacritic ratings (I'm assuming you are taking about the professional ratings, not user ratings) are from people who had been following the climate of trepidation and worry about the game, feeding off of community members to their sites (IGN and others had very vocal anti-Bioware communities), and were comparing it to the original trilogy, where the focus group only rated the game as a standalone title based on it's own merits. Many people had agreed that if the game was reskinned with different aliens and only called "Andromeda" vs "Mass Effect: Andromeda" it would have scores higher.

That perception is not because of this article, it's because of his two articles about the death of the DLC. Neither article was well sourced (as in, no one who used to be part of development or even Bioware itself, but instead people "familiar with Bioware") and none of his sources were quoted.

I watch a good number of this guy's vids in order to get a feel for who he is...

...conclusion?

As a gamer, YongYea is the typical, ultra-jaded, never pleased, whiny prick that longs for "ye olden days" whilst peering through his foot-thick rose-tinted glasses. Anything and everything that doesn't conform to his narrow minded worldview will indefinitely earn his lambastement.

As a YouTuber, he is essentially a clickbait hack predestined to jump on whatever trend in gaming that will generate the most revenue. He isn't driven by creativity and the desire to make good content. No, he is driven by that sweet sweet YT money.

At this injunction, he is a small time, videogame equivalent of BuzzFeed and anyone who takes him seriously is either unaware of this dude's level of dishonesty and bias, or sourcing him purposefully because he supports their worldview.

Case closed.

A question, as I myself have had several posts shuttled into already existing posts:
At what point is a post that discusses the same topic as another different or the same?

I'm not complaining about my posts, to be clear.  I could see how they fit into the threads they were moved to.  In this case, would any other YouTube video that discusses the Kotaku article get it's own thread?  Would we develop a "YouTube Reacts" thread for that article?  The original thread has not yet been closed, and I'm just wondering why this video that offers no additional information should be in its own thread.  
I know you guys have a tough job to do, I'm honestly just curious so I can decide if future threads I wish to create should be their own individual thread or be posted in existing ones.  

Example:  Everyone on BSN creates their own YouTube video about the article.  Do they all get their own threads?

That doesn't make sense though.  It's saying that a person is thorough in one article, and then in another dealing with the same company, where they already have sources they just ask some random person with no direct knowledge of the subject matter. 

Also, the Kotaku article doesn't say people familiar with Bioware, it says people familiar with Bioware's plans, two completely different things.  That doesn't even mean that the people he's talking to don't work at Bioware, it just means that they aren't the people directly in charge, or making the final decision.

For example, I'm pretty far up in my company's Finance department, so I know when we're getting a new investor, when we're planning on acquiring new companies, etc before most people.  Once we tried to create a module that failed, so we were planning on scrapping it and acquiring/partnering with a company that specialized in it.  Obviously this is something that the CEO, CFO, General Counsel and others on the leadership team would be planning, and I wouldn't get full details until I was actually given a list of companies to vet.

So if I became a source for an article about how my company was going to scrap this module and look outside the company for help, I would be a person familiar with my company's plans.  However, I am not a direct source because I am not on our leadership team.  Also, I wouldn't be able to say it as a certainty because I am not the one making the final decision.  I would just be able to say unless we somehow get our module to work, this is what is going to happen.

I think it's rather disingenuous to presume that those who didn't rate this game high enough did so because they weren't judging the game on its own merits. Still, I do believe that a certain amount of comparison is not only unavoidable but useful as well to provide a baseline and track the evolution of a franchise. For instance, through comparison with the OT I can confidently state that combat in Andromeda has been improved upon, largely due to the inclusion of the jetpack.

I think it's clear from reading the reviews that the game was not purely judged based on its own merits, but also judged based on how well it stacked up the OT.  I'm not saying that's wrong, necessarily.  Putting the same name as a beloved trilogy on the box means that you have to expect comparison.  And several articles did mention how if the game didn't say "Mass Effect" on it it would have scored higher.  There's nothing wrong with comparing it, but I'm saying in a vaccum the game scores higher than in the environment it launched in.  

Unfortunately this is the case with a lot of youtubers, and why I'm starting to withdraw from using it as a review medium.

I think it was JV2017(?) who initially was all in favour of the game, did some very good information videos about how the skills work (this at a time when Youtube was overrun with retards posting 'YO YO GAIZ I FOUND DIS SWEET SHOTGUN IN DIS CRATE, YOU CAN GET IT THERE ITS TEH BOMB!' videos), and actually did a full stream of it.... until the negativity reached fever-pitch then suddenly his videos did a 180 and suddenly it's back to the BS bandwagon. It didn't take much to guess why a guy who'd spent hundreds of hours making videos suddenly decided it was terrible overnight.

Or click bait threads. There isn't anything in here that hasn't been discussed times over.

No, it doesn't make sense... but one does have to pay attention to the differences in the two articles and the wording used.  There is one situation that could fit... a person who once worked a Bioware who no longer does... i.e. left the company between the timing of the first article and the second.  That would make them a source "at Bioware" for the first and a "person familiar with Bioware's plans" for the second.  It also opens the possibility that Jason's source is not objective.  Depending on the reasons for leaving, that person may bear a grudge against Bioware.  It also doesn't mean that the person knew whether or not Bioware's plans were "written in stone"   Indeed, Jason seems to indicate that the plans were not written in stone, since he hedged the article with the idea that the plans could change.

Nothing, however, negates the fact that Jason himself behaved very unprofessionally... particularly by screenshotting posts from this forum and putting them up on his twitter account with the express purpose of ridiculing those posters publicly.  I was victim of that behavior and it was, in my honest opinion, a very childish move for any reporter who calls himself a professional to make.  The reporter friends of his who joined in mocking the posters in the tweets Jason made were also being very unprofessional.  Unprofessional behavior like this in the gaming reporting industry is not uncommon.  Unfortunately, it is more that norm.

I myself just won't click on and read any of these articles anymore... good or bad.  I haven't read this one either... nor will I.

I think this is my problem as well.  Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but the problem I am having is threads like this are starting to feel like "see this person agrees with me lets continue to discuss it again".  If it was something new I could see it warranting a new thread, but frankly I think this is just a part 2 of any of the prior Kotaku article conversations which I ignored.