Yeah that’s not even misleading, this is insinuating the opposite of what the dev means. That’s manipulative af. Whoever decided to use this title is a massive dick.
I understood the title exactly as it was intended. Having seen the reaction myself, and knowing that it was generally not well received, the title made perfect sense to me that the dev was happy with that reaction.
Same but you would have had to have known that there was backlash.
I personally think that these types of headlines are fine. Yes the headline is provocative with the wording but honestly they have to be a bit because if they don’t then they don’t get anyone to view their story. No views, no money and the whole cow, milk, and giving it away for free comes into play.
Click the damn link and give the journalist a some ad revenue because these guys also need to earn a living while most of us commenting, at least in this side of the world, we’re also making a living while having the luxury to read gaming news during work hours too and honestly, I don’t see anyone that’s complaining about the headline stepping up to the plate and providing any of their own original content and descriptive headlines that give you the whole story.
Well in both your examples, you are putting slightly altered words in their mouth, as those are not direct quotes. Shouldn’t do that.
Edited to add, I think I misunderstood you slightly here, actually. I think we agree that they shouldn’t be altering quotes. Though I think theirs is slightly closer to the original quotes than the ones you used.
I think the “It meant we got the design right” snippet would work really well, but it is a bit long for the overall headline.
Could someone explain? I’m not sure what is wrong here. Maybe I got the title right before reading. The way I read and understand the title is, that the developer is happy how people hated the DisGrace version. While the title wasn’t a 1 to 1 translation of this sentence, the core message of not liking the change is preserved, isn’t it?
It removes enough context to enable other interpretations. Such as “all publicity is good publicity, who cares that they didn’t like it”.
It basically allows people to get it wrong, while technically still matching the original intent. This way, at least some people will jump to conclusions that are more clickbaity.
You got it right. But I, and clearly a lot of others, raised our eyebrows.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Yeah that’s not even misleading, this is insinuating the opposite of what the dev means. That’s manipulative af. Whoever decided to use this title is a massive dick.
I understood the title exactly as it was intended. Having seen the reaction myself, and knowing that it was generally not well received, the title made perfect sense to me that the dev was happy with that reaction.
Same but you would have had to have known that there was backlash.
I personally think that these types of headlines are fine. Yes the headline is provocative with the wording but honestly they have to be a bit because if they don’t then they don’t get anyone to view their story. No views, no money and the whole cow, milk, and giving it away for free comes into play.
Click the damn link and give the journalist a some ad revenue because these guys also need to earn a living while most of us commenting, at least in this side of the world, we’re also making a living while having the luxury to read gaming news during work hours too and honestly, I don’t see anyone that’s complaining about the headline stepping up to the plate and providing any of their own original content and descriptive headlines that give you the whole story.
The “intent” of the title is to leave out context, to let readers jump to more clickbaity conclusions.
You yourself are saying “I got it right based on this additional detail I already knew”.
What would you have titled the article?
‘They Prefer our Original Design’: Resident Evil Requiem Dev Is Pleased by Heated Reaction to DLSS 5 Grace
Edit: Or even better:
‘We Got it Right the First Time’: Resident Evil Requiem Dev Is Pleased by Heated Reaction to DLSS 5 Grace
Either way, the issue is the paraphrased quote. “it was a positive” is literally just the same as the title that follows it. It adds no context.
Well in both your examples, you are putting slightly altered words in their mouth, as those are not direct quotes. Shouldn’t do that.
Edited to add, I think I misunderstood you slightly here, actually. I think we agree that they shouldn’t be altering quotes. Though I think theirs is slightly closer to the original quotes than the ones you used.
I think the “It meant we got the design right” snippet would work really well, but it is a bit long for the overall headline.
Paraphrasing happens all the time for titles to compress what someone has said. But often it’s done to confuse rather than inform.
If you want to stick with a true quote “we got the design right” fits. You could then alter the following title to further clarify:
‘we got the design right’: Resident Evil Requiem Dev Pleased Fans Prefer Original Design Over DLSS 5 Grace
Could someone explain? I’m not sure what is wrong here. Maybe I got the title right before reading. The way I read and understand the title is, that the developer is happy how people hated the DisGrace version. While the title wasn’t a 1 to 1 translation of this sentence, the core message of not liking the change is preserved, isn’t it?
It removes enough context to enable other interpretations. Such as “all publicity is good publicity, who cares that they didn’t like it”.
It basically allows people to get it wrong, while technically still matching the original intent. This way, at least some people will jump to conclusions that are more clickbaity.
You got it right. But I, and clearly a lot of others, raised our eyebrows.