A lot of negativism towards gaming journalism?

[sonicneedslovetoo]

If you want to know where the seeds of distrust were planted you have to look back to the 80's to gaming magazines. Take for example Nintendo Power or any number of British gaming magazines of the time who were happy to give out exaggerated praise and even write articles that are outright lies about games that are trash.
If you look at videos from Ashens(Terrible old games you've never heard of) and Larry Bundy Jr. you can find plenty of examples where magazine writers were paid to write reviews without even playing the game, even using screenshots that never appeared in the game in the first place.

Obviously not all this can be put down to them, some of it is just bullshotting being done by the devs/publisher which continues to this day(thank you Watch Dogs).

 

[Something Amyss]

Take for example Nintendo Power

And if you can't trust Nintendo to objectively assess their own products, who can you trust?

I mean, I agree, but really. Who expected "games journalism" from a magazine licensed by the subject?


This really is the problem with games "journalism," though. It's very likely irrevocably tied to its subject. It was bred from a corporate mindset and there it remains.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

If you want to know where the seeds of distrust were planted you have to look back to the 80's to gaming magazines. Take for example Nintendo Power or any number of British gaming magazines of the time who were happy to give out exaggerated praise and even write articles that are outright lies about games that are trash.
If you look at videos from Ashens(Terrible old games you've never heard of) and Larry Bundy Jr. you can find plenty of examples where magazine writers were paid to write reviews without even playing the game, even using screenshots that never appeared in the game in the first place.

Obviously not all this can be put down to them, some of it is just bullshotting being done by the devs/publisher which continues to this day(thank you Watch Dogs).

I've reading gaming media since the late 80's and its relationship with the industry has always been a fairly incestuous one, but its gotten worse since everything moved online and the magazines/websites have come to depend on advertising for their revenue. Whereas in the past they actually sold a physical product they could charge for, and thus weren't as dependent on advertising revenue from game publishers to operate. From what I can see, the current business model of the "gaming media" (and online media in general, if I'm being honest) is pretty broken, and until they figure out how to operate a viable business without being beholden to advertising, its hard to see how they are ever going to be taken seriously.

 

[GrumbleGrump]

Mostly because it's impossible to take seriously. We've had repeated instances of flagrant corruption and low standards, so excuse me if I don't find you respectable. I know this is changing, but now there has been absolutely nothing that games journalism has done to make me take it seriously.

 

[NPC009]

If you want to know where the seeds of distrust were planted you have to look back to the 80's to gaming magazines. Take for example Nintendo Power or any number of British gaming magazines of the time who were happy to give out exaggerated praise and even write articles that are outright lies about games that are trash.
If you look at videos from Ashens(Terrible old games you've never heard of) and Larry Bundy Jr. you can find plenty of examples where magazine writers were paid to write reviews without even playing the game, even using screenshots that never appeared in the game in the first place.

Obviously not all this can be put down to them, some of it is just bullshotting being done by the devs/publisher which continues to this day(thank you Watch Dogs).

I've reading gaming media since the late 80's and its relationship with the industry has always been a fairly incestuous one, but its gotten worse since everything moved online and the magazines/websites have come to depend on advertising for their revenue. Whereas in the past they actually sold a physical product they could charge for, and thus weren't as dependent on advertising revenue from game publishers to operate. From what I can see, the current business model of the "gaming media" (and online media in general, if I'm being honest) is pretty broken, and until they figure out how to operate a viable business without being beholden to advertising, its hard to see how they are ever going to be taken seriously.

Actually, magazines also depend on ad revenue. Unless your readerbase is absolutely huge, subscriptiona are just enough to cover stuff like printing, distribution and that kind of stuff. Ad money is what's used to pay for much of the content. When ad income goes down, the number of pages the magazine has will soon follow.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Take for example Nintendo Power

And if you can't trust Nintendo to objectively assess their own products, who can you trust?

I mean, I agree, but really. Who expected "games journalism" from a magazine licensed by the subject?


This really is the problem with games "journalism," though. It's very likely irrevocably tied to its subject. It was bred from a corporate mindset and there it remains.

Nintendo Power was never really trusted as a source for reviews. Rather it was a mini strategy guide collection for most of its life, its value being in "here's a hidden 1up", "here's a map to the boss", "here's what to fucking do in Milon's secret castle". In its own way though, it was more useful than other gaming mags that only game you a few (often unrepresentative) screenshots to look at and judge, while NP, showed you most of the game, almost foreshadowing people dumping text reviews or wordy video using stock trailer footage in lieu of something showing more actual gameplay.

 

[ThereIsNoSanta]

I am not going to go out and complain loudly about it (maybe a bit of whining here and there over something I take strong issue with) I just dont buy that magazine or vists that site or youtube page again if I feel it is untrustworthy or ignore reviews of a certain type from them i.e AAA, certain studios, indies, certain genre, whatever if I can identify a pattern to the ones I find sketchy.

This. But I'm less tolerant about it. :/ There's a very small handful of indie reviewers I trust, mostly people on Youtube. Projared is the only mainstream one I can really trust since he's very transparent about his business practices. Superbunnyhop, EmceeProphIt and MatthewMatosis are all obscure enough to say whatever the hell they want, as I don't think they've ever been sponsered or 'bought out', but they're supported enough to do what they want. Or at least, Emcee's on his way to that status lately. It's a rare middleground, so I cherish it when I find someone who just says what they think with no BS, shady business or self censorship.

 

[Strazdas]

Are you talking about journalists or reviewers? because those are two different tasks (even if sometimes done by same people). If we talk about journalism, the negativity is because the vast majority of journalists (and not just in gaming) seem to be either absolute imeciles or intentionally trying to keep people misinformed as much as they can. Real journalism seem to have died in the 60s and all we get is shit job done by shittier people in attempts to get sales (clicks nowadays) higher regardless of anything else. This is why the so called 4th estate needs to be completely reformed from the grounds up with a way to enforce them actually doing their job. Freedom of the press is useless if the press is just using it as an excuse to lie.

Now if we go to reviewers, most negativity exists because reviewers seems to think that reviews are just opinions instead of pieces meant to describe the game to give information to the reader. This can only be fixed when reviewers realize simply spouting opinion is not a substitute for review.

This is, in reality, all game reviews are. They're opinions about a game contrasted with defended assertions. I'm going to use myself as an example:

Then in reality what reviews are is useless. The point of reviews is to inform the reader. If there is no objective information then the review does not inform the reader therefore it is not doing its job.

If their editor makes too much of a stink, that site would be blacklisted by those writers because work conditions would suck.

You talk as if the writers have tons of offers to write for and can go around picking and choosing what they like instead of trying to pitch their idea to anyone and everyone in hopes they can actually get paid.

Alternatively your editor can just take your article and completely change it while leaving your name attached to it make you look like a moron. as happened to This guy [http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934341/934454/www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddit-chief-executive-resignation.html].

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Man, this post is pretty cynical.

If we talk about journalism, the negativity is because the vast majority of journalists (and not just in gaming) seem to be either absolute imbeciles or intentionally trying to keep people misinformed as much as they can. Real journalism seem to have died in the 60s and all we get is shit job done by shittier people in attempts to get sales (clicks nowadays) higher regardless of anything else. This is why the so called 4th estate needs to be completely reformed from the grounds up with a way to enforce them actually doing their job. Freedom of the press is useless if the press is just using it as an excuse to lie.

This is pretty much only one step removed from the "good old days" rhetoric of the classic conservatives. You're welcome to feel this way about journalism, and there are good reasons to at times. There are very few parent companies that own a large majority of journalistic houses, and that kind of minimal leadership can paint things in some intense partisan lines.

That said, there is good journalism out there, and good journalists doing it. Both in and out of games. For me, I think the importance is in picking up the writers and outlets you like, taking them with a heavy grain of salt, and doing your best with what knowledge you can get. The internet is a big place full of information, so there's always hope to be informed.

For gaming, some of my favorite games journalists, in the "does news reporting, investigative digging" sense, are employed by Kotaku, which is the standard go-to for people complaining about ethics and standards. So, I suspect you're going to disregard my opinions wholesale. Still, do some digging, there are good ones out there. I particularly also like Austin Walker of Giant Bomb.

Now if we go to reviewers, most negativity exists because reviewers seems to think that reviews are just opinions instead of pieces meant to describe the game to give information to the reader. This can only be fixed when reviewers realize simply spouting opinion is not a substitute for review.

This is, in reality, all game reviews are. They're opinions about a game contrasted with defended assertions. I'm going to use myself as an example:

Then in reality what reviews are is useless. The point of reviews is to inform the reader. If there is no objective information then the review does not inform the reader therefore it is not doing its job.

I don't know what magic button you think reviewers are able to press to remove their subjectivity from experience. I've said it multiple times in this thread, but an objective assessment of a game is functionally impossible for almost anyone. If you want objective information about a game, then look up its press-release, or technical specs on benchmarking sites. That's the only source you'll find for unmarred "facts" about a game.

However, almost everything in context to a game will flavor its experience for the player. Are you playing on a powerful rig that can play in 1200p? 1440p? Framerates up to 200 with AA on? Or are you on a console, 60 FPS at 1080p, but a really comfortable couch on a day when you have six hours to play until your daily needs kick in? Are you playing a multiplayer game like Minecraft with a big group of friends who are cooperating, or on a server hosted by 4chan where everything is phallic sculpture and fire? Is co-op fun with a known group of buddies on a Discord channel, or playing with randoms online who spend 90% of the match saying disparaging things about your mother's sexual tastes, the health of your reproductive organs, and your entire lineage. All in three different languages.

Is World of Warcraft more fun with a good guild? Is that a positive note on the game, or your personal play experience thanks to finding a good community? Is this handheld game fun because it's an objectively good game, or did you play 2 hours of it in a hospital's waiting room, which put it in a position to be a very needed distraction during a tense time? Is The Division a good game, or does it just feel like it may not be because you're coming off a binge of Borderlands 2 that colors your impressions of what "quality" means for co-op shooters.

Games aren't played in a vacuum. There are a million different ways to read an experience, and all of them, consciously or unconsciously, color everything about a game from beginning to end. The only way anyone can ever honestly, frankly, and genuinely believe they're speaking "objectively" about a game is if they're lying to themselves. Humans cannot entirely remove themselves from any experience. Everything is run through emotions, and play is no different.

If their editor makes too much of a stink, that site would be blacklisted by those writers because work conditions would suck.

You talk as if the writers have tons of offers to write for and can go around picking and choosing what they like instead of trying to pitch their idea to anyone and everyone in hopes they can actually get paid.

Alternatively your editor can just take your article and completely change it while leaving your name attached to it make you look like a moron. as happened to this guy [http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934341/934454/www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddit-chief-executive-resignation.html].

Yeah, I agree writing doesn't have a ton of prospects. That said, the creation of things like The Jimquisition website, Giant Bomb, and countless smaller indie pubs around all do illustrate that writing has successfully branched off from unfavorable work conditions. I'm not saying every writer can do this in every case, just about anyone is going to have to work a job they dislike, in any field.

The implication that all writing will be bad because no one is good and everything is awful is... Awful. It devalues the good, hard work that talented writers are doing, and also validates the people who want to accuse games writers of just about anything by hinging it on the belief that "games journalism is ruined, everyone is bad, confirm whatever biases you have because you're almost certainly right."

 

[Strazdas]

This is pretty much only one step removed from the "good old days" rhetoric of the classic conservatives. You're welcome to feel this way about journalism, and there are good reasons to at times. There are very few parent companies that own a large majority of journalistic houses, and that kind of minimal leadership can paint things in some intense partisan lines.

That said, there is good journalism out there, and good journalists doing it. Both in and out of games. For me, I think the importance is in picking up the writers and outlets you like, taking them with a heavy grain of salt, and doing your best with what knowledge you can get. The internet is a big place full of information, so there's always hope to be informed.

For gaming, some of my favorite games journalists, in the "does news reporting, investigative digging" sense, are employed by Kotaku, which is the standard go-to for people complaining about ethics and standards. So, I suspect you're going to disregard my opinions wholesale. Still, do some digging, there are good ones out there. I particularly also like Austin Walker of Giant Bomb.

Considering im from Europe and at that time was occupied by the soviet union, i got no love towards "good old days". I dont think i would ever fit in with conservatives either being a communist and all. The fall of journalism has nothing to do with politics though and everything to do with newspapers realizing how much more profitable clickbait is and how the audience does not catch them when they fail to factcheck or make shit up. It spiraled towards the problems we have now. Im merely saying this is hardly new or isolated problem, its been around for a long time.

See, we shouldn't need to do that. we should be able to go to a news site and believe what they tell us because it is literally their job to make sure they are informing us of whats going on. Just because you developed a coping mechanism does not mean that there is nothing wrong with journalism.

And yes, good journalists exist, but they are heavily overshadowed by the bad ones and the mere fact that you have to go "digging" to find a good one is telling.

I don't know what magic button you think reviewers are able to press to remove their subjectivity from experience. I've said it multiple times in this thread, but an objective assessment of a game is functionally impossible for almost anyone. If you want objective information about a game, then look up its press-release, or technical specs on benchmarking sites. That's the only source you'll find for unmarred "facts" about a game.

There is no magic button. It is something that needs to be trained, learned. And its certainly not for everyone. And no i dont think people that dont learn to disassociate their biases should be allowed to review games. Actually i mostly turn to Wikias of games nowadays because they have actual information about the game.

However, almost everything in context to a game will flavor its experience for the player. Are you playing on a powerful rig that can play in 1200p? 1440p? Framerates up to 200 with AA on? Or are you on a console, 60 FPS at 1080p, but a really comfortable couch on a day when you have six hours to play until your daily needs kick in? Are you playing a multiplayer game like Minecraft with a big group of friends who are cooperating, or on a server hosted by 4chan where everything is phallic sculpture and fire? Is co-op fun with a known group of buddies on a Discord channel, or playing with randoms online who spend 90% of the match saying disparaging things about your mother's sexual tastes, the health of your reproductive organs, and your entire lineage. All in three different languages.

Is World of Warcraft more fun with a good guild? Is that a positive note on the game, or your personal play experience thanks to finding a good community? Is this handheld game fun because it's an objectively good game, or did you play 2 hours of it in a hospital's waiting room, which put it in a position to be a very needed distraction during a tense time? Is The Division a good game, or does it just feel like it may not be because you're coming off a binge of Borderlands 2 that colors your impressions of what "quality" means for co-op shooters.

Games aren't played in a vacuum. There are a million different ways to read an experience, and all of them, consciously or unconsciously, color everything about a game from beginning to end. The only way anyone can ever honestly, frankly, and genuinely believe they're speaking "objectively" about a game is if they're lying to themselves. Humans cannot entirely remove themselves from any experience. Everything is run through emotions, and play is no different.

Theres a joke in here somewhere about you thinking consoles can play at 60 fps and 1080p at the same time. But hey at least you are actually getting to some objective information here. This is what should be mentioned in every review - how the game performs. The couch comment though is silly, as the chairs people play on are often much much more comfortable than couches. And yes, that information can be important, but your looking at it from a wrong angle. the question is not "is the co-op fun" but "how does co-op work". I want to know if game servers are full of 4channers, what i dont want is the reviewer to inject his opinion on whether thats good or bad. Inform the user, let them decide what they like.

And yes, you are getting at something there in the end. all those questions need to be answered before you even begin writing the review, and those biased removed as much as is humanly possible. See this is where i see most reviewers fail. i dont care if you find it fun, i care if i will find it fun. so give me information about the game that allows me to decide that rather than spend half the review talking about unrelated emotions you experience. im not interested in your emotions, im interested in the game.

Yeah, I agree writing doesn't have a ton of prospects. That said, the creation of things like The Jimquisition website, Giant Bomb, and countless smaller indie pubs around all do illustrate that writing has successfully branched off from unfavorable work conditions. I'm not saying every writer can do this in every case, just about anyone is going to have to work a job they dislike, in any field.

Outside of Giant Bomb, those sites are not self-sustainable though. The Jimquisition is pretty much run based on Jims Patreon that he gets from building a userbase for many many years and the videos on the Patreon feed are actually his Jimquisition videos on youtube and not his site. Other indie spinoffs like Leigh Alexander went to make thier own site and quickly ran into obscurity because noone was interested in reading it. And thats the big names, how about those that havent spent a decade making a name for themselves?

The implication that all writing will be bad because no one is good and everything is awful is... Awful. It devalues the good, hard work that talented writers are doing, and also validates the people who want to accuse games writers of just about anything by hinging it on the belief that "games journalism is ruined, everyone is bad, confirm whatever biases you have because you're almost certainly right."

No, not all writing is bad. but the vast majority of reviewers are neither good, hard working or talented writers. They may be great people to be friends with, i dont know that either way, they picked the wrong profession though.

Also you didnt address my point about the Editor doing whatever they want and ruining writers reputation.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The review system is flawed because most sites put numbers on subjective reviews for page clicks through metacritic. A lot of reviews these days barely cover glitches, bugs and gameplay mechanics to they're effectively kind of useless as a product review and more just a medium to read the author's personality.

Its why YouTube influencers are kind of handing gaming websites their ass in many respects. You find out about a game in a more objective manner quickly from Twitter, Reddit or YouTube these days.