Your idea of game journalism

[Dizchu]

Based on my experience, anybody who would say "SJW" unironically would easily define Anna as one with any cursory look into her as a person or her workas a game developer.

I avoid the term "SJW" when it come to "serious" discussions because it's essentially an insult. I put it in quotation marks to indicate that it's a label others would give unironically to someone, rather than one I'd use.

In this instance I used the term in the context of the idea that "SJW"s look after their own at the cost of anyone outside their group. A journalist living with a developer and giving her positive coverage, for instance. It's seen as "clique-ish" behaviour (which fits into the whole backlash against journalists that's been going on). Now I just think Hernandez made a mistake (or several), rather than her trying to explicitly use her position to help her friends into the industry. I am actually glad that Totilo addressed it, despite his contradictory claim that Kotaku aren't obligated to follow ethical procedures.

because she partakes in the "hipster welfare" program that is Patreon, and they'd probably say that a lot of her games aren't games because grrr there's no shooting people in these!

Yeah as one of those rare enigmas that both sympathises with GG and likes games like Gone Home and Dys4ia (both excellent games that resonated with me quite personally), it's quite a frustrating position to be in. People love to cry about the "end times" of video games where these filthy "SJW" non-games take over. It's a ridiculous sentiment I've heard over and over again.

Not to mention she's trans, and in my experience, the people who say "SJW" unironically are almost always transphobic to some extent.

That's interesting, my trans friends are often too eager to use the term "SJW". Maybe it's because of the differences in the ways transfolk are treated in the UK to the USA, maybe it's because they find certain kinds of "social justice activism" that is done on their behalf to be patronising.

Your last paragraph was an enjoyable read. Quite thought-provoking actually. I don't think it's entirely incompatible with my stance though I still think that some sort of balance should be maintained. I think the most important thing is, as you said, disclosure and transparency.

 

[Mikeybb]

Lot of points here and already covered in discussion.

On the matter of swag though, I've always liked how the good old PC Zone team of UK dealt with it.

Accept all swag gifts.
Put it in a big pile.
At the end of the month list all items on ebay, save those with attached NDA and other legal gubbins (not sure how they got rid of that stuff).
Announce listings to your readership and allow them to bid for said items.
All proceeds go into one nice, big donation for a different charity each month.

The pr department get to validate their existence and budgets by sending tat to journalists along with game hype material.
The journalists aren't personally keeping any of said tat.
Instead it is put to a good use that benefits a charity.
The reader that shelled out gets something they normally wouldn't have access to, namely whatever exclusive bit of nonsense they happened to send.
Even the company that sent it ends up looking good as, ultimately, what they did benefits a charitable cause in the process of spreading the hype about their game.

 

[b.w.irenicus]

The things come to mind.
1. Don't be corrupt. Seems obsious, but examples like the inccident with the guy over at IGN and his Kan & Lynch review made me not take this basic thing for granted. And as far as I understood it, Jim fucking Sterling son left the Escapist because he was unsettled by the fact, that games media and publishers are getting colser and closer together.

2. When it comes to reviews, I know that a review can't be 100& objectiv, simply because you cannot objectivly measure "fun". I don't mind politic in reviews either. What I however demand is transparency. You rate a game low (or lower than most) because you don't like the political views that are underlying? You have less fun with a game because you don't like how female are dispicted? Fine by me.Just make that clear and describe where you coming from, so I can form and informed opinion on wheter these things might bother me as well or not. That being said, transparency is not neccesarrily liked to politics and social issues, but a pretty basic principle of reviewing

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to when you say "Both of these are acceptable to ethical journalism" though. Unless you mean "monitoring" and "investigate and interrogate"?

The part before it, where I said:

not because it doesn't meet journalistic standards (questionable) but because it doesn't portray his "side" in the appropriate light. OR because something nice was said about the other "side."

Ah ok, now I get what you mean.

Well it'd be nice if they all did that too.

But at the same time, it seems wholly unnecessary.

I mean, honestly, do you think there is some sort of problem going on elsewhere in entertainment journalism? People have literally demanded things while comparing game journalists to Roger Ebert, who may have had a code of ethics but it didn't stop him from doing some of those things (like reviewing movies by/featuring people with which he had relationships). People cite the New Your Times' ethical guidelines but ignore that things they want (such as accepting review copies) are done by the times. Based on the reality of these other industries, there should be all sorts of backdoor deals.

Or maybe these safeguards are largely unnecessary and put people through extra hoops for a job that isn't exactly great to begin with.

You keep saying "people". I am not "people". I'm not suggesting this list of things you've put down. I just think a simple "I'm good mates with X who worked on the project" would be nice. Which is what I've been stating.

Well a simple Google Search of "Gamers are dead" comes up with articles from Kotaku, ArsTechnia, and Gamasutra all released on the 28th/29th of August.

So already not the same day. You couldn't even get to three examples without violating the same day principle. One of those three articles also is reporting on the trend, citing one of your other examples and another to talk about a trend in coverage.

Now that's splitting hairs. Chances are it only has a day apart because of my timezone. And even if it was a 48 hour timeframe instead, it really wouldn't be any different.

The one you said only cites other articles (Kotaku), also links to a long Tumblr post by a Kotaku contributor. So I think that'd count.
I also found another from Polygon on the 28th, ANOTHER by Gamasutra on the 28th, and it just goes on and on, I've actually found a list I could link if you'd like, though I haven't checked all of them so some might be bullshit, I think this amount is enough to confirm what I was saying. I can also link the articles I mentioned specifically.

And are you saying the mailing list doesn't exist, or that the people on the mailing list never colluded to release the articles.

I'm saying neither. What I will say is that the claims of collusion and same-day articles are false, because they are based on lies, damned lies, and dishonesty. The "same day" thing didn't exist as it is represented. The people who supposedly "colluded" aren't all on the list. And counting things like news roundups is whole-handedly dishonest. By that argument, the people who complained about this

Perhaps some of the individuals themselves who wrote the articles aren't on there, but their bosses certainly are. And as I said, the Kotaku 'news roundup' links to a tumblr blog by a regular contributor. Seems a little odd to be counting a tumblr blog in a news round up. Then there are the emails pressuring Greg Tito to shutdown all topics about Zoe Quinn...

If the articles are right there and still on the sights that published them, I wouldn't call them lies. If people still include articles that were published months or years before though, they shouldn't be.

But that the articles are there, and that you pointed to three (one of dubious quality) doesn't actually prove that they colluded. That people frequently mentioned in this conspiracy weren't part of the list debunks the conspiracy, but I can't disprove that they in no way colluded ever. I mean, that's not the way evidence works. I can evaluate a specific claim like the ones here, but I cannot evaluate whether or not people privately colluded (say, off-list).

Also, it seems that GameJournoPros was not as top secret as people claim it was in the first place. It's a bad sign when you have to drum up the opposition as some terrifying secret organisation.

A similar instance would be the relationship between Gearbox and Destructoid, which nobody seems to have hid. Ever. In fact, gamergate didn't seem to care about this relationship until Anthony Burch pointed it out (and then we had someone on here try and get us to abuse the FTC with fraudulent claims), and it died down by the time Jim Sterling addressed it.

Phony claims from the earliest days of this movement still persist, but I keep having to ask why it's different with Gearbox and Destructoid/The Escapist (Where Jim was reviews editor until recently).

But more to the point I'm curious as to how much research you've actually done. Did you take these claims at face value? When I look at GameJournoPros articles, I see a bunch of people trying to finesse statements to say something else. That the ArtTechnica editor is on there doesn't mean much. That people have to take Ben Kuchera's line about Grayson out of context to make a case doesn't help. That most of these rely on twisting someone's words to mean something else, or to indicate collusion doesn't help. Most of the quotes pulled from GameJouroPros are harmless in and of themselves (at worst, seem like venting) and don't come together to form a cohesive narrative. People hammered puzzle pieces together and saying it was a smooth fit. This should be a real problem to anyone who cares about honesty, and yet we're expected to take this collusion at face value.

Also, it's not so much that I know the previous poster as it is I did my homework to make sure I knew what I was talking about. Though I do have a mild history with Wandering Hero.

I doubt most people were organizing illegal activities.

It really doesn't matter. They couldn't shut down the people fast enough, so they apparently said "fuck it" to the whole thing. And this is the sort of thing websites have been sued over before.

In that light, I'm not particularly sure I blame anyone else from playing it safe.

I regret taking this somewhat off topic, but my point remains that a lot of the desires of people who want "ethical" journalism are unrealistic or outright based on misrepresentations and falsehoods. This relates to your desires because you want people to not do what there's no evidence of them doing in the first place.

So I'll bring this back around to topic: What I would like to see from journalism, games journalism, is the people who think it's so bad (and this isn't aimed at you) step up to the plate. I mean, I don't think I'd like what they put out, but I'd like to see what they think real journalism is in action.

I think it's worth pointing out that I'm not a part of either side of this movement. I don't like twitter or the movements it spawns to begin with, as they're usually a clusterfuck. Although, some things HAVE been unearthed about what's been happening in gaming journalism that aren't clean-cut.
The articles are there, and though I haven't seen the words "let's all release the same article trashing the gamers calling us corrupt", considering that they're all a part of the same mailing group and all seem to hold the same opinions (mostly) and discuss what actions they should take together, it'd be willful ignorance to not strongly suspect something. How many similar articles released in how short of a time-frame would it take for you to think something was up?

Back to the point, I have done a fair bit of research, and I don't take things at face value (although I may have once, something as innocent as gaming has become a clusterfuck of lies and I've become far more suspicious).
I'm not sure about Destructoid and Gearbox as this is the first I've heard of it beyond some sort of connection. I think they should follow the disclosure rule if they aren't already.

There is absolutely no way that banning people posting threats of criminal acts on a forum could out-do the site itself and it's mods. A few simple ban-hammers would fix that. Not to mention the emails they sent to Greg Tito pressuring him to take down and censor all topics on Zoe Quinn suggests that "playing it safe" is not the case.

Again, I'm not 'people' I'm just me. All I want is a simple bit of disclosure at the end, and if they're doing what I think they've been doing, which the evidence I've seen point towards it being true (censoring the discussion and releasing the same kind of attack article across several different sites all linked by a mailing list), then that needs to stop. I don't represent or hold many of the same opinions as GG, and I don't want to. Honestly I think we're mostly in agreement except over whether or not the articles released are fishy or not, as with the censorship.

As for the final paragraph, there are a few sites and blogs that have sprung up around the controversy. Many sites have already been made, and more are in the process. GamesNosh came up just before the explosion, but I like what they've been doing, might wanna give that a try.

Sidenote: Could we maybe stick to paragraphs or numbering or something? Trying to divide all this up gives me a headache.

 

[tippy2k2]

snip

snip

You guys are flirting a bit with Gamergate discussion here.

I trust you guys to make sure you stay on track. Just a friendly reminder

 

[RaikuFA]

My stuff has probably been said but I will say this:

No more backhanded attacks on certain audiences. Twice I saw Kotaku do this. Once with a game with Rain in it's title and them starting the article with "this has nothing to do with those crybabies who want some stupid JRPG's in their country." Then there was the article announcing Senran Kagura for 3DS coming to the US and UK and half the article was going "how dare you buy this cause it has fanservice".

 

[Callate]

This is something I hear a lot and something that I've always questioned...

How would that help?

Game journalists can't "investigate". There's no freedom of information that allows you to look into things. The Publishers have no reason to talk to you (and when they do, they seem to be doing a pretty damn good job of sticking their own feet in their mouth, right Ubisoft?).

What would adding "real" journalists give the industry?

Arguably, game journalists can investigate, but don't. The shape of the industry is such that the priority is to get the latest information to readers and viewers as soon as possible; often, this means taking word directly from a publisher's PR team, putting a small amount of personal spin on it, and regurgitating it to the audience. Part of the reason (only part, admittedly) that so many people are looking to independent sources like Youtube reviewers and commentators for their information is conventional sources' desperate need for immediacy and not being scooped by competitors eclipses other concerns- including the credibility of the source. There's a clear trend across the industry to take a small amount of actual news and spread it thin- rather than doing their own interviews or research, to republish what has already been put out before as soon as possible.

I'd like to believe that someone whose focus was on journalism would be more interested in being thorough and building their own profile of a company or product, even if it took more time. Naturally, this would require support on an editorial level. They could speak with current or former employees of a company to get a more thorough understanding of the process and where there were likely hurdles to be overcome. They could research into a company's past products, and similar products in the industry, without a fan's biases towards prior products or company activities. Industry "insiders" could feel a greater confidence in talking to such journalists, knowing that they weren't being routed towards particular and typical subjects or questions- and perhaps unusual questions might garner less canned answers, rather than the all-too-expected party line about why a game isn't 1080p and 60 FPS or how they've learned from the mistakes of the previous network foul-up and are actually going to be ready for release day, this time.

It is, perhaps, overly optimistic, especially given the noted necessity of editorial/management support for such a new approach to work. But then, the topic asked for ideas; I don't have any real expectation that my words are going to spark anyone to try a different approach, unfortunately or not.

 

[Haerthan]

My idea of vidya game jurnalizm is of hookers, blow, games, free candy and free swag. Well the hookers and blow for me, the rest for everyone,including me. I mean come on who doesn't want free swag? I want some free swag, I'll give them 10/10 for that shit. I would sell my soul for the free candy. Oh and lets not forget the free games and consoles. I would blow my way up the corporate chain for that shit. And shake my fine tush for a monster gaming PC.

 

[tippy2k2]

It is, perhaps, overly optimistic, especially given the noted necessity of editorial/management support for such a new approach to work. But then, the topic asked for ideas; I don't have any real expectation that my words are going to spark anyone to try a different approach, unfortunately or not.

That's absolutely fair and I at least appreciate your thought process.

Most of the criticism I've heard of the game industry has fixes that are either impossible or impractical. I'm not so sure how much adding people with a journalism background would actually help but you've at least got more than " RAH!!! CORRUPTION!!1!!!1" as your argument and you have an actual reason why it might help rather than just saying how it totally would fix the industry because reasons.

 

[Dizchu]

Generally a good idea to dissociate from people using that because you'll end up next to some asshole who doesn't think that you have a right to exist without even realizing that.

Among my particular group of friends (I can't speak for everyone) "SJW" is used to refer to the sort of privileged, hypocritical "complainer" that uses the fact that they rubbed two brain cells together to figure out that sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia are bad and use that to belittle others. You hear this kind of condescension a lot, like how some feminists call feminism "the radical idea that women are people too" as if nobody else could figure it out. It's a really unappealing attitude to have and unfortunately a common one that actually makes feminism look unappealing (half of my friends aren't feminists and the other half agree that the examples I point out hurt the image of feminism/social justice).

That said I wouldn't use the term because there is such a conflation with honest people that actually want social justice. I kinda wish there was a more efficient word or term to describe people like that but it'd probably get used by some jackass to label anyone that thinks being transgender is actually a thing (yeah I'll just "stop" being transgender, never thought of trying that before).

All I can really do is give props to people that actually care about these things. The supportive messages I've had from The Escapists' community, for example.

Reviews and editorials are really the only amount creative freedom most of these people get, and given their passion for gaming, they sure as hell want to exercise it, even despite many of the limitations that they receive regarding it, eg reviews rushed out the door.

I agree. I am currently trying my hand at being a music critic (something that has actually resulted in a label contacting me which is kinda fun) and in university I wrote several essays and a dissertation on game design "theory". It's great to be able to flaunt your knowledge of these subjects and bring your own personal flair into the writing... but a review is a review. Unless you're an entertainer or an academic, reviews should be there primarily to inform the reader whether a game/album/cinema ticket is worth buying or not. If you unnecessarily politicise or inject ideology into reviews it'll distort the writing.

If you are writing about people you are personally affiliated with this is also a bad idea (if my friend's band asked me to review their album I'd have to decline). Similarly if anyone in my game design class asked me to review their games, I'd also have to decline. I would also refrain from asking people I know personally to review my games/albums. I'm not saying Kotaku have flat-out done this but they are treading dangerously close to the line. Having journalists promote game developers on Patreon is also eyebrow raising, to put it mildly.

But yes something a lot of people forget is that these are just regular guys, with flaws just like the rest of us. People are shouting "ethics" as if it were a dogma and that's not really good for anyone.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

snip

snip

You guys are flirting a bit with Gamergate discussion here.

I trust you guys to make sure you stay on track. Just a friendly reminder

You're right. We'll try and steer things the other way. I kind of feel sorry for you since right from post one things started going in that direction regardless of your disclaimer.

 

[tippy2k2]

You're right. We'll try and steer things the other way. I kind of feel sorry for you since right from post one things started going in that direction regardless of your disclaimer.

It's all good. I actually expected it to be much harder but people have been very respective of my request (and even you two have been respectful about it too; you guys are just flying a little close to the sun now and I just want to make sure your wings don't melt )

 

[Irick]

Arguably, game journalists can investigate, but don't. The shape of the industry is such that the priority is to get the latest information to readers and viewers as soon as possible; often, this means taking word directly from a publisher's PR team, putting a small amount of personal spin on it, and regurgitating it to the audience. Part of the reason (only part, admittedly) that so many people are looking to independent sources like Youtube reviewers and commentators for their information is conventional sources' desperate need for immediacy and not being scooped by competitors eclipses other concerns- including the credibility of the source. There's a clear trend across the industry to take a small amount of actual news and spread it thin- rather than doing their own interviews or research, to republish what has already been put out before as soon as possible.

Well, to be fair, this is true of journalism in general. Investigative journalism has been dead for quite some time, there just isn't the money there for it. The simulacrum of hard hitting news is enough for most people, those who really want well researched articles are niche. While journalism has its idealism, it still has to contend with the realities of commercialization. There is an intersection of passion and circumstance that may allow for the rare journalistic breakthrough. Reviews are something of a different beast, because they do not require anything more difficult to acquire than the game itself. The trust and credibility comes not from the need to fact check or do expensive research, but from the ability to reflect on one's own experience. While this requires skill, it is relatively cheep.

I'd like to believe that someone whose focus was on journalism would be more interested in being thorough and building their own profile of a company or product, even if it took more time.

At the end of the day, a professional journalist is a professional journalist. In the world of the professional, 'Real artists ship'. It is a rare company, a rare industry and a rare audience that is willing to wait for something more than good enough. In general, it is time and not the whims of the market that end up distinguishing between good enough and high quality. Consider for a moment your involvement with news media. Can you, off the top of your head, name the top ten news articles you have read in your life?

Journalism is a lot like good industrial design. It's beautiful, but it's the background of your world when it is done right. It isn't something that most people stop to really consider, to learn the language, and to appreciate on a deeper level. Consider the design of the telephone. Consider the design of a door. These have mountains of theory, years of practice, millions of dollars put into them. There are true works of art in these fields, but to most people, it's just a phone. It's just a door. They may enjoy the better crafted experience but at the end of the day, they are probably not going to want to pay a premium (without serious social incentive to).

So, here to me is the fundamental problem. For most people, games journalism is a means to an ends. It isn't something that they do in and of itself. The popular facets present the review as part of another experience. A humour routine. Satire. It's an element of another show, playing on the audience's want for entertainment rather than... journalism. This is true in general, as a culture we don't seem to want journalism, we want entertainment.

However... there is a want for good journalism. It's the long tail of the market, part of a niche. In the big head long tail dichotomy the long tail is never more visible. Consider Amazon's business model. They sell all kinds of books, which has let them take on the retail giants by not having to limit their available books to what they can keep on a floor. This is the same sort of dichotomy that one can apply to cable tv and youtube. Streaming vs ESPN, etc. There may be a viable market, but that big head is far more visible.

In somewhat of a unique dichotomy... the hard hitting stuff, the investigative journalism... that's the most expensive to produce and it's no more expensive to consume. Let us consider the traditional TV journalism. The real break winner there are the easy, cheesy, approachable and minimally investigated morning shows. They fund... everything. For the longest time it was the expected state of things. Your hard hitting, important stuff? Doesn't make a dime. It's that cheezy, feel good show that funds your whole operation. You do the other stuff for the love of journalism.

To me, it seems this mindset has faded. These days, if it doesn't make bank it's going to fade. The real solution here is... to value the reporting.

If we want games journalism to be better, we have to support it. We can do that by taking up the mantel ourselves and producing quality content, or by going out of our way to appreciate the good journalism we have. While debating ethics, or what we want to see helps us set up these formal metrics, what we have to do after that is... act by them.

We can't forget that part

 

[Duster]

I'd do just a professional video game insider show. Absolutely no reviews. You can't be critical and also get exclusive viewership of games.

All the shows would be

>oh look at all the cool things this company is doing
>look at how they devlop video games
>look at how they manage things in general

We could run critical users and stuff, but I would prefer to just host like, open/ forum review tournaments and stuff with that money instead of paying a single personality.

All reviewers your site hosts and pays for though is pseudo independent and won't get you blacklisted.

 

[LetalisK]

I'd ask God why he saw fit to send me to Hell, because that is clearly where I am.

This? This is purgatory. You don't want to know what Hell is like. I bribed my way up here.

You don't want to know how.

Oh! Wow, I worded that shitty joke poorly. I was referencing being in journalism as Hell and it requiring an act of God to put me in that position. No, where I actually am in reality is actually pretty awesome. I mean, I have a shit load of debt I'm dealing with, barely see my wife anymore because of our work schedules, and have an alpha cock of a supervisor. But I have running water. That alone means I'm kicking the shit out of half the planet.

 

[Jesterscup]

So what I would like to know is this; let's say you are given the keys to The Escapist (or Kotaku, or Game Informer, or "insert gaming website here"). How are you running it any different than how it's run now? What are you going to do that won't have your site fall apart right away (because that's what most of the "suggestions" I've seen would do)?

I would fire everyone, clone Yahtzee, and take over the world with my clone army of misanthropes.... mmwahahaha, once you are all enslaved under my iron grip I promise cake for all and the only games will be tentacle dating sims....

 

[Something Amyss]

You keep saying "people". I am not "people".

I'm going to end this now. I did not say you were "people," I chose a different word to describe a group of "not yous" as a deliberate form fo contrast. This diction choice should have made it clear that I was switching from the specific to the generic. And I simply will not tolerate this sort of bullshit anymore. I didn't read beyond this, I won't address any points further than this. This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned, as is any other that takes this route.

This is the exact sort of thing that seems to have set off Gamergate (She said gamers, even though she used quotes and clearly defined her terms, she must mean me, even though I don't fit the description, so now I'm angry that I think she was talking about me when she wasn't!), and really needs to just be smothered in its crib. In any case, I am just very, very tired of it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Arguably, game journalists can investigate, but don't.

I had a long pot, and my hand slipped when I tabbed to the "post" button. So I give up on trying to be verbise.

The short of it is that I don't think they can investigate in any meaningful sense, given the way the publisher can shut people out or down, you'd have better luck with state secrets. And with ad buys and such. I mean, there's little actual investigative journalism these days as it is, and it's in no small part because of the shift in "legitimate" journalism to a similar set of practices. Hell, it's not even new. Look at cigarette controversies right until they weren't allowed to advertise everywhere. It's worse in gaming, since games are the primary interested industry.

Maybe if everyone rose up and refused to deal with the industry, but I don't think you're going there. I don't think a publication could be built ground up on a major industry scale as you suggest. And I don't think legit journalists would adapt well here. Actually, I think they'd be forced to adapt too well.