How Broken is Game Journalism?

[rustypup]

Some would call game journalism a kind of enthusiast press, and on many counts I find it hard to disagree with them. Like with other forms of enthusiast press, big gaming sites rely not only on strict gaming news, but also an array of gaming-related stories to flesh out their coverage. Sometimes these related stories fall within acceptable levels. At other times some of the content posted to gaming blogs makes me feel simply terrible for the state of the field.

In any case, the makeup of an industry is no excuse for complacent reporters and even if searching out other sources constitutes a good deal of dead ends, that’s par for the course for a journalist. Readers demand and expect journalists to go the extra mile and find not only the story that is being told, but also those stories that aren’t being told.

i disagree - in this industry the readers demand hype and opinion to enforce their broken sense of delayed gratification... gaming journalism is always going to be a joke because gamers are, for the most part, dysfunctional 4yr olds addicted to New Shiny™

my favourite snippet:

Anecdotal glances through top gaming sites reveal gamers to be little more than children in men’s bodies, giggling at the sight of breasts and having pseudo-intellectual discussions about facial hair.

never has a truer word been published...


tl;dr?: you have the attention span of a stick insect and are dead to me...

<edit>now with Punctuation™</edit>

[StarBound]

I think the only review of any game I haven't read was Starcraft 2s. I don't even know the score that NAG or PCF gave it.

I don't really catch what you are trying to relay? That game reviews are being fixed by publisher own companies or that the crowd reading it doesn't understand what the reviewer is trying to bring across?

[D3PART3D]

Did you hear that Tribble? You're a child in a man's body.

[rustypup]

I don't really catch what you are trying to relay?

honest reviews are worthless because the gaming public in general, and the publisher's marketing team, prefer positivity and hype... this is true regardless of whether it's faux journalism ala freddy-my-dodgy-neighbour's blog or printed... positivity and hype sell... units, mags and feeling good about my new purchase...

gamers don't really get negative reviews - they mostly get whiny...

@D3PART3D: Rule 1. i realise you're a little stuck on rule 34, but rule 1.

[wizardofid]

Actually, I rock up at a shop, pick up a game I think might be good and buy it.No reviews or this or that, have burnt my fingers a few times, other times I got some awesome games.

Reviews are a waste of time and bandwidth.If you want to see what a game is about watch youtube or download a demo, some times they are still biased showcasing only the best bits, and leaving the lackluster one for when you buy the game.But at least you don't have some one force feeding you junk....

[Anakha56]

honest reviews are worthless because the gaming public in general, and the publisher's marketing team, prefer positivity and hype... this is true regardless of whether it's faux journalism ala freddy-my-dodgy-neighbour's blog or printed... positivity and hype sell... units, mags and feeling good about my new purchase...

gamers don't really get negative reviews - they mostly get whiny...

@D3PART3D: Rule 1. i realise you're a little stuck on rule 34, but rule 1.

haha Look at the comments for the GT5 review at Ars people were giving the reviewer a hard time because he spoke the truth about the game being a rent and not a buy.

I would far rather have a honest review than a biased (paid for) one.

[Tribble]

D33 - I promise you that I am not. But I do enjoy reading game reviews - especially if they are done in an interesting an entertaining way. But it is a niche market - and most people outside it will think it is nuts (I know - I am related to them). But then I would venture to say similar of car reviews, audiophile reviews, ..... I am sure you know where I am heading with this. If it is your area of interest - then you are passionate about it. I have read some fishing articles that rival the sanity of game reviews.

[rustypup]

maybe we should amend the title to exclude the word "Game"

[Tribble]

Now that is something I would agree on

[StarBound]

Hehe. Unreal 2 and Singularity got bad reviews. Everything they said in the reviews were true. However those are still of my better first person experiences. And MW2 and HL2 which were rated the most highest games was horrible experiences because of what you needed to enjoy them. MW2 not finding games or teaming up with ppl on other continents and HL2 which took way WAY too long to install and reinstall the few days after. They did not mention the MW2 and HL2 issues though so infrastructure should get the blame. But I am tired of blaming the 3rd party for the lack of entertainment created by the developer short comings.

Ana your complaints are the same complaints listed on the ps3za forums. Looking at the first part of gamespots review I was confused simply by looking at the vid as they used the menu. Remember though that hype is a killer. The longer a game takes the more hype it has. Duke Nukem Forever will not be the game we want. It's been too long in developement and too many ground up builds to get excited over. Looking at GT5 it seems like they are trying to cover too many areas for the game.

Then what did that one guy that was fired from IGN write the true for if you a) get fired and b) get complaints for people that bought the game. I can understand you just paid $60 for a game and now it scores 6%. It wont make anyone feel good. But I paid R600 for MW2 and its 96% and I am pissed off as hell that I couldnt get the good parts working properly.

[D3PART3D]

I've just read through the article. Once again Rusty, as much as I love you, I must disagree. I think the writer has a point - good journalism is essential to the industry.

If I understand what you're saying, you mean that the cause-effect relationship is in fact the other way around, and that it isn't solely the fault of the current gaming "journalists" but rather the blame is shared with the gamers who support them. I think it is counter productive to view it that way. What will change? You can condemn all you want, but people who are in their comfort zones will not budge.

This is what I have the most trouble understanding: you speak as if the majority makes it impossible for the minority to make any change. How is that so? Objective game reviews will have the support of rational readers. I'm guessing that you mean few journalists would take the effort as there is more money to be made writing for the likes of Kotaku, but surely the more journalists head in that direction, the stiffer the competition becomes. Would it not eventually make more economic sense to take hold of the niche market left behind? I don't know if I'm articulating that correctly, so let me use an analogy. KFC sells faster than Sam's Salads. After too many competing restaurants open up to rival KFC, Chicken Licken, Nando's, and Fontana, maybe the next entrepreneur to come along will do better to open a Sam's Salads and sell to the Tribbles of the world rather than to try and take an ever shrinking slice out of the chicken takeout market?

Minecraft is a great game, and as I know the story, it got publicised because of its zealous fans. The way I see it, an objectively good game has the natural effect of gaining the support of passionate fans who will take care of its existence being made known. Take a look at some of the most hyped games today: the latest installments of Final Fantasy for example are most probably only selling because of the hype generated around them, but that hype was at least partially generated by the fact that earlier games in the series were genuinely amazing, even if the current installments are nowhere near as good.

[Siemens]

If you want to know if a game is good, go to Kotaku and see the review. Don't bother reading the review but instead read the comments of those who cannot be "bought".
Also when they do post a piece of journalism outside of reviews the commenters will yet again proove usefull in sharing things that isnt on the surface. Kotaku commenters are really good

[Xiphan]

I too am not one for reading reviews simply because of one simple fact: what I like may not be the same as what the person reviewing the game likes, try as they might to remain 100% objectionable it just will never happen. For those of you who don't know Valve is making Dota 2, now I love Dota and more recently HoN and I will pre-purchase Dota 2 the second it becomes available to do so. Will I bother to read a review of it in PCF (or anywhere for that matter) first before I buy it? No, imagine it gets given to KillerByte for review? I know for a fact he hates Dota (not to mention sucks at it); so why should I care if a review speaks negatively about a game? At the end of the day it all comes down to one thing: did you enjoy the game? If so, you shouldn't need someone else's opinion to justify why you liked it.

Although, I must admit trusting a vast number of people (like Siemens posted above) could prove beneficial as I am still curious to this day about C&C4 after having enjoyed C&C3, but after it received so much negative feedback I decided to give it a miss altogether.

[hamin_aus]

I think where it all went pear-shaped was when people who review games and do nothing else began calling themselves journalists...

[KillerByte]

I too am not one for reading reviews simply because of one simple fact: what I like may not be the same as what the person reviewing the game likes, try as they might to remain 100% objectionable it just will never happen. For those of you who don't know Valve is making Dota 2, now I love Dota and more recently HoN and I will pre-purchase Dota 2 the second it becomes available to do so. Will I bother to read a review of it in PCF (or anywhere for that matter) first before I buy it? No, imagine it gets given to KillerByte for review? I know for a fact he hates Dota (not to mention sucks at it); so why should I care if a review speaks negatively about a game? At the end of the day it all comes down to one thing: did you enjoy the game? If so, you shouldn't need someone else's opinion to justify why you liked it.

Although, I must admit trusting a vast number of people (like Siemens posted above) could prove beneficial as I am still curious to this day about C&C4 after having enjoyed C&C3, but after it received so much negative feedback I decided to give it a miss altogether.

I reviewed C&C 4 because I am a fan of the series. I was extremely dissapointed in the changes that they made to the franchise.

I would not review DOTA 2 because I don't want to but if I did review it I would be ethically bound to give it a fair and unbiased analysis.

A good reviewer will point out the good and the bad. This allows readers the opportunity to make an informed decision. If I tell you that the control system is terrible but the visual aspects of the game are excellent and the plot is amazing then you can decide to overcome the annoying control scheme for the sake of the story.

[Siemens]

I think where it all went pear-shaped was when people who review games and do nothing else began calling themselves journalists...

lol agreed

[jee]

I would not review DOTA 2 because I don't want to but if I did review it I would be ethically bound to give it a fair and unbiased analysis.

A good reviewer will point out the good and the bad.

I think that this is the crux of the matter - and as Jamin said - everyone these days think that they are game reviewers - and they review with a bias towards their likes and dislikes. They are not ethically bound to give an unbiased analysis. A good marketer must believe in a product to sell it - question is if the reviewer is a marketer or not.

[Siemens]

I think that this is the crux of the matter - and as Jamin said - everyone these days think that they are game reviewers - and they review with a bias towards their likes and dislikes. They are not ethically bound to give an unbiased analysis. A good marketer must believe in a product to sell it - question is if the reviewer is a marketer or not.

The best reviewers... in the world are Richard Hammond, Jeremy Clarkson and James May. Their reviews makes me want to drive any car in the world and they make me want to not drive any car in the world. And I would love to see people review games in the same way.

[Xiphan]

A good reviewer will point out the good and the bad. This allows readers the opportunity to make an informed decision. If I tell you that the control system is terrible but the visual aspects of the game are excellent and the plot is amazing then you can decide to overcome the annoying control scheme for the sake of the story.

That's true. And I just want to re-enforce my earlier post in that you can't believe everything you read about a game either. It's funny that you mention a flawed control scheme because that is exactly how people described the PC version of Dead Space and you know what? I ignored them, got the game, installed it and found that there is almost nothing wrong with it. For the record I played it with a keyboard and mouse (heaven only knows how people could play it with a controller?) and truth be told I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's possibly the best survival horror game I've played in a while even if it wasn't scary enough for my liking, but I think by playing it with a K+M possibly made it easy enough that it no longer felt scary.