Totally Not Corrupt Professional Objective Gaming Journalism DRAMA

[felipepepe]

They want to have the cake and eat it.

They want to get paid, make a living out of it, be respected and all that, as any other profession. However, they also want to prostitute thenselves to publishers and never bother to study their trade. You won't find a journalist that works with movies that never watched Citizen Kane, Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari or Battleship Potemkin. But you surely will find hordes of game journalist that consider themselves professional critics, yet never played anything pre-90's.

I mean, imagine people reviewing other medias as gaming journos do: "Maleficent tells the story of the witch from Sleeping Beauty, apparently an animated Disney movie from 1959. I never watched it, but I've seen parts of it on youtube..."

 

[Jasede]

That TB response is full of dicksucking.

Also I am sure 20% of the Codex would make for better video game scholars. I don't mean to brag but it's, like, all I fucking know.

 

[Boleskine]

Well to throw more fuel on to the fire here is TB's 2 cents over this discussion over game critics like himself. Also sorry for the paragraph spacing as it is easier on the eyes compared to his Berlin wall of text. Iwitlonger link

Some people asked me about that "Games Critics aren't professionals, they just pretend to be" thing and my thoughts on it. My thoughts are that the article is not relevant, it just pretends to be. Professionalism in this industry is almost entirely defined by how you are viewed in two key areas, the developers/publishers and your audience. If you are viewed as professional by developers and publishers, you will be trusted with advanced copies and the access you want. If you aren't, then you won't be.

TB has it completely wrong there (shocking). Developers and publishers don't provide game reviewers/critics with advance copies of games simply because they "trust" them. The larger companies do so because they know that certain writers/reviewers are spoiled and lacking in restraint, unable to resist gushing over the opportunity to play the latest AAA war game before release.

Let's put it this way - if some game reviewer decides they want to try being "professional" by essentially biting the hand that feeds them, AAA studios will just ignore that person and provide their advance copies of games to some other aspiring "games journalist".

Games media people need to stop acting like their jobs are so important and that they're the most qualified to do them. Neither idea is true. People in the games media are expendable and interchangeable. Some of them that exist outside the veiled AAA marketing bubble are indeed very good at critiques, but they are exceptions and not the rule.

And yes, most of these modern game reviewers suck at playing games. They whine about being stuck in some simple but logical and well-designed puzzle in an indie or adventure game, but they praise the "gameplay" of some linear, scripted, QTE sequence in AAA wargame. These guys are horrible for gaming. They lower the standards for general audiences and make it easier for big publishers/developers to dumb down gameplay while bloating their budgets so that they can focus marketing on graphics.

Game critics who need to qualify their opinions by calling themselves "games journalists" are the opposite of that term. Journalism is investigation and objective reporting, not getting swag bag freebies from AAA studios at E3.

There's a reason film critics call themselves critics instead of "film journalists". They recognize that their job involves subjectivity, and they are not so arrogant to presume their jobs are more socially important than they actually are.

 

[Lemming42]

Some people asked me about that "Games Critics aren't professionals, they just pretend to be" thing and my thoughts on it. My thoughts are that the article is not relevant, it just pretends to be.

I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I

 

[Average Manatee]

They'd make /more/ money on Youtube. Pewdiepie earns millions of dollars a year.

Pewdiepie is an outlier. No one is going to make as much money as him except through blind luck, which is the same reason he makes millions a year. But people like Yahtzee could certainly do good cutting ties with the sites they work for now, who are basically using them as a way to draw in readers and then bait-n-switch the legions of not-funny and still-not-journalists in.

 

[groke]

TB isn't really a cancer victim, he just pretends to be.

 

[sea]

They want to get paid, make a living out of it, be respected and all that, as any other profession. However, they also want to prostitute thenselves to publishers and never bother to study their trade. You won't find a journalist that works with movies that never watched Citizen Kane, Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari or Battleship Potemkin. But you surely will find hordes of game journalist that consider themselves professional critics, yet never played anything pre-90's.

Can you point to any specific examples of this? More than just one or two?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying such people don't exist, but acting like most games journalists have never played Pac-Man or Super Mario Bros. strikes me as completely incorrect. Most of the guys I know of who work for major sites and are successful at what they do have decades of gaming experience and most definitely know more about games and their histories than most developers, and often have keen design insight too. They're also often great personalities (or at least defined ones) who, whether you like them or not, are able to connect with their audience.

That apparent image of the blockheaded frat boy who palms the controller and rates games down because the graphics aren't cranked to 11 or he can't score enough headshots due to his own lack of skill is one that I don't think exists at all outside of the most amateur of sites and GameFAQs user review sections, or more likely, people's imaginations.

I think games journalism gets a bad rap for two major reasons - one, it's a relatively new industry which for well over a decade as well known for being very heavily sponsored by publishers (if not run by them, i.e. Nintendo Power) and targeted towards a youth-oriented market, and two, because it's basically entertainment journalism, which in general is perceived as "less professional" by journalists and the public overall. The last half-decade or so has been quite interesting because the transition away from that model and towards more focus on in-depth academic analysis and insightful design commentary has really taken off.

And what do you know? Sites like Polygon that have been trying to steer games journalism towards more investigative are struggling to gain enough viewers to support themselves without the "popcorn" pieces, and have had to adjust their coverage accordingly, just like I'm sure the fashion and entertainment sections of your local news are the most popular. Trying to mix insight and analysis into a field where audiences go primarily for entertainment value is difficult, and audiences in broad terms are of course always going to go for the fluff and sensationalism first - that's nothing new. It's not that there's no demand, it's that games journalism is in a state of transition and finding the right ways to present and organize itself both on a business level and to audiences.

Give it another decade or two for both audiences and the industry to mature and I think this will be far less of an issue.

 

[Cadmus]

Well, sea, it just struck me that practically the only reason to read a review as far as I'm concerned is entertainment because I regularly just look up gameplay videos of any game I want to play to decide for myself whether or not is it worth playing. Ok, make it entertainment with a little bit of information but mostly just facts about the game I can't see, like does it run well?

EDIT: practically the only reviews I read are for the games I've already played and usually I find these horrible. I remember reading a few Hitman Analsucktion reviews that praised the game and mentioned the usual GOOD FOR THE FANS OF THE SERIES AND NEW PLAYERS BOTH (SRY DIDNT PLAY PREVIOUS TITLES) which pissed me off. The same for Skyrim reviews, praising the graphics and other shit that Ihated. Maybe they weren't some supposedly professional sites like lolIGN and such and I wont bother searching. It's just that I generally get the impression that the reviewers are practically always less knowledgable about series that I've played than me and more tolerant to stupid shit than me so I think they're all bunch of retards cuz it's easier.

 

[sea]

EDIT: practically the only reviews I read are for the games I've already played and usually I find these horrible. I remember reading a few Hitman Analsucktion reviews that praised the game and mentioned the usual GOOD FOR THE FANS OF THE SERIES AND NEW PLAYERS BOTH (SRY DIDNT PLAY PREVIOUS TITLES) which pissed me off. The same for Skyrim reviews, praising the graphics and other shit that Ihated. Maybe they weren't some supposedly professional sites like lolIGN and such and I wont bother searching. It's just that I generally get the impression that the reviewers are practically always less knowledgable about series that I've played than me and more tolerant to stupid shit than me so I think they're all bunch of retards cuz it's easier.

I think it's unreasonable to expect reviewers to always be superfans who are intimately familiar with every detail of every game series they are playing. I think it's also unreasonable to think it's required they are in order to give a worthwhile opinion. Furthermore, the fact that someone does not have your extent or depth of knowledge on a topic and/or an opinion you agree with (let's face it, that's most often what people get upset about) does not indicate a lack of professionalism.

 

[Cadmus]

EDIT: practically the only reviews I read are for the games I've already played and usually I find these horrible. I remember reading a few Hitman Analsucktion reviews that praised the game and mentioned the usual GOOD FOR THE FANS OF THE SERIES AND NEW PLAYERS BOTH (SRY DIDNT PLAY PREVIOUS TITLES) which pissed me off. The same for Skyrim reviews, praising the graphics and other shit that Ihated. Maybe they weren't some supposedly professional sites like lolIGN and such and I wont bother searching. It's just that I generally get the impression that the reviewers are practically always less knowledgable about series that I've played than me and more tolerant to stupid shit than me so I think they're all bunch of retards cuz it's easier.

I think it's unreasonable to expect reviewers to always be superfans who are intimately familiar with every detail of every game series they are playing. I think it's also unreasonable to think it's required they are in order to give a worthwhile opinion. Furthermore, the fact that someone does not have your extent or depth of knowledge on a topic and/or an opinion you agree with (let's face it, that's most often what people get upset about) does not indicate a lack of professionalism.

I disagree. I think especially for the bigger sites, giving a review of a title in a venerable series to a schmuck who hasn't played them in depth is extremely unprofessional, especially when they have the audacity to recommend it to the fans of the series. A good solution would be to find another writer or uhm play the fucking games. I like your style so tell me, would you go review Ultima 9 if you had no experience with the series? Would that feel professional to you?

Yeah it's a lot more work but that's what I think is one of the required factors for the review business to be considered professional. Otherwise it's just kids yelling "man I aint got time to play all those games, we gotta review it fast for the ad revenue!" well then, faggot, you're not a professional. Besides, it's not like suddenly a game comes out and they have to go looking for a reviewer. I'd suggest a lengthy preparation prior to such a game's release. And then you get for example a new marketable skill, you are knowledagble on a well known and long series, more reasons for someone to hire you to write for them. Imagine that, it almost sounds like work.

 

[Kem0sabe]

I dislike that sea always sounds so reasonable and polite...

 

[Cadmus]

I dislike that sea always sounds so reasonable and polite...

He sounds great and has a different perspective and thus a different bias

 

[Average Manatee]

Game reviewers weren't even ashamed to admit that they hadn't played Fallout 1/2 before playing 3. That would never pass in any other field. You'd never catch someone saying "Well I've never seen Star Wars before, but Episode 1 is pretty good I think". At least, they would never be taken seriously and hold a paying job for that kind of work. Hell, these days *developers* will state that they've never played earlier titles in a series. Even knowing that the new Star Wars is probably going to be a fuck up, imagine the several magnitudes worse that it would be had J. J. Abrams never seen a single Star Wars before. That shit passes and no one bats an eye in video games.

Also take this:

Spoiler

 

[Cadmus]

Well,with the developers it's a little bit different I think but still kinda stupid. I read an AMA from some F3 programmer who made the effects for the game and said he had never played the older Fallouts cuz games back then were boring and he likes making the new games hip and fun. I'm pretty sure that when a film adaptation of anything is being made by a big name director, he makes the actors read the source material, too.

 

[sea]

I disagree. I think especially for the bigger sites, giving a review of a title in a venerable series to a schmuck who hasn't played them in depth is extremely unprofessional, especially when they have the audacity to recommend it to the fans of the series. A good solution would be to find another writer or uhm play the fucking games. I like your style so tell me, would you go review Ultima 9 if you had no experience with the series? Would that feel professional to you?

I don't review games anymore for obvious reasons, but if it was offered to me, I'd probably be hesitant. If I did cover that game, I'd be sure to note in my review I was judging it from a newcomer's perspective. I think that's fine and gives adequate frame of reference to the audience. There are always review done by people who are highly experienced with the prior games who cater to those communities - that's why fan sites are great to have, but there's a difference between a fan site and coverage targeting a wider audience of gamers.

I can understand why it'd come off as condescending if a reviewer insisted that old fans of the series would love a game when clearly the community at large has rejected it, though, even if that's not the intent (and even people who do their research well can still make mistakes).

Game reviewers weren't even ashamed to admit that they hadn't played Fallout 1/2 before playing 3.

I don't see that as something shameful, I see that as due diligence giving the reader context for the evaluation of the game.

Also take this:

Spoiler

I haven't played or watched either of those, so I won't comment on them. But, I am always open to evaluating a franchise reboot in a way that acknowledges it's going to be different from its predecessors, and not necessarily bad for that reason.

 

[Cadmus]

I disagree. I think especially for the bigger sites, giving a review of a title in a venerable series to a schmuck who hasn't played them in depth is extremely unprofessional, especially when they have the audacity to recommend it to the fans of the series. A good solution would be to find another writer or uhm play the fucking games. I like your style so tell me, would you go review Ultima 9 if you had no experience with the series? Would that feel professional to you?

I don't review games anymore for obvious reasons, but if it was offered to me, I'd probably be hesitant. If I did cover that game, I'd be sure to note in my review I was judging it from a newcomer's perspective. I think that's fine and gives adequate frame of reference to the audience. There are always review done by people who are highly experienced with the prior games who cater to those communities - that's why fan sites are great to have, but there's a difference between a fan site and coverage targeting a wider audience of gamers.

I can understand why it'd come off as condescending if a reviewer insisted that old fans of the series would love a game when clearly the community at large has rejected it, though, even if that's not the intent (and even people who do their research well can still make mistakes).

What reasons? I liek gossip.
You see, you'd be hesitant. Cuz maybe you're not an entitled idiot, I'd presume. And from your point of view, it's not reasonable to expect something but from my point of view, as a consumer, I do expect it and assign value to it and when it's regularly hand-waved as a stupid request, I consider the journalists unprofessional, you see? I kinda doubt you could find many reviews of MMX as good as the codex one because of the perspective it provides and I consider that very professional - there's research, information, personal perspective and everything necessary for everyone. It's a valuable product. If I were to write such a review nobody would give a fuck because I don't know shit about the games.

Now imagine a world where there are standards in the review business, there are no handouts by the production companies, the reviewers and fierce and unapologetic and funny and experienced in both writing and playing their games. They could each have a niche of their own and be hired to cover it independently because their opinions would be valued. That's professional and that's what I and I!m sure many people want and until that happens, people will keep giving shit to the journos and with a good reason.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

EDIT: practically the only reviews I read are for the games I've already played and usually I find these horrible. I remember reading a few Hitman Analsucktion reviews that praised the game and mentioned the usual GOOD FOR THE FANS OF THE SERIES AND NEW PLAYERS BOTH (SRY DIDNT PLAY PREVIOUS TITLES) which pissed me off. The same for Skyrim reviews, praising the graphics and other shit that Ihated. Maybe they weren't some supposedly professional sites like lolIGN and such and I wont bother searching. It's just that I generally get the impression that the reviewers are practically always less knowledgable about series that I've played than me and more tolerant to stupid shit than me so I think they're all bunch of retards cuz it's easier.

I think it's unreasonable to expect reviewers to always be superfans who are intimately familiar with every detail of every game series they are playing. I think it's also unreasonable to think it's required they are in order to give a worthwhile opinion. Furthermore, the fact that someone does not have your extent or depth of knowledge on a topic and/or an opinion you agree with (let's face it, that's most often what people get upset about) does not indicate a lack of professionalism.

i totally disagree.
cinema critics, sculpture critics, painting critics have good reputation exactly because they know everything about the subject of their studies, from the biggest masterpieces to the smallest unknown details. they're knowledgeable and base their opinions on as many facts as they can learn, not the other way around.
most of the gaming journos i've met are ignorant as much on videogames as on about every other topic, they can barely write in their own language without a spellchecker (and even with it mistakes are abundant). they lack knowledge and formation: would you believe in a cinema critic who's never seen "citizen kane"? would you believe in a painting critic who's never examined michelangelo's "last judgement"?
so tell me, why would you believe somebody who's just been paid to praise "bioshock infinite" saying it has the best plot in history ever and a refreshing gameplay?

 

[Dr Tomo]

They want to get paid, make a living out of it, be respected and all that, as any other profession. However, they also want to prostitute thenselves to publishers and never bother to study their trade. You won't find a journalist that works with movies that never watched Citizen Kane, Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari or Battleship Potemkin. But you surely will find hordes of game journalist that consider themselves professional critics, yet never played anything pre-90's.

Can you point to any specific examples of this? More than just one or two?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying such people don't exist, but acting like most games journalists have never played Pac-Man or Super Mario Bros. strikes me as completely incorrect. Most of the guys I know of who work for major sites and are successful at what they do have decades of gaming experience and most definitely know more about games and their histories than most developers, and often have keen design insight too. They're also often great personalities (or at least defined ones) who, whether you like them or not, are able to connect with their audience.

That apparent image of the blockheaded frat boy who palms the controller and rates games down because the graphics aren't cranked to 11 or he can't score enough headshots due to his own lack of skill is one that I don't think exists at all outside of the most amateur of sites and GameFAQs user review sections, or more likely, people's imaginations.

It is not that most people have not played old classics, but I have read reviews of some people never playing previous games in a franchise except for the recent installment and so it makes me wonder how effective their review is. I mean playing Pac-man or Dig Dug doesn't seem to connect when reviewing a game like the Witcher and etc. But there are people when Civ V came out never played any of the previous installments or at least played IV which I hear was terrible.

I think games journalism gets a bad rap for two major reasons - one, it's a relatively new industry which for well over a decade as well known for being very heavily sponsored by publishers (if not run by them, i.e. Nintendo Power) and targeted towards a youth-oriented market, and two, because it's basically entertainment journalism, which in general is perceived as "less professional" by journalists and the public overall. The last half-decade or so has been quite interesting because the transition away from that model and towards more focus on in-depth academic analysis and insightful design commentary has really taken off.

I have been seeing a transition away from articles mainly focusing reviews and previews to investigating journalism which actually is effective contrary to what you believe. The problem is that many of the sites has not fully transitioned (IGN & Gamespot) away from game reviews and previews when a lot of the the studios and publishing houses already does this job and is no longer drawing an audience. On top of this they make mistakes which always makes the audience question their subjectivity.

And what do you know? Sites like Polygon that have been trying to steer games journalism towards more investigative are struggling to gain enough viewers to support themselves without the "popcorn" pieces, and have had to adjust their coverage accordingly, just like I'm sure the fashion and entertainment sections of your local news are the most popular. Trying to mix insight and analysis into a field where audiences go primarily for entertainment value is difficult, and audiences in broad terms are of course always going to go for the fluff and sensationalism first - that's nothing new. It's not that there's no demand, it's that games journalism is in a state of transition and finding the right ways to present and organize itself both on a business level and to audiences.

Give it another decade or two for both audiences and the industry to mature and I think this will be far less of an issue.

This I am going to call bull shit unless you have links or some evidence that has a Polygon member claim it is a pointless endeavor as I still see Polygon run those time intensive pieces as they are trying to tap into a broad audience. I see a lot of the companies that complain about not making cash are trying to hide the fact that the company is run ineptly. I have seen many online outlets basically shoot themselves in the foot ranging from not having systems in place that doesn't make the audience question the subjectivity of some of the writers to keeping people like Kuchera on the staff list just to name a few. Also I would like to point out that PC Gamer does a great job of not relying on sensationalism pieces and I have yet to hear any articles of them cutting staff or bitching over Ad Block.

Also just an fyi the investigative pieces do get a large number of clicks* as they get to the top of the /games and eventually end up on the second page after a week. The audience of people who continually consume video game news is slowly going up, but as you put it yourself it takes time.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Some people asked me about that "Games Critics aren't professionals, they just pretend to be" thing and my thoughts on it. My thoughts are that the article is not relevant, it just pretends to be. Professionalism in this industry is almost entirely defined by how you are viewed in two key areas, the developers/publishers and your audience. If you are viewed as professional by developers and publishers, you will be trusted with advanced copies and the access you want. If you aren't, then you won't be.

TB has it completely wrong there (shocking). Developers and publishers don't provide game reviewers/critics with advance copies of games simply because they "trust" them. The larger companies do so because they know that certain writers/reviewers are spoiled and lacking in restraint, unable to resist gushing over the opportunity to play the latest AAA war game before release.

Let's put it this way - if some game reviewer decides they want to try being "professional" by essentially biting the hand that feeds them, AAA studios will just ignore that person and provide their advance copies of games to some other aspiring "games journalist".

Game publishers would take it further and outright ban certain game reviewers from every playing their games if they could do it. There's a guy here in Iceland who used to work as a film critic in the 80s, and he was not afraid to adopt a professional stance in his criticisms of whatever films did find their way into Icelandic cinemas. The cinema owners in Iceland (all 5 of them) banded together and outright banned him from attending any of their cinemas for life.

 

[felipepepe]

Can you point to any specific examples of this? More than just one or two?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying such people don't exist, but acting like most games journalists have never played Pac-Man or Super Mario Bros. strikes me as completely incorrect. Most of the guys I know of who work for major sites and are successful at what they do have decades of gaming experience and most definitely know more about games and their histories than most developers, and often have keen design insight too. They're also often great personalities (or at least defined ones) who, whether you like them or not, are able to connect with their audience.

That apparent image of the blockheaded frat boy who palms the controller and rates games down because the graphics aren't cranked to 11 or he can't score enough headshots due to his own lack of skill is one that I don't think exists at all outside of the most amateur of sites and GameFAQs user review sections, or more likely, people's imaginations.

I think games journalism gets a bad rap for two major reasons - one, it's a relatively new industry which for well over a decade as well known for being very heavily sponsored by publishers (if not run by them, i.e. Nintendo Power) and targeted towards a youth-oriented market, and two, because it's basically entertainment journalism, which in general is perceived as "less professional" by journalists and the public overall. The last half-decade or so has been quite interesting because the transition away from that model and towards more focus on in-depth academic analysis and insightful design commentary has really taken off.

And what do you know? Sites like Polygon that have been trying to steer games journalism towards more investigative are struggling to gain enough viewers to support themselves without the "popcorn" pieces, and have had to adjust their coverage accordingly, just like I'm sure the fashion and entertainment sections of your local news are the most popular. Trying to mix insight and analysis into a field where audiences go primarily for entertainment value is difficult, and audiences in broad terms are of course always going to go for the fluff and sensationalism first - that's nothing new. It's not that there's no demand, it's that games journalism is in a state of transition and finding the right ways to present and organize itself both on a business level and to audiences.

Give it another decade or two for both audiences and the industry to mature and I think this will be far less of an issue.

Pac-Man and Super Mario Bros. are some low expectations for a professional, eh sea? That's the movie equivalent of Star Wars and Snow White... these are games that became pop icons, that geeks use in t-shirts and have billions of versions and re-releases. We're talking about professionals here; he has to go beyond the obvious, beyond the common place.

Let me show you a personal hate channeling focus:

This book has over 30 contributors; Edge editors, the founders of RPS, people that published books on gaming history, writers of PC Gamer, Eurogamer, Wired, IGN, etc... these are the guys that no doubt are to be considered professionals.

These people compiled a book with 1001 games to play. It does not feature ANY King's Quest, Space Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, Quest for Glory, Tex Murphy, Gold Box or Wizardry title. It doesn't have any of Troika's or Piranha Bytes games, not even Bloodlines. You won't see here stuff like Pitfall, Wasteland, I Have no Mouth and Must Scream or even fucking Ultima IV! The only Might & Magic in this entire book is Clash of Heroes.

Do you get that? The "professionals" our beloved industry employs see no value in those titles. No, what they know and understand is incluiding 5 Halo, 5 Mario Kart, 4 Guitar Hero and even fucking 2 entries for Bejeweled, just to show us how they were really padding it up.

I'll say it again, these people don't study their trade. They've "been gaming since before PCs were called PCs", and that's it. They went through the motions of what was popular at the time in their circles, playing Mario Bros. 3, DOOM, Chrono Trigger, etc... and never looked back, as if growing up as a gamer in the 80s and 90s somehow turns you into an authority in the subject. Back to the movie comparison, is as if a film critic credentials were "I've watched The Lion King in a cinema as 12-old kid, and have been going to the movies ever since!"

Now, I agree with you that there are exceptions. You mentioned Polygon, and indeed they have some great stuff, like the fasntastic The Oral History of Street Fighter II. I bow my head to that. But those are some damn rare exceptions... as you said, maybe in a decade or so...

 

[tuluse]

I think games journalism gets a bad rap for two major reasons - one, it's a relatively new industry which for well over a decade as well known for being very heavily sponsored by publishers (if not run by them, i.e. Nintendo Power) and targeted towards a youth-oriented market, and two, because it's basically entertainment journalism, which in general is perceived as "less professional" by journalists and the public overall. The last half-decade or so has been quite interesting because the transition away from that model and towards more focus on in-depth academic analysis and insightful design commentary has really taken off.

They accept gifts from the companies they're reporting on.

There is a revolving door between PR jobs and reporting jobs.

The primary source of income is advertising from the companies they're reporting on.

In the major sites and tv shows, they act like cheerleaders, not critics.

This is why they are (rightfully) seen as unprofessional

 

[Metro]

They're below those 'journalists' who report on the Kardashians (basically the entire staff of the E Channel) and slightly above pond scum. Only slightly... The whole 'academic analysis' thing is shit -- just people trying desperately to add a patina of respectability on to the 'profession' so they can stave off getting a real job.

 

[Cadmus]

Can you point to any specific examples of this? More than just one or two?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying such people don't exist, but acting like most games journalists have never played Pac-Man or Super Mario Bros. strikes me as completely incorrect. Most of the guys I know of who work for major sites and are successful at what they do have decades of gaming experience and most definitely know more about games and their histories than most developers, and often have keen design insight too. They're also often great personalities (or at least defined ones) who, whether you like them or not, are able to connect with their audience.

That apparent image of the blockheaded frat boy who palms the controller and rates games down because the graphics aren't cranked to 11 or he can't score enough headshots due to his own lack of skill is one that I don't think exists at all outside of the most amateur of sites and GameFAQs user review sections, or more likely, people's imaginations.

I think games journalism gets a bad rap for two major reasons - one, it's a relatively new industry which for well over a decade as well known for being very heavily sponsored by publishers (if not run by them, i.e. Nintendo Power) and targeted towards a youth-oriented market, and two, because it's basically entertainment journalism, which in general is perceived as "less professional" by journalists and the public overall. The last half-decade or so has been quite interesting because the transition away from that model and towards more focus on in-depth academic analysis and insightful design commentary has really taken off.

And what do you know? Sites like Polygon that have been trying to steer games journalism towards more investigative are struggling to gain enough viewers to support themselves without the "popcorn" pieces, and have had to adjust their coverage accordingly, just like I'm sure the fashion and entertainment sections of your local news are the most popular. Trying to mix insight and analysis into a field where audiences go primarily for entertainment value is difficult, and audiences in broad terms are of course always going to go for the fluff and sensationalism first - that's nothing new. It's not that there's no demand, it's that games journalism is in a state of transition and finding the right ways to present and organize itself both on a business level and to audiences.

Give it another decade or two for both audiences and the industry to mature and I think this will be far less of an issue.

Pac-Man and Super Mario Bros. are some low expectations for a professional, eh sea? That's the movie equivalent of Star Wars and Snow White... these are games that became pop icons, that geeks use in t-shirts and have billions of versions and re-releases. We're talking about professionals here; he has to go beyond the obvious, beyond the common place.

Let me show you a personal hate channeling focus:

This book has over 30 contributors; Edge editors, the founders of RPS, people that published books on gaming history, writers of PC Gamer, Eurogamer, Wired, IGN, etc... these are the guys that no doubt are to be considered professionals.

These people compiled a book with 1001 games to play. It does not feature ANY King's Quest, Space Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, Quest for Glory, Tex Murphy, Gold Box or Wizardry title. It doesn't have any of Troika's or Piranha Bytes games, not even Bloodlines. You won't see here stuff like Pitfall, Wasteland, I Have no Mouth and Must Scream or even fucking Ultima IV! The only Might & Magic in this entire book is Clash of Heroes.

Do you get that? The "professionals" our beloved industry employs see no value in those titles. No, what they know and understand is incluiding 5 Halo, 5 Mario Kart, 4 Guitar Hero and even fucking 2 entries for Bejeweled, just to show us how they were really padding it up.

I'll say it again, these people don't study their trade. They've "been gaming since before PCs were called PCs", and that's it. They went through the motions of what was popular at the time in their circles, playing Mario Bros. 3, DOOM, Chrono Trigger, etc... and never looked back, as if growing up as a gamer in the 80s and 90s somehow turns you into an authority in the subject. Back to the movie comparison, is as if a film critic credentials were "I've watched The Lion King in a cinema as 12-old kid, and have been going to the movies ever since!"

Now, I agree with you that there are exceptions. You mentioned Polygon, and indeed they have some great stuff, like the fasntastic The Oral History of Street Fighter II. I bow my head to that. But those are some damn rare exceptions... as you said, maybe in a decade or so...

lol....lol? wat

I would have expected it though, simply based on the fucking image

 

[sea]

most of the gaming journos i've met

How many have you met and what sites do they write for?

so tell me, why would you believe somebody who's just been paid to praise "bioshock infinite" saying it has the best plot in history ever and a refreshing gameplay?

I'd take their opinion under advisement and use myriad other sources to come to my own evaluation.

It is not that most people have not played old classics, but I have read reviews of some people never playing previous games in a franchise except for the recent installment and so it makes me wonder how effective their review is. I mean playing Pac-man or Dig Dug doesn't seem to connect when reviewing a game like the Witcher and etc. But there are people when Civ V came out never played any of the previous installments or at least played IV which I hear was terrible.

Most journalists endeavor to play as many games as they can, especially those considered significant. I hate to say it but many games you may hold dear are not necessarily considered industry pillars.

Playing videogames takes a lot of time and working as a journalist is usually a full-time job - much of which is actually not spent gaming. I can forgive a journalist for not having played a game before reviewing the next in the franchise, provided they've done some homework (and usually they have).

I have been seeing a transition away from articles mainly focusing reviews and previews to investigating journalism which actually is effective contrary to what you believe. The problem is that many of the sites has not fully transitioned (IGN & Gamespot) away from game reviews and previews when a lot of the the studios and publishing houses already does this job and is no longer drawing an audience. On top of this they make mistakes which always makes the audience question their subjectivity.

As have I. But is IGN the site to herald in a new age of journalistic integrity? Maybe, but I'm more inclined to think it'll be Forbes, the New York Times, etc. - someone who has money, an audience and doesn't rely solely on publishers' and marketing companies' advertising money to survive.

This I am going to call bull shit unless you have links or some evidence that has a Polygon member claim it is a pointless endeavor as I still see Polygon run those time intensive pieces as they are trying to tap into a broad audience.

Unfortunately I can't find it at the moment, but Polygon did run an article stating they were changing the focus of their content towards a bigger balance of in-depth features vs. smaller stories and mainstream news reporting, reviews, etc., citing that they could not put out stories fast enough to fuel and expand their readership. Sadly, Google and their own site search are failing me.

They accept gifts from the companies they're reporting on.

There is a revolving door between PR jobs and reporting jobs.

The primary source of income is advertising from the companies they're reporting on.

In the major sites and tv shows, they act like cheerleaders, not critics.

This is why they are (rightfully) seen as unprofessional

I agree, this is a problem - but as far as I know, not for any of the sites and critics I hold in regard.

What reasons? I liek gossip.

I work for a game developer.

 

[felipepepe]

I would have expected it though, simply based on the fucking image

That one is the 2010 edition. Here's the 2013 one:

You can't make this shit up.