Slashdot Mirror
Game Journalists Uninteresting Vultures?
Next Generation has commentary on an article penned by David Jaffe, creator of God of War. In the article Jaffe charges folks in the game journalism business with being uninteresting hangers-on. He implores journalists to consider themselves journalists first and "part of the games industry" a distant second. The Next-Gen article has some interesting insights on the topic. From the article: "... intimacy with the game industry is a positive, rather than a negative, so long as the line that divides the journalist's function from the game-maker's is understood. The game-maker, in turn, relies heavily on journalism, en masse, on which to base creative decisions. Did every game maker play the last Tomb Raider game? Doubtful. But they all know they don't want to make a game like it. The press feeds the imagination of the creator through a system of warnings and prompts, which are then interpreted and transformed into progress."
Best possible time to plug The Escapist magazine. Yeah, I know, you hate the layout -- but (I speak here as a writer for the site) its journalism stands comparison with "real" magazines.
I was just reading a game review, and I'd barely got a couple of paragraphs in before thinking that it was so poorly written that I'd have been embarrassed to write it way back when I was thirteen, let alone as a grown adult. From what I can tell, this is the norm rather than the exception, which is why I tend to stay away from game "journalism" these days.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Its about time someone said this. Let me state first my opinion: 99.9% of game journalists are complete fucking fanboys. When I want to see a product review for the latest game, what do i get? Unless the game is completely, obviously broken, I get glowing reviews that are basically rehashed press releases. All the major game sites do this, from gamespy to (of course) anything IGN. Game journalists are basically the equivilent of those stupid movie review catchlines you see from no one you've ever heard of, the kind that say "Funniest movie of the year!" for Gigli, etc.
Game journalists: stop regurgitating the marketing fluff, start writing honest articles, and people might actually care about what you say. Even if it means you don't get your paycheck from the game companies any more.
One of the best shows on TV, almost as Good as Henry Rollin's Film Corner.
FTA: "Jaffe was keen to point out that, far from his being an elitist point of view, he felt that journos should set themselves apart in order to do a better job of informing the public. There's something too cozy, he believes, in the people who inform the public about the game industry, viewing themselves as part of the game industry."
True. But I think that Jaffe misses a distinction -- there is a gamer culture that the journalists are identifying with, more than just the game industry.
It's kind of like pop culture -- there are those who read Entertainment Weekly, and are interested in what the stars are doing. Then there are the people who read the gossip column, to see if anyone they know is getting mentioned.
The game industry is like the pop culture industry -- lots of people play the games (or watch the movies and the TV shows, and wonder what Tom and Katie are up to), but few people know the individuals who are 'making the scene'.
The problem, like with pop culture, is that only insiders get the real scoop. The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the real scoop isn't even published -- it's the dross, that so many people are familiar with already, that gets the ink. And if you give a bad review (or negative gossip), forget the advance copy of the game the game (the next party invite).
Perhaps Jaffe should also realize that the game journalism industry is very similar to the game industry itself -- if you take risks, you're likely to get burned. Safe reporting and reviews tend tohelp with job/company solvency.
In the end, I'd like to see honest reporting by industry insiders, rather than 'game paparazzi' doing vacuous, cover-art reviews... it's the honest part that's hard to find.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Well, I guess HE told Zonk off good!
I stoped reading mainstream gaming magazines and websites a while back because it became trivial to predict the score of a game without reading a single word of the review; all you had to do was flip through the magazine and count the number of full/half page ads from the publisher or for the game. If Microsoft wants a 10/10 for Halo 3 all they have to do is take out 2 full page ads for the XBox 360, 2 Full page ads for Halo 3 and a couple of full page ads for whatever other games they're releasing in the next couple of months; if Microsoft refused to take out any ads it will never get above an 8/10, the game could be perfect or really really bad (it doesn't matter).
Shouldn't Jaffe be busy ripping off someone else's game? (I refer, of course, to Tecmo's Rygar, of which GoW is a complete and shameless rip).
So, since you really need to have a participant doing the journalism, you're going to have some bias and a certain lack of objectivity that you can't do anything about whether you like it or not, because it's going to go with the territory.
Deal with it.
Slashdot Moderation Guidelines: Leftist viewpoint (+4), Conservative viewpoint (-4, Troll)
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, manage. Those who can't manage are journalists.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I think the largest problem with reviewers is that they all feel compelled to have a graphics catagory and then rate games partially based on it. Remember how much fun Doom 3 was? It got on 8.5 on Gamespot, slightly higher than We Love Katamari Damacy. I recently finished Commandos 3, which was extremely difficult but much more fun/satisfying than Doom 3. Gamespot gave it a 7.7, bemoaning the graphics were horror -- still 2D -- and the camera locked into 800x600.
Game reviewers love graphics because they can post pretty screenshots and seem objective. However, the most important part of games is the subjective fun-factor. It's like judging a theatrical play based on the quality of the costumes and stage design instead of the quality of the actors and the script.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
With just a little effort, you can find game bloggers writing about real issues, rather than just hyping the next big release. The next generation of game journalism isn't going to show up on the newsstand or in your mailbox. It's already on the web. Stop complaining about EGM and its ilk and surf some game sites already! Click on some ads while you're there, because the best way to improve game journalism is to support hard-working game bloggers who are trying to make a living at it.
For some examples, check out Video Game Media Watch and follow some links. Or just read Terra Nova or Game Politics or GamesBlog or any of about a dozen other good blogs I could mention. You'll feel better about the State of Game Journalism.
RichM
Data Center Knowledge
Best games journalism in print right now. Pick it up at your local Barnes & Noble!
While I admit that a lot of game reviewers tend to be perhaps more forgiving than the average player when it comes to rating games, I've found that in general if you stick to the same sources for reviews it is possible to glean somewhat relevant information from them.
I think the most important thing is to learn to understand "reviewer math". That is to say, it becomes nessecary to understand what the numbers on the ratings really mean. While some people might see an "8/10" and think that a game is pretty good, what that tells me is that there are probably some major problems with it. A "7/10" generally means that the game is pretty much worthless unless you are a diehard fan of the series or genre. Of course it's also important to actually read the reviews instead of just looking at the numbers. Reviewers tend to be much more critical in their actual review than they are with the final scores. It's also useful for reviews that say why certain categories were rated as they were. This can help reveal the bias in the review.
Of course, reviews only constitute a part of getting an overall picture of how a game is. Information leading up to the game can be helpful. If a couple of weeks before there is a preview of the game saying that it's shaping up nicely but still needs some bugs worked out, or the gameplay needs to be refined, then a week later there is a glowing review it's an indicator that the game might not be as good as the review scores indicate. Likewise if there is a lot of preview articles that talk about innovations and refinements to the game and how well it plays, then it's a good indication that the game may actually be worth the price of admission.
There are also a lot of blogs that give more accurate information about the game than a review might, but it's important to keep in mind that if someone is blogging about a game then they probably either really like it or really hate it anyway.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
This is a good resource as well - removed from games by a few degrees yet still in the entertainment biz: http://www.thehollywoodreporter.com/thr/video_game s/index.jsp
You had me at merlot
The modern game-reviewing system isn't like judging a theatrical play based on the quality of the costumes and stage design—"quality" implies fitness for a purpose. Rather, it's like judging it based on how many sequins and frills the costumes have, regardless of whether or not sequins and frills add to or detract from the work as a whole.
Graphics have their place—and that place is right next to sound, story, and gameplay (among others), on the shelf labelled, "Elements for Communicating Ideas in Video Games."
A lot of people—gamers, reviewers, and developers alike—don't seem to realize that, as with all media, each aspect of video games should be fashioned to work towards the whole, to emphasize the main focus of the game. More polygons is not always a good thing.
If your game is trying to communicate a dark, gritty sci-fi battle between humans and aliens, the guns should not make a sound like children playing when it fires: the cheerful sound effect would work against the mood you are trying to create.
If your game is trying to convey a sense of the freedom to explore an environment, there should not be invisible barriers blocking off certain parts of the map: those barriers work against the sense of freedom you are trying to create.
If your game is trying to give the player a sense of simplicity and lack of stress, complex models and textures are unnecessary, inappropriate, and counter-productive: the visual complexity of the scene would clash with the simplicity of the game's design. Likewise, a complicated and esoteric user interface would detract from the main theme.
On the other hand, if you are trying to portray a battlefield spanning miles in every direction, to give the player a sense that each and every one of the soldiers was an individual with his own life and family, it would work for the game's design to have the graphics processing power to render each soldier in detail, and to give each soldier his own unique face.
Graphics are just one of many possible tools at the developer's disposal—and not necessarily the most important one. Images are very useful for communicating information to a player, but sound can be much more effective to create a certain mood or ambience. To put so much emphasis on graphics, as many people are prone to do nowadays, is to discount the other elements which make a game good.
The advance of graphics technology is good, because it expands the possibilities available to the developer, just as oil paint offered new possibilities to the Renaissance painter. However, the expectations (even demands) of consumers for every game to have high-poly, high-res, bump-mapped, anisotropic, super-complex graphics is ridiculous. Most video games today are the modern-day equivalent of the colosseum: give the mob what they want to see—more, bigger, faster, bloodier—and they will give you their coin.
From Jaffe's blog: ...
I want game journalism- at least 50% of it- to be more like music or film journalism of old. I want it to challenge us and tear our s#!t [mactari's edit] apart and analyze it and- when we do a good job- champion it and bring the message to the masses.
Now sure, some of that has to do with what the public will actually pay for (it's not like NEXT GEN magazine- one of my faves of all time- was a chart topper). But doesn't some of it also have to do with the mentality of the folks who write for these magazines IF indeed they are not respecting their OWN industry enough to claim JOURNALISM as their industry?
Has Jaffe gone completely mad? Does he really think video game journalists are any different from the talking heads (and mouths on radio) of ESPN?
The issue is that both "journalism" outlets are really just thinly veiled, sometimes unofficially sanctioned extensions of the respective entertainment industries. Each is, unfortunately, intertwined commercially with the product they're "reporting" on. Just as ESPN Radio's SportsCenter updates are often 20-30% (by time) commercials for games that are being shown on, you guessed it, ESPN or ABC (both owned by Disney), video gaming sites pimp games that they themselves are selling. Heck, at least one arguably large site pimps their store's (that should have you worried enough as is, that a 'news' site sells games) sales as news alongside their 'true' news stories.
Let the buyer beware -- good reviews mean better relations with major gaming houses means easier copy, more codes, more exclusives, and better sales for both players. It's a fact of life, I'm afraid. Jaffe wonders why there are so many previews; that's easy. They're "reviews" without any conventional requirement for objective judgement. You can play up South Park for the N64 as a game with lots of potential even when it stinks to high heaven -- it's still in development, after all. Previews are excuses for incestuous gaming industry lovefests, and everyone's a winner, developers (Out, out, Ballmer!), gaming rag editors, authors, & owners, and even readers.
Readers, that is, except for those like Jaffe that might truly want to see someone with both the personal and commercial cahones to call out the proverbial spade. Where are the old oldmanmurray.com folk when you need em?
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Then there were the kids that hung out with them, not because they were talented geeks, but simply because they were geeky.
That said: I love Gamespot. Even though they have some questionable reviews from time to time, their commentary is entertaining, mature and comfortable in its geeky skin. Gerstmann, Kasavin, etc. are really the standard for everyone else.
The Escapist is fun, but occasionally takes itself too seriously and G4TV has more cringe-worthy moments than an 8th grade talent show.
This is an issue that I have had to address, being an amateur games journalist for the past couple of years. (This is a blatant plug, but also relevant so bare with me!) I have been hosting and producing a radio show (now a podcast) for the past 3 years, currently located at http://www.weeklygeekshow.com./ We set out to do something different, something unique. We are gamers who absolutely despised normal rating systems. If a game gets an 8.5, what the heck does that mean for you? How in the world does that .5 influence whether or not you will like the game? Whenever we do our reviews, we have three things we discuss: shininess, funness and worthiness. We tell our listeners to consider what kinds of games we enjoy as reviewers, and then weigh their opinion off of that. We tell them that graphics aren't always the most important thing, but if they really enjoy graphics more than gameplay, they can pay special attention to "shininess". We tell them IN OUR OPINION whether or not they should rent or buy the game in worthiness. So forth and so on.
As for games journalists being uninteresting vultures, I can see that. I really dislike other games journalists that I have met. Most of them are either grossly uninformed, or, in the case of big events like E3, are just there for the freebies. Yes, the media can be swagbaggers, too.
I do agree that many games journalists assume that just because they write about games they are "in the industry". Some games journalists can actually be considered influential, however, like the boys from Penny Arcade. You'd be hard-pressed to convince anyone that they don't influence sales with their hordes of screaming fans.
My point? If you are a games journalist, try to be unique and try to give people worthwhile information that would help them decide whether or not they should make a purchase. That is all you are really there for.
---Frodo
weeklygeekshow.com
I went to interview at a gaming magazine once. The blatent amount of graphics fanboyism, baseless accusations, and flat out stupidity is incredibly rampant.
During the interview, I was asked what I could contribute to the magazine. I said (paraphrased) "A more intellectual, artistic angle on gaming. I find that most games these days are simply minor graphical updates or add-ons to prior games, and it was becoming boring. That reviewers needed to focus on originality, artistic expression, and funfactor beyond the increasingly meaningless graphics."
I could see the interviewer recoil and his face twist up when I said this. He gave me a very dismissive "well, thats an interesting perspective."
I didnt get the job, obviously. But the shallowness and intellectual laziness of game reviewers is totally warrented.
"Me no get job. Obviously they stoopid. The byass game induhstree no understand my radical genius."
Cowardly troll be me...me thumps chest
Maybe he's just noticing now because gaming is finally big enough to have real press now.
My script don't crash! She crashes, you crashed her!
'nuff said.
What's so questionable about the Freedom Fighters review? The game is excellent, and fully worth the praise lavished upon it.