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."

Comments

Re:True

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the typical Slasbot "I could do this 100 times better with my eyes closed" post. Dude, for a guy trumpeting how smart you are, you just posted something totally idiotic. Perhaps you could enlighten us with your views on how much better the world would be if you ran it?

Asshole

Here here.

[hexghost]

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.

Re:Here here.

[sgant]

I don't know, I think Fargo at GameSpy is pretty funny. I really like his game previews which really turn out to be nothing of the kind.

You should check him out. Otherwise you're right....

Re:Here here.

[Rezonant]

It's "Hear hear". Courtesy of the SGPD, Slashdot Grammar Police Dept.

X-Play - Counter Example

[szyzyg]

One of the best shows on TV, almost as Good as Henry Rollin's Film Corner.

Re:X-Play - Counter Example

[badasscat]

I have to say, it is true that X-Play, while pretty vapid at times in their contrived little skits, are a bit more honest than most game "journalists". So much so that I sometimes wonder how they can still manage to score review copies of games anymore.

But this issue is one reason why I refuse to ever not use quotes when I talk about game "journalists". They're not journalists. They consider themselves part of the game industry, and most of the time, they are. Think about that - think about a reporter from the Washington Post who considers himself part of George Bush's administration. And he's being asked to write articles on George Bush's administration. Is this really a journalist? Of course not. This is a PR spokesman.

But this is the situation with game "journalism", for the most part. These little fanboys like to think of themselves as part of the industry, and they rely on the industry for "exclusives" and for free review copies of games in advance of release so that they can compete with other publications. There is no way to be objective in such an arrangement. And that's not even taking into account the effects of paid advertising, which is a more subtle influence (it honestly does not affect individual writers that much, but it may affect overall editorial direction from the top).

You just can't have it both ways. Either you consider yourself part of the industry, continue with these shady practices and admit you're a PR shill, or you completely separate yourself from the industry and only then can you call yourself a journalist.

X-Play has done something of the impossible in that they've stayed relatively objective even as the industry has continued to support them. I'm sure that's in no small part due to the fact that they are really the only show on that godforsaken channel that anybody watches. Which in turn means they're really the only TV show that matters to the industry at all. But that situation probably will not remain true forever.

Re:The Escapist

[Thedeviluno]

I must be the only person who thinks the escapist is a vapid, contrived, sad attempt at bringing the Printed word to the internet. The tiny words, the giant pictures; the escapist is trying to force an outmoded theme. The barbaric journalism is more sensational than sensible, I'm not suprised its popular, obviously guys are gonna love backwards opinions and rants on women being physicaly weak and inferior and that it somehow correlates to video games(logical fallacy). [URL=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/17/3]is sue17 (women in games)[/URL] Oh yes the Escapist really sets itself apart from its competition. Its harder to read and its 'journalists' suck more.

Games and pop culture

[Red Flayer]

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.

WORD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess HE told Zonk off good!

Re:Rip Off Artist Speaks

[StocDred]

Hell, forget about Tecmo, they're in line behind the Greco-Roman myth-writers. If you watch the God of War documentaries, Jaffe and Co. talk big about their exciting game and amazing character design when all they actually did is staple heavy-metal armor onto a minotaur.

hmm...

[Malleus Dei]

Well, I'm a gamer, and I've been a game reviewer/journalist, and the fact is that you can't write a decent review unless you can play the game you are reviewing really well and unless you have a significant amount of knowledge of the genre and subject(s) involved. Non-gamer journalists generally haven't got even the first clue about gaming and usually write hideously ignorant articles about gaming that either infuriate gamers or make them laugh.

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.

Re:hmm...

[Chosen Reject]

Well of course you need someone who can play. It's the same with movies. I wouldn't trust a movie review from someone who isn't a movie watcher, or a book review from someone who isn't a book worm, or even a review about some new hardware from anybody's grandma. And typically I would rather read a review from someone who I've agreed with in the past. That's how the review becomes meaningful. Someone you trust saying "this sucks" or "that's awesome" means I can take their word for it. Some random schmoe saying the same thing means absolutely nothing to me.

But it is obvious that with gaming "journalism" you cannot trust any of them because they're all shills. Again that doesn't mean you can just read what they say and pretend it is opposite day, either. Even if you consistently disagree with them you can still form a basic opinion from that. It's when you don't know if they're just re-hashing a press release to fill their coffers or they're actually reviewing the game. That is the problem we face.

Re:hmm...

[Malleus Dei]

I reviewed games and never once shilled. A couple of my more negative reviews weren't accepted by the editor(s) and were never published, but there wasn't any shilling. I know some other game reviewers who don't shill either.

Re:hmm...

[toiletsalmon]

Well, you and your cronies must be the minority...

Most of the game reviews and "Game Culture" pieces I've read in the last year or so (Print and Internet) tend to fall into a few distinct categories:

a) Pretentious Gamer Review ala Zonk's "Shadow of the Colossus" review (blah blah Games that have the power to move the human heart are so few and far between today that most commentators are still tentative to call gaming an art form blah blah). Give me an F-ing break!

b) The Gushing Gamer Review, where the "journalist" publically masturbates for all the world to see. On and on about how cool, awesome, and addicting the game is. 50% of a review should NOT be filled with that novice crap.

c) The Angry Gamer Review, where SOMEONE drones on and ON about how NOBODY understands them, knows what kind of games they want, or even that they exist, thereby implying how "Uber" and "Leet" they are. It's a close relative of type A above.

Oh, and BTW, all those crappy "chick" articles that "The Escapist" has been running for what seems like YEARS. Are they even really talking about games? Would seem to fit better on some 14 year olds blog inbetween how much they love Cheetos and why Mrs. Kramer in 4th period is "such a Bitch!"

The rest are just pretty standard "FanBoi" CRAP! they openly snicker about how they get to play the game before anyone else, drop a few references to how much the game has progressed since they first got to see it at the super shiek, VIP, invite only game industry demo at E3, then glaze over problems and omissions. Often times, they will continuously tell you how CRAPPY the game is in the review and then, at the end, say "yeah, but it was still pretty fun. Highly Recommended. 8.5 out of 10. Huh ?!?!?

Here's a few tips: I don't care if chicks play games. I don't care if transvestites play games. I don't care if homosexual-cross-dressing-elderly lepers play games. What I do care about is whether or not the game appears to be playtested well, whether or not there are new or cool features, and how they work, how hard is the game, how long will it take to complete, you know, practical stuff like that.

I do also care about new trends in the industry (Physics Simulator Cards? Word?!?) but the self important, fanboy crap that alot of the gaming news sites are tossing about recently has got to GO. Instead, give me the old payola-style game reviews instead. At least I KNOW they're full of shit up front without having to wade through it all first.

Re:The Escapist

[MilenCent]

Thanks. Because heaven knows we've never seen links to The Escapist here before!

(Heh, just kiddin' ya. Thanks again for Paranoia XP!)

Re:Rip Off Artist Speaks

[MilenCent]

Tell me about it!

God of War: More of the Same to the Utmost Degree.

Journalists.

[oGMo]

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, manage. Those who can't manage are journalists.

Graphics -- player's bane, reviewer's delight

[Prien715]

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.

Re:Graphics -- player's bane, reviewer's delight

[PhotoBoy]

I think this is partially an inertia thing. I remember the days of the 8-bit consoles where you needed a graphics score to check the game wasn't badly programmed. Back then a bad graphics score meant you had flickering sprites, slowdown and possibly graphical glitches. These days it's extremely uncommon to find a game that has "bad" graphics. Uninspiring or boring graphics maybe, but not usually badly programmed.

I think it's the same with the sound score in a review, way back when you wanted to make sure you didn't end up with something that had a bunch of beeps for a soundtrack.

As I said at the start, I think it's an inertia thing, no-one wants to change the way games are reviewed because everyone expects marks out of 10 (or a percentage) for graphics, sound, gameplay and an overall score. I would personally prefer a review that tells me what the games is about, how the controls work and what (if any) problems the reviewer found but without including a score. Scores are very subjective, would someone who bought Ninja Gaiden and found it impossble rate it as highly as someone who loves difficult games?

Re:Graphics -- player's bane, reviewer's delight

[patternjuggler]

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.

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.

You pretty much pose the answer to the problem you point out. Graphics are much less subjective than 'satisfaction' or 'fun-factor', therefore they can be rated on a multiple point scale and you'll find two completely reviewers can get roughly the same ratings without conspiring to do so. But of course just because graphics are easy to rate doesn't mean they should be rated or otherwise weighted heavily into a game's overall rating. I think they do, because I like good graphics, though I recognize that some people aren't as stimulated/inspired/whatever by visuals the same way as a lot of people- though I think since we have brains with such large portions devoted to image processing the people who like good visuals are in the majority.

I suspect people who don't like graphics as much are like people who never really played football or baseball at any level in school - they rarely are sports fans despite humans having a lot of built-in athletic capabilities. For whatever reason these non-graphics people didn't get exposed to a lot of comic books, fantastic movies, or traditional art (much less tried to create any of those on their own) to give them the background to appreciate graphics in games today.

Fun-factor doesn't lend itself to a numerical rating, typically you have to read an entire review to find out the more subjective impression of the game, and perhaps because you have a past track record with that particular reviewer or first off impressions of the way they articulate their thoughts about the game make you think you and they have enough in common to trust their personal opinion. I say keep the personal stuff and the more concrete technical ratings in the reviews.

Re:Graphics -- player's bane, reviewer's delight

[apoc06]

very insightful. graphics are graphics. as long as they convey the game and its atmosphere, graphics are the same across the board. what we need is to truly separate the graphics category found almost everywhere into two categories: one for artistic merit and one for technical merit.

everyone has their bias. some reviewers dont like cel shading; a cartoon based game that is celshaded is more likely to take hits in the graphical department if its not super realistic, when compared to a game featuring something hyper realistic with an insane polygon count. lately ive heard all types of people gripe about the graphics of a game due to an uneven framerate or short draw distance, etc... thats a technical limitation, not indicative of the art design. sometimes if a game looks good you want to know that its worth sitting down and playing. i dont mind if the game plays only at 30 frames per second instead of 60 when im concerned with art.

basically we want to know whether the game looks good and artistic. but we also want to know if there are any technical issues that may mar an otherwise great game. not some lump score that could detract from the other. it should be our decision whether we want to ignore the technical issues, or accept them. part of what jaffe is describing could solve my issue with common game reporting.

for instance, when i play GTA:SA i want to know how it should be rated from the perspective of its art. does the game do a good job looking like los angeles? how is the stylizing? is it a straight rehash of GTA:VC? etc... but i also what to know whether it actually moves fluidly. whether theres clipping all over the place, whether it supports HD resolutions, if theres jaggies all over the place, etc.

graphics used to be used to describe the technical aspect of a game, but now games are more immersive and stylized than ever, there needs to be a differentation. i would like to be the one to make the final call when it comes time to purchase a game. too often a game will lose marks for not having as much bloom, or blur or particle effects as its counterpart on another console. sure that matters for gamers with several systems and need to decide which console to purchase for. but some gamers only have one console and need to know whether a game is good or not based upon other titles for that same system. not some overlying technical handicap based upon system limitations.

GameBloggers Burying "Fanboy" Cliches

[miller60]

I've seen this kind of commentary over and over again in the past several years, and it almost always focuses on practices of "enthusiast" print magazines that rely upon game publishers for advertising revenue, as well as access to information. So why are these critics still reading fanboy game mags, when they could be reading better journalism on game blogs?

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.

Re:The Escapist

[cgenman]

If you know we hate the layout, why don't you change it?

I love the escapist. It is constantly full of interesting, relevant articles. But currently when I open the site the left 1/5th of the cover page is cut off completely, and the right 1/5th is visible when only when scrolling to the right. It only displays properly in PDF. And even then the text is pretty small.

With your structured use of headers, background images, etc, you could create a great online magazine with a similarly high degree of polish. As it stands, you create a great PDF magazine, and a pretty bad online experience. Do you have any stats on the main way your content is read?

Re:The Escapist

[fondue]

You're not alone. It defies belief that something so shallow, pretentious and trite is actually a commercial endeavour. There are a dozens of purely enthusiast-run fanzines, sites and fora that offer better informed, deeper and more entertaining writing about games.

Re:The Escapist

[Turn-X Alphonse]

If you're a writer may I ask why you're all so out of touch with the gamers themselvs? I started reading from issue one but now I find the news letters to be hardly worth reading. The Escapist seems to have lost it's way and now seems like a theme restraunt magazine at best.

I used to think Penny Arcade was out of touch but the magazine just seems 100 times worse. If you want to do a comment on girl gamers then do an article a week, not a whole issue of it. Most of us are sick of girl gamers whining over not being equal when we couldn't careless of their gender. There is jerks in the community, we all know this but we have to put up with them, so why should they whine about it?

The last article I read due to intrest and not sheer boredom from it was the one about people "wandering" looking for a new game to get hooked on. It most of been like a month ago now and it's getting to the point where I'm going to kill the news letter and just skip any stories on slashdot involving it.

If you guys want people like me (the 20 year old market who have time to play but don't find much worth playing any more), then I suggest you stop making theme weeks and start putting up some real decent content. Stop with the "Games arn't games any more" articles or the "games should be more this way" or the ever whored "games companies should/n't do X/Y/Z" and post some proper decent content.

We started out with guys talking about their expriences and memories. How games used to be and how they are now, comparing each point and saying pretty much "I miss game X, but I can still play it and hey the latest version isn't so bad". While it wasn't great it brought back memories which made the magazine worth reading. Little quirks like the old text adventures and the arcade scene.

Now it's gone to everyone whining about everything they think "needs to be fixed". So I'm whining that the magazine needs to be fixed. Other wise you'll end up losing the market of "real gamers" and just be left with the whiney majority who are only reading for the latest WoW story untill the minority (who tend to run the elite places people desire to be) consider The Escapist a poor joke and it becomes a bad joke among the community.

Getting Good Information

[miyako]

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.

Good Articles

[6ame633k]

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

Graphics are just one tool on the shelf.

[Jacius]

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.

Re:The Escapist

[rathehun]

This is the internet. Turn off styles. Use a Greasemonkey script. Works as well.

Honestly. You guys still live in the false dichotomy of viewer/provider that print has established.

No different than ESPN

[mactari]

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?

Same social hierarchy. Different names.

[Song for the Deaf]

In high school there were always those geeky kids who could DM Temple of Elemental Evil, build you a 386, draw figures straight out of Monster Manual, AND ace their exams.

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.

Something I've had to deal with...

[frodoelf]

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

Its more true then you could believe

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Its more true then you could believe

[patio11]

Your command of English grammar and spelling leaves me utterly mystified as to why a journalism outlet could pass on hiring you.

Re:The Escapist

[cgenman]

That monitor (of two) is at 1024x768. But I have a sidebar tool palette that I use, which reduces the effective width 200 pixels.

Well...

[Somatic]

Well, gaming journalists are uninteresting vultures. But so are most other journalists.

Maybe he's just noticing now because gaming is finally big enough to have real press now.

All I gotta say is...

[rathehun]

...Jeff Green.

'nuff said.

Re:Same social hierarchy. Different names.

[discoalucardx]

What's so questionable about the Freedom Fighters review? The game is excellent, and fully worth the praise lavished upon it.