Slashdot Mirror
The Pointlessness of Current Videogame Journalism
Anonymous Coward writes "TG Daily has its weekly videogaming column up, and this week the author is attacking what he terms The Pointlessness of Current Videogame Journalism. From the article: '...the formulaic, child-minded writing-for-the-lowest-common-marketing-denominator style that encapsulates 99% of the mainstream videogame press is a load of crap ... Rather than being critics who add to the industry as film and music journalists arguably did back in the heady days of the 50's - 70's... videogame journalists are mere extensions of the marketing machine, pushing even the most mediocre of games into a good light with the public in previews and then trashing them for sport to see how many good puns can be dredged out of the 500 words which the author really doesn't want to have to write.'"
Guess that means they are on par with most other entertainment journalism nowadaze. Go Figure.
Thats why when I want to know what a game is really like, I wait for it to release and browse the games message boards to get insight on the game. In the end I trust the community alot more than the press. Yes, alot of message borads are full of crap too, but its seems to be alot easier to select the valuable posts.
http://www.stockmarketgarden.com/
Those geeks who motorcycle as well as play video games know the story of the "every column inch stuffed to the gills with advertiser propoganda" magazine very well. So-called moto"journalism" is basically utterly shameless pandering to the major motorcycle manufacturers. The magazines basically say whatever the bike makers want, and will only very infrequently mount any kind of serious criticism. Those that do are quickly wiped off the map for financial reasons. In short, remember this: Even if you subscribe to them, your subscription doesn't come close to paying for the cost of the content in those magazines; the product manufacturer's advertisements do. And thus it is no surprise that the moto rags are transparent mouthpieces for the industry, and have little interest in the reader beyond shoving shiny game ad of the week down their throats.
And the situation is exactly the same with game review magazines.
Don't expect it to change; it's not going to. Until the flow of money is massively re-arranged to come far more from the readers than the manufacturers, the magazines will continue to be shameless advertising and little more.
I've never enjoyed TV video game reviews. Back in my teens when I was playing Gameboy and computer video games, I'd buy magazines and read hint books. Now when I see something come on like Tech TV, I shudder and jump to the remote to change the channel. The reviews are little more than ads for an industry I care so little about these days. Perhaps my priorities have changed too much to enjoy video games like I once did, but do we really need entire channels devoted to advertising video games? Do children even read anymore?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Rather than being critics who add to the industry as film and music journalists arguably did back in the heady days of the 50's - 70's... videogame journalists are mere extensions of the marketing machine.
:)
Emphasis added for stoners
So, is this new? Look at any niche market journal like for stereo equipment, cars, or anything, and tell me how much negative press there is in them.
I'm a recovering audiophile, and I remember when I would read the magazines of the trade, everything they "reviewed" was excellent or at least very good compared to their multi-tens of thousands "reference" system for the money.
Am I the only one who felt blatantly lied to about this game? Every video game publication or TV show hailed this as having an amazing single player campaign. When I sat down to play it I found it to be a boring rehash of the last game. There were many problems with the game that normally would make their way into reviews but these were strangely absent. Clipping and other graphic glitches, horrendous story, repetitiveness, and probably the worst end level I have ever seen. I swear there was some sort of massive pay off made somewhere to game reviewers.
I wish I could elaborate more on what was wrong with Halo2 but it's been awhile since it came out. I can't be the only one to think the single player was poo though.
Nowadays, you can download demos and watch videos of just about any game online. The reviewer isn't doing much that you can't do yourself, though it might take you slightly longer to download such content. I'm not sure the problem is the writing, I think it's the need. Is game reviewing even necessary? Were reviews this bad back in the early 90's and 80's when gamers didn't have the access to the kind of preview stuff that's out there today?
....and someone had to say it. I completely agree. The quality of videogames in general has taken a nose dive since the cream-of-the-crop 16 bit era. These days, the focus spent marketing games by the publishers far outweighs the more important focus of the developers themselves to develop a game that is actually fun to play. Time and time again, developers are touting games that drop the ball in the fun-factor court. Even 1st class developers like RARE and id are releasing mediocre games when compared to what they previously developed. DOOM 3 and PERFECT DARK ZERO are two prime examples of deleopers dropping the ball. and if you think those two games are anywhere as close to what they previously released, then you need to get your head checked. RARE and id are just two examples. Lets not forget the other 90% of videogame developers out there that nobody follows or even ponders what the next piece of crap they're going to release will be. With all that said, I have to thank Rockstar, Valve, Epic, and Blizzard. Kudos. Keep up the good work.
I would create a sig, if only something of value could be said with just 120 chars.
Can't the same be said for newspapers with respect to political parties and politicians?
with Publishers and want to keep working in the field, so they write puff pieces..and the Author takes them to task for it..then doesn't name names or publications because he doesn't want to burn bridges and wants to keep working in the field?
This was among the most poorly-written "professional" opinion pieces I've ever seen. Does TG Daily not have a copy editor? Does this McKenna kid actually get paid to write?
o r style that encapsulates 99% of the mainstream videogame press
the formulaic, child-minded writing-for-the-lowest-common-marketing-denominat
Encapsulates? That word does not mean what you think it means.
Starting in the most critical area of the videogame press's remit and where I have the most self-doubt about my own writings in the past
Is this English?
McKenna, I'm sure that you had point in there somewhere. From what I was able to decipher from your article, I'm pretty sure I agree with you, more or less. But I guarantee that you'd benefit from a couple of years of formal education in composition, and your work would certainly benefit from a couple of studious edits, preferably from someone else.
And for Pete's sake, lay off the parentheses, ellipses, generalizations, overuse of subordinate clauses, overuse of multiple descriptive adjectives per clause, and the like. Thankfully, you didn't use "quite" or "a tad" as qualifiers. You did, however, use "rather" several times; those three qualifiers are among the strongest indicators of amateur writing.
I'd sooner read well-written marketing copy than poorly-written criticism.
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
Today journalists only want money in their pockets. Why would I write a good article published every two weeks if I can write a poor article that is printed every week? It's the business, man, accept it or leave.
You're a journalist I take it?
Sorry, dude. I don't even consider badly written Slashdot comments acceptable. There's no way I'm going for bad journalism for which I have to pay. It better be fairly well written, and it better be honest, or I'm not spending a dime on it, and I'm not buying anything from the ads.
There's probably a fair number of others like me. Magazines don't make "$$$" that way. They make "$" - possibly even less.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
... I say, "Thank you."
I've been telling my friends this kind of thing for a while... My opinion of the video game industry at large is already very negative, and my opinion of their bitches - yes, I said bitches, because that's what your usual video game journalist seems to be; an unwitting, unwilling bitch of a the magazine's marketing department and the 'big studios', fellating video games and companies he or she may not even like - in the press is even worse. This article sums the case up nicely. Video game magazines suck.
To restate some of the points made in the article, the average 'professional game reviewer and journalist', whose job it is to insult our taste and intelligence with their awful articles and reviews, is very juvenile and apparently unskilled in the field of journalism in general. This may or may not be an accurate portrayal of their skill as journalists - they may in fact be instructed to convey themselves as though their balls have yet to drop - but it doesn't make me think higher of them, considering that they appear to be lowering themselves to the level of mere children in order to please the marketing department. I can barely stomach most video game journalism, because it sounds like I'm listening to a pretentious, hyperactive twelve year old rave on about a new game his parents bought for him and then compliment his own 'skill' as a gamer, even though he hasn't played the game past the first level yet, and probably can't. I know the magazines are trying to relate to teens and pre-teens, because that's where the money's really at... but give me a break. This isn't 'PSM 4Kidz!'. This is supposed to be a witty, intelligent, professionally written publication, not some snot nosed brat's 5th grade English project about what video games he got for Christmas.
The reviews really get to me in particular. The previews, too, because they're so vapid and superficial, often praising only the visual elements of the games instead of telling me whether or not I'll be able to enjoy it sober, but the reviews are the best. My friends are frequently let down by the magazines, and yet they still eat it up. (Shame on them.) Each time it's the same story. They get hooked in by the hype in the previews, read these amazing reviews, and then go buy the game... And what happens? Two out of three times the game sucks ass, and they wind up feeling cheated. The reviews are, in my eyes, commercials. They're written like commercials, they flow like commercials, the pages are even set up like commercials. This is advertising, not an honest review, and it shows. Sometimes the reviews aren't even remotely accurate, falsely portraying certain elements of the games they cover to make them look better. This is why I wait to read user reviews of games online or learn about them through the grapevine. I'd rather learn about a game from somebody who has actually played it, not some two-bit hack of a journalist who's essentially being paid to lie.
Hearing this all come from a real insider - an actual video game journalist - is very refreshing, and I'm glad that he's finally coming clean about it with himself. That's the kind of honesty I'd like to see more often in the publications! Movie reviews could use a bit of that, too, but that's another story for another day. This guy really hits the nail on the head, and it's good to see a reviewer do some reviewing of his own, and take a good look at his work and what he and his colleagues have really been contributing to... It's a shame he might not have a job much longer. Maybe he'll go and start his own magazine or something...
A couple of years ago when I was working with a big (gamespy-big, at the time) computer-game network.
We received a review-copy of a bull-riding game.
The reviewer in charge of the genre was amazed by the pure idiocy behind the game, and reviewed it VERY thoroughly - it got 4% on our review-scale.
We didn't actually believe we'd ever get another game from that publisher (ever), but lo and behold; we did.
The second time around, they scored 18% (mainly due to music by Lynyrd Skynyrd..).
My point?
There are sites writing honest reviews - most of them go offline due to financial reasons.
In other words; when you find a site you like - let their editors know, and do your damndest to keep them alive.
>Shouldn't the 8's and 9's be reserved for the 1 in a 100 that really is brilliant
Perhaps you're not familiar with the American culture that forces ratings to be skewed toward the upper extremes. In the US, students are given letter grades that correspond to percentages. If your average score is 90%, you get an A (or A-, depending on the scale). 80% is a B, 70% is a C (* some use 65%), and anything less than that is considered a failure. Partial credit is often given for incorrect answers, so it is rather difficult to get a zero (0) if you put in a nonzero amount of effort.
In school, term papers and projects are typically graded in a subjective manner, with A meaning "excellent", B meaning "above average", C meaning "average/satisfactory" and F meaning "unsatisfactory". When teachers translate these scores into numerical grades, they preserve the original percentage mapping. Since the highest passing grade is 70+30=100 points, many teachers are unlikely to give a failing grade below 70-30=40 points as long as the student turns in something that at least resembles a complete assignment.
When the student reaches high school/college, many of their classes grade "on the curve". Although there are many different implementations of this grading method, most involve using a predefined mean in the C range. Thus about ~1/10 get A's, ~1/4 get B's, ~1/2 get C's and ~1/6 of the class fails (though again it's rather difficult to get less than a 40 if you even attempt the assignment/exam).
As a result of this grading system, when the typical American is given the choice to rate something on a given scale from 0-10, they'll rate it as F:4.0-6.5, C:6.5-7.9, B:8.0-8.9, A:9.0-10.0. This can be clearly seen when you observe that the average score on IMDB is 6.7. You can also see this by visiting hotornot. Go there and try to rate something honestly. Your scores will not match the averages of thousands of votes. You'll find that any mildly attractive female will have at least an 8, and the ugliest of the uglies are only mid 4's (* this is also complicated by horny teen boys voting 10 for attractive women and 0 for men and ugly women).
Anyway, this is basically a longwinded way of saying that most Americans will view an 8 as a "pretty good" but nowhere near "excellent" score. As for your comment about percentages, I can only say this: percentage of what? (hint: there are thousands of substandard games that never achieve mainstream notoriety; however, if you were to include them in the rating system, even at a mean 5, standard deviation of 1, you'll still see the mainstream games getting scores in the 7-9 range).
I have not seen or even played Halo2; however, I find it very hard to believe that it could possibly deserve less than a C (mid 7's) for its gameplay. If that were so, it would not have sold a single copy after the first week.
The problem is that games are really hard to review. Because what one person finds great, another person finds untenable.
A good example is Resident Evil 4. It got Game of the Year from several different publications. I rented it.
There is no way I would ever recommend Resident Evil 4 as game of the year, I couldn't even stand playing it for an hour. That's for one reason and one reason alone. Here it is.. are you ready?
You can't move and shoot at the same time.
Read that again. As soon as you pull out your gun, you lose the ability to move.
At that point, I don't care about the story, the graphics, the sound, or anything. The game is absolutely unplayable.
Only one review I read even mentioned the fact that pulling out your gun (or an axe, or any weapon) will switch you to "aim mode" where you can't move. How could they not mention that?
Well, probably because the reviewer is *used* to playing Resident Evil games. The entire series has a history of horrible control schemes.
Games are hard to review because your experience with them depends on your experience with other games. You're inadvertantly comparing RE4 with RE3, and the fact that the camera is over-the-shoulder in RE4 made it a little easier to move around compared to RE3... so your relative experience got a little better.. not worse.
Discern whether someone has an interest in telling you a lie.
If you can verify a small part of what someone tells you, do it.
Are they open to questions and discussion. Are they willing to get specific. Or do they speak in generalities and their flaws behind fake anger, mockery and showmanship.
Are they asserting more than seems reasonable, or do they clearly delimit what is known and unknown.
A web of communication between people is actually a pretty good way to look at the truth if a low enough percentage of them have ulterior motives and a high enough percentage of them are in a position and are willing to check some facts.
Play Command HQ online
That only works to a certain extent. I will never buy anything from X-10 ever, for instance, because their advertising was so incredibly obtrusive.
If I started seeing a lot of the same video game ads when I was looking for actual content, I'd stop going to that site. If I saw the same ad on all the sites in place of content, I'd boycott the product.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I'm a journalist, and I've written plenty of game reviews, and it depends on the company, but I didn't have a template. I wrote what I felt, after playing the games. I wrote what I liked, what I didn't like, and whether it was worth buying or just renting. There might be some journalists out there who don't "get" the games they play, and who don't really understand, but I have been a gamer since I was a kid, and I think I brought a gamer's perspective to it. A lot of reviews out there are written by people who aren't passionate gamers, and you can tell sometimes. I think I do get it.
"Curse your sudden, but inevitable betrayal!"
as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread, user reviews are more numerous, and you can generally pick out the ones that display critical thinking.
if the critics are (as i tend to believe) overwhelmingly hacks and shills for the gaming industry, then looking at an average of a bunch of critics scores does nothing but give you an indication of exactly what level the hype machine is at, not the true worth of a game.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.