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.'"

Comments

No doubt

[fryguy451]

Guess that means they are on par with most other entertainment journalism nowadaze. Go Figure.

The Community knows better

[Saint37]

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/

Re:The Community knows better

[radiotyler]

I was going to post something very, very similar to this but you've summed that part up for me. The only addition I have is that I hold my friends opinions' in the highest regard. I play mostly FPS, and one of the things I enjoy most is playing with the same people over a select few games. If one of them buys a new game and tells me how amazing it is, and how there's one feature that makes it different from the other multi-player FPS out there (and in his/her opinion better) I can cruise over to their house with a six pack and play the game for myself and form my own opinion rather than relying on a "corporate shill" review online.

Some games have a buzz that's so fantastic that you can believe the reviews, and some just smell fishy by the them. Obviously the only way to tell for sure is to either buy the game or like I do: try it out at a friends house. With the two options being shelling over fifty bucks for a game (assuming my hardware will run it and I don't have to buy a new knuder valve) or a six pack and a night of gaming with a friend... I'll take beer and friends every time.

Video game "journalism" as bad as Moto"journalism"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Is this new?

[hackstraw]

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.

Halo 2

[RickPartin]

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.

Re:Halo 2

[ediron2]

You weren't impressed, you gave it an 8/10, and due to this the release party was *uncomfortable* for your man in attendance.

Talk about grade inflation... that pretty much much proves TFA's point.

has it always been this way?

[j1mmy]

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?