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/
Posting this on Slashdot, of all places...
Le français vous intéresse?
My first exposure to gaming magazines was Nintendo Power and Sega Visions when they first came out. Now _that_ was marketing influenced games journalism. hehe.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
Personally, I get most of my game info from GameFaqs, which has user reviews and nice overall scoreboards for magazine reviews. The user reviews are sometimes dumb, but you can get a general flavor for a game by looking at the magazine reviews and user reviews. I've still been burned once or twice but at least looking there first can help you avoid the real stinkers.
Also, I love the game info posted at Penny Arcade. Gabe and Tycho have similar tastes in games as I do, so when they love a game it's a pretty safe bet that I'll like it too.
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
I see this every time I dare to glimpse at the gaming press. The absolute worst of the worst are the TV shows, like GamerTV, Gamesville, and that old one with the woman with the weird hair. Here's the recipe: too many futuristic "swooshing" animations, episodes repeated ad-infinitum no matter how old they become, review after review of Yet Another 3D Platformer 4, and a clichéd, useless "We give it... 3 out of 5!"-type section.
You will almost never see a game like N, or Uplink reviewed, because they aren't backed by the big cartels like EA, whose latest player name update to FIFA will doubtlessly turn out to be a "worthy addition to this legendary series".
....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?
Heres a quick summary journalistic levels
Trade Publications : worst of the worst would be given away if the publishers were allowed to by their advertisers. Most of the articles are either written by employees of the advertisers, the rest is the lowest cost possible filler.
Review magazines: Especially true of car magazines but holds well for just about everything else. Toyota at one point asked what it would have to do be car of the year and was told buy out the issue. Its a little less blatant these days but no different. For game magazines ask yourself how every fisrt person shooter knockoff can have 4 to 5 stars or an 80% plus rating. Or how someone can select the most influential games of all time have them be 70% consolers and have half life as the rep for FPS games. Consumer reports is the exception but because they focus on so much their quality and conclusions arent as good as they could be
General readership magazines: Review space is pretty much advertising. The Stuff in stuff didn't just wind up there. The toys in t3 arent just picked at random.
Newspapers: Maybe, maybe not
If you wan't good reviews find a blog with coments, and look for it to have trashed stinkers you know about. This is good for anything. I really wish I had done that before I bought a DSM-320 network media player, it pays for hard drives and just look at all the people that own space heaters oops Intel processors.
And they deserve it. C-Net used to be honest, back when they had their TV show, but they turned into a Microsoft mouthpiece and everything was 'great, just great.'
I don't mind when things DON'T get reviewed. There are understandable limitations of time, space and money.
I DO mind when things are reviewed and it just reads like the press release from the company, and the reality is vastly different.
That's when I stop reading.
If you've nothing good to say, then say that you've got nothing good to say. Don't just blather on with the press release in one hand and the tatters of your integrity oozing through the fingers of the other hand.
And if you play something and it SUCKED, I expect to hear about why you thought it sucked and what could be done so it didn't suck so hard.
Sorry but lazy journalism is just PR work and payola.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
In addition to pointing out all the bad journalism out there, these sites help identify blogs and magazines that strive to offer better writing and reviews. Visit those sites and click on a few ads. Marketing-driven articles continue to appear because game publishers pay the bills. That only changes if game mags and sites can develop business models where they are accountable primarily to you - their readers - rather than game companies.
RichM
Data Center Knowledge
For game reviews I tend to go to Metacritic. Metacritic aggregates critical scores and generates an average score number, which is a valuable indicator of critical consensus.
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
I remember back in the early days of Planet Quake, when Bastard (Basty) was running the site. This was of course before Gamespy transformed from being a little ping tool, into a giant marketing juggernaught. Quake lovers like myself would collect in #planetquake and chat about the latest mod, hang out on servers and submit news to contribute to the (then) growing online Quake community.
I did a lot of mods myself. Some I would have liked to have finished, but the ones I did finish all collect dust now. (and some of them collected dust THEN)
At the same time Bluesnews was also a great place to find out awesome insights to the whole Quake scene.
Look at these two sites now, and all you can see is marketing.
They both, arguably, sold out. I don't know why... maybe they like affording new computers from Alienware, or maybe they just like the concept of selling their souls. Another person who sold out bigtime was Dakota, the CTF guy that some of you might remember as the founder of Captured.com (which is now closed). He joined Gamespy and is running a large part of that company now. He used to post amazing CTF news, mods, tourney info and stuff.
Vid journalists all get bought up by the industry.
But the games changed, too. It used to be a lot of fun to play Quake or Thunderwalker on servers, but then other games came along and stole the show, thus putting an end to the tight-knit community. Each new game fractured the core community until, for quite a while, there was no cohesion.
All good things come to an end, and I think that is how we really know they were good.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
... 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...
I'm not sure if he wrote it or not, but the first page of the reviews section was about their ratings system.
They sum up readers perceptions of game ratings, like this:
I'm sure it's somehow relevant.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
As a person who earns his living making video games, video game reviewing has always been a sore spot.
We read all of the reviews. All of them. IGN, Gamespot, Famitsu, Edge, Joystick101, The Atlanta Herald... you name it we've read it. This is where we get our impresson of people's impression of the game. This is where we get fodder to make alterations to future games. And you know what, it's disheartening when nearly every review gets at least one thing factually wrong. It's disheartening when the reviewer clearly hasn't played more than 15 minutes into the game that you just spend 16 months creating. And it's disheartening when the reviewer keeps talking about boobies and poop and fart jokes like he was a 12 year old on the playground.
One of the most insightful pieces I've read talked about how Half-Life 2 used darkness to symbolize safety and bright, light areas as a sign of danger. But this was Game Developer magazine talking about art direction, not a reviewer talking about the game itself. Maybe it is too much to ask for a reviewer to take as in-depth a look at a game as a developer would, but there is direction to be had here. Compare and contrast with other titles, plot developments, gameplay structures, etc. Give insight into what the developers were trying to achieve and what they created. Put the game into context. Even Ebert will delve a little bit into the movie school theory behind the movies.
Even as simple sources of opinions, reviewers frequently fall down. Afraid of "offending" any publishers, they don't say anything negative about certain titles. Afraid of stepping out of line, they keep their scores in line with everyone else's. I saw a review the other day that said "X may very well be the best game available on the PS2." He then gave it a 70%, same as everyone else.
There is a lot of room for innovation and insight in video game reviews. Hopefully somebody will pick up that opportunity and run with it.
The ______ Agenda
I always at least tried to be honest with game reviews - if I thought something stank, I said so (I think the lowest review score - as the final percentage rating - I ever gave was 3%), and while previews had to be more informative than opinionated, I generally took the piss a bit if the game deserved it. There's only so many cutsey platform game previews a man can write without going mad.
Problem was, not only did certain publishers throw shit-fits and threaten to withhold future games if they got bad reviews (or sometimes actually go through with the threat: there was a period of about six months where my mag had to buy games by one publisher - fuck it, it was Ocean - because they wouldn't send us code), but as time went by they also started getting nasty about previews as well. Basically, they wanted their press releases to be reprinted, including the captions they'd written for the screenshots. Er, no. Not going to happen. So the PRs would go over my head and threaten to pull advertising - not just from my mag, but from other titles as well. Fun fun fun.
Since things were only going to get worse as the publishers ate each other and got more powerful, I decided to get out as soon as I got the chance.
There are some mags whose editorial policies I still respect - Edge, PC Zone, GamesTM - but many of the rest have fallen into the 'exclusive cover/fawning preview/minimum review score of 85%' routine/trap because it's the path of least resistance to ensure they can get product to cover.
(And I was never offered a free holiday in return for a good score. Bastards!)
You must think in Russian.
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