Slashdot Mirror
Analyzing Game Journalism
SSDNINJA writes "Joseph Jackmovich of gamrFeed analyzes 161 articles from Kotaku, Joystiq, and Destructoid to discover how well they report gaming news. He looks to find out if the stereotypes of game journalism being poorly sourced and sexist are anecdotal or based in fact."
TFA strikes me as a bit of a missed opportunity. It makes some extremely valid points about the dependancy of gaming news sits on the good-will of developers and the impact that this has upon review scores (hello Kane & Lynch). Unfortunately, it drowns this in a morass of po-faced moralising about what "proper" journalism could be. Having a pop at Kotaku for mixing in silly or immature stories among the rest of the headlines is kind of missing the point; these are ultimately entertainment sites, talking about an entertainment medium while seeking to entertain their readers at the same time. A bit of sillyness is going to be par for the course.
For the most part, gaming news is not real news. That's not to say there isn't a place for it. But it isn't in the same category as the kind of news coverage we expect of politics, wars or crime and it doesn't need to be held to the same standards. Occasionally, the gaming world produces a genuine news story (anybody remember Infinium Labs?), but I've generally found that the gaming press isn't too bad at covering these when they do occur. For the rest of the time, think of it as belonging to the same category as sports or showbiz news.
The area where there is cause for concern is that surrounding developer/publisher pressure over review scores. Reviews, unlike gaming "news", fall more into the category of consumer advice than journalism and I think it's reasonable to expect appropriate standards. It really is quite obvious these days that games which come with a big name attached often seem to get review scores they don't deserve. Final Fantasy XIII is a dreadful game. You spend the first twenty five or so hours running down a straight path, fighting endless waves of identical enemies with an almost-uninteractive combat system. No matter how much the game may improve after that point (and the improvement is only mild), there's no way that 25 hours of boring on-rails gameplay shouldn't have a profound negative impact on review scores; and yet the game carried off a slew of 8/10 and 9/10 scores. Mario Galaxy 2 is not a bad game (it has some clever level design), but it has a good number of flaws, including a lack of innovation compared to its predecessor, an imprecise control system (in a game that requires a high degree of precision on many occasions) and outdated game-mechanics such as a lives-system. And yet it had ecstatic reviews, including a frankly incomprehensible 10/10 from IGN.
The thing is that it's by no means clear that publisher pressure was responsible for the scores in the two cases listed above. Square and Nintendo both tend to have a pool of rabid fans (albeit a shrinking pool in both cases) and it's quite possible that the games were just handed to fanboys for review, who were never going to hold the game to objective standards. But the fact is that there are enough incidences of genuine publisher pressure (yes, Kane and Lynch, I'm still talking about you) that gamers' suspicions are inevitably going to be aroused. I think review sites need to do more to enhance their credibility.
Some obvious steps might be:
- Removing advertising on the actual review pages (advertising elsewhere on the site - ok - but it sends the wrong message when you plaster advertising over the review itself and people will see corruption even where it doesn't necessarily exist).
- When a game review comes back with a score of 9/10 or higher (or whatever the equivalent in the site's scoring system), get a second opinion in there as part of the review.
- Greater acknowledgement of bugs and stability issues in reviews and scores. If you look at the reviews of Medal of Honour and Fallout: New Vegas, two recent games that launched in a highly buggy state (on consoles as well as PC), it's clear that some sites acknoweldge the bugs in their review while others don't, but that it's very rare to see bugs actually taken into account in scoring.
This article attempts to make a assessment of the quality of game journalism, without mentioning Edge, which is one of the most well received papers by the games industry. Indeed, Kotaku (which is banned from even mainstream forums such as Neogaf due to its poor quality) and Destructoid are not aiming for quality but general coverage. To my knowledge, Edge is the only gaming publication that attempts to write reviews and games theory articles on par with what movie and music critics do.