Gaming Journalists Make No Damn Sense

[Dreiko]

Imagine thinking games journalists are part of "the elite" LOL.

Many of them are freelancers making pennies on the dollar for their submissions. The relatively few who are somehow full-time employees are making nowhere near "elite" level money. Games journalism was, is, and will likely always largely be a hobbyist profession. It's done by people who enjoy the medium and culture despite the relatively low pay and few perks.

Just go back to calling them all SJWs. At least that made some level of sense even if it's complete bs.

Not talking about economic elite in this context so how much money they make isn't relevant.

They're not any kind of elite, but they treat their opinions as somehow worth caring about as though they were expert or elite opinions, which is absurd. The mere fact that they get to be publicized at all when there's way more skilled gamers whose opinions are worth that platform instead is the thing I'm describing. There's no justification for it outside of some type of preferential treatment or elevated status that makes one's opinions worth promoting when they play games like this.

Also I don't think I've ever called "all" of anybody SJWs so it's kinda hard to go back to doing something I've never done lol.

 

[Hades]

They're not any kind of elite, but they treat their opinions as somehow worth caring about as though they were expert or elite opinions, which is absurd. The mere fact that they get to be publicized at all when there's way more skilled gamers whose opinions are worth that platform instead is the thing I'm describing. There's no justification for it outside of some type of preferential treatment or elevated status that makes one's opinions worth promoting when they play games like this.

Being a skilled gamer isn't a particularly useful skill to have as a journalist. You can complete Dark Souls without dying or spend hours on Paradox games all you like but that doesn't mean you have any interesting observations to make about them nor the skills to actually put those in writing. Even most youtubers who play games for a living tend not to impress me with their skills. Its their personality and observations, not their skills that got them where they are.

If you mainly report on historical strategy games then a good understanding of the mechanics are required but so is a certain understanding of the history the games are depicted for more interesting coverage, if you talk about narrative games then a good understanding of what makes a good narrative will come in handy. Being good at playing games does you well when it comes to completing the game so you an give a full assessment of all content you can encounter but so much more is needed.

 

[Dreiko]

Being a skilled gamer isn't a particularly useful skill to have as a journalist. You can complete Dark Souls without dying or spend hours on Paradox games all you like but that doesn't mean you have any interesting observations to make about them nor the skills to actually put those in writing. Even most youtubers who play games for a living tend not to impress me with their skills. Its their personality and observations, not their skills that got them where they are.

If you mainly report on historical strategy games then a good understanding of the mechanics are required but so is a certain understanding of the history the games are depicted for more interesting coverage, if you talk about narrative games then a good understanding of what makes a good narrative will come in handy. Being good at playing games does you well when it comes to completing the game so you an give a full assessment of all content you can encounter but so much more is needed.

Youtubers are hit or miss but they're usually way more useful than journalists on the few genres they're actually skilled at.

As for narrative, there is such a thing as videogame narrative which having played lots of games will contribute to your capacity to appreciate and understand similarly to how it'll contribute to your skill at beating them. When someone goes into games analyzing them like they're movies or books that isn't very useful either.


Ultimately, I just think we're looking for different things. I don't look for others to tell me what my initial opinion on something should be, I just look at raw game footage and form my own opinions and then go on to play these games. Only after all this has happened do I look to reporting and others' opinions to see what sort of subjects are being raised pertaining to those games and participate in this discussion. It is here, after I've already experienced the game, that I find that people are generally being overly shallow and are analyzing things at a low/entry level too much of the time. At least youtubers can keep up with the game's concepts and systems and mechanics even if they're not super good at either of them.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Well not to drag a old topic of mine out of the mud, but I didn't feel like this quite warranted a new thread. Here we have a "professional" game reviewer unable to figure out the intended method for solving a puzzle in a children's game.

And this big brain complaint effects the review score. Do these websites not have editors? @Nick Calandra is an editor, why doe the Escapistmagazine have an editor but Gamespot doesn't? Why do they not have people read the transcripts and watch the videos before posting them? I don't understand why it has to be a such a clown show.

These people are paid professionals, and these websites are businesses, yet somehow they have no professional standards.

BTW they gave the game a 2/10 https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/spongebob-squarepants-battle-for-bikini-bottom-reh/1900-6417488/
Most users giving the game a 9.2 on meta, while most other professional's just think the game is "meh" https://www.metacritic.com/game/pla...-battle-for-bikini-bottom---rehydrated?ref=hp

 

[Avnger]

Here we have a "professional" game reviewer unable to figure out the intended method for solving a puzzle in a children's game.

Quite literally not what the video shows. He knows the solution; he just says it's harder than it should be.

And this big brain complaint effects the review score.

I'm sure you have proof of this claim somewhere? It's definitely not in the provided tweet.

Do these websites not have editors? @Nick Calandra is an editor, why doe the Escapistmagazine have an editor but Gamespot doesn't? Why do they not have people read the transcripts and watch the videos before posting them? I don't understand why it has to be a such a clown show.

What exactly would the editor in this case do? CeNsOr the reviewer for his opinion? He rather plainly says "this mechanic is more troublesome than it should be" which was his personal experience with the game.

These people are paid professionals, and these websites are businesses, yet somehow they have no professional standards.

They're professional game critics/reviewers/journalists. They're not professional game players.

A professional sports journalist doesn't have to be able to play the game at the same level as professional players to understand it and report on it. A professional painting critic doesn't have to be able to paint at the same level as professional artists to understand it and provide critiques. A professional car reviewer doesn't have to be able to drive at the same level as professional drivers to understand them and review them.

BTW they gave the game a 2/10 https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/spongebob-squarepants-battle-for-bikini-bottom-reh/1900-6417488/
Most users giving the game a 9.2 on meta, while most other professional's just think the game is "meh" https://www.metacritic.com/game/pla...-battle-for-bikini-bottom---rehydrated?ref=hp

Oh my God, how dare this critic have their own opinion of the game! Fire this man for wrongthink immediately!

 

[Nick Calandra]

Well not to drag a old topic of mine out of the mud, but I didn't feel like this quite warranted a new thread. Here we have a "professional" game reviewer unable to figure out the intended method for solving a puzzle in a children's game.

And this big brain complaint effects the review score. Do these websites not have editors? @Nick Calandra is an editor, why doe the Escapistmagazine have an editor but Gamespot doesn't? Why do they not have people read the transcripts and watch the videos before posting them? I don't understand why it has to be a such a clown show.

These people are paid professionals, and these websites are businesses, yet somehow they have no professional standards.

BTW they gave the game a 2/10 https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/spongebob-squarepants-battle-for-bikini-bottom-reh/1900-6417488/
Most users giving the game a 9.2 on meta, while most other professional's just think the game is "meh" https://www.metacritic.com/game/pla...-battle-for-bikini-bottom---rehydrated?ref=hp

Yea, this is really another nothing burger and even our own review complains about some of the animations in the game causing gameplay issues. I haven't played the game so I don't have anything to say on the score.

Another instance of if you think that reviewer is shit, go find someone that you trust and enjoy.

 

[Hades]

Most users giving the game a 9.2 on meta, while most other professional's just think the game is "meh"

I don't think that's too surprising. I think most gamers either buy the game for their children or because they have some nostalgia and fondness for Spongebob. They go in with this as their primary motivation and likely know the game will be fairly generic. If you go in with such expectations the game can only go up from there. But I can imagine game reviewers having less patience for a lichenced game on the huge pile of other games they have to play.

 

[CriticalGaming]

But I can imagine game reviewers having less patience for a lichenced game on the huge pile of other games they have to play.

Then why bother reviewing it you know? There are loads of games that these outlets don't bother with, so I don't understand why they'd bother with a remake of a kids game from 2003.

Yea, this is really another nothing burger and even our own review complains about some of the animations in the game causing gameplay issues.

I think there is a different mindset that needs to apply to a review of a kids game. There are some concessions that i feel like should be pointed out in regards to that kind of thing.

For example the animations. Can they be annoying? Yeah probably. But animations are longer and a bit slower to allow children to perform without the need of quick reflexes they don't have developed yet. The example I posted above is very literally a puzzle that is designed to teach kids to use these animations to walk onto the switch during the animation. A simple puzzle to figure out for a child, that doesn't require finding a switch elsewhere in the level or retaining any memory of previous areas to remember where your newly opened gates are.

If you are going to review a game or even movies and books, you have to consider the audience for the game. The way this Gamespot review is written, it's as if the review is writing for a 30-something year old audience informing them that this kids games is kinda shit. And that doesn't really make sense to me. If you must review a kids game/book/movie, I would think that the better approach is to write the review towards a parent and how the product might be received by a child.

After all you wouldn't write a review about Blue's Clues saying, "This show is patronizing towards it's audience, and most of the songs are deterivative explainations of mundane tasks. I know what mail is Blue! And sometimes the mail DOES fail, just ask Amazon customer service."

I will say this, I am not nearly as bothered by this as I was about the Cuphead thing, or some of the other articles that have popped up about other issues. This just feels like they didn't use any common sense when discussing the game.

In regards to your three minute review on the escapist, outside of a bugs and a few annoying issues with movie in 3D space, I didn't hear Jesse talk about puzzle problems. In fact I think Jesse does a good job at the review in highlighting a couple of niggles, but otherwise he seems to understand "eh it's a kids game and everything pretty much works enjoyably enough". And that's about all you can say about it really right?

But let's face it, WAY more eyes will see Gamespot's 2/10, than Jesse's 3-minute review. Which is why I feel like Ign, and Gamespot should be more accountable for what they release than say.......my reviews which will be seen by 30 or so people if i'm lucky.

 

[Nick Calandra]

Then why bother reviewing it you know? There are loads of games that these outlets don't bother with, so I don't understand why they'd bother with a remake of a kids game from 2003.




I think there is a different mindset that needs to apply to a review of a kids game. There are some concessions that i feel like should be pointed out in regards to that kind of thing.

For example the animations. Can they be annoying? Yeah probably. But animations are longer and a bit slower to allow children to perform without the need of quick reflexes they don't have developed yet. The example I posted above is very literally a puzzle that is designed to teach kids to use these animations to walk onto the switch during the animation. A simple puzzle to figure out for a child, that doesn't require finding a switch elsewhere in the level or retaining any memory of previous areas to remember where your newly opened gates are.

If you are going to review a game or even movies and books, you have to consider the audience for the game. The way this Gamespot review is written, it's as if the review is writing for a 30-something year old audience informing them that this kids games is kinda shit. And that doesn't really make sense to me. If you must review a kids game/book/movie, I would think that the better approach is to write the review towards a parent and how the product might be received by a child.

After all you wouldn't write a review about Blue's Clues saying, "This show is patronizing towards it's audience, and most of the songs are deterivative explainations of mundane tasks. I know what mail is Blue! And sometimes the mail DOES fail, just ask Amazon customer service."

I will say this, I am not nearly as bothered by this as I was about the Cuphead thing, or some of the other articles that have popped up about other issues. This just feels like they didn't use any common sense when discussing the game.

In regards to your three minute review on the escapist, outside of a bugs and a few annoying issues with movie in 3D space, I didn't hear Jesse talk about puzzle problems. In fact I think Jesse does a good job at the review in highlighting a couple of niggles, but otherwise he seems to understand "eh it's a kids game and everything pretty much works enjoyably enough". And that's about all you can say about it really right?

But let's face it, WAY more eyes will see Gamespot's 2/10, than Jesse's 3-minute review. Which is why I feel like Ign, and Gamespot should be more accountable for what they release than say.......my reviews which will be seen by 30 or so people if i'm lucky.

I see your point on reviewing games for their intended audiences, but I don't think you HAVE to do it that way. Kids are gonna see Spongebob on the store and pick it up because it's Spongebob, they don't give a rats ass about the reviews. The average consumer isn't on Gamespot or Reddit talking or looking at reviews about games, the "hardcore" audience is and that's who you're reviewing games for.

So with that in mind, for sure, reviews even on kids games are gonna be more critical because that's their audience and they partially base purchasing decisions off those reviews.

 

[Hades]

Then why bother reviewing it you know? There are loads of games that these outlets don't bother with, so I don't understand why they'd bother with a remake of a kids game from 2003.

I don't think reviewers themselves are often allowed to pick what they review. Many do fall into a specialty of sorts but sometimes its just not possible for the resident RPG guy to be able to handle all RPG's by himself. Its management who decides so its possible a reviewer would be very grumpy when seeing a lichenced game he really didn't want to play.

I think it being a Spongebob game ensures many review outlets would think they need to review it. Many gamers might scoff on that but Spongebob is kinda big. If its all for the clicks then having a Spongebob game is beneficial to have on your site.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I see your point on reviewing games for their intended audiences, but I don't think you HAVE to do it that way. Kids are gonna see Spongebob on the store and pick it up because it's Spongebob, they don't give a rats ass about the reviews. The average consumer isn't on Gamespot or Reddit talking or looking at reviews about games, the "hardcore" audience is and that's who you're reviewing games for.

Yeah that's fair enough.

 

[Dreiko]

I see your point on reviewing games for their intended audiences, but I don't think you HAVE to do it that way. Kids are gonna see Spongebob on the store and pick it up because it's Spongebob, they don't give a rats ass about the reviews. The average consumer isn't on Gamespot or Reddit talking or looking at reviews about games, the "hardcore" audience is and that's who you're reviewing games for.

So with that in mind, for sure, reviews even on kids games are gonna be more critical because that's their audience and they partially base purchasing decisions off those reviews.

I think you conflate "intended audience" and "hardcore audience" here a bit. They are not the same thing most of the time. At most the hardcore audience is a notable subset of the intended audience.

Asking people to review games for the hardcore audience is a niche and while it does need doing nobody is asking for it to be the main thing done in reviewing. The intended audience however should be what is focused on. Instead, we see focus shifted on the novice end of the spectrum and the reviewer being a member of that group (because you can't be the intended audience in half as many of the games that you will be asked to write about) ends up participating in what I see as them collectively undeserving their audience that wants to read a review that's from a fellow fan and not from a beginner.

This is kinda unavoidable when you have a ton of websites all writing about notable (and I guess many not as notable) games, but there should at least be some of them out there that do indeed let people only write about things they're the intended audience for and center that perspective going into the review. This is the kinda thing Youtube is really good at and why they're eating the lion's share of the views away.


Also, for a game like this, you would literally need to hire a 10 year old reviewer to review this for you, which I actually think could work if you had a good editor helping the kid, but I doubt many sites would go that route for such a small part of the game review market.

 

[Nick Calandra]

I think you conflate "intended audience" and "hardcore audience" here a bit. They are not the same thing most of the time. At most the hardcore audience is a notable subset of the intended audience.

Asking people to review games for the hardcore audience is a niche and while it does need doing nobody is asking for it to be the main thing done in reviewing. The intended audience however should be what is focused on. Instead, we see focus shifted on the novice end of the spectrum and the reviewer being a member of that group (because you can't be the intended audience in half as many of the games that you will be asked to write about) ends up participating in what I see as them collectively undeserving their audience that wants to read a review that's from a fellow fan and not from a beginner.

This is kinda unavoidable when you have a ton of websites all writing about notable (and I guess many not as notable) games, but there should at least be some of them out there that do indeed let people only write about things they're the intended audience for and center that perspective going into the review. This is the kinda thing Youtube is really good at and why they're eating the lion's share of the views away.


Also, for a game like this, you would literally need to hire a 10 year old reviewer to review this for you, which I actually think could work if you had a good editor helping the kid, but I doubt many sites would go that route for such a small part of the game review market.

I only said “hardcore” because I couldn’t think of a better word. I really just meant consumers that are more interested in the world of video games than the average consumer that sees an interesting game and buys it without further research.

And I’m not saying that you’d review the game differently, but as a critic you’re reviewing a product and just because a game is for kids doesn’t mean anyone is gonna look at it differently on a technical level.

Nobody is expecting the writing to be anything special, or the gameplay complicated and that of course is taken into account, but a critic isn’t necessarily just gonna go easy on a product because it’s for kids.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Question: why should kids games be given more of a pass for being kinda shit than any other game?
Like, I understand the need for relative simplicity in controls or story, but you'd think not needing to design complex systems should lead to more polish, at least.

 

[BrawlMan]

I did not know where else to put this, but I found a video that gets it's point across without being loud and obnoxious.

Question: why should kids games be given more of a pass for being kinda shit than any other game?

Because the bar has been dropped really for the past 20 years.

 

[bluegate]

I did not know where else to put this, but I found a video that gets it's point across without being loud and obnoxious.

YouTube pseudo intellectualism 🥱

 

[Dreiko]

On the kid games thing, I think there's a mixed bag. Imo stuff like Pokemon and Kirby are "'kid games" but they still awesome.

 

[Kwak]

YouTube pseudo intellectualism 🥱

What's an example of real intellectualism then?

 

[Dreiko]

I did not know where else to put this, but I found a video that gets it's point across without being loud and obnoxious.

While I liked GoW a lot more than this guy, I think the difference here is that DMC was outwardly scornful of its beloved past iterations when the reboot was pretty mediocre at best, whereas GoW at least doesn't remove from canon the past games while actively mocking them and it is a legit good game unlike DMC, and while I find being "ashamed" of Kratos for having "toxic masculinity" as being idiotic, it is still a believable thing that can happen so when I saw them going in that direction I just let them do their thing and actually judged how they handled it as opposed to form my opinion before letting them do their thing. It ended up working quite well for me, I didn't feel the need to see Kratos grow because the events of the game itself were compelling enough and not too related to his past anyhow.


I think the difference is that nobody really liked Kratos, people thought he was badass but he wasn't really likeable or beloved.


Eeeeeveryone liked Dante, everyone, outiside of the guys they got to make that cursed reboot lmao.

What's an example of real intellectualism then?

When you're on TV and rich people pay you to have the opinions that you advocate for.

 

[Trunkage]

When you're on TV and rich people pay you to have the opinions that you advocate for.

So Jordan Peterson or Dave Rubin? I alway wondered how they could call themselves intellectual when half their stuff is gobbligook