A lot of negativism towards gaming journalism?

[Chanticoblues]

I'll admit I have quite a big of negativity towards game reviews, primarily for how highly the average game is thought of, not just in scoring but in its features and concept. I feel like so many reviews are spent talking about what the game is instead of what it means or made the reviewer feel, which are both far more compelling things to me. I also find a lot of reviewers seem to address how a game and its features were marketed which I also don't care about at all.

Famitsu has an interesting setup, where four reviewers contribute to the score, which you think would harbor more varied scores and debate, but even then it can be weirdly synonymous. Skyward Sword got a perfect score. How the hell do four people play that game and all give it a 10?

Tevis Thompson's essay 'On Videogame Reviews' [http://tevisthompson.com/on-videogame-reviews/], which I'm sure some of you have read, is a viewpoint I admire a lot (part 9 onwards might be best if you're just skimming).

 

[Dragonlayer]

I think the negativity comes from the fact that gaming journalism is seen as a weak imitation of "real" journalism (though after the "Why so many celebrities are dying in 2016" article I read on the BBC the other day, I think we should give even the most lowbrow Metacritic review a second chance). Add to that people having their own political slant and being moved to incandescent fury when the reviewer steps out of line, and you have the perfect recipe for good old fashioned internet rage. Personally, I've always found it curious that people genuinely try to find an "objective" and "neutral" reviewer to talk about their games; I already have an idea of what games I'm interested in, and I check the positive reviews of those to confirm that A) it's got what I like in it and B) it won't explode my PS4 the second I put the disc in.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Probably cause there's a divide between reviewers and gamers that has been getting wider over time. Reviewers get their games for free (most of the time) and therefore don't have the same understanding of value that consumers do. A good recent example is Mad Max, a game that reviewers gave a good paddling for being boring and uninspiring, but one that gamers overall liked because it had a good value proposition and decent content for the price.

In my mind, it's a bit similar to the difference between film reviewers and the general public, but the interaction here is much closer. There are far more gamers that are on the level of cinephiles than there are moviegoers en masse. The problem is the value proposition as well as the actual techniques that current reviewers use in their writing. There's a reason Polygon is infamous for being pretentious, because a lot of their staff have a very strange view of what their duty is to the gaming public. Often it seems that it's less to inform and more to ignore the fact that they are essentially judging entertainment in lieu of what is basically sophistry (let's not forget 'Politics in the Phillipines').

Another factor is the events of last year. Agree or disagree with gamergate, but it did unveil a worrying, although not entirely [a href=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLNZFWR0Q8M]unprecendented system employed by journalists.[/a] The problem was more that they had an ingroup/outgroup mentality that eventually resulted in a lot of cronyism and the departure of several well intentioned people (like Greg Tito, who stuck to his principals to the end).

There's also scores. This varies between individuals, but to me, scores are useless. I will use them when I look up metacritic for a new game, but my gaming habits are pretty different to most peoples' anyway. To me, a score diminishes the value of the review as a whole, and going score-free helps engage in an actual dialogue of positives and negatives instead of a token sticker-like figure saying 'good' or 'not good'. Games are large experiences that cost up to $60. They deserve in-depth analysis, and that's why I'll always value people like TotalBiscuit and Rock Paper Shotgun (even if I disagree with a lot of the things they have said in the past) just because they have managed to survive with that format and even reached success. So how does this relate to a bad perception of gaming journalism? Well, scores make it too easy for reviewers. Saying 'I feel this is a 7/10' boils down the experience way too much, and whilst I understand that grinding through games day and night is a pretty thankless and underpaid job, gaming is still a rapidly expanding industry, and along with that industry, there should also be more and more sophisticated ways to examine what it produces. The Escapist used to do weekly articles on the state of gaming and I enjoyed those a lot. To me, they were what the future held, as they worked on establishing dialogue instead of just putting down a number and calling it a day. Scores are one of the reasons I personally dislike gaming journalism.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Ya that is where people don't understand what journalism is, journalism is not random hobo with opinions writing nonsense, just as random hobo with a hammer isn't a mechanic.
A world of difference between professional work in a specific field and blind amateur attempts, if you intent to call yourself a professional then you will be held to that standard. If on the other hand your "review" makes clear you have no clue then it is fine.

 

[Something Amyss]

Huh. I did not know that. And now I do.

Thanks!

And knowing is half the battle!

XD

This question isn't exactly relevant, because the bias is not important at all. What's important is acknowlegement and disclosure.
If a reviewer is tearing a game to bits following his bias it is unjust. If the bias is propetly disclosed and you know what comes into play - that's just another opinion. It is the difference between "I didn't like it" and "I didn't like it but I don't like fighting games in general", or "This game feels confusing" and "I'm terrible at puzzles so this game feels confusing".

It becomes relevant because potentially any baggage can provide such influence.

Such disclosure is also above and beyond what is expected of the media with which I am familiar. Now, I don't know film reviews, but I've done music and the occasional book review. You probably won't see me picking up a pop album (though I do on occasion), but there is ever chance that I will asked to review such an album. I can refuse, but depending on the publication that might mean I miss out on work that week/month (depending on publication). I think like, 90% of the books I read are urban fantasy, but if I am asked to do the latest Steve Berry book (hell, I only know his name because my mom's a fan), I'm probably going to do it. Disclosure is not done nor is it considered necessary. Hell, it's not even demanded by fans of other media. You probably don't know the preferences of the person reviewing any other media.

Almost every complaint about journalistic ethics or reviews I have seen have one thing in common: a demand that games get special treatment that is not only above and beyond the normal review process, but often absurd and prohibitive. Since this is at least the former, let me pose two questions to you:

Do you feel games deserve special treatment?
If yes to the above, why?

Because this seems like a massive case of special pleading to me.

I think the negativity comes from the fact that gaming journalism is seen as a weak imitation of "real" journalism

Probably because for the most part it is.

The puzzling part is that the solutions seem to take it further into "weak imitation" territory.

 

[Dragonlayer]

I think the negativity comes from the fact that gaming journalism is seen as a weak imitation of "real" journalism

Probably because for the most part it is.

The puzzling part is that the solutions seem to take it further into "weak imitation" territory.

The puzzling part is that people evidently care so bloody much about completely disregardable opinions. If I read a review I disagree with, I say so in the comments or walk away; I don't scream "CONSPIRACY!!!".

 

[inmunitas]

Hey guys, I wanted to talk about something that I've been noticing for a while. There's been a lot of negativism towards gaming journalism like when users are discontent with the score that has been giving to a specific game. I admit I saw a review once here that was the complete opposite of what I thought and went to reddit to discuss and even share some negativism towards the website (I'm sorry escapist people, you have a great website going on) however after thinking twice I realized that the reviewers are people just like us. They are in a way sharing an opinion with more detail.

It's true that there is possibly reviewers that get paid to give good scores and all that but I still think that there shoudn't be so much negativity towards a reviewer that gives a score you don't agree with.

From what I've seen most of the discontent people have with current games journalism has very little to do with reviews and/or reviewers. Arguably disagreement with a reviewers opinion of what they are reviewing is to be expected, and given that so few people even read reviews these days it's hardly a problem.

 

[Something Amyss]

The puzzling part is that people evidently care so bloody much about completely disregardable opinions. If I read a review I disagree with, I say so in the comments or walk away; I don't scream "CONSPIRACY!!!".

Fair enough. I don't read most reviews, and generally go off gameplay vids and the like.

I often make the mistake of operating from the assumption people actually care about the reviews, when I don't think much of anyone does.

 

[jklinders]

I've been about as critical of games journalism as anyone. But now I'm going to play a little devil's advocate with myself here. There has been a few documented instances where the publisher, website relation seems a little too buddy buddy. The Jeff Gerstmann (sp) event a few years back, Doritiogate et al. all have cast some pretty nasty light on how perverse those relations can get. Let's look at the other side though.

Games are a LOT harder to review than movies. A movie reviewer can give a concise fully constructed well written review of a movie in likely less than a day. That's the time needed to view the screening and take notes during, writing, editing, final draft etc etc.

Best case scenario from a reviewer's perspective on a AAA title is around 12-15 hours to rush through the content. That number balloons to over 40 hours for RPGs even today. That could be up to 4 or 5 12 hour days to play through, take notes, check for bugs write first draft, edit, second draft etc etc. And goddam it when I am playing a game I take breaks on my schedule, fairly sure most folks do, but game reviewers do not have that luxury. That is going to breed a certain level of cynicism. Even if they get an advance copy they need to plow through that shit fast in order to have a day one review out. If their publication does not have a lovvey dovvey relationship with the publishers then they are going to be under even more of a time crunch to get that review out while their opinion is still somehow remotely relevant. Then wash rinse and repeat as you need to get these reviews out fast in order to eat.

Then after all that that have to endure the bitchy whiny opinions of both the hopeless fanboys of the franchise/platform/game studio et al who think you are too hard on it and the those on the other side who ***** at you for liking it too much. I swear two months of this and I would be finding people to break my keyboard over the heads of.

It's not an easy job and it would certainly take all fun out of the hobby. And gamers can be a bag of smashed assholes about things to boot.

All of the above said. Politics, religion and probably gender issues are sure fire ways to piss people off. Everyone knows this and everyone who raises such issues does so these days with full knowledge of what they are doing and why. If politics have a purpose for being involved in the review then i will give it a pass. For example, mentioning that a game set in modern or future times has a misogynistic bent to it (say a female character in a professional environment treated as a sex object and that being presented as OK in universe but probably not, say a pimp slapping his prostitutes around as this would not in all likelyhood be presented as positive), I would probably want to know that. On the other hand, if a game is set in medieval Europe, I could fucking care less if there is major black or female characters. Such people of major influence were very rare in such settings and dropping that opinion in has zero relevance to the game.

Presenting personal politics as a reason for gauging a game this or that is fine. but you are kicking a hornet's nest in doing so and no one can claim ignorance to that. This would mean it is in your best interest to make sure these political things are relevant to the content and not just soapboxxing.

Well, that dragged on longer than expected.

 

[JimB]

What is it Yahtzee said in one of his early reviews? "It's worth remembering all reviews are subjective opinions, and my negative opinions shouldn't bother you unless there's a despicable niggling little doubt in the back of your head that maybe you're not having as much fun as you try to convince yourself you are?"

 

[hermes]

It is hard to consider reviews as journalism. Even reviewers that I know have issues with that comparison. They are informed opinions, mostly buying recommendations. Nothing more, nothing less. Not that gaming sites don't have journalists working for them on journalism oriented sections, but those are mostly about news or editorials.

As others have said, being defensive or offended about other people's opinions on things you care about, even if it is minutiae, is not new or exclusive to gaming. Reviews have the added problem of being forced into a scored points system, so a lot of complainers will read nothing but the title and the score before complaining, not reading or caring about the reasoning behind those things. At the end of the day, that says more about the people that complains than reviews.

 

[Major_Tom]

I mean I'm of the opinion that all media reviewers are pointless. In the day and age of Youtube and Lets Plays, why the hell do you need someone to break down a game in-depth when you can judge for yourself if your patient enough to wait a week after release.

Pretty much this. It seems like everyone got stuck in 1999.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

1. Except gaming journalism is less "symbiotic relationship" and more "incest", there's ad revenue, the mentioned early reviews, the infamous "reviewer camps". If a site's life is depends on appeasing game companies then the reviews you get are what the companies would want you to hear.

2. But if you don't have someone who actually likes the genre then he'll have absolutely nothing to compare it to and in case of JRPG's will outright hate it for not being his cup of tea, you NEED to have an experience with a genre to talk on it proffesionally.

3. Don't really care about polygon itself, really, the outcry from this behaviour is testement to how much it became widespread.

I'll try to be brief, as I know I can drone overly long.

1. Circular logic. The possibility of it happening proves it happens. By that logic, anything that's plausible is guaranteed. In reality, any income bias will be more felt by advertising departments, and less likely to reach editorial. Further, any freelancer who writes will be very withdrawn from those biases. If their editor makes too much of a stink, that site would be blacklisted by those writers because work conditions would suck. Too many failure points to be widespread silently.

2. One can be experienced with something and still dislike it. Further, a good review should provide reasoning for its biases. "I don't like random encounters, and this game is plagued with them." still gives its reader enough information to know how they should reflect on that type of statement in a review. If that review doesn't work, there will be at least 10+ others from countless other outlets, freelancers, YouTubers, etc. No review can cover all perspectives, so it's up to the reader to pay attention and actually understand the review rather than taking it as gospel. That's the nature of media, not a flaw of reviewers.

3. "Widespread" in what way? There are more games and game outlets than I could read in my lifetime, much less the fact that hundreds generate at least one article a day continuously. I would think this is more a case of confirmation bias, in as far as people now expect the behavior, and they'll see it everywhere strictly because they're looking for it. Opinions like these have existed at least as far back as print magazines of the 90s.

 

[CaitSeith]

The problem starts when people read reviews for confirmation bias on games they are playing. No, I take that back. The problem starts when reviews don't meet their confirmation bias and they decide to call out the reviewer (because it's clear that either they know better than the reviewer or the reviewer is a big fat lair).

And last, but certinely not least, the "progressiveness" reviewers that decided that a game that doesn't align to their world view should be burned or that they are above the "common" game players (the infamous Polygon Rock Band 4 review).

Wait, isn't that the preview where the guy related more about his woes in that event in Santa Monica and how he disliked those games, than about the game itself. At first it also made me angry that they spent money in sending someone who doesn't even care about music games; but I certainly don't know the details (game journalism is a job, and in any job eventually you have to do something that you don't like to do), and we wouldn't had this TB Masterpiece Theatre [https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/masterpiece-theatre-presents-games-journalism] reading of the article in question. Now I just find it plain hilarious.

 

[Areloch]

I'd say a large part of it is because journalists - not just gaming - very rarely do any fact checking and instead just curb to clickbait or completely unchecked, unsubstantiated reports and throw them up on the internet to 'get the scoop', which means that most journalistic outlets are very largely just reporting trash. Compound this further by some "journalists"(glorified bloggers) who are convinced that there's not any real difference between an official article/review and an op-ed.

Game journalism also has the added bonus of a bad history of selling out to publishers so it's even harder to believe anything they put out is legitimate.

I mean, here's a fun example how how much un-effort goes into checking anything by a bunch of different places: https://www.reddit.com/r/thedivision/comments/4g6osh/hey_rthedivision_agents_im_sorry/

Someone on reddit did a hoax post about a glitch they found in The Division. No pictures, no video. Not only did the commentors on the original thread eat it up without checking(apparently some people that did try to check and found it wrong got downvoted into oblivion) but then several game news sites reported it flat without verifying anything.

Stuff like that is why games journalism has such a negative impression with people anymore.

 

[CaitSeith]

I'd say a large part of it is because journalists - not just gaming - very rarely do any fact checking and instead just curb to clickbait or completely unchecked, unsubstantiated reports and throw them up on the internet to 'get the scoop', which means that most journalistic outlets are very largely just reporting trash. Compound this further by some "journalists"(glorified bloggers) who are convinced that there's not any real difference between an official article/review and an op-ed.

Game journalism also has the added bonus of a bad history of selling out to publishers so it's even harder to believe anything they put out is legitimate.

I mean, here's a fun example how how much un-effort goes into checking anything by a bunch of different places: https://www.reddit.com/r/thedivision/comments/4g6osh/hey_rthedivision_agents_im_sorry/

Someone on reddit did a hoax post about a glitch they found in The Division. No pictures, no video. Not only did the commentors on the original thread eat it up without checking(apparently some people that did try to check and found it wrong got downvoted into oblivion) but then several game news sites reported it flat without verifying anything.

Stuff like that is why games journalism has such a negative impression with people anymore.

The irony about this is that the gaming community was the first one to fall for it and they kept perpetuaiting it; but only the websites are to be shamed. It's funny this standard of considering the community more trustworthy, and yet giving it so much slack when intentional misinformation is spread.

 

[NPC009]

Probably cause there's a divide between reviewers and gamers that has been getting wider over time. Reviewers get their games for free (most of the time) and therefore don't have the same understanding of value that consumers do.

Yeah, uh, that's just not true at all.

1. The games we get are job-related 99% of the time, meaning we have to review them. Many freelancers earn very little from reviews (article rates vary from $20 to $150 or so), meaning it wouldn't even be reasonable to expect them to pay for the games they have to review. You can't play a game 8-12 hours a day, hand the review before the tight deadline and still consider it a hobby.

2. Sure, occasionally we do get a leftover code, but that's mostly just games that weren't deemed interesting enough to review. (Magazines have a limited number of pages. Websites have a budget, they can't commission more articles than the budget allows.)

3. This might come as a surprise, but game critics like games. We still buy things we're interested in with our own money. I know what 40 bucks feels like. Heck, I know that feel better than most people, because I'm being paid shit and 40 bucks is nearly two weeks worth of food.

A good recent example is Mad Max, a game that reviewers gave a good paddling for being boring and uninspiring, but one that gamers overall liked because it had a good value proposition and decent content for the price.

Mad Max has a metacritic score of ~70. Doesn't seem they were overly harsh, atleast to me. I've given many games I like 7s, and there are also plenty of games I like that have recieved 7s from others.

And hey, you should consider the context: game critics play a lot of games. They're quicker to spot games that fail to do anything new or special. And you know what? That's a good thing. There are many, many games that offers loads of content, and many are (much) better than Mad Max. A decent amount of content alone is not enough to rain praise.

Another thing to consider is that not everyone sees games as just something to pass the time with. Many people are looking for games they'll remember, stories and characters that leave an impression, or original level design that forces them to think out of the box - something special. Some of the best games out there aren't particularly long, but they make every bit of playtime count. Considering that many critics have more games to they want to play and than time to actually play them (I know I do!), you shouldn't look surprised if they pick quality over quantity.

Of course, both quality and quantity should be adressed in a review, but in the end value is something very personal. Some people consider spending $50 on a night drinking with friends good value, some would rather buy a new game (or a dozen games during the Steam sales!), while others have no choice but to put it towards the rent or other bills. Judging someone for having somewhat different ideas of what a good balance between quantity and quality is, is useless and a bit childish, if you ask me.

There's also scores. This varies between individuals, but to me, scores are useless.

Many critics agree. Do you know why we still use them? Because a majority of readers wants us to. They feel we aren't doing our job if you aren't putting numbers on everything.

To be fair, scores do serve a purpose, especially in the age of Metacritic. They make it easy to look up various opinions. Want to read both a negative and a positive review to get a better understanding of the game you're thinking about buying? Just click on a review what comes with a '4' attached and one that sports a '8'. Easy.

However, whether you're in favor of scores or not, you should always read the text itself. The score is (or atleast, should be) merely a reflection of that.

(Of course, there's also a reason why websites want to use scores: scores lead the way to Metacritic and being on metacritic is great exposure. And yes, you do need that exposure, because more clicks lead to better ad deals, and more ad revenue means being able to afford better/more content.)

 

[MrFalconfly]

I'd say a large part of it is because journalists - not just gaming - very rarely do any fact checking and instead just curb to clickbait or completely unchecked, unsubstantiated reports and throw them up on the internet to 'get the scoop', which means that most journalistic outlets are very largely just reporting trash. Compound this further by some "journalists"(glorified bloggers) who are convinced that there's not any real difference between an official article/review and an op-ed.

Game journalism also has the added bonus of a bad history of selling out to publishers so it's even harder to believe anything they put out is legitimate.

I mean, here's a fun example how how much un-effort goes into checking anything by a bunch of different places: https://www.reddit.com/r/thedivision/comments/4g6osh/hey_rthedivision_agents_im_sorry/

Someone on reddit did a hoax post about a glitch they found in The Division. No pictures, no video. Not only did the commentors on the original thread eat it up without checking(apparently some people that did try to check and found it wrong got downvoted into oblivion) but then several game news sites reported it flat without verifying anything.

Stuff like that is why games journalism has such a negative impression with people anymore.

Yeah. It's not just Gaming Journalism.

It's as if the entire field of journalism has decided that they're going to refuse to do any research about a story they're reporting on.

If a newspaper is reporting on astronomy you can be damned well sure that it's either going to be inaccurate, or wrong. If a news broadcast is reporting on soldiers dying in Afghanistan, you can be sure that they either don't realize what the soldiers were doing, or why they were there.

So the question is, if the news reporters get the "nerdy" stuff wrong, about science, or technology, or warfare, then why do we believe them when they talk about politics and economics.

If the journalists refuse to do any research about any subjects, then why should I feel anything other than scepticism and negativism towards them?

 

[manolocego11]

Plenty of reasons people have become hostile to game journos:
http://www.deepfreeze.it/

And this piece in particular explains the moment when game jouros & gamers entered real conflict. I've been gaming all of my life, and up in till that point, I've never seen so much negativity towards the gaming press.
http://www.deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=enemy

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Point 1

Rebuttal 1

Point 2

Rebuttal 2

Scores

Rebuttal to scores

Job related or not, that doesn't mean that the majority of your exposure to games isn't free. You guys aren't like pirates who can get anything for free for the sake of entertainment, but considering the fact that you are observing and evaluating the game for said entertainment value, I can understand why a lot of regular gamers take umbrage with stuff like say, Gone Home(not related to you specifically).

It doesn't mean that you guys don't have a grasp on value, but it is a fact that you guys are exposed to games in a different way to everyone else. Job-wise or not, regardless if you buy games you don't get through code or just because you want to give back, there is still a divide, and I can understand why because of it some people may not trust games journalists to properly represent them. I understand how unfeasible the alternative would be, as well as the fact that it's a reality of dealing with a luxury hobby like video games, but it is something that influences gamers' opinions of the scene.

RE: Mad Max

That encapsulates a lot of issues that people have with journos. For one, a 7/10 on Metacritic doesn't just mean that 'it's a good game but not worth its asking price' because of the culture that scores have bred. A lot of people take it personally, and they take it especially personally if they enjoy a game like this for its popcorn-entertainment value. This is a flawed view, but to them it will discourage others from playing the game regardless of how engaging it may be, because said scores wield a stupidly arbitrary power in the games industry(let's not forget Fallout New Vegas whilst we're at it). Taste is subjective, yes, but this was one of the most recent examples where there was a very noticeable difference in opinions between the press and the gaming audience at large, and I don't think you can attribute that solely to individual taste.

Yes, reviwers have to play through a lot of crap often and are therefore better at spotting poorer game design, but this was almost unanimous. It again went back to value proposition argument that a lot of gamers have problems with, because the press in question get said game as part of their job, and therefore fundamentally lose a sense of risk and investment for that particular game. It's not that they never experience that, but regular gamers experience it far more often, and are more willing to compromise in order for a game to just fill the time and make light entertainment instead of having to be the next Dark Souls.

TotalBiscuit explains it much better than I ever will, since I am arguing for the sake of other people. Personally, I didn't really care much for Mad Max since it wasn't a game that piqued my interest to begin with, and I'm in a good enough position where I have many alternatives to traditional gaming press with which to decide on a purchase. But this is a reality; it's like the divide between film critics and Hardcore Henry. Some people enjoyed it just for the spectacle and forgave everything just for its presentation alone, but because the story wasn't engaging and the cinematography was just an excuse to frame the action in an otherwise gimmicky way, a lot of film critics thought it was mediocre.


RE: Scores

That self-perpetuating problem is why I despise them even more and why I think metacritic should be done away with. It's simple to say 'just read the review' but a lot of people won't. Justifying it by saying that metacritic gives exposure and that's what matters just makes me feel disheartened about the state of the press. It makes it seem, well, desperate as a field and that leads to unfortunate implications, especially whenever we get to sponsored content. The doom of Eurogamer might serve as an example with which to discourage getting rid of scores, but considering how many people have made careers out of not giving scores, I frankly don't buy that. I don't know, maybe it's a new media vs. old media type of thing and that's what needs to change. Readers can say that they prefer scores, but a lot of readers probably watch Let's Plays and TB's influence looms large over PC gaming at this moment, so either they're hypocrites, or the issue resides elsewhere on how to evaluate a game with or without scores.