Jimquisition: Integrity, Journalism, and Free PS4s
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The guy I think you are referring to is TotalBiscuit/TotalHalibut also known as the Cynical Brit (kind of redundant if you ask me). Jim has had experiences like that with the Hydrophobia reviewers and recently Microsoft's PR trying to temper/change his opinions.Silentpony said:
As for games receiving lots of 10/10, I see it as a case of reviewers being excited gamers at the end of the day. Although a game like GTA 5 for example will also receive higher scores than other games because it's relatively simple to complete the story or to learn all mechanics compared to a more complex genre like fighting games. They require learning lots of mechanics, timings, combos, exploits to master and completely enjoy. So reviewers have an easier time with GTA 5 and are more willing to give a higher score, of course this is not always the case. This is why I feel review sites should have more specialized reviewers, but that's another topic.
Why waste breath for idiots who say that?
It's like arguing with someone who wants to tell you that "there never has been good backwards compatibility and no one wants it anyway", at some point there is just no salvageable brain matter for you to work with and you're talking to a brick wall.
It's like arguing with someone who wants to tell you that "there never has been good backwards compatibility and no one wants it anyway", at some point there is just no salvageable brain matter for you to work with and you're talking to a brick wall.
You know what, I don't know if you are incredibly smart or just everyone is mostly stupid, but anyway you really stand out.
But really, it makes them sound whinny and immature. Besides, that happens in other industries as well, from movies (even Moviebob talks about it here!) to books.
But really, it makes them sound whinny and immature. Besides, that happens in other industries as well, from movies (even Moviebob talks about it here!) to books.
As a journalist myself, I certainly understand people's concerns and it is a bit of a touchy subject. But Jim's also got a good, legitimate point; this is about providing necessary resources for him to do his job. Now when a person's job is evaluating and critiquing entertainment, it does add an all new layer of nuance to the whole issue. One can rightly argue "sure it's a tool to do your job, but you're getting PAID to play video games, it's awesome enough as it is, do the companies really need to be pampering reviewers even MORE by making their games and systems free?" But on the flip side, one can also rightly argue "Gaming for fun and gaming for work are not the same thing, because one is done at your leisure with things you like and done in a relaxed mindset, while the other is done because you have to with games you may not necessarily want to play and done while concentrating on all aspects of the game to scrutinize, analyze, take notes, compare to other games of the same type, and later on likely do some research on the development to determine how certain things came to be."
There's no doubt critiquing games as an occupation is going to have some very big upsides to it. You get access to the latest games, often without having to pay for them, and your occupation coincides with your hobby so there's no question for many it sounds like a dream job (and for some no doubt it would be). BUT it is still work, your reviews have to reflect thorough analysis of the game in question, do so within a deadline, you're not likely going to be at liberty to cherry-pick your assignments and will have to play what you're required to instead of what you want to. Like movie critics, book critics and restaurant critics, there's little doubt game critics love the subject matter of their job, but they are expected to have informed opinions on it, and that often doesn't come without research on parts of the subject that you don't pick up on just by watching them. You've also got to play through/sit through/read through/swallow the lousy drek to be able to know by comparison what's better. And the hell of it is, as with any sort of publicized articles or broadcasts, there will be criticism of your reviews; from the people with differing opinions that want to debate you on it, to the people who think you left things out or missed something or ignored something about a game to the ill-tempered jerks that want to tell you - in ugly tones of voice - how to do your job and think you're incompetent.
So in a nutshell, yeah, I have to imagine being a game critic is an incredibly fun job at its high points. But I can't imagine it's all wine and roses.
There's no doubt critiquing games as an occupation is going to have some very big upsides to it. You get access to the latest games, often without having to pay for them, and your occupation coincides with your hobby so there's no question for many it sounds like a dream job (and for some no doubt it would be). BUT it is still work, your reviews have to reflect thorough analysis of the game in question, do so within a deadline, you're not likely going to be at liberty to cherry-pick your assignments and will have to play what you're required to instead of what you want to. Like movie critics, book critics and restaurant critics, there's little doubt game critics love the subject matter of their job, but they are expected to have informed opinions on it, and that often doesn't come without research on parts of the subject that you don't pick up on just by watching them. You've also got to play through/sit through/read through/swallow the lousy drek to be able to know by comparison what's better. And the hell of it is, as with any sort of publicized articles or broadcasts, there will be criticism of your reviews; from the people with differing opinions that want to debate you on it, to the people who think you left things out or missed something or ignored something about a game to the ill-tempered jerks that want to tell you - in ugly tones of voice - how to do your job and think you're incompetent.
So in a nutshell, yeah, I have to imagine being a game critic is an incredibly fun job at its high points. But I can't imagine it's all wine and roses.
Just as my laughter had subsided from you showing off your lovely PS4, You game journalismed. You game journalismed everywhere and I could not control myself.
I actually think this post perfectly exemplifies the reason why average gamers make poor "critics".misterprickly said:
If you had a faulty system you are implying that you would rate it rather harshly much like many users on amazon bombing with 1 star reviews as opposed to many critics who would notify their audience about the possible faulty hardware issue and wait until they get a working system to fairly review the system and launch lineup (such as TB who did get a faulty system.Of course TB isn't a reviewer but his approach is the most sensible).
An anime reviewer was begged by the head of the UK arm of a distributor to give a title a bad review, otherwise 'Japan will make us release it' - IE, the guy knew it wouldn't sell in the UK, but it would take an actual bad review to convince the people above him what he was telling them.Lightknight said:
Did that last bit void the warranty? 
All jokes aside, I have to respectfully disagree here. A lot of the critics of the gaming media, myself included, view it as being institutionally corrupt, with the exceptions standing out from the crowd, rather than being the rule. It *IS* a valid point that a games reviewer who puts out a regular feature is likely to not be able to afford all the latest games and hardware out of what they are paid. However that in of itself is a part of why it's become institutionally corrupt, games reviewers, and arguably the people who hire them, are not independent of the industry they are supposed to critique. The publishers tend to rely on advertising from the companies they are supposed to be watchdogging in order to stay afloat, leading to things like the Gerstman "Kane and Lynch" scandal, and the reviewers themselves are dependent on the industry to do their thing. Something which arguably means that the industry can control the narrative by deciding who does and does not get the materials to be a reviewer, as well as effectively bankrolling the people who are paying them.
At the end of the day being a games reviewer is a relatively cushy job. Games reviewers will go off about schedules, and not simply sitting around paying games for fun. It's true that once your given a time limit and requirements it can suck a lot of the fun out of everything, but at the same time a professional game reviewer gets to work outside of their own home, generally does not have to commute, and while there is stress it is nothing compared to what an ordinary person deals with on the job, not to mention the complete lack of physical risk. To put it comparatively having worked 10 years as Casino security which was an okay job (especially in the beginning) and having worked as an EVS attendant before that (basically a Janitor) and then done jobs working fast food, panning doughnuts for a bake shop, as a clerk at Toys R Us, and similar things, a game reviewer has it bloody good, that is how life is for most normal people. What's more professional games reviewers on the level we're talking about get trotted out once or twice a year, and pretty much get to be part of a global celebration, as gaming companies come out and try and wow them at things like E3 and the like, which is something us plebes aren't likely to even attend. Do you think I ever got anything like that working Casino security? Nope, instead I got to sit around and basically help run/secure that kind of event for people (albeit not gaming related, but various kind of shows for various industries), critics and the like might say attending such show is not "fun" and is still "working" but as someone who actually worked and got to see the whole thing, all I can do is laugh.
Now do NOT misunderstand this, the point isn't bitterness over someone having it better than I did (where I am now is pretty pathetic, so I won't go into that), it's a matter of putting this into perspective, and where a lot of the hatred is coming from. The entire gaming media system is effectively broken in being able to do what it does. The game reviewers and publishers are both basically beholden to the industry in their own way. Whether it's a tool or not, the bottom line is your looking at a cushy perk viewed with envy by people who can't drop $400 right now, and even if they could might not even be able to find console to buy, combined with some over the top grandstanding.
Now, I would be remiss in writing a post this size without pointing out the problems with the gaming media without pointing to the solution as I see it. I believe publishers should ultimately only accept advertising from products outside the sphere of what they are providing reviews of. A site related to internet gaming should not be advertising or accepting money from companies producing video games. Related products are of course okay, hardware manufacturers, snack food producers, and similar things are the kinds of advertising that should be accepted and would be okay. What's more the producers should be the ones to provide the review materials, which might very well mean having say a company PS-4 or two and then having the reviewers come in and punch a clock like a normal person and play a game in a cubicle. Media events and the attendance thereof pretty much shouldn't happen. Rather a company should release their games to the public and then the reviewers go to work. This would of course mean gaming companies would not see their profits a few days after release, or even beforehand, they would also become more dependent on the quality of the actual release, not a demo or "press copy" released ahead of time so reviews could drum up hype for a product.
Speaking for myself there are only a scant handful of fairly well known reviewers and game critics I trust and take seriously. I still frequent The Escapist so you can make a guess where some of them are. For the most part when I look to reviews I increasingly look at not-for-profit micro reviewers that give their take on a game after it's release. Either that or user criticisms, which frankly are becoming harder to take seriously due to the number of message board shills being used nowadays (some of which have admitted having been in that "profession")
Such are my thoughts, and I think they are similar to a lot of the people that are so upset about this. The thing is that your seeing a situation where game reviewers are becoming less watchdogs, and more very minor celebrities, seeing someone who is already E-famous being handed swag bags full of gaming stuff, whether they need it "professionally" or not, and going to these events, makes people VERY, VERY, wary when their comfort, and success is directly tied to the good graces of the people they are supposed to be critical of.
All jokes aside, I have to respectfully disagree here. A lot of the critics of the gaming media, myself included, view it as being institutionally corrupt, with the exceptions standing out from the crowd, rather than being the rule. It *IS* a valid point that a games reviewer who puts out a regular feature is likely to not be able to afford all the latest games and hardware out of what they are paid. However that in of itself is a part of why it's become institutionally corrupt, games reviewers, and arguably the people who hire them, are not independent of the industry they are supposed to critique. The publishers tend to rely on advertising from the companies they are supposed to be watchdogging in order to stay afloat, leading to things like the Gerstman "Kane and Lynch" scandal, and the reviewers themselves are dependent on the industry to do their thing. Something which arguably means that the industry can control the narrative by deciding who does and does not get the materials to be a reviewer, as well as effectively bankrolling the people who are paying them.
At the end of the day being a games reviewer is a relatively cushy job. Games reviewers will go off about schedules, and not simply sitting around paying games for fun. It's true that once your given a time limit and requirements it can suck a lot of the fun out of everything, but at the same time a professional game reviewer gets to work outside of their own home, generally does not have to commute, and while there is stress it is nothing compared to what an ordinary person deals with on the job, not to mention the complete lack of physical risk. To put it comparatively having worked 10 years as Casino security which was an okay job (especially in the beginning) and having worked as an EVS attendant before that (basically a Janitor) and then done jobs working fast food, panning doughnuts for a bake shop, as a clerk at Toys R Us, and similar things, a game reviewer has it bloody good, that is how life is for most normal people. What's more professional games reviewers on the level we're talking about get trotted out once or twice a year, and pretty much get to be part of a global celebration, as gaming companies come out and try and wow them at things like E3 and the like, which is something us plebes aren't likely to even attend. Do you think I ever got anything like that working Casino security? Nope, instead I got to sit around and basically help run/secure that kind of event for people (albeit not gaming related, but various kind of shows for various industries), critics and the like might say attending such show is not "fun" and is still "working" but as someone who actually worked and got to see the whole thing, all I can do is laugh.
Now do NOT misunderstand this, the point isn't bitterness over someone having it better than I did (where I am now is pretty pathetic, so I won't go into that), it's a matter of putting this into perspective, and where a lot of the hatred is coming from. The entire gaming media system is effectively broken in being able to do what it does. The game reviewers and publishers are both basically beholden to the industry in their own way. Whether it's a tool or not, the bottom line is your looking at a cushy perk viewed with envy by people who can't drop $400 right now, and even if they could might not even be able to find console to buy, combined with some over the top grandstanding.
Now, I would be remiss in writing a post this size without pointing out the problems with the gaming media without pointing to the solution as I see it. I believe publishers should ultimately only accept advertising from products outside the sphere of what they are providing reviews of. A site related to internet gaming should not be advertising or accepting money from companies producing video games. Related products are of course okay, hardware manufacturers, snack food producers, and similar things are the kinds of advertising that should be accepted and would be okay. What's more the producers should be the ones to provide the review materials, which might very well mean having say a company PS-4 or two and then having the reviewers come in and punch a clock like a normal person and play a game in a cubicle. Media events and the attendance thereof pretty much shouldn't happen. Rather a company should release their games to the public and then the reviewers go to work. This would of course mean gaming companies would not see their profits a few days after release, or even beforehand, they would also become more dependent on the quality of the actual release, not a demo or "press copy" released ahead of time so reviews could drum up hype for a product.
Speaking for myself there are only a scant handful of fairly well known reviewers and game critics I trust and take seriously. I still frequent The Escapist so you can make a guess where some of them are. For the most part when I look to reviews I increasingly look at not-for-profit micro reviewers that give their take on a game after it's release. Either that or user criticisms, which frankly are becoming harder to take seriously due to the number of message board shills being used nowadays (some of which have admitted having been in that "profession")
Such are my thoughts, and I think they are similar to a lot of the people that are so upset about this. The thing is that your seeing a situation where game reviewers are becoming less watchdogs, and more very minor celebrities, seeing someone who is already E-famous being handed swag bags full of gaming stuff, whether they need it "professionally" or not, and going to these events, makes people VERY, VERY, wary when their comfort, and success is directly tied to the good graces of the people they are supposed to be critical of.
I've reviewed a few games for a professional outlet and my fee was always increased to include the price of the title (essentially getting it for free).
Not once, however, was I ever instructed or felt obligated to give a game a particular score. What must be understood is that 'reviewing' games and 'playing' games are actually very different. You have a deadline to meet; which means you have to do a quick assessment on whether you found certain features in the game fun or not and then very quickly move on.
Now you may have fun doing it, but reviewing games is very much a 'job'; it is very much work. Does the game you're reviewing suck? Is it so much of a pain to play that you would rather do literally anything else? TOO BAD! You have to finish it, you have to talk about what was good about it, and you have to give it an honest score. That you got it for free is immaterial and does not dull the sting of a crappy game.
You know what is likely to influence a reviewer more than a company giving him free shit? YOU! The consumer. If people aren't trafficking his site, then his site gets no money and then he's out of the job. I've had fellow reviewers sweat a few scores -not because they feared that the game's company would get pissed- but because there'd be an outcry among the readers.
Not once, however, was I ever instructed or felt obligated to give a game a particular score. What must be understood is that 'reviewing' games and 'playing' games are actually very different. You have a deadline to meet; which means you have to do a quick assessment on whether you found certain features in the game fun or not and then very quickly move on.
Now you may have fun doing it, but reviewing games is very much a 'job'; it is very much work. Does the game you're reviewing suck? Is it so much of a pain to play that you would rather do literally anything else? TOO BAD! You have to finish it, you have to talk about what was good about it, and you have to give it an honest score. That you got it for free is immaterial and does not dull the sting of a crappy game.
You know what is likely to influence a reviewer more than a company giving him free shit? YOU! The consumer. If people aren't trafficking his site, then his site gets no money and then he's out of the job. I've had fellow reviewers sweat a few scores -not because they feared that the game's company would get pissed- but because there'd be an outcry among the readers.
