Poll: Do game reviews/game editorials constitute video game journalism?

[Blue C Jeffrey]

This is a small question that popped into my head a bit after #Gamergate started.

When I thought of video gaming journalism, I thought of articles detailing events such as Crytek not paying its staff or the recent Warner Bros. branding deals. Stuff being investigated within the industry in the interest of transparency and public awareness.

That could just be my idealism talking though.

Outside of objective happenings, however, is it fair to equate bad reviews/editorials with bad journalism? Both are subjective viewpoints from an individual (or group of individuals with some review publications). Even if the review or editorial came from an apparent journalist turns out to be shit, would that make the individual a shit journalist as a result?


I've been wanting to post this after viewing reactions to Polygon's review of Shadows of Mordor, with some commentators on the silly perspective within the article (kissing = killing) basically stating "This is why I think game journalism is shit."

But is it game journalism?

I don't want to argue either or (I may play Devil's Advocate though), I want to read some interesting views on the subject.

 

[Mezahmay]

I think that depends whether or not you count film review as film journalism since it's the closest analog to video game reviews that comes to mind. I personally don't due to the inherent preferences an individual reviewer can have, like a scaled-up form of the Rashomon effect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect] whereas journalism entails reporting facts and relaying information.

 

[ExiledCreature]

I think it's too idealistic to draw a boundary between gaming "news" and game reviews - even if the staff on some website is separated in a news team and a reviews team. After all, a review is (free) advertising for the game. For example, getting bribed or influenced to write a good review of something is a violation of journalistic integrity.

 

[veloper]

Who cares what name we call it? Even if game journalism isn't real journalism, that doesn't mean it cannot have any standards. We cannot enforce them, but we CAN look elsewhere.

I've come to realize that the shrek poster did have a point: we cannot really demand anything from online review mags, because they owe us nothing.
They need an audience for page view hits, which suggest their worth to advertisers, but (in the vast majority of cases) we don't pay for anything (printed game mags are the dying exception to this rule).

The publishers=advertisers are basicly paying the wages, so why not just fucking advertise and call it a review? Apart from pride, contrariness or a personal sense of integrity that is.
So those three are what I'm looking for in reviewers and critics at the moment.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Well yeah, reviewing is a part of journalism.

 

[Hap2]

I'm a journalist.

Editorials are an important part of journalism - they're basically mini-essays arguing for or against a point; meaning, they need evidence and good reasoning to back them up. They're found frequently in columns, feature pieces for magazines, and more often now on websites. Some of the best journalism comes from editorials, columns and even books - for example, The Armageddon Factor is an excellent piece of journalism about Canadian politics written within the last few years.

People tend to confuse what counts as journalism, believing the only thing it can be is daily basic information. When it comes to art journalism, video games included, criticism and editorials are going to be more common. Having two dozen game websites/magazines that only do basic information is a surefire way to sink your business - no one can stand out. A variety of interesting, quality content is important and editorials and reviews written by unique writers found nowhere else is a part of that.

 

[Windcaler]

This is a small question that popped into my head a bit after #Gamergate started.

When I thought of video gaming journalism, I thought of articles detailing events such as Crytek not paying its staff or the recent Warner Bros. branding deals. Stuff being investigated within the industry in the interest of transparency and public awareness.

That could just be my idealism talking though.

Outside of objective happenings, however, is it fair to equate bad reviews/editorials with bad journalism? Both are subjective viewpoints from an individual (or group of individuals with some review publications). Even if the review or editorial came from an apparent journalist turns out to be shit, would that make the individual a shit journalist as a result?


I've been wanting to post this after viewing reactions to Polygon's review of Shadows of Mordor, with some commentators on the silly perspective within the article (kissing = killing) basically stating "This is why I think game journalism is shit."

But is it game journalism?

I don't want to argue either or (I may play Devil's Advocate though), I want to read some interesting views on the subject.

I do think they fall under journalism. If a close friend of yours makes a game and you have to review it there is a potential for your personal relationship with them to get in the way. In these cases it appropriate that the journalist in question should be transparant about their relationship or alternatively recuse themselves.

I do want to talk about the idea of bad reviews. A bad review to me is not a review that gives a game a low score or rakes it across the coals because its a bad game. Thats a good review in the sense that a reviewer did their job to inform the consumer.

To me a bad review is a review that doesnt try to learn the game itself, doesnt inform the consumer on important points, doesnt understand the mechanics of the game, and/or comminicates its points (positive and negative) poorly to the consumer. With this way of thinking a good game can get a bad review and a bad game can get a good review regardless of whether they paint the game as worthy of a purchase or not.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Analysis is journalism, so yes.

Of course just because something is "journalism" doesn't mean it's good, you're free disagree with it if you want.

 

[Aleenik]

Of course they constitute journalism. However, when it comes to reviews, I don't care what game "journalists" think at all. If I want to know if a game is good or bad, I look to my peers, not some people who are making money off of me reading their review and being bombarded with their ads. This goes for reviews of all other types of entertainment media as well.

 

[QuicklyAcross]

Absolutely.
Its analytical content presented to critique something, which is then published for people to view.
You can however be a reviewer without being a journalist but you still created journalist content.