Why So Serious

[Ericb]

Our job isn't life changing. It is meant to be life enhancing. It's meant to give you the same kind of distraction and bemusement that the industry we cover strives for.

I've always seen game journalists as not quite "journalists", but a cross between entertainment reporters and critics. However, that's no excuse to treat the medium frivolously. Film and novel critics can treat their subject seriously with a insight that goes far beyond the sheer entertainment value of a work, there's no need to focus primarily on the entertainment mandate.

Listen to this dude up here.

To me the ideal of a Games Journalist is a gatherer and disseminator of information who sould strive for an unbiased viewpoint about their specific topic of choice, this case here being videogames.

It's not because today's games journalists are wild fans biting the carrot handed out by the industry that they should be satisfied and happy with that position.

I do believe that this can be a life changing profession if it entails thorough invesgation and analysis of games, far beyond the simple scope of how "fun" or realistic they manage to be.

Little by little the industry would realize they would be dealing with watchdogs rathers than domesticated puppys, and because of that they would have to work harder to achieve a minimum acceptable level of respectable creativity in their work, rather than the derivative drivel that has been produced.

To bemuse and distract an audience is definitely no job for a journalist, you got that right.

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

To bemuse and distract an audience is definitely no job for a journalist, you got that right.

Or for a games reporter/critic (ok, it doesn't roll of the tongue). And I hope this isn't a widespread attitude, as there are so many developers with a serious commitment to their craft as an artform that their work is deserving of better coverage. I also don't like the way Sean Sands reduces the entire game industry to the level he perpetuates in his own field of work. Sure, some is just mindless entertainment, but a rare few strive to do more than simply bemuse the player.

 

[Ray Huling]

There are a lot of people I would consider industry journalists, like the Gamasutra staff, [who] keep a grip on the business and finance aspect of video games.

I agree with this, in that journalism means reporting.

I usually correct people when they call me a journalist and explain that I'm a video game critic.

But here I disagree. I think video game criticism ought to involve reporting, in contradistinction to other kinds of entertainment criticism. Video game criticism should be more like journalism than like standard criticism.

Otherwise they're all just writing advertisements (previews) or criticism (reviews) for games.

Cruel, but we both know you would have been perfectly justified in being crueler.

Really, though, I don't think the fundamental problem with game journalism is simply that most of it amounts to shilling for developers, publishers, and console makers. No; it's more basic than that. Look at this passage from the piece:


"Our job isn't life changing. It is meant to be life enhancing. It's meant to give you the same kind of distraction and bemusement that the industry we cover strives for."

Sands thinks 'bemuse' is a fancy way of saying 'amuse'. So sad, so typical.

Plus, he romanticizes international reporting. We shouldn't measure the importance of journalism by the danger inherent in doing it. No journalism is more important or has more direct impact than small-town news reporting. There's little danger in covering the zoning board, but, if we consider how this work affects people, we'd have to rank it above all other forms of journalism.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

I still say we have more journalistic integrity than celebrity gossip columnists.

Then again, I suppose there's a lot of similarities when you think about it.. Now I have to go console myself after this terrible revelation.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I usually correct people when they call me a journalist and explain that I'm a video game critic.

But here I disagree. I think video game criticism ought to involve reporting, in contradistinction to other kinds of entertainment criticism. Video game criticism should be more like journalism than like standard criticism.

Fair enough, I remember this argument from last time. I guess I do find myself interviewing people a lot when it comes to video games just because of how important individual experiences are. I just finished interviewing a bunch of PvP Diablo 2 players to understand how they operate because it was so different from how I personally played the game.

So in that sense, journalism can certainly be incorporated into criticism. In many cases, it's arguably essential.

 

[UtopiaV1]

I hate 'reviewers' on this site who claim to be reviewing a game for the public, but who are actually just stringing together phrases like "It's really good, cos... you know... erm... it's revolutionary..." - or - "Man this totally sucks, cos it's like shit in the toilet, and it reeks of poo...". It is reviewing without quality or even substance. Not only is this unfair on the people umming and ahhing over buying a new game, but the developers suffer as their work is unfairly quantified by a acutely biased flame-war starter.

I can't believe some people get paid for this low-quality work, but they get away with it because no-one calls them up on it. No-one listens to the voices on the internet because everyone is shouting to be heard, and when people do listen to others they realise that they're shouting because they actually don't have anything to say, they just want to be heard.

Anyone who does want to review games is actually a gamer who cannot write reviews for toffee. Anyone who doesn't want to review games but has to for the sake of their career won't care what drivel they churn out, just as long as they entertain enough of the readership so they get paid.

This is not always the case, but I would love it if people could point out anyone (besides Shamus Young, Yahtzee, MovieBob, and to some extent Noah Antwiler) who is a competent reviewer AND a fellow gamer. Please.

 

[Echolocating]

don't forget we grow with the games we've played, like wine tasting, it's important to keep the palette cleansed & remember who the games are actually for?

Huh?

 

[Credge]

No one, but unfortunately a lot of gaming journalism is on the exact opposite end of the spectrum, which is bad in a different way when you get past the hype. I wonder about things like, will Molyneux ever pay for the development of his own game and leave the publisher model so 80% of the features he blathers on about will actually be in his game?

I'd rather have hard-nosed, stony faced, stiff-upper-lip games journalism than the crap we have now. I agree with this though.

Then again, I also understand that the video game industry is really just a bunch of big corporations who want to keep it that way. They've created a development model that makes it seem impossible for a small group of individuals to compete in. Who are the rock stars of the game industry? EA? Nintendo? There's a real lack of any human element in covering the game industry.

And maybe that's why video game journalism doesn't seem to get the respect it deserves because the industry is really devoid of human beings; it's all about the games and the companies. And faceless corporations and electronic games give really shitty interviews.

It doesn't get any respect because it doesn't exist. There's nobody out there just giving facts.

I mean, look. Twitter is retarded. The only 'people' that really care about it are little girls, news orginizations, some celebrities, and big businesses. People our age, specifically those who play games, really don't care about Twitter. Yet, it being added on to the 360 is supposed to be the biggest announcement of E3?

Really?

REALLY?

It's all phony. It's turned in to what the music and movie industries did in the 80's. Just terrible.

 

[Ray Huling]

And maybe that's why video game journalism doesn't seem to get the respect it deserves because the industry is really devoid of human beings; it's all about the games and the companies. And faceless corporations and electronic games give really shitty interviews.

Won't anyone think of the players?!?

 

[Ray Huling]

I guess I do find myself interviewing people a lot when it comes to video games just because of how important individual experiences are. I just finished interviewing a bunch of PvP Diablo 2 players to understand how they operate because it was so different from how I personally played the game.

So in that sense, journalism can certainly be incorporated into criticism. In many cases, it's arguably essential.

Power to the people!

 

[Nycto]

i will probably end up going into journalism but report on games either as a starting point or on the side hobby. i can see the great perks that come with the proffession.but hey, someones got to sit on their couch and play video games all day and then have a bit of a rant about it, otheriwse those without friends for word of mouth will be lost forever ;P

 

[Echolocating]

And maybe that's why video game journalism doesn't seem to get the respect it deserves because the industry is really devoid of human beings; it's all about the games and the companies. And faceless corporations and electronic games give really shitty interviews.

Won't anyone think of the players?!?

What do you mean?

 

[Sewblon]

If games journalists should only write about things that the intended audience will eventually experience for themselves, what is the point? The consumer base and industry would be better off without games journalism as it is, most of the time it just misleads consumers and distracts developers and distributors(by consumers I mean me). Most of the games writers I know of are not only bad journalists, but bad writers, how many more signs do you need that something is wrong with games writing? Also, Unbiased reporting does not exist, the human brain can't analyze information without assigning an opinion to it.

 

[nipsen]

Uh.. sure. I suppose I could do without the constant self- important declarations at least once in a while. But what people who can speak for themselves - instead of being handily spoken for by others - are complaining about is how gaming journalists are not covering things gamers want to know about, but what publishing houses insist they should be most impressed with. Because this results in "people" putting in the disc of one award- winning game after another, only to be severely disappointed.

So the criticism of game- journalists is that you are generally not gamers. You don't care about playing games. Instead you're running around and asking the sources you do have about what they like for lunch, or what sort of music they have on their iPods. In spite of the fact that whenever a developer is asked a real question, it's impossible to get them to stop talking - because they want to talk about their game. And players want to hear as well.

But no - gaming journalists are not interested in that. They are interested in the buzz and the hype in itself, along with serving their own inflated opinions. And therefore not simply being "not journalists". But very bad journalists.

 

[randommaster]

This seems to be saying that games journalists are like substitute teachers ("I'm not a real teacher!"). I think you're being a bit hard on you and your kind, Sean.

I hope this question isn't too off-topic. And I hope Sean reads through the comments. When you are doing a preview were you under a contract to give it a glowing preview no matter how bad the actual game is? I assume when you do a preview you get some hands on demo of the game and that it is not the full game. It just seems to me that whenever I read a preview the person writing it praises it to the high heavens. And any negative point (which is usually a technical problem like lag) is followed by "it should be fixed in the full version." Why can't I ever find a bad but honest preview of a game? Where they say you know the gameplay is broken or just not fun.

You wouldn't go up to guy guys building your house and start yelling at them for forgetting to include a roof when they're only thwo days into it, would you? A demo is going to be incomplete and there's no sense in criticizing things that won't actually appear in the game upon release. Previews are for telling peop;e about what new things are going to be in the game, but the review is where you actually turn a critical eye towards the game. Nobody expects their five-year old child to create a masterpiece in art class.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

It sounds like journalist has become a fairly lose term.

 

[squid5580]

This seems to be saying that games journalists are like substitute teachers ("I'm not a real teacher!"). I think you're being a bit hard on you and your kind, Sean.

I hope this question isn't too off-topic. And I hope Sean reads through the comments. When you are doing a preview were you under a contract to give it a glowing preview no matter how bad the actual game is? I assume when you do a preview you get some hands on demo of the game and that it is not the full game. It just seems to me that whenever I read a preview the person writing it praises it to the high heavens. And any negative point (which is usually a technical problem like lag) is followed by "it should be fixed in the full version." Why can't I ever find a bad but honest preview of a game? Where they say you know the gameplay is broken or just not fun.

You wouldn't go up to guy guys building your house and start yelling at them for forgetting to include a roof when they're only thwo days into it, would you? A demo is going to be incomplete and there's no sense in criticizing things that won't actually appear in the game upon release. Previews are for telling peop;e about what new things are going to be in the game, but the review is where you actually turn a critical eye towards the game. Nobody expects their five-year old child to create a masterpiece in art class.

So then a demo is useless? It doesn't give you an idea of what the full game will be like? And because of that a preview should be completely positive?

 

[randommaster]

This seems to be saying that games journalists are like substitute teachers ("I'm not a real teacher!"). I think you're being a bit hard on you and your kind, Sean.

I hope this question isn't too off-topic. And I hope Sean reads through the comments. When you are doing a preview were you under a contract to give it a glowing preview no matter how bad the actual game is? I assume when you do a preview you get some hands on demo of the game and that it is not the full game. It just seems to me that whenever I read a preview the person writing it praises it to the high heavens. And any negative point (which is usually a technical problem like lag) is followed by "it should be fixed in the full version." Why can't I ever find a bad but honest preview of a game? Where they say you know the gameplay is broken or just not fun.

You wouldn't go up to guy guys building your house and start yelling at them for forgetting to include a roof when they're only thwo days into it, would you? A demo is going to be incomplete and there's no sense in criticizing things that won't actually appear in the game upon release. Previews are for telling peop;e about what new things are going to be in the game, but the review is where you actually turn a critical eye towards the game. Nobody expects their five-year old child to create a masterpiece in art class.

So then a demo is useless? It doesn't give you an idea of what the full game will be like? And because of that a preview should be completely positive?

A demo isn't useless, it's just not the time to start criticising things like lag and bad textures, as the developers may have simply put something together for the audience and didn't bother, or are unable, to clean the demo up much.

A demo's purpose, as far as preview articles go, is to show of the general ideas and mechanics the game will be using and it is generally understood by the people playing the demo that even anyhting they comment on could very well change by the time the game is released. A demo for the mass market, however, is different and should be bug-free.

 

[squid5580]

This seems to be saying that games journalists are like substitute teachers ("I'm not a real teacher!"). I think you're being a bit hard on you and your kind, Sean.

I hope this question isn't too off-topic. And I hope Sean reads through the comments. When you are doing a preview were you under a contract to give it a glowing preview no matter how bad the actual game is? I assume when you do a preview you get some hands on demo of the game and that it is not the full game. It just seems to me that whenever I read a preview the person writing it praises it to the high heavens. And any negative point (which is usually a technical problem like lag) is followed by "it should be fixed in the full version." Why can't I ever find a bad but honest preview of a game? Where they say you know the gameplay is broken or just not fun.

You wouldn't go up to guy guys building your house and start yelling at them for forgetting to include a roof when they're only thwo days into it, would you? A demo is going to be incomplete and there's no sense in criticizing things that won't actually appear in the game upon release. Previews are for telling peop;e about what new things are going to be in the game, but the review is where you actually turn a critical eye towards the game. Nobody expects their five-year old child to create a masterpiece in art class.

So then a demo is useless? It doesn't give you an idea of what the full game will be like? And because of that a preview should be completely positive?

A demo isn't useless, it's just not the time to start criticising things like lag and bad textures, as the developers may have simply put something together for the audience and didn't bother, or are unable, to clean the demo up much.

A demo's purpose, as far as preview articles go, is to show of the general ideas and mechanics the game will be using and it is generally understood by the people playing the demo that even anyhting they comment on could very well change by the time the game is released. A demo for the mass market, however, is different and should be bug-free.

Maybe I didn't word this correctly so I will try once again. I thought I made it clear about there being tech issues like lag which in a preview demo is not a big deal. Although a preview demo will give you an idea of the gameplay whether good or bad. So when a developer incorporates a bad idea into a game why does that never come through in a preview. And why when the same staff that approved of said glowing preview rip it a new one when the review comes out? If a company goes out and changes the "bad idea" then the preview is useless since it is no longer the game they previewed. If they don't then aren't the previewers liars for not mentioning these things that don't work or sometimes claiming they are fun.

I am not talking graphics, textures or any of that jazz. I am talking gameplay.

 

[SaintWaldo]

If you don't want to be mistaken as a journalist, avoid seeming to put on the airs of one. But I refuse to have my desire for _actual_ reportage, _acutal_ reporting on the industry to be disappeared from the scene. Are you saying that no one who enjoys video games might want to see investigative stories on conditions for developers, US and abroad? The hits on the EA overtime issue should disprove that, in addition to that story's revelation of that topic as valid in the conversation about our past time.

Investigation and revelation of truth on controversial subjects, such as gold selling, working conditions, emergent play, and other topics seem worthwhile subjects. What's wrong with a gamer wanting someone in gaming to seek truth? What's wrong with wanting a clearly labeled divide between the editorial, reportorial, and critical sections of the industry's media output and the existence of standards in that media? What about factual things of interest, like giant robot statues or release events gone horribly right or spectacularly wrong?

I want those things. I want those things to be reported verifiable without intermixed editorial or criticism or obscured bias. I want part of my pursuit of information and facts about my hobby and passion to be subject to some of the same levels of vetting before publication that other sources of information and facts hold themselves to. That's what journalism is about.

My main objection to the current popular form of games journalism/analysis/criticism is that it tends to mix the reportage with editorial analysis and critique, most often without labeling any of it. You guys are the lucky bastards who have secured the Rolling Stone Magazine positions of our time, and it just kills me that a bunch of dirty f'ing hippies took their scribblings about Led Zeppelin and The Doors more seriously than you guys treat yours.

Just sayin'.