Your idea of game journalism

[Something Amyss]

I don't feel like going into a whole "ethics" policy, nor am I sure I particularly care.

I just find it amazing that games journalism would have to aspire to anything higher than any other entertainment journalism. If anyone wants to put themselves to a higher standard, wonderful. But even guys with ethics policies in Hollywood and music and other entertainment fields report on friends' works, and they're often sponsored by the industries, and all that stuff people are complaining about, without the conspiracy theory that there is a massive, endemic form of corruption. Hell, we've got people in Hollywood and the tech sector sounding off on game journalism while being relatively silent on the same issues in their own fields.

And I just want to say that this is really fucking stupid. Facepalming, headdesking, mind-numbingly, pants-on-head stupid.

Then again, I see games journalism as exceedingly irrelevant in the first place. They exist in a world where Lets Plays are a thing, where full video reviews exist, where you can evaluate things. The only media I think could possibly challenge them on relevance is music, with more albums being streamable on a regular basis, releases on YouTube from the band or label, often even before the album drops.

A guy--who, in the interest of disclosure, is a friend of a friend who I know a little--just released an album for free and is simply asking for donations if you like it. I've seen a few bits like this in gaming, but it's another way in which maybe music outstrips games in terms of the irrelevance of journalism. But I doubt we'll see video games go that route any time soon, so perhaps journalism is the second least relevant form of journalism.

It just doesn't strike me as something worth worrying about.

 

[xPixelatedx]

I would have a site that reports gaming news, and thats pretty much it. Game magazines used to do this with relative ease, so I don't see why it's such an alien concept. It was an interesting experiment to try and saturate gaming news with politics, but ultimately it achieved nothing but dividing the community, as politics always do. As a result of that we deal with havoc and drama that isn't likely going to end, ever. It shouldn't be surprising, people come to videogames to unwind from the woes of the world, relax and take their mind off the problems we face every day. The last thing we want is to be drenched in other people's baggage. I do care about the starving kids in Africa and the plight some people face even in the first world, but I don't want a lecture about it before getting on a roller-coaster, or why I'm a horrible person for having the nerve to ride that roller-coaster while people suffer in the world.

I understand there are many people in the indi scene and journalist area who have agendas; good agendas at that. That's fine, but realistically we have to assume the majority of people tuning in for news on recreational toys probably don't care about that stuff at that very moment, and pushing it repels more people from your cause then anything else possibly could.

 

[veloper]

I was going to write down some criteria, but all you can really DO about it is this:

My idea of game journalism goes thus:
Games journalists/bloggers can do whatever the fuck they like and if I don't like them, I don't visit their site instead of trying to ruin their careers/lives.
*drops mic*

There's no law against making advertisement and calling it a "review". There's little you can do.
All you can do when the reviewer seems untrustworthy, or just plain shit, is to not go there again.

I won't hesitate to call the likes of IGN and Gamespot, advertisers, but you can't stop other gamers from going there and you don't really need to, as long as you can find your own sources of info.

Okay, maybe just 1 then: ultimately I'm looking for critics with taste and who are not afraid to give low scores to poor games by big companies. True independents (like Jim nowadays) may receive some benefit of the doubt and for the rest their review history may be telling (this can be a lot of effort, but here review scores and metacritic come to the rescue again).

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Just the short version, because its all I really want from journalists: Honesty. If you're going to write an article about your political beliefs/opinions, thats great. Don't hide it under language or generalize, be up front about it. Thats one example.
One of my favorite contributors here is Shamus Young, he doesn't dance around his topic, he gives it to us straight. Like his SoM article, though I didn't agree with it, was absolutely honest on how he felt about the game. And he didn't try to make an opinion into fact. Thats all I want is honesty. I don't care if a site is paid for by ads, as long as you're up front about it.
*shrug* Beyond that I don't have much to say.

 

[WindKnight]

1. Ads. Game companies are going to be the ones that will pay the most money for ad space. You're tearing a large chunk of revenue away from yourself by not having ads from game companies. How are you going to make up the difference? You can have non-gaming ads I suppose but what do you do when they're not available and how are you going to make up the money lost (since again, game ads will pay you more)?

Non-gaming ads, adsense, subscription fees. Being funded by people you're writing about creates a conflict of interest. When people see a glowing review surrounded by banner ads featuring the same game, why should they trust that review?

Keep in mind that during the print age, a company pulling its ads from a magazine could kill or at least gravely wound a magazine, and its fair to say its still the same nowadays. (example - Eidos pulling all adverts from PC Gamer over their running joke of Daikatana's lateness came close to putting it out of circulation).

To be fair, Jim Sterling seems to be going out of the way to avoid such reliance but (A) he's effectively running a one man show, so his expenses aren't as bad as running a well staffed website and (B) he's getting extensive Patreon backing

 

[chikusho]

I think the main points go something like:

- Don't have a different opinion than me
- Don't let your personal experience with games come through in reviews
- Pretend that games do not exist in the real world
- Live in a cave under a rock when not talking to people in a professional capacity
- Cut off all possible avenues for income

There are a few more, but I think that about sums it up.

 

[Ishal]

I don't really find myself wanting ETHICS!1!! as much as some folks in the Gamergate movement/community. Granted, it is important, and should be something that people strive for. Thing is, I don't read Kotaku, IGN, Gamasutra, or even reviews here. I also don't think it ever really was "journalism." It's more enthusiast press, or whatever people call it. But I digress.

I don't find text reviews worth my time regarding my gaming hobby. They really don't offer me anything in an age where I can actually watch a lets play, or watch a youtube critic (any of them, there are several good ones) who go on at length about the game, and are able to show it. Of course, ethics should apply to them as well.

In a review, I would ideally want two things. 1) I'd like a reviewer to spend equal amounts of time discussing the various facets of the game. However, I understand that each reviewer will want to have their own style, and want to talk about things important to them. So, 2) Reviewers should fully disclose their critical/cultural lenses before each review. They should state what they value most in a game, or state any beliefs they hold that could influence their opinions. Things such as

- I value story over gameplay
- I value diversity if it's presented
- I am a feminist
- I don't care for gore

Things of that nature. There is a Christian gaming website that does game reviews. Apparently they do two reviews for each game that they play. First, a regular review. Second, a review from a strictly Christian perspective focusing on their beliefs and doctrines. That is good. Knowing what a reviewer values, one can make a informed decision to listen to them, or go elsewhere.

 

[Something Amyss]

Show both sides during a drama

That's not journalism. I mean, I get this is what people want, but they need to understand that this is antithetical to ethical journalism.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Really getting sick of the snide -------- that go into threads to make a sarcastic jab at the side they hate and leave nothing of value.

Just some disclosure would be nice. If you're mates/colleagues/lovers with the person, or they're your friend's partner or whatever, just pop it in at the end. Let people make their own judgements on whether it matters or not.

And no planning to release the same type of article simultaneously and pretending there's no link until someone digs up a mailing list and conversation.

Discussion wouldn't be censored so long as it did not break the guidelines. I've seen worse shit than Zoe Quinn discussed on gaming forums before. Hell, the whole fiasco wouldn't have started if game websites didn't think they were somehow immune to the Streisand effect that they so frequently report on.

All I can think of that I would change at the moment. I'm not someone who thinks games journalism is of great importance to the world, but I do greatly dislike dishonesty in general, and when it's being shoved in my face... well yeah.

P.S. Oh, and I'd get someone to look into Activision filing DMCAs on CoD videos that show bugs and glitches. Someone ought to look into that. Although an article might come out about that tommorow.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Show both sides during a drama

That's not journalism. I mean, I get this is what people want, but they need to understand that this is antithetical to ethical journalism.

I think what he means is question both sides. Get the opinions on different things from opposing sides and investigate and interrogate. Simply showing them makes you a TV anchor. Or something, I don't know if there's a technical term for just displaying both sides. A monitor?

 

[Something Amyss]

I think the main points go something like:

- Don't have a different opinion than me
- Don't let your personal experience with games come through in reviews
- Pretend that games do not exist in the real world
- Live in a cave under a rock when not talking to people in a professional capacity
- Cut off all possible avenues for income

There are a few more, but I think that about sums it up.

You forgot one of the most important ones, though:

- Games and gamers are specials snowflakes which must be treated differently than other media and people. This extends not only to criticism of, but also standards of ethics. Even when compared to other media. For example: you must buy your own media, even though the examples of ethics do not require other publications to do the same. You must not accept advertisement from the industry, even if we compare your to other entertainment media which lives and breathes by it. You must not be friends with the people you review, even if we compare you to Roger Ebert (who was friends with a lot of people he reviewed). If you are not a paragon of virtue who treats us like the unique and special snowflakes we truly are and our choice of toys as such, you are unethical and deserve to lose your job.

Keep this commandment above all others.

 

[Popido]

Why save them when you can break them.

Create toxicity and pull everyone in who takes a side. Don't let anyone leave and keep pulling them back in. Force them into echo chambers and then attack those echo chambers. Once they're too weak to continue, switch sides and repeat.

Nobody needs a broken middleman. Delete them and seek better solutions.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think what he means is question both sides. Get the opinions on different things from opposing sides and investigate and interrogate. Simply showing them makes you a TV anchor. Or something, I don't know if there's a technical term for just displaying both sides. A monitor?

That's not what people have been asking for. What people have been asking for is Fox Journalism, where one weights both sides "equally" regardless of the facts. This poster in specific has been upset with the coverage of Gamergate before, not because it doesn't meet journalistic standards (questionable) but because it doesn't portray his "side" in the appropriate light. OR because something nice was said about the other "side."

Both of these are acceptable in ethical journalism because the truth isn't necessarily a perfect average of the two "sides" of an argument.

But since you drew my attention to your posts:

Just some disclosure would be nice. If you're mates/colleagues/lovers with the person, or they're your friend's partner or whatever, just pop it in at the end. Let people make their own judgements on whether it matters or not.

So...higher standard than any other entertainment journalism?

And no planning to release the same type of article simultaneously and pretending there's no link until someone digs up a mailing list and conversation.

Well, that didn't happen in the first place. The fact that most of the "articles" in the "scandal" weren't released on the same day--most were released over a series of several weeks, and one of the "collusion" articles dated back over a freaking year--hasn't stopped people, though.

And this is kind of my point. One "side" of this argument is really angry that this thing which is not true hasn't got more coverage. They want the media to report lies, apparently, in the name of journalism. They want to shove dishonesty in your face. Because "ethics."

Discussion wouldn't be censored so long as it did not break the guidelines. I've seen worse shit than Zoe Quinn discussed on gaming forums before. Hell, the whole fiasco wouldn't have started if game websites didn't think they were somehow immune to the Streisand effect that they so frequently report on.

Of course, that ignores at least a part of why they were pulling the plug. People were discussing and organising illegal activities within these discussions. If I were running a site, I'd shut that shit down, too. Shutting down all conversation may be extreme, but if you can't keep people from threatening "action," it might be necessary.

All I can think of that I would change at the moment. I'm not someone who thinks games journalism is of great importance to the world, but I do greatly dislike dishonesty in general, and when it's being shoved in my face... well yeah.

But a couple of your "changes" are based on dishonesty. Do you only dislike certain dishonesty?

 

[babinro]

For what it's worth...this is more just a collection of thoughts rather than a 100% committed response.

1) Game Reviews CANNOT be game journalists.
The reviewer is not permitted to follow production and game. Their job should be to go into every game as blind as reasonably possible in order to review it with minimal outside influence. As a gamer, I know that much of my desire to buy a game comes from the lead in hype. There's no way that a reviewer can distance themselves from hype if they are a game journalist. Reviewers are effectively banned from going to a game convention, interacting with game companies on any level and reading up on game journalism about any game they intend to review.

2) State personal values that may influence their view of the game and help inform the reader how they came to their conclusion. Thanks to ISHAL for this. It makes perfect sense and is great tool for the reader to find a reviewer who they are likely to agree with.

3) Full disclosure. This is fairly minimal given that they try to abide by point number 1. That said, the reviewer would be required to post about any hype/influence they may have been accidentally exposed to prior to the review. It's only natural that this will happen in day to day life especially with social media and co-workers.

 

[LetalisK]

I'd ask God why he saw fit to send me to Hell, because that is clearly where I am.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'd ask God why he saw fit to send me to Hell, because that is clearly where I am.

This? This is purgatory. You don't want to know what Hell is like. I bribed my way up here.

You don't want to know how.

 

[Dizchu]

1) Don't treat your readers like garbage

Be honest with them, treat them with basic respect (the kind you'd give to anyone you know in person). Don't be a condescending asshole. Yeah I know being snarky is fun and all but it doesn't hurt to be professional.

2) Be less blunt about your politics

Political views have a place in writing reviews and opinion pieces. Great! But don't be Fox News. Don't spin things so hard that you end up making a mockery of your own political views. When you say GTA V encourages rape and murder it doesn't make a difference whether you're Bill O'Reilly or a hardcore feminist.

3) Be honest with yourself

Okay so you have certain political views you wish to express. That's fine. What isn't fine is using sensationalised language to get people to read your article. "Mass Effect promotes homosexuality!", "Bayonetta 2 is misogynistic!", "Gone Home is SJW garbage!", "Tomadachi Life is homophobic!" Ughh. I know you want people to read your stuff but calm the hell down. If you express your views in a way people can relate to, maybe even encourage discussion then your views will be taken a lot more seriously.

4) Take your profession seriously

"Who even gives a shit about video game journalism?" has been the sentiment of a few people in video game journalism lately. If you can't take yourself seriously don't expect anyone else to. Stephen Totilo, you're not a complete idiot... but don't openly state that Kotaku doesn't need to adhere to certain standards of ethics. Or, if you do... state it proudly on the home page. "This site is not concerned with ethics".

5) Don't have a temper tantrum when someone calls you out

Spoiler: Warning: I mention the G-word

Because this is what caused Gamergate

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I think what he means is question both sides. Get the opinions on different things from opposing sides and investigate and interrogate. Simply showing them makes you a TV anchor. Or something, I don't know if there's a technical term for just displaying both sides. A monitor?

That's not what people have been asking for. What people have been asking for is Fox Journalism, where one weights both sides "equally" regardless of the facts. This poster in specific has been upset with the coverage of Gamergate before, not because it doesn't meet journalistic standards (questionable) but because it doesn't portray his "side" in the appropriate light. OR because something nice was said about the other "side."

Both of these are acceptable in ethical journalism because the truth isn't necessarily a perfect average of the two "sides" of an argument.

I don't really follow the arguements that go in the forum close enough to have seen this, so I don't really know what his intentions are. It seems like you two know eachother, so I'll leave that alone. If what you say is true though, that is a fake form of journalism and shouldn't be used.
I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to when you say "Both of these are acceptable to ethical journalism" though. Unless you mean "monitoring" and "investigate and interrogate"?

Just some disclosure would be nice. If you're mates/colleagues/lovers with the person, or they're your friend's partner or whatever, just pop it in at the end. Let people make their own judgements on whether it matters or not.

So...higher standard than any other entertainment journalism?

Well it'd be nice if they all did that too.

And no planning to release the same type of article simultaneously and pretending there's no link until someone digs up a mailing list and conversation.

Well, that didn't happen in the first place. The fact that most of the "articles" in the "scandal" weren't released on the same day--most were released over a series of several weeks, and one of the "collusion" articles dated back over a freaking year--hasn't stopped people, though.

And this is kind of my point. One "side" of this argument is really angry that this thing which is not true hasn't got more coverage. They want the media to report lies, apparently, in the name of journalism. They want to shove dishonesty in your face. Because "ethics."

Well a simple Google Search of "Gamers are dead" comes up with articles from Kotaku, ArsTechnia, and Gamasutra all released on the 28th/29th of August. And are you saying the mailing list doesn't exist, or that the people on the mailing list never colluded to release the articles. If the articles are right there and still on the sights that published them, I wouldn't call them lies. If people still include articles that were published months or years before though, they shouldn't be.

Discussion wouldn't be censored so long as it did not break the guidelines. I've seen worse shit than Zoe Quinn discussed on gaming forums before. Hell, the whole fiasco wouldn't have started if game websites didn't think they were somehow immune to the Streisand effect that they so frequently report on.

Of course, that ignores at least a part of why they were pulling the plug. People were discussing and organising illegal activities within these discussions. If I were running a site, I'd shut that shit down, too. Shutting down all conversation may be extreme, but if you can't keep people from threatening "action," it might be necessary.

I doubt most people were organizing illegal activities. If you have screenshots or something I'd like to see them, I could probably show you some where site owners went ape at threads not talking glowingly of Quinn but still being in guidelines. But even then, this still wouldn't be the majority. The smart thing to do if it was getting out of hand would be to post a warning in the form of a warning banner on top of the forums, or a stickied thread saying "No planning to go after people" or something along those lines and tighten up the punishment rules for breaking it (immediate suspension or banning).

Anyway, it's 1:30am here so I'm off. I wouldn't mind continuing our discussion though, so please reply whenever you can or want and I will do the same. Night.

 

[James Elmash]

I have a more 'back to basics' approach to what I want games journalism to be.

Before a game comes out, I want name of game, genre, maybe a few screenshots, release date, and comparison points for the game.

Post release/embargo, basic reviews. Let the games speak for themselves. I don't ask for objective reviews, but I wouldn't mind a good mix between streaming, let's plays, first impressions, ZP style reviews, and Jim Sterling style reviews, I'd want these to all have the same respect level, and all have different names.

When I say "that's all I want", I don't mean that I want that as the start, I want that to be all game journalism is.