Your idea of game journalism

[zinho73]

My problem with game journalists is that there are not very good ones available at the moment. Corporate mentality kind of weed out the more opinionated and truly critical ones (like Jim Sterling).

I look around and sites that I once respected are quite tame nowadays, and the reviews and articles posted are close to useless to me.

DA Inquisition is a good example. A good game, sure, but with several bugs, a meh combat system (at best) and problems with the computer interface. Maybe those issues are not gamebreaking for the reviewer, but they might be for some and most reviews do not bring that up. They do not test the game in all platforms, they do not test the game with the minimum requisites, they do not play the game with several different classes (even for a little bit) to see if everything works the same. They do not work anymore, just give their opinion with little research or effort.

If they are having a good time, the game is great. When reporting something they do not account for technical issues or context. They do not apply critical thinking to what they are doing.
- So, you can walk around for hours on this initial region collecting herbs and doing fetch quests - maybe some people would find it tedious. I am loving it, because I am playing with a state of the art rig and the graphics look so beautiful.
- So, the combat view is completely obscured by trees, walls and the tactical view is useless, but it is a minor thing. Well, is it? It might not be for some, but the reviewer is already long gone writing how about he likes Varik.

One key aspect of it all is time. In the Internet days, most journalists do not have the proper time to evaluate every game, let alone a huge game like Dragon Age Inquisition. That's why we have the feeling that the magazine journalists were more thorough - they actually have time to dig a little bit deeper.

Another is ethics. Most journalists are just gamers, with little actual journalism experience and a bit too much on the fan side of things. Those guys are too easily impressed by the publisher marketing trappings. How would you feel if your favorite publisher took you to a tour in their offices with everything payed for? That's how they feel too.

I saw IGN review discussion of the DA Inquisition review (sorry for the repetition, but this example is very current and close to my mind). It is just useless fan talking. They do not talk about the systems in depth, about the best specs to run the game, about the best approach to tackle the huge game or about why they think the story was good or bad. They might even say something amusing or funny occasionally, but they offer nothing useful.

It is like making a documentary about a guy I met in a party with only the information I managed to get about him in the party. It is shallow as hell.

It is not about corruption - it is really about competence and professionalism. Game media is trying to reach us quickly not with quality.

Some articles we see do not even make sense, they are just trying to make things reach us immediately, with no time to think about what they are writing let alone research the topic.

On a cheerful note, I really liked the Game Trailers review of DA Inquisition. They said the game problems seemed serious on paper but, the actual playing experience is very good. Sounds very reasonable to me. But reasonable is something rare this days, so I might not recognize when I see it.

 

[Dagda Mor]

I'd just tell my reviewers to give their honest opinion, and make sure they aren't taking bribes. And if a publisher tries something sketchy, we lower the review score by 20%. Beyond that, I'd mostly keep things going how they're going--most of the problems with reviews stem from gaming culture, not from how review sites conduct their business. Those problems are a symptom, not a cause.

 

[Dagda Mor]

So games can only go below 5 if they don't work? How broken must a game be to deserve a 2?
Again, I think scoring needs to go, partially for these very reasons, but I don't find it fair to suggest that someone cannot find a rushed game and a game with extensive problems to be less than average (read: what a 5 really ought to be on a 10 point scale)

No, a 5/10 is an F. It means the game is half done. Anything below a 66/100 is a failing grade. If a game is only 50% worth playing, I won't bother playing it. Games shouldn't be scored by whether they're 'above average' or 'below average', but by how much I would want to play it.

 

[Gunner 51]

I don't see how it's particularly difficult
-Don't write about people you have a non-professional (in regards to your job as a games writer) relationship with (including, but not limited to, people who feature you in the credits of your game, people you are funding on patreon, people you are sleeping with)
-Don't give ad space to companies whose products you're reviewing
-Actually verify things before you paste them on your site
-Don't blatantly shill for companies (say, for instance, promoting Tomb Raider to get a PS3)
-No goddamn swag, no accepting money, you don't need to be flown out and wined and dined to play a video game
-Disclose any relevant information in the article
-It's probably better if review scores go extinct

Have I missed anything? I'm pretty sure I covered all the bases in less than 10 points. Obviously this stuff needs to be fleshed out more in terms of explicit implementation.
What do you feel would cause these sites to fall apart right away?

Quoted for the truth!
Point number 1.) Perfect sense.
Point number 2.) A nice idea, but how would the gaming website get money? Could a mandatory subscription be on the cards?
Point 3.) Perfect sense again, on so many levels as well.
Point 4.) I agree again - this is practically advertising.
Point 5.) A mega agreement. Swag, being wined and dined and having trips abroad paid for by pubs / devs is pure payola to me. *Grumbles about Jim Sterling smugly showing off his Skyrim swag before the game was released.*
Point 6.) Yeah, that's reasonable.
Point 7.) I agree with this in principle - but some folks are lazy and want a bottom line rather than sift through article after article.

But I think I have a point or two of my own to expand on your list.
Point 8.) Reviewers must pay for their own copy of the game. A free copy would mean a reviewer would be a tiny bit kinder than they should be.
Point 9.) End review embargoes. A good game will always stand upon it's own merits, a bad game will sink under the it's own shoddiness.
Point 10.) Try to keep sociology issues to a bare minimum. Just list what it is and if a paying punter doesn't want to get involved, they won't. (Though they tend to do this on the back of the game's box in any case.)

 

[tippy2k2]

But I think I have a point or two of my own to expand on your list.
Point 8.) Reviewers must pay for their own copy of the game. A free copy would mean a reviewer would be a tiny bit kinder than they should be.

I've asked this before so I'll ask it to you:

How are these reviewers paying for these games? Games are not cheap.

Not getting review copies means that you're waiting until the game is released. These websites move so fast that if you're not up the day of, you might as well not go up for all it really matters and you're going to need time to play the game. You're looking at a few days of delay (at least).

You also have to either pay $60 a pop for these games (which might be fine for AAA that will get a ton of readership but what about the middle games that have a niche audience?) or you can rent them and try to punch through them as quickly as possible (another issue people seem to bring up a lot with reviews is that they can't take the time needed to properly play).

Why is getting a free review copy such a problem with the way more expensive video games and no one bats an eye over it in movies, books, and music?

 

[senordesol]

I've asked this before so I'll ask it to you:

How are these reviewers paying for these games? Games are not cheap.

Not getting review copies means that you're waiting until the game is released. These websites move so fast that if you're not up the day of, you might as well not go up for all it really matters and you're going to need time to play the game. You're looking at a few days of delay (at least).

You also have to either pay $60 a pop for these games (which might be fine for AAA that will get a ton of readership but what about the middle games that have a niche audience?) or you can rent them and try to punch through them as quickly as possible (another issue people seem to bring up a lot with reviews is that they can't take the time needed to properly play).

Why is getting a free review copy such a problem with the way more expensive video games and no one bats an eye over it in movies, books, and music?

Seconded. I don't understand how that's supposed to be reasonable. If the reviewer is a staff reviewer, he gets the game for free anyway because it will be the company providing the copy. If he's a freelance reviewer, that's going to be a big chunk of his commission getting cut just so he can do his job (which would be particularly punishing if the game is bad).

 

[Scootinfroodie]

Point number 2.) A nice idea, but how would the gaming website get money? Could a mandatory subscription be on the cards?

Dunno if you've looked, but Kotaku and Gamasutra have had a number of non-gaming sponsors, which include but are not limited to hardware manufacturers (an issue if you also deal with computer hardware for sure, but also not insurmountable) and companies like Kraft

Point 7.) I agree with this in principle - but some folks are lazy and want a bottom line rather than sift through article after article.

That's what a summary is for

Point 8.) Reviewers must pay for their own copy of the game. A free copy would mean a reviewer would be a tiny bit kinder than they should be.

If everyone gives you a free copy because that's how the business works, which games are you going to be kinder towards? All of them? I kinda doubt it

Point 9.) End review embargoes. A good game will always stand upon it's own merits, a bad game will sink under the it's own shoddiness.

Post-launch? Sure
Pre-launch? I don't really mind the thought process behind these. If you can come up with a reason why these are anti consumer, I'd like to hear it

Point 10.) Try to keep sociology issues to a bare minimum. Just list what it is and if a paying punter doesn't want to get involved, they won't. (Though they tend to do this on the back of the game's box in any case.)

I think this sort of stuff ought to have its own place, to make it easier to find or avoid depending on user preference

No, a 5/10 is an F. It means the game is half done.

No it doesn't. Plenty of "half done" games get higher than 50, and plenty of finished products also get 50. If I complete a game and it doesn't have bugs but it's boring, does it deserve 100 by the same metric?

Anything below a 66/100 is a failing grade. If a game is only 50% worth playing, I won't bother playing it. Games shouldn't be scored by whether they're 'above average' or 'below average', but by how much I would want to play it.

It's not what % is worth playing either (how would you even measure that?), nor can I think of any system in which 66% is failure. Could you expand on these concepts please?
Additionally, the only way to compare things in such broad categories is to compare them to the average. If a game is perfectly average, it should get a 50. That way, if a game scores 20 points higher, you know it must be considerably better than average
Right now, people are treating 75 like it's average, which leaves considerably less wiggle room for differentiating quality

And again, I think review scores are silly, but if you're going to use a 10 or 100 point scale you should be using the whole scale, and not 1/4 to 1/3 of it

 

[bluepotatosack]

When people see a glowing review surrounded by banner ads featuring the same game, why should they trust that review?

What about outlets that give poor reviews to games that they also have ads for? I've seen negative reviews for games right next to full page ads for the same in PC Gamer plenty of times. Honestly, not having ads for games they might review isn't really plausible from what I can see.

 

[senordesol]

No, a 5/10 is an F. It means the game is half done. Anything below a 66/100 is a failing grade. If a game is only 50% worth playing, I won't bother playing it. Games shouldn't be scored by whether they're 'above average' or 'below average', but by how much I would want to play it.

Stuff like this leads me to believe that this is why there are so many claims of bias. On this very forum I had people insist that a 7.5 score for Bayonetta 2 was evidence of 'bias'.

The review scale IS NOT the same as the grading scale. On the review scale, think of it more as 'what percentage of people will like it'. 5/10 is dead average. As many people will like it as dislike it. Now it's not a 1:1 study, of course, but it gives you an idea on where you'll stand with it.

0/10: Unplayable (Game is broken beyond words)
1/10: No Value (It barely functions and is not fun at all)
2/10: Terrible (Horrendously buggy and/or little fun)
3/10: Bad (Poor execution technically or design-wise)
4/10: Below Average (Some good ideas muddied by broken elements or no good ideas but executed competently)
5/10: Average (It works, there's some fun to it, but nothing you'll come back to)
6/10: Above Average (Some inspired choices that fall just short)
7/10: Good (Does exactly what it needs to. Will be enjoyed by most who play)
8/10: Great (Offers a great deal more than expected and excels in everything it attempts)
9/10: Awesome (Transcends multiple audiences, near flawless in its executions, a must-buy)
10/10: Incredible (Appeals to damn-near everyone. Is deeply thought-out and provides enough content to keep players coming back over and over)

 

[Gunner 51]

Dunno if you've looked, but Kotaku and Gamasutra have had a number of non-gaming sponsors, which include but are not limited to hardware manufacturers (an issue if you also deal with computer hardware for sure, but also not insurmountable) and companies like Kraft

Point 8.) Reviewers must pay for their own copy of the game. A free copy would mean a reviewer would be a tiny bit kinder than they should be.

If everyone gives you a free copy because that's how the business works, which games are you going to be kinder towards? All of them? I kinda doubt it

Point 9.) End review embargoes. A good game will always stand upon it's own merits, a bad game will sink under the it's own shoddiness.

Post-launch? Sure
Pre-launch? I don't really mind the thought process behind these. If you can come up with a reason why these are anti consumer, I'd like to hear it

I'll be sure to have a look at Gamasutra and Kotaku for their adverts. Games not being advertised on a games review site sounds like a mighty fine idea.

As for summaries, I kind of wish I were able to think of that at the time. I'm like a drip sometimes. (Quite a lot of the times, if I'm being honest. )

But as for free review copies - Speaking only for myself, if I were a reviewer I'd be a tiny bit kinder on all the games if they were given to me for free.

As for a pre-launch emborgoes - my reasoning is this. If a game really broken, has an obnoxious DLC / microtransactions plan, or looks like the kind of thing that Muxwell character dredges up, I think the public should be warned in advance. As I like to say "Fore-warned is fore-armed."

But the main reason for my desire for getting shot of a pre-launch embargo is to root out the really awful games. But a good game doesn't necessarily need an early review to get people to buy it. This way, the bad games get shamed and hopefully unpurchased. The good games will still get purchased and the mediocre games will still be on everyone's radar.

 

[Gunner 51]

But I think I have a point or two of my own to expand on your list.
Point 8.) Reviewers must pay for their own copy of the game. A free copy would mean a reviewer would be a tiny bit kinder than they should be.

I've asked this before so I'll ask it to you:

How are these reviewers paying for these games? Games are not cheap.

Not getting review copies means that you're waiting until the game is released. These websites move so fast that if you're not up the day of, you might as well not go up for all it really matters and you're going to need time to play the game. You're looking at a few days of delay (at least).

You also have to either pay $60 a pop for these games (which might be fine for AAA that will get a ton of readership but what about the middle games that have a niche audience?) or you can rent them and try to punch through them as quickly as possible (another issue people seem to bring up a lot with reviews is that they can't take the time needed to properly play).

Why is getting a free review copy such a problem with the way more expensive video games and no one bats an eye over it in movies, books, and music?

The reviewers don't pay for the games at all, they are given review copies by their employers who in turn have them given to by the publishers.

But I think the main reason why reviewers get their games a few days before the game playing public is down to shipping. The games are already complete and have (I'm guessing here) have been sent to the reviewer / review site. As for the rest of the games which have to be readily available at the same time to the public - all sit in warehouses up until the point where every appropriate warehouse up and down the country has one. When that is done - it all goes to the retailers. This stop / start thing would take a few days.

As for the niche games - perhaps they can put on the website "We're planning a review on Day X" to give the reviewer the time they need to play it. So that way, the gamers know that they are being kept in the loop.

But as for why music, movies and book reviews aren't complained about as much as gaming is a good question. My guess is because a lot of gamers haven't shaken the "keen hobbyist" mindset from the 1990's. They defend their hobby viciously from any and all threats be they real or imagined. In this case, they are trying to protect their games from a bad review. (Much in the same way a lot of religions don't like blasphemies.)

 

[EternallyBored]

No, a 5/10 is an F. It means the game is half done. Anything below a 66/100 is a failing grade. If a game is only 50% worth playing, I won't bother playing it. Games shouldn't be scored by whether they're 'above average' or 'below average', but by how much I would want to play it.

Stuff like this leads me to believe that this is why there are so many claims of bias. On this very forum I had people insist that a 7.5 score for Bayonetta 2 was evidence of 'bias'.

The review scale IS NOT the same as the grading scale. On the review scale, think of it more as 'what percentage of people will like it'. 5/10 is dead average. As many people will like it as dislike it. Now it's not a 1:1 study, of course, but it gives you an idea on where you'll stand with it.

0/10: Unplayable (Game is broken beyond words)
1/10: No Value (It barely functions and is not fun at all)
2/10: Terrible (Horrendously buggy and/or little fun)
3/10: Bad (Poor execution technically or design-wise)
4/10: Below Average (Some good ideas muddied by broken elements or no good ideas but executed competently)
5/10: Average (It works, there's some fun to it, but nothing you'll come back to)
6/10: Above Average (Some inspired choices that fall just short)
7/10: Good (Does exactly what it needs to. Will be enjoyed by most who play)
8/10: Great (Offers a great deal more than expected and excels in everything it attempts)
9/10: Awesome (Transcends multiple audiences, near flawless in its executions, a must-buy)
10/10: Incredible (Appeals to damn-near everyone. Is deeply thought-out and provides enough content to keep players coming back over and over)

A review scale is whatever the reviewer says it is, there are plenty of sites that use a scale closer to academic modeling where a 70/7.0 is average, for things like PCgamer magazine, the review scale they've been using for 20 years now has pretty much always held a 5.0 as below average, with the 60-70 range being average, and other sites use different criteria depending on how they want to set things.

There has never been a 100% consistent view on what exactly each number on a ten point scale is supposed to mean, and even amongst single organizations, there are differences in how each individual reviewer utilizes their organization's scale. Whilst a universally recognized standard of what each score means is nice in theory, there is no feasible way to enforce that kind of standard industry wide.

Metacritic is about as close as you can get, and even then the actual aggregate scores can be iffy depending on the circumstances.

 

[tippy2k2]

But I think I have a point or two of my own to expand on your list.
Point 8.) Reviewers must pay for their own copy of the game. A free copy would mean a reviewer would be a tiny bit kinder than they should be.

I've asked this before so I'll ask it to you:

How are these reviewers paying for these games? Games are not cheap.

The reviewers don't pay for the games at all, they are given review copies by their employers who in turn have them given to by the publishers.

Well yes, that is how the current system works.

What I'm wondering about though is how you think it could work if that wasn't the case (as one of your bullet points state that you disagree with this practice and want it to go away because reviewers are going to be kinder to those games). IF the reviewers were not given free copies by Publishers/Developers, how would they pay for these games given how expensive games are compared to how much money these sites can make?

 

[Alex Baas]

You know what I could love to absolute death? If there was a games journalism site that does content like CBC Radio 1 up here in Canada. I listen to lots of CBC in the car and love to hear the investigative journalism, Cross Country Check Up, Ideas, Studio Q, Quirks and Quarks etc.

I think that even in the wake of Gamergate (don't Ddos me) there is a market for this style of games journalism. Actual freaking journalism!!!

 

[tippy2k2]

You know what I could love to absolute death? If there was a games journalism site that does content like CBC Radio 1 up here in Canada. I listen to lots of CBC in the car and love to hear the investigative journalism, Cross Country Check Up, Ideas, Studio Q, Quirks and Quarks etc.

I think that even in the wake of Gamergate (don't Ddos me) there is a market for this style of games journalism. Actual freaking journalism!!!

Like....talk radio but for gaming rather than sports/politics? I don't live in Canada eh but from the Google, that's what that sounds like. I wonder if there would be enough content/interest for something like that.

KFAN (Minnesota Sports Talk Radio) has a weekly video game segment called "Video Games Weekly" [http://www.kfan.com/media/podcast-kfan-video-games-weekly-Video_Games_Weekly/] but that's one hour once a week. I can't imagine you'd have enough to talk about to fill even a daily show but that could be an interesting experiment to test...

 

[Alex Baas]

You know what I could love to absolute death? If there was a games journalism site that does content like CBC Radio 1 up here in Canada. I listen to lots of CBC in the car and love to hear the investigative journalism, Cross Country Check Up, Ideas, Studio Q, Quirks and Quarks etc.

I think that even in the wake of Gamergate (don't Ddos me) there is a market for this style of games journalism. Actual freaking journalism!!!

Like....talk radio but for gaming rather than sports/politics? I don't live in Canada eh but from the Google, that's what that sounds like. I wonder if there would be enough content/interest for something like that.

KFAN (Minnesota Sports Talk Radio) has a weekly video game segment called "Video Games Weekly" [http://www.kfan.com/media/podcast-kfan-video-games-weekly-Video_Games_Weekly/] but that's one hour once a week. I can't imagine you'd have enough to talk about to fill even a daily show but that could be an interesting experiment to test...

Well most of the content on these sites is an editorialized form of talk radio anyways. I think that this idea can be translated to a gaming news website. The point I was trying to make in listing all those programs was the diversity of CBC content. For all this talk about how diverse gaming is there is not much diversity in gaming content and what diversity exists is rather fragmented, yet all these fractured communities fall under the "gamer" umbrella and are thus covered by games journalism.

I think that we need to define the role of games journalism first before we talk about its ethics. There has been a lot of talk about how games journalism in terms of prerelease coverage is dying and I would agree. There are editorials calling for better preservation of the medium yet the group that is doing the best job at this are Youtubers who play through old games such as JonTron etc. CBC constantly runs documentaries, I want more of those. The current 'retrospective' model just doesn't cut it for me. What there should be is a documentary on the making of major milestones of the medium complete with interviews from members of the actual development team. That is good, worthwhile journalism.

Another thing I would like to see is games journalists bring the fractured communities together in a more meaningful way. If there is one thing we learned from the "Gamers are Dead" response is that they do have this power already. I would like to see this explored for the better of everyone and to maybe open up a few more niches. Lets be honest, Gavin Dunne is pretty much peerless in his field because he doesn't have peers. Maybe it is just the brony in me talking but I think there is a niche for more high quality musical acts that write original music about video games.

 

[Atmos Duality]

My idea of journalism is less about the identity of journalism, and more about proportions of the type of journalism.
Right now, there's a ridiculous amount of misinformation and sensationalism in all of media.

Since those are the two biggest problems I have with "journalism" in gaming, I would start by aiming to reduce the overt "entertainment" influence and emphasize more "information".

Basically, more facts, less opinion, and definitely less obfuscation of facts (alternatively, less "spin").

No, I'm not calling for articles to be entirely factual, since that's just ridiculous and unrealistic. Plus, it defeats the purpose of perception and the value of authorship. Writing is a human product, so I'd expect it to possess some element of humanity.

But the sad reality, is that gaming is primarily materialistic, and thus is centralized on "marks" or "suckers".
And you can't rely on suckers when people are well-informed.

On a purely tangential note:
http://theconversation.com/why-do-so-many-american-journalists-appear-to-hate-actual-journalism-15771
Yeah yeah, I'm sure I'll get flak for the source. But it raises some interesting points about the changing nature of what it means to actually be a "journalist" in an internet enabled society.

Let's see, I would have a lot more corruption and collusion.

I would strongly encourage bribes and would encourage staff members to only have sexual affairs when there is a conflict of interest.

I would hire more SJW journalists and we would feature a weekly column on why all straight white men are bad and why they should feel bad.

Also, when writing an article recommending Pokemon games, we wouldn't just feature a list of the main fucking games. XD

Pulitzer Prize material right here.
Hell, Nobel Prize even.

10/10: Incredible (Appeals to damn-near everyone. Is deeply thought-out and provides enough content to keep players coming back over and over)

Appeals to damn-near everyone.

Is deeply thought-out...

If AAA game design is to be believed, these two elements are totally at odds with each other.
I'm not saying I don't agree with your ideal; I'm just commenting that dumbing down for broader appeals exists for a reason.

 

[mrbah]

I wish there were multiple different types of content.
scored reviews, that try to determine how much the average consumer is going to enjoy a product.
cultural critique which involves subjective interpretation and enjoyment of the critic.
mechanical analysis, where someone preferably with experience in coding and design shares their insight on why you like that game you like and how things work or don't work.

potentially a journalism field too, where journalists interpret new listings, job openings and industry news.

currently we have an intervened mess but it kinda works.

 

[Gunner 51]

Well yes, that is how the current system works.

What I'm wondering about though is how you think it could work if that wasn't the case (as one of your bullet points state that you disagree with this practice and want it to go away because reviewers are going to be kinder to those games). IF the reviewers were not given free copies by Publishers/Developers, how would they pay for these games given how expensive games are compared to how much money these sites can make?

I'd get reviewers to use their own money. This is on the basis that the reviewer should be made to jump through exactly the same hoops as gamers do. It doesn't matter if financially cripples the professional few. There's a ton of people out there on Youtube who will set up a camera in their bedrooms on Youtube who have opinions every bit as valid as the professional and they'll do it for free.

Surely it would be fair for the professionals have to compete with the amatuers for their audience much like any other entertainer. I imagine it'd be similar to the current system going on now, but the only difference is that names of the reviewers will be coming and going a lot faster.

 

[lowtech redneck]

I would hire an ideologically diverse lot of reviewers and make sure that any controversial op-ed had an in-house dissenting opinion so that political and sociological issues could be covered without alienating large segments of the consumer base. I would also make sure there were at least two reviews per game (at least one by somebody without moral convictions in opposition to fan service in games already known to contain that element), and prohibit reviewers and editors from belonging to secret professional forums that facilitate group-think and de-facto exclusion at best, or collusion and blacklisting at worst.

Basically, I want games journalism to focus on satisfying (and actively competing for the patronage of) the consumer.