Your idea of game journalism

[senordesol]

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.

Why should reviewers have to jump through the same hoops as the gamer?

The gamer doesn't have a deadline. The gamer has the option to walk away if he doesn't like the game. The gamer's living isn't based on his ability to generate review content. The exact opposite is true for the reviewer.

Under your system, it'd be near impossible for anyone to find a reviewer they can trust. The system would be churning at such a high rate, that the one or two you did like could be gone in a month or so (or have such a low volume of reviews, that you'd be unable to consistently get their take on the game that strikes you as interesting).

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

With names "coming and going" fast, what's to stop game companies from creating fake reviewers? And if the average person is on par with the professional reviewer in the model, how would anyone feasibly tell?

 

[NPC009]

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.

But reviewers do use their own money to buy games. We have not forgotten what it feels like to spend money on games. Most, if not all, are avid games who continue playing in their spare time. If there is a game I want but don't get a review copy of (very common, since my tastes are a bit niche) I'll buy it myself. Heck, I'll pre-order games I'm looking forward to and not cancel the order if I do get a review copy (happened a bunch of times). Oh, and these review copies are often just bare digital copies, regular retail copies are rare these days. Unless you're constantly reviewing triple A titles you won't be wined and dined. Don't expect any swag either. I've reviewed for six different publications and they all save up the swag for contests. If you're lucky you'll get something small like a keychain once in a while. It's a pat on the head from your editor, not from whatever publisher originally send it.

Here's the thing, though, by your logic wouldn't buying the games themselves make reviewers biased? I often see gamers on Metacritic trying to validate their purchase of a so-so game by giving it a glowing review. If reviewers are as dumb and easily manipulated as you think they are, wouldn't they fall into the same trap?

Besides, with the rates for reviews being as low as they are in smaller regions, many critics can't even afford to buy their own reviews copies. In the worst cases they'd be losing money on the review. There are many freelancers out there who can barely scrape by doing what they love. Getting a second job is often the more sensible option. If publications did want their writers to buy their own review copies, they'd have to offer a higher compensation per page/word in order for critics to still be able to make a living. The bottenlime wouldn't change.

What I also don't get is that game critics have to pay a higher price than any other critic. For instance, restaurant critics don't get their food for free from the restaurant - the publication foots the bill. Music and book critics get their review copies in a similar manner as game critics. Why single out game critics?

 

[Brian Tams]

I think gaming news sites can start by employing a writing staff of journalists with actual journalism degrees.

 

[NPC009]

I don't think journalism degrees are all that relevant for critics. What did teach future journalists has little to with reviewing unless you count advice such as 'write often' and 'work on your language skills'. Besides, I prefer critics with a love for and a good understanding of the medium, and they don't teach that in school

As for the other positions: there's not that much to reporting the daily news since most of it comes straight from the developer/publisher. Sadly this a tightly controlled industry with little wiggleroom for investigative journalism. On the other hand, what would need to be investigated? Aside from the occasional screw-up from companies like Ubisoft there aren't many big things to report on. Don't get me wrong, it's great to go after stuff like that and publications certainly should, but you don't need a full staff of journalists for that.

Now that I think about it, most of the magazines and websites I have experience with have a journalists or two, but it's hard to tell them apart from the philosophers, engineers and college drop-outs. And when it comes to investigating it's usually the ones with the best knowledge of the industry and, of course, the best connections, that get the best info nuggets.

Anyway, to answer the topic question itself:
-Ideally I would see more advertisers from other industries. Critics are shielded from advertisers (in the case of magazines, we don't see who bought space until we open up the mag itself) but I know ads can be a major headache for editor-in-chiefs and whoever else happens to have to deal with advertisers. There was this one time I gave a game a bad review and by bad, I mean really bad. It deserved it. The publisher didn't like it and the mag lost their business. The editor-in-chief told me not to worry about it. I did my job and I did it well. Other people might give in to the pressure, though, so it would be best for everyone to look for ad income elsewhere. Easier said than done, sadly.

-Better pay for critics. For magazines you're usually paid by the page, regardless of the content. Of course, a review costs a lot more time than a hands-on/preview, so if you tend to write a lot of reviews, you may be working for less than minimum wage most of the time. While I know plenty of critics with strong work ethics and I like to see myself as one as well, it's very tempting to rush an assignment when you look at what you're actually being paid.

-More opportunities to play big titles at home instead of a controlled environment. There are two reasons not to like controlled environments. The first is that it might influence the critic. While most controlled environments are pretty basic (you're invited to come over to a publisher and play the game, sometimes for as little as 4-5 hours, while being served snacks and pop) some publishers go really out of their way to make it a good experience. Worst I've heard was several days in a luxurious hotel to play an online multiplayer shooter under perfect conditions (honestly can't remember if it was CoD or Battlefield). As fun as this all sounds, it's actually quite a hassle for most critics. Remember, they're still being paid by the page and so it sucks when they have to travel a lot in order to be able to play the game. Personally, I hate trips like that. I'd much rather play games in the comforts of my own home.

-Less embargoes. I understand why publishers want to focus publications of reviews around the release of the game, so I don't feel too strongly about pre-launch embargoes, but post-launch embargoes are complete bullshit.

-Kinder readers. Gamejournalism is partly the way it is because it's trying to live up to the demands of readers. We need to, because we need their attention (and in the case of paper mags: money) to stay alive. If readers are more understanding about reviews popping up a little later, publications can take a stronger stance against bullshit for publishers. Also, it be really nice if people stopped attacking the industry as a whole just because they've read about some bad apples. It hurts a little to go online in the morning, open up some feeds and see all sorts of posts about how critics/journalists are terrible people who don't deserve decent pay.

 

[Mike Lemond]

It's all about hiring the right people for the job. Luckily, we know what kind of people to avoid. If anyone on your staff exhibits any of the following, you've got a problem on your hands:

- Talks about "privilege"
- Has brightly colored dyed hair or "unique" hairstyle.
- Seems to be unable to understand the concept that someone might disagree with them.
- Is from San Francisco.
- Throws around dangerous words like "racist" or "sexist" as if they were commonplace.
- Eats frozen yogurt instead of ice cream. It's un-American.

If you have made the mistake of hiring one of these people, don't worry. Chances are they will screw up soon and often. Grounds for dismissal will not be hard to come by.

 

[Gunner 51]

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.

Why should reviewers have to jump through the same hoops as the gamer?

The gamer doesn't have a deadline. The gamer has the option to walk away if he doesn't like the game. The gamer's living isn't based on his ability to generate review content. The exact opposite is true for the reviewer.

Under your system, it'd be near impossible for anyone to find a reviewer they can trust. The system would be churning at such a high rate, that the one or two you did like could be gone in a month or so (or have such a low volume of reviews, that you'd be unable to consistently get their take on the game that strikes you as interesting).

In my opinion, the reviewer should be made to jump through the same hoops as the gamer so they experience the same thing as any other gamer out there.

A reviewer could feasibly get a fairly slick video review out there in a few days, and a text one in even less time. (Excluding play time which can all be done in another couple of days seeing how games can do completed within 2 days - 4 if they're taking their time.)

A professional reviewer not only does this, but remains entertaining every step of the way - thus, securing their audience in the long term.

I know that there might be a dearth of names one can trust under my proposed system, but their names will shine all the brighter. If a reviewer is that good - they have nothing to worry about. Their skills and wit will always keep them in the game - as it were.

Conversely, if the system goes mega fast and reviewers change very often - then it means that the next guy might be a lot better. If not, they get changed lickety-split.

But either way, I think quality control is ultimately what is needed rather than quantity. In the first system, quality of reviews would go up - but in the second, well - I don't think things will get much worse.

Having said all of this, I find myself somewhat curious for your opinion on reviews. How or rather, what would you change in how reviews are done? (It's always good to bounce ideas, I say. )

 

[Gunner 51]

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.

With names "coming and going" fast, what's to stop game companies from creating fake reviewers? And if the average person is on par with the professional reviewer in the model, how would anyone feasibly tell?

I think they already do that now. I think there was some big kerfuffle about people on Metacritic doing it a while back. I think Bioware or EA got caught with it's pants down like this... http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108482-BioWare-Employee-Busted-in-Dragon-Age-2-Review-Scandal-UPDATED

But with my new system, if everyone's talking - the fake reviewers will find it excruciatingly hard to be heard.

 

[Something Amyss]

But with my new system, if everyone's talking - the fake reviewers will find it excruciatingly hard to be heard.

In the same sense that Citizen's United opened the doors for everyone to have free speech through money, perhaps. IT sounds nice, but if these guys can pay reviewers, then they can pay more.

 

[Schadrach]

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.

I could go along with that, but it denies a simple fact -- the people who want to do "cultural critique" want said critique to be scored, because that way it can effect Metacritic and accordingly be used to threaten developers into producing games that don't commit any of various sorts of thoughtcrime by threatening their compensation in a way that's unrelated to sales.

Basically you'll never excise "cultural critique" from scored reviews because the people who want to do the former don't want to just critique, they want to influence, and are unlikely to be able to create an environment wherein no one dares to produce things that offend them without being able to threaten developer compensation.

 

[senordesol]

In my opinion, the reviewer should be made to jump through the same hoops as the gamer so they experience the same thing as any other gamer out there.

A reviewer could feasibly get a fairly slick video review out there in a few days, and a text one in even less time. (Excluding play time which can all be done in another couple of days seeing how games can do completed within 2 days - 4 if they're taking their time.)

A professional reviewer not only does this, but remains entertaining every step of the way - thus, securing their audience in the long term.

I know that there might be a dearth of names one can trust under my proposed system, but their names will shine all the brighter. If a reviewer is that good - they have nothing to worry about. Their skills and wit will always keep them in the game - as it were.

Conversely, if the system goes mega fast and reviewers change very often - then it means that the next guy might be a lot better. If not, they get changed lickety-split.

But either way, I think quality control is ultimately what is needed rather than quantity. In the first system, quality of reviews would go up - but in the second, well - I don't think things will get much worse.

Having said all of this, I find myself somewhat curious for your opinion on reviews. How or rather, what would you change in how reviews are done? (It's always good to bounce ideas, I say. )

What I would change must be first predicated on the notion that something is necessary to change; of which I have not been totally convinced. As I said before, a strict enforcement of separation between Eds and Ads (so that no reviewer can be influenced to or reprimanded for a particular score) and a healthy rotation between creators during the dev process (i.e.: One GJ goes to preview events/interviews, while a second [who didn't go] writes the review) is really all that's required.

The reason I balk so hard at you proposal is because, frankly, I find it self-defeating. Nobody wins; least of all, the consumer.

Under your system, one does not need to be particularly skilled at their job to be successful, one simply needs to be rich enough and popular enough. Quality, on its own, does not shine as it should. One could be a monumental reviewer but without funds and without enough avenues of contact with the public; he will go unheard (under your system).

Conversely, a middling but adequately funded reviewer is likely to do far better. Furthermore, as stated earlier, there's a much better chance that their 'funding' may not be strictly on the up-and-up.

But most importantly: why? You say the reviewer needs to go through every step the gamer might, but why? You've stated that a reviewer might be inclined to be slightly kinder to a game if he didn't have to pay for it (and we'll just ignore that's a completely baseless assumption for now) but what of it? What reason is that to turn the industry on its head?

I could make the reverse argument that the reviewer paying full price will actually bias him against the game since it's costing him money.

However, at any rate, the idea that the reviewer needs parity with the gamer is a very, VERY flawed one. The reviewer is not playing the game for entertainment's sake; he's playing it as a means to offer service (that service being to tell you whether this game is entertaining). He doesn't get to stop if he's bored. He doesn't get to put it on hold for a couple of weeks and then come back to it. He has nowhere near the latitude a gamer would have, so it makes no sense to obligate him to fulfill the same consumer requirements.

The reviewer's job is not so much to tell you whether a game is worth your money, anyway; it's to say whether it's worth your time. I, as a gamer, don't have to pay full price for a game just because it's out. I often wait for sales or apply gift cards. All I need to know, as a consumer, from the reviewer is: should I bother?

To be honest: any reviewer who's worth a damn should be able to say whether a game is worth your time through play alone, anyway.

 

[mrbah]

I could go along with that, but it denies a simple fact -- the people who want to do "cultural critique" want said critique to be scored, because that way it can effect Metacritic and accordingly be used to threaten developers into producing games that don't commit any of various sorts of thoughtcrime by threatening their compensation in a way that's unrelated to sales.

Basically you'll never excise "cultural critique" from scored reviews because the people who want to do the former don't want to just critique, they want to influence, and are unlikely to be able to create an environment wherein no one dares to produce things that offend them without being able to threaten developer compensation.

I am not so sure about that, a lot of cultural critcs are already not using grades or scores or something with enough precision to imply any objectivity or implication of general truth (I would refer to it as universal preference).

 

[NPC009]

However, at any rate, the idea that the reviewer needs parity with the gamer is a very, VERY flawed one. The reviewer is not playing the game for entertainment's sake; he's playing it as a means to offer service (that service being to tell you whether this game is entertaining). He doesn't get to stop if he's bored. He doesn't get to put it on hold for a couple of weeks and then come back to it. He has nowhere near the latitude a gamer would have, so it makes no sense to obligate him to fulfill the same consumer requirements.

Yep, the way we play games can be rather brutal and not something I would recommend to regular gamers. I fell into that niche of 30+ hour visual novels, RPGs and MonHun clones. I love those genres, and I try to finish every game I review but sometimes it's impossible. Still, I don't mind putting in 8-10 hours of game time a day if it means getting a better understanding of the game I'm reviewing. It can be exhausting, though.

So yeah, we don't play games exactly like regular gamers do, because regular gamers want their reviews on time and we're the ones that make that happen. I would love to have more lenient schedules but the demand simply isn't there. I have considered just giving up on the whole being a game critic thing, but I love games and I love writing about them.

Oh, and another argument against critics buying their own games: money means different things to different people. Some might find $20 for a three hour game a reasonable price, because they figure it's about the same amount of entertainment they'd get from going to the cinema twice. To others 20 bucks is atleast half a week worth of groceries and they really rather not live on instant noodles in order to get a few hours of fun. That often makes it hard to judge whether a game is expensive or not. It makes more sense to just include the MSRP in the little info box and leave it at that.

 

[EternallyBored]

But with my new system, if everyone's talking - the fake reviewers will find it excruciatingly hard to be heard.

In the same sense that Citizen's United opened the doors for everyone to have free speech through money, perhaps. IT sounds nice, but if these guys can pay reviewers, then they can pay more.

Nicer effects, more professional presentation, advertisement and awareness, promotional events, better editing and directing.

Yeah, pretty much like Citizen's United, the idea is nice in theory, everybody can speak up and have a platform and ideally the sea of voices will mute the malcontents. Until you realize that in that sea of free speech, money can buy you a megaphone, a podium to stand on, and a lot of stuff to give to your prospective audience to turn their ears in your direction.

It's harder to drown out "fake reviewers" when they have a much bigger platform, and a louder voice to speak with, there is little reason to believe that Youtube personalities wouldn't be susceptible to the same tactics that plague mainstream review sites, it was only their newness and relative unknown status that protected them until now, with recent popularity, the only thing I would see happening, if mainstream game sites as they currently exist went away, is very similar problems cropping up with these Youtube personalities, which we can already see the beginnings of with things like the Shadow of Mordor deal, and paid native advertising sneaking into some of the bigger network channels. I can only see that getting worse in a scenario where mainstream sites fade away.

 

[totheendofsin]

I'd close up shop and tell everyone to just become a youtuber because that's where gaming media is headed anyway, might as well help it along.