Your idea of game journalism

[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.

 

[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.