How to fix gaming "journalism"

It seems like most of these gripes have to do with gaming journalism's lack of professionalism. But I wonder if that has to do with the audience they're trying to reach...

We can't stop the swag. Publishers send it unsolicited. That's a complaint best sent to them, not the press.

We can't stop the swag. Publishers send it unsolicited. That's a complaint best sent to them, not the press.

c_rake

Nice try but you're not getting away that easily. Simple solution: send the swag back with a polite but firm "thanks but no thanks" and make clear that any future items sent would be a waste of postage since they will also get the return treatment.GalvatronType_R

That's a waste of cash that could be better spent toward projects that actually help the publication. It's usually disposed off, anyway. Or at least packed away in some dark corner of the office never to be seen again.

Point is, no one's ever atcually accepting those dumb items.

[QUOTE="GalvatronType_R"]Nice try but you're not getting away that easily. Simple solution: send the swag back with a polite but firm "thanks but no thanks" and make clear that any future items sent would be a waste of postage since they will also get the return treatment.c_rake

That's a waste of cash that could be better spent toward projects that actually help the publication. It's usually disposed off, anyway. Or at least packed away in some dark corner of the office never to be seen again.

Point is, no one's ever atcually accepting those dumb items.

It seems like most of these gripes have to do with gaming journalism's lack of professionalism. But I wonder if that has to do with the audience they're trying to reach...

Lucky_Krystal

Oh gosh this, like catering to the lowest common denominator. I know that sounds really smug, but I cannot deny that this seems to be the painful truth. What I personally believe would really boost gaming journalism is to get rid of review scoring systems entirely. They scale so poorly (such as RE: ORC earning the same score as RE6) and in many instances the text doesn't always appear to fit the score.

-stop accepting all swag and fully disclose any perks, benefits, and special consideration received from publishers; also fully disclose rules pertaining to acceptance of gifts and anything of value from covered entities GalvatronType_R

I don't believe this is going to happen and its impact doesn't have nearly the kind of sway that you think it does. Transparency is always encouraged, but freebies just come with the territory. It's no different from Gamestop managers getting free swag and games at their trade shows. It's just to preview and advertize stuff and that's all. It's not like they're cash gifts or anything.

Not true. I don't know about the junk sent directly to people but I have witnessed morons with press passes at E3 who, instead of or after covering events, go around to EVERY booth raking junk and baubles with their fat fingers into their grab bags. Completely unprofessional, low class, and not particularly ethical.GalvatronType_R

I agree, but conventions are different. My point still stands that, far as mailed items go, no one accepts them. And those who do are an embarrassment to the craft.

Oh gosh this, like catering to the lowest common denominator. I know that sounds really smug, but I cannot deny that this seems to be the painful truth. What I personally believe would really boost gaming journalism is to get rid of review scoring systems entirely. They scale so poorly (such as RE: ORC earning the same score as RE6) and in many instances the text doesn't always appear to fit the score.

ZhugeL1ang

When it comes to gaming, they're hardly the only guilty ones though. Gaming as a whole has this whole "casual" air. Awards shows and expos are hardly professional events where everyone dresses up and conducts themselves in a formal manner. More than often, its a bunch of designers showing off their creations to a horde of people who are pretty much just gamers, like you and me.  They scream, they yell, they get excited, they swear and make inappropriate jokes. Who's going to call them out on it? Their behavior matches the atmosphere they're in. "

TC is very critical of journalism, but I think many aspects of gaming, including games themselves and industry personnel are pretty much guilty of some of the unproffessionalism that TC speaks of. I mean, really? Hiring people to scream and cheer for your games? Assuming TC isn't just making that up, that's pretty sad. Yet hilarious.

In response to original poster: 

This whole post seems to be incredibly misinformed. To address you point by point. 

• If they still have an impact on the industry why would you not cover them
• If a developer decides to show you the very best of whats available in small increments, who is a journalist to say What we saw is great, but the rest probably sucks
• In the event that previews and reviews are done at special press events most major publications have it apart of their ethics statement that they pay for food, lodging, travel expenses etc.
• So because you dont like them their wrong?
• Okay this is just silly, they are journalist not news anchors.
• Most publications give away the swag sent to them by publishers. where do you think they get all the giveaway stuff?
• This is debatable, since while they are technically Media, games journalism is very much apart of the hype cycle, and in turn games review effect bonus on the back end. 
• Again this is just silly, hate to fall on this argument, but people gotta eat, games journos dont make 175k a year like congress men do. 
• Since there is no collective Games Media it would be Ziff Davis and IGNs prerogative to establish and enforce its Code of Conduct, and like any private business in America they can do anything they want within the bounds of the law. 
• The last two have been talked about extensively throughout the interweb and there are plenty of well formulated opinions on the matter.

Ultimately, call them what you want but the Games Media is the medium between consumer and publishers, unless you would rather scour the internet, sift through piles of overenthusiastic PR emails, and negotiate personal interviews yourself among a plethora of other things on a daily basis, let it drop.

Judge much? Do you even have any idea what their schedules were like while you watched them? Maybe they were on break. Maybe they were on their way to another booth, and decided to pick up some free stuff along the way. And if you have the time to watch their habits, what event were you supposed to covering... :?JustPlainLucas

His point does stand. Running about a trade show like E3 picking up throwaway memorbilia is rather unprofessional. I've heard more than a few vignettes of so-called journalists literally making a beeline for swag first and foremost, asking developers to autograph plushies and games on the job, and all sorts of other bad practices. Most ethic statements clearly outline how accepting stuff like that is not allowed, so it often really is a breach of ethics.

It's one thing if this is being done at a public venue like PAX, where the press is able to be there for fun as much as for work. But at industry-only events? Not good.

His point does stand. Running about a trade show like E3 picking up throwaway memorbilia is rather unprofessional. I've heard more than a few vignettes of so-called journalists literally making a beeline for swag first and foremost, asking developers to autograph plushies and games on the job, and all sorts of other bad practices. Most ethic statements clearly outline how accepting stuff like that is not allowed, so it often really is a breach of ethics.

It's one thing if this is being done at a public venue like PAX, where the press is able to be there for fun as much as for work. But at industry-only events? Not good.

c_rake

Its gaming journalism. People in entertainment news don't win Edgar R. Murrow awards (I'll also note that while Murrow was a superb journalist, he wasn't a model of objectivity). On a related note, journalistic objectivity is a BS notion. Nobody is perfectly objective. People who immerse themselves in a field and rub elbows with its practitioners on a daily basis tend to develop opinions. To tell viewers otherwise is a lie which does them a disservice (because it doesn't allow them to account for a journalist's real views when reading their reviews).

Also, I don't get the complaining about previews. Previews are descriptions of unfinished products which represent a greater level of access than other makers of commercial art give to the media. No director says 'We haven't applied the special effects or added in sound yet, but here is what we've got at this point' and no writer says 'I've still kind of feeling things out, and all of the characters you see might not appear and of course nothing has been spellchecked, but here is my unifinished manuscript!'. I'm fine with the looks at the raw, unfinished product, but I bear in mind that the product is unfinished and that the developers might not live up to all of their promises.

If one wants to be absolutely certain of one's purchase, wait for the product to be finished and then wait for not only professional reviews, but user reviews, especially in the place of multiplayer games (hundreds of professionals playing against each other might have a very different experience than thousands or millions of users as anyone who has been following the Simcity debacle can attest).

We can't stop the swag. Publishers send it unsolicited. That's a complaint best sent to them, not the press.

c_rake

Sure they could. They could tell the publisher that the next gift they get will be sent back and their readership notified about it. Can't blame the publisher's marketing department for trying to... market (that's what marketing departments do), but the reaction from the press will determine future solicitations guaranteed.

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

We can't stop the swag. Publishers send it unsolicited. That's a complaint best sent to them, not the press.

Shame-usBlackley

Sure they could. They could tell the publisher that the next gift they get will be sent back and their readership notified about it. Can't blame the publisher's marketing department for trying to... market (that's what marketing departments do), but the reaction from the press will determine future solicitations guaranteed.

I think its too far gone to 'fix' to be honest.Just don't take it seriously,especially reviews,some of them are so bad its a joke.

Couldn't turning that stuff down in turn be interpreted as 'we don't want review copies of your game'? That would render a publication several days slower than its competitors (which on the internet, would basically render them pointless).Articuno76

If everyone did it, everyone would again be on the same level. Instead they are selling their integrity for early reviews.

There's definitely a lack of professionalism in game journalism, even compared to other entertainment journalism. Oftentimes it's even worse than unprofessional, it's juvenile and embarrassing (shrieking at E3 conferences).

I can't believe people still pay attention to the way someone dresses when attempting to present an opinion. I think stating something like "Look at Wall Street" should be enough to get this point across.

As far the ads for Doritos, etc. It pays the bills. Advertisement is the way for TV programs to make money, and therefore, give room for more programs to take place.

Also, truly, if the 'image' changed, do you honestly believe people/gamers will have more faith in the review of a paid employee in a gaming website over user scores? It's been brought up multiple times how many simply believe scores are bought and that most trust user scores because they 'relate' more to those and have a more profound believe that they don't involve any kind of compensation. Therefore, changing the image of reviews to look more of a "Professional" would further the thought that they cannot relate to what 'gamers' think.

In the end, and in my opinion, I think there's really nothing to 'fix' from the journalists side more than there is from the user side. Gamers, enthusiasts, fans, etc just need to read more thoroughly and analyze things before jumping to conclusions, and really step away from the whole scoring system. When you see previews of games, the reviewer might get excited about how things look and his/her expectations of how it might turn out based on what is seen and what is discussed. If, all of a sudden, the person were to include all the ifs and buts into the discussion, it would be a 10 page long discussion that in the end, would make no sense.

I honestly do not need anyone, whether in a suit or not, to tell me that, an unfinished product is well, unfinished. That review scores are often heavily tilted based on the expectations of the reviewer and that I need to READ before coming to my own decision.

two areas I see fixing are... (1) reviews - outsource all gaming advertising to a third party to run the ads to the various sites, sites still see money they're just removed from choosing what ads are displayed, that way there is no direct conflict of interest with advertisement revenues and expected review scores (2) critics need to be assert their critical voices before a game's release, so many times I see interviews, previews and the journalists kiss the developers ass like "oh I can't wait to try it", and the game looked bad even then and it's no surprise the final product turned out like crap, they're in such a good position to voice concern instead of enabling failure, they should exercise their position for goodlamprey263

The second point is truth.  Some previews are fawning, softball filled interviews that don't actually preview the game but have the "journalist" kissing up to the developer and pushing a product that shouldn't be pushed.

Aliens Colonial Marines is a perfect example.  Instead of an honest critique of preview builds, it was a sickening and undignified Randy Pitchford lovefest.  The "journalists" really dropped the ball on that one.

[QUOTE="lamprey263"]two areas I see fixing are... (1) reviews - outsource all gaming advertising to a third party to run the ads to the various sites, sites still see money they're just removed from choosing what ads are displayed, that way there is no direct conflict of interest with advertisement revenues and expected review scores (2) critics need to be assert their critical voices before a game's release, so many times I see interviews, previews and the journalists kiss the developers ass like "oh I can't wait to try it", and the game looked bad even then and it's no surprise the final product turned out like crap, they're in such a good position to voice concern instead of enabling failure, they should exercise their position for goodGalvatronType_R

The second point is truth.  Some previews are fawning, softball filled interviews that don't actually preview the game but have the "journalist" kissing up to the developer and pushing a product that shouldn't be pushed.

Aliens Colonial Marines is a perfect example.  Instead of an honest critique of preview builds, it was a sickening and undignified Randy Pitchford lovefest.  The "journalists" really dropped the ball on that one.

Absolutely. 

I don't even bother reading previews any longer because of that shlt. Granted, I don't read reviews either, but why waste the reader's time if all you are going to write is some indiscriminate verbal fellatio? I think the industry needs to better assess what previews are and who they are written for -- their readership or the marketing departments of the companies making the product?

Now that I think about it, there really aren't any gaming "journalists" out there that call the industry on their BS.  McShea occasionally does it here but you can tell that his comments are heavily edited and probably screened carefully by the marketing and business people at ZD and CBS.

The only two people that are unafraid to challenge the industry are Marcus Beer and Jim Sterling.

Hey GalvatronType_R, I have a question for you. I'm a firm believer that we're delivered what we demand for.

I agree with some of your points and disagree with others as I stated previously. But, some sites have decided to change the format of their reviews in an attempt to be more thorough and detailed, even IGN for example, has the reviewer participate in the discussion right after the review is posted. But you know what happens more often than not, the discussion goes off about 4-5 posts into it to a mess and vulgar display of stupidity. They changed their reviews and still the fans continuously focus on the score given to the game.

Do any of these people even realize how a score is given, or even understand that the reviewer might think something negatively impacts the game and that same detail is something you consider positive? No, they don't. So, one thing we really should ask ourselves is, why should they change any of it? The followers don't seem to truly want more, because when more is given, they blatantly ignore it or even ask for the old 'system' back.

As much as I would love to hear an interviewer ask a CoD dev "So, do you plan on doing the exact same thing this year? Or are you finally going to change the formula? What is your opinion on why you believe your franchise continues to sell so much when you continuously deliver a very similar version of your previous iterations?" The answer from the developer should be simple enough, "We'll continue to deliver the same **** until people show they want something different."

I only have a few points to add here...

- Only review the final released version of a game**
- Use a reviewer who is knowledgable with the game's genre
- Play as much of the game as possible prior to review
- Get rid of 'score' systems entirely and kill the abomination that is Metacritic
- Don't accept invitations by publishers to carefully controlled 'behind closed doors' screenings/demos
- Cut out the flowery fluff and nonsense when describing a game
- Think of your target audience, and be honest

** As this would take more time and delay reviews some time after release, consider releasing a 'first impressions' video on day one

Do all those things, and I think people would respect gaming journalism a bit more.

Hey GalvatronType_R, I have a question for you. I'm a firm believer that we're delivered what we demand for.

I agree with some of your points and disagree with others as I stated previously. But, some sites have decided to change the format of their reviews in an attempt to be more thorough and detailed, even IGN for example, has the reviewer participate in the discussion right after the review is posted. But you know what happens more often than not, the discussion goes off about 4-5 posts into it to a mess and vulgar display of stupidity. They changed their reviews and still the fans continuously focus on the score given to the game.

Do any of these people even realize how a score is given, or even understand that the reviewer might think something negatively impacts the game and that same detail is something you consider positive? No, they don't. So, one thing we really should ask ourselves is, why should they change any of it? The followers don't seem to truly want more, because when more is given, they blatantly ignore it or even ask for the old 'system' back.

As much as I would love to hear an interviewer ask a CoD dev "So, do you plan on doing the exact same thing this year? Or are you finally going to change the formula? What is your opinion on why you believe your franchise continues to sell so much when you continuously deliver a very similar version of your previous iterations?" The answer from the developer should be simple enough, "We'll continue to deliver the same **** until people show they want something different."

DH1278

-conduct yourselves as professionals; I can't tell you how many gaming podcasts I listen to that are chock full of swearing, scatological and sexual jokes, off color comments about race and gender, and general milieu of immaturity (read: Kevin Pereira or anyone from Rev3 Games).; just stop it, you don't have to lose the sense of humor but again, act like professionals (and adults)

I can deal with the cussing, joking around & stuff like that. The rest of the stuff you said is right on the money & that's one of main reasons I stopped listening gaming podcast.

I don't care about how they dress or how they act. All I would like is some sort of intellectual integrity, which they clearly do not have, and it's not gonna change anytime soon. At the moment, game "journalists" are essentially nothing more than banner ad salesmen. They do whatever it takes to attract more viewers to the sites, which means that we get the fastest, most positive coverage imaginable before a game is released, and then the fastest review they can produce once it's out. If you need to accept "bribes" to get a review out faster, you do it, because everyone else is doing it. If you need to write a positive review because the game publisher is a big ad-money contributor, then you write a positive review even if the game sucks.

"speaking of which, many previews are done offsite and are paid junkets replete with food, alcohol, and lodging paid for by the publisher; stop this practice, if there are offsite previews, pay your own way"

For what it's worth, here at GameSpot, we always pay our own way with regard to travel and lodging for offsite events.

"speaking of which, many previews are done offsite and are paid junkets replete with food, alcohol, and lodging paid for by the publisher; stop this practice, if there are offsite previews, pay your own way"

For what it's worth, here at GameSpot, we always pay our own way with regard to travel and lodging for offsite events.

carolynmichelle

Good to know.

I realize the enthusiast industry journalism is different from "hard" journalism but the standards and professionalism need to go improve exponentially.

"speaking of which, many previews are done offsite and are paid junkets replete with food, alcohol, and lodging paid for by the publisher; stop this practice, if there are offsite previews, pay your own way"

For what it's worth, here at GameSpot, we always pay our own way with regard to travel and lodging for offsite events.

Gee, man.

I'm sure you think that like the dude who got fired for his unprofessional review of Kane and Lynch is a hero or something, when he was simply being unprofessional and whiney.

My biggest problem with them is like how whenever you see a game get a 10.0 rating, then you know it's actually going to be a **** game. Metal Gear Solid 4, I'm looking at you. They give existing franchises too much leeway while they underrate games that bring genuine innovation to the genre, like Kane and Lynch 2. 

Generally, I don't think game reviewers spend enough time really seeking out innovation in games. Like, there are gems like Arma or King Arthur Roleplaying game which just aren't mentioned in mainstream press, because the devs don't spend enough on public relations.

I really don't have a problem with most reviews (except for the ones that are bought and paid for; the guilty parties know what I'm talking about).

When someone says "gaming sites are crooked because they gave MGS4 a 10" is full of it.  Just because you disagree with a score doesn't mean that the reviewer is on the take.  A review is an opinion and probably more valid than most since the review has likely played more of the game than the general public (to that point).

My problem is the extreme unprofessionalism, rampant conflicts of interest, and too closely aligned members of gaming "journalism" to the industry they're supposed to cover as well as the multitude of gifts and other items of value that they accept and think go unnoticed.