Video Game Press

[IHatedSega]

What do you guys think of it as a whole? I usually go to Kotaku, they have all kinds of other news about stuff out there thats interesting.

How would you compare it to say Sports journalism?

[Nz17]

Video game "journalism," perhaps more properly called the video game enthusiast press, tends to be immature and lacking in investigative qualities. Most of what they post or write is hollow, mainly either press release re-writes or reviews of games which they have been sent by publishers (or personally purchased copies in the case of smaller sites). Many of the things posted are copied from elsewhere, often verbatim. There is little in the way of true research or in-depth articles, and often instead of directly linking to the source or point of interest, they link to prior stories of their own, making readers dig to discover their Web targets.

I should know - I read video game news sites every day including Slashdot Games and the Nintendo section of Joystiq.

[Graham Mitchell]

I feel that most of the printed magazines function to fuel the hype machine and keep readers informed about games and hardware on the horizon, but they fail in almost every other capacity.

Reviews, while dicey for any medium, are especially bad in video games. The reviewers are often young and lack experience and context with older, important games. There are also so many subjective aspects to nearly every game ever created, so assigning one number to represent a games "quality" really ignored how complex and multifaceted a player's experience with the game really is.

In addition, I think that the gaming press largely ignores its past. It exerts tons of energy and time attempting to inform readers about stuff they can preorder 6 months from now, but does almost nothing to inform or add insight about the thousands of games already available. I mean, I know rolling stone is a bit too fixated on Dylan, Neil young, and the stones, but at least they acknowledge that those artists exist and have put out work that maintains relevance decades after their original release.

[Tupin]

These people are not "journalists." They're all in bed with the big gaming companies, and are essentially paid advertisers. Every single one. Things like "Doritogate" and the absolutely pathetic and unprofessional responses these "journalists" responded to that Eurogamer article about conflict of interest in the industry proves that not only are they the problem, they actually think they are above criticism. You Tweet that you think "games journalists" should be allowed to accept gifts from companies, then threaten to sue an investigative reporter when they quote you verbatim from a public source?

Any of these "journalists" would be laughed out of the room if they discussed their tactics with people who actually understand the ethics involved with being a journalist.

[Bojay1997]

These people are not "journalists." They're all in bed with the big gaming companies, and are essentially paid advertisers. Every single one. Things like "Doritogate" and the absolutely pathetic and unprofessional responses these "journalists" responded to that Eurogamer article about conflict of interest in the industry proves that not only are they the problem, they actually think they are above criticism. You Tweet that you think "games journalists" should be allowed to accept gifts from companies, then threaten to sue an investigative reporter when they quote you verbatim from a public source?

Any of these "journalists" would be laughed out of the room if they discussed their tactics with people who actually understand the ethics involved with being a journalist.

I think you would be shocked at how many members of the "legitimate" non-gaming press are guilty of very similar ethical lapses, especially now that there are very few independent news organizations.

[Tupin]

I think you would be shocked at how many members of the "legitimate" non-gaming press are guilty of very similar ethical lapses, especially now that there are very few independent news organizations.

Yeah, but at least they know when to shut up. Imagine if members of the press tweeted about how big their last check from a sponsor was, and mocked their peers who didn't take similar gifts. Or heck, didn't see anything wrong with taking them. You say that it would be a "lapse" if a member of the non-gaming press did it, but it's so heavily engrained in games "journalism" that there are many "journalists" who see nothing wrong with it. It's not a lapse in judgement if you do it multiple times and defend it when accused.

[Aussie2B]

First off, I'll admit that I'm inherently biased having dabbled in games journalism for a number of years. Overall, I'd say games journalism is plagued with a number of problems, but, that said, if you look at individuals, there are many people who are immensely talented and knowledgeable who really deserve more respect than they get. Unfortunately, the bad apples ruin it for the good guys. I think it's important to keep in mind that the people involved in games journalism are in a wide variety of situations. Not all make a living off of what they do. Not all are permanently employed by any particular publisher, but rather take freelance gigs as they pop up. Not all have much, if any, direct contact with game publishers. But even if they are working in-house with a publication, that doesn't automatically mean they lack integrity either. And really, the true "villain" here is not the individual but the system. To be blunt, most game journalists have it pretty shitty, especially if they're trying to make it their full-time career, so when they do questionable things, like, say, review a game without finishing it, I can all but guarantee that the publisher is sticking them in a terrible position that basically forces them to cut corners, rather than the situation being purely a result of reviewer laziness. Also, since I mention reviews, it's also worth pointing out that, even though reviewing falls under games journalism, it's really a whole other beast. Being a critic and being a journalist are two very different things. One is all about being subjective and basically anything flies as long as it's well justified, while the other must be purely objective and about the facts. And if you don't like a reviewer because you disagree with his/her opinions, you really can't claim that the person is a poor journalist because of that.