Why are game journslists bad at games?

[Grungie]

1 hour ago, Dannyjax said:

It takes a way the commitment one have in playing such kind of games because the only motivation option there is the money and once that's removed, it's over for the game. 

“The only motivation option there is money” makes it sound sleazy. Tbh, you have to play the game to review, not beat and master, and there’s usually a time frame where you have to report back.

If I gave you a game and told you to report back tomorrow to write up the review, what do you think is more important to focus on? Mastering the game, or playing enough to capture enough data to write up the review?

I’m also pretty sure if you’re a professional reviewer, you have a schedule that involves a list of games to review, and this is going to be a regular thing, so your gaming time is focusing on doing it for work.

I think people need to think about the logistics of this, as the way a reviewer has to consume the same media vastly differs from the regular consumer.

[Withywarlock]

4 hours ago, Yaramaki said:

One thing i always wondered woulden't it be better for reviewers/websites to just drop the overall scores they give to a game.

For the improvement of discourse in games because it encourages people reading and quoting the article? Absolutely. To draw in clicks? Absolutely not. It only takes one outlet to stick with scores to suck up all those eyeballs. I compare it to nuclear warhead disarmament: everyone agrees it's a good idea, but it requires everyone do it or else it makes you vulnerable. And who wants to be the first to sacrifice their readership?

4 hours ago, Yaramaki said:

What's the difference between a 76 or 80 anyway.

Ha, my thoughts exactly. 1-100 or decimal point scores do nothing for me. I spoke to my editor about my review criteria upon joining the paper, and my scoring is as follows:

1. A technically bad game I didn't enjoy.
2. A technically bad game I did enjoy / a technically good game I didn't enjoy.
3. A technically good game I did enjoy / a technically bad game I greatly enjoyed.
4. A technically good game I greatly enjoyed.
5. God Tier. Since becoming 'pro' I've yet to assign a game a 5/5.

It's clear, concise and it's easy enough to be consistent by. Plus my scores needn't be published: they're just as useful as an internal guide for my editor and I to discuss what I've written. It's not perfect, but it's the best system that takcles what Jim Stephanie Sterling called "hate out of ten" I've seen so far that isn't just getting rid of scores.

5 hours ago, Yaramaki said:

You could absolutly hate the game you are reviewing but overall the game is good what score do you give, how do you go about it.

See above with my system. Had I reviewed it at the time I would've given God of War (2018) a 2 with my system. That's still a good score because even though I couldn't stand playing it, I can't deny that it looks, sounds and plays well. The content of the review would only reflect that score being justified.

5 hours ago, Yaramaki said:

Like say you have to review a sports game and you don't give a crap about sports in general how do you go about, do you put your principles aside and review the game like it is or just give it bad review.

I would choose not to review a sports game, but then I'm in a position where I that's an option. If I did review a sports game I'd take the piss, turning it into an attempt at a comedic piece.

But let's say I have no choice but can use my system, I'd only be able to rate it a one or a two: either I enjoyed it or I didn't, because it's not going to be technically competent. Not for the kind of money they save recycling assets.

5 hours ago, Yaramaki said:

Let's say you have to write an article about the fallout series and you have two pages to do it. What would you include to make it an interesting read?

I could easily do a retrospective on the Fallout series. I'm really into tabletop roleplaying games so I could go into how it was originally going to be a Generic Universal RolePlaying System (GURPS) engine video game, and how its creator Steve Jackson denied the rights because of the gratuitous violence featured and didn't want that associated with his brand. If I had to cover the history of the genres though, I'd be fine talking about how the games used to be Computer Roleplaying Games (CRPGs), and the backlash Bethesda received for turning them into first-person shooters (FPS). That's definitely a bit of history worth looking into.

But my ideas don't really mean diddly squat until I sit down with a medium salted caramel & cream frappé, a notepad and a pen, and write. Once I zone out and let the hand do the work, there's no telling what will happen.

5 hours ago, Yaramaki said:

My taste in video game books is probably different then yours, where mine is more video game collector based and from what i gathered you are more into the industry in itself but do correct me if i'm wrong. Usually a lot of collector based books are headed by a games journalist and start out as their own fan project so it's all the same anyway.

Ah, interesting! If you recommend any particular titles I'd love to hear them (maybe not on this thread as it may derail things).

5 hours ago, Yaramaki said:

I have the crpg book from what i remember it's just review after review with a few pictures of the games, i tought it was decent and it's well put together but as you stated it's not a must own, it's great as an introduction to the genre though.

I made a fatal error earlier dubbing it a fan project: it is, but it also contains excerpts from journalists and game devs. Dear me. So a bad example, my apologies for not doing the investigative journalistic leap of using Google to verify things before posting! 😅

5 hours ago, Yaramaki said:

I'll take you up on Jason Schrier's Blood, Sweat and Pixels it's only a little over 15 euros so i'll go and grab it now. If you have other video game book recommendations i'd love to hear as it never hurts to learn a thing or two about the industry.

It's my understanding Ready Player One is the sequel to Blood, Sweat and Pixels. Might be worth checking out if you like the former, but don't quote me on that.

[m76]

I think it is because it's just a job for them. Imagine learning to be a journalist, and when you finally graduate, who is going to hire you with no experience and no credentials? You certainly aren't going to a big name publication. No your options are very limited, so you decide to go to gaming website. Playing videogames for money can't be that bad right?

When I was growing up writers at gaming magazines were passionate gamers one and all. Nowadays it seems like not many do it out passion.

 

On the other hand many people seem to be talking about mastering games. I don't think you need to master a game to write about it. Most actual players never master games. I certainly don't, even the games I absolutely love and play a ton. I play them to have fun, not to learn every trick and exploit in them. So I wouldn't expect that from reviewers either. It is unfeasible, the access media gets the games maybe one or two weeks before launch, that's all the time they have to play the game and write the article, you can't fit much mastering in that.

There are a  few reviewers, who don't give a damn about finishing their review by the game's release date, but they are usually the ones who already have a loyal audience, and don't need to ride the launch buzz to get clicks.

[Dannyjax]

On 6/12/2022 at 7:58 PM, Grungie said:

“The only motivation option there is money” makes it sound sleazy. Tbh, you have to play the game to review, not beat and master, and there’s usually a time frame where you have to report back.

If I gave you a game and told you to report back tomorrow to write up the review, what do you think is more important to focus on? Mastering the game, or playing enough to capture enough data to write up the review?

I’m also pretty sure if you’re a professional reviewer, you have a schedule that involves a list of games to review, and this is going to be a regular thing, so your gaming time is focusing on doing it for work.

I think people need to think about the logistics of this, as the way a reviewer has to consume the same media vastly differs from the regular consumer.

The time given to review the game being shorter will always impact on how the game would be played by the reviewer and I think that in most cases, they will have shallow overview of what's obtainable in the game. 

[Grungie]

2 hours ago, Dannyjax said:

The time given to review the game being shorter will always impact on how the game would be played by the reviewer and I think that in most cases, they will have shallow overview of what's obtainable in the game. 

It depends on the length of the game and the type of game. My one day example is probably too short of a time frame for some games, but then you also have to think that reviewers also have to play multiple games over the course of a month, as opposed to a normal consumer who probably only buys like one or two.

Shallow seems like a harsh word to use for the situation, because I personally don’t think you need to master or 100% a game to be able to write a review for it. I’m sure we all have games that we enjoyed that we didn’t fully complete, and some that we didn’t beat.

Sure it seems more “authentic” to review a game when you 100% completed the game, but a lot of the time, you can play a certain amount of the game to get an idea of how it plays, and the general quality of it. Once you figure out the formula of how it plays, you can still come up with a score for it.

Do you need to beat a game to say “yeah, this isn’t for me” or “I don’t like this game”? Or even to say you enjoyed it?

[Jasmin]

I have reviewed some games. In my opinion, you don't have to be extraordinary player in order to become a reviewer. However, it is required of you to know every aspect of the game you are reviewing.

[killamch89]

Some gaming journalists should just be called Journalist who couldn't make the cut in any other fields and ended up in gaming because some of them are absolutely horrendous at their job. For example, I can't remember if it was an IGN review of Cuphead but the reviewer couldn't even do the basics and then gave it a poor ranking because of that. Like, who does that?

[Clasher]

On 6/12/2022 at 1:22 PM, Withywarlock said:

I'll begin by saying I apologise if this sounds like I'm talking down to you, I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence when I get worked up over a subject I'm passionate and interested in shortly. It's a very long post, and this is about the closest I get to discussion/debate or just plain response on forums these days.

I deem passion and interest to be two different things. People have a passion to write and that's the job description the recruiting manager/editor-in-chief have written up for the writer's contract; the interest in video games are secondary if it gets clicks. If you're passionate about and interested in both, more power to you.

Take my posts on this forum for example; my past ~12 months have been cynical drivel most of the time because I'm passionate about posting, but I'm not really that interested in being involved in the topic. See also a lot of the spam users have complained about: people want to speak, but aren't interested in talking. This is the most animated I've been in about a year.

I wholeheartedly agree, at least that's how things are to begin with and bless the hearts of those who still view it like that. Mark Twain is quoted as having said "find a job you enjoy doing, and you'll never have to work a day in your life."

I'm the opposite more often than not. I remember getting my first review codes and being giddy over closed beta access, which unfortunately interfered with my ability to give as neutral a review as possible. Most "pro reviewer" outlets have review guidelines and ethics policies, and are held to a higher standard when it comes to disclosure. Granted, I'd take Johnny Forumgoer's review of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain over anyone who went to the Konamitz Review Camp, having their work closely monitored by the developers and publisher so they didn't step out of line.

That said, variety is the spice of life. Find reviewers whose tastes align with yours, whose ethical and review policies are open and consistent, and whose relationships with developers and publishers is transparent and well-documented (ie. interviews, press events, friendship).

I should also point out I only consider myself a "pro" in the sense that it is my profession; evidently my writing quality and manner leave something to be desired. 😅

That's fascinating! I'd love to give them a read if you're able to share the links (if that's permitted in the rules, see Shagger's post above, even if it's just in DMs).

I disagree. A lot of fan projects likely don't have the pull, resources or know-how to get interviews and inside information, and go off their own knowledge, community boards and wikis. Jason Schrier's Blood, Sweat and Pixels is a phenominal read, I dare say one of the best video game books that isn't by a developer. The CRPG Book on the other hand is a decent read but shouldn't really be considered essential reading for RPG fans.

This takes us about around to that discussion of passion and interest. Anyone can have an interest in the Hell's Angels, but it took someone as gonzo as Hunter S. Thompson to go with them risking life and limb (at the end of his book being severely beaten and bloodied) to give a first-hand account of the last of the outlaws.

All of that said, I wish pros like myself were only half as good as Thompson getting information and concrete answers from the developers. It's like drawing blood out of a stone, and I commend fans especially who can get that information despite that lack of resources.

@Withywarlock this is fantastic, I got into a discussion with my pals about this very topic and after long minutes of back and forth arguments i just asked them to  read this comments and boom problem solved.

 

[Dannyjax]

5 hours ago, killamch89 said:

Some gaming journalists should just be called Journalist who couldn't make the cut in any other fields and ended up in gaming because some of them are absolutely horrendous at their job. For example, I can't remember if it was an IGN review of Cuphead but the reviewer couldn't even do the basics and then gave it a poor ranking because of that. Like, who does that?

A lazy journalist that's who does that because it's not like their isn't enough content for the so called journalists to use and get facts to review with. 

[Withywarlock]

11 hours ago, killamch89 said:

Some gaming journalists should just be called Journalist who couldn't make the cut in any other fields and ended up in gaming because some of them are absolutely horrendous at their job. For example, I can't remember if it was an IGN review of Cuphead but the reviewer couldn't even do the basics and then gave it a poor ranking because of that. Like, who does that?

That was Dean Takahashi of VentureBeat playing the demo, but he wasn't the game's reviewer and had stated he wasn't great at platform games (but still, to not be able to follow basic instructions deserves scrutiny for someone who professes to be an authority on vidya). If he was, the backlash would've been rightly deserved. As for IGN, they'd given it an 8.8/10.

Interestingly enough, I find his investigative write-up on the Xbox 360's technical faults to be fascinating. That's the sort of journalism that's sorely lacking because games journalists don't know how to be journalists; most - and I include myself here - are glorified, paid bloggers. Even Jim Stephanie Sterling went by the credentials of working in "garm jarnalizm" rather than 'game journalism' because they didn't deem the title appropriate for what they did.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Withywarlock
Further clarification

[killamch89]

9 hours ago, Withywarlock said:

That was Dean Takahashi of VentureBeat playing the demo, but he wasn't the game's reviewer and had stated he wasn't great at platform games (but still, to not be able to follow basic instructions deserves scrutiny for someone who professes to be an authority on vidya). If he was, the backlash would've been rightly deserved. As for IGN, they'd given it an 8.8/10.

Interestingly enough, I find his investigative write-up on the Xbox 360's technical faults to be fascinating. That's the sort of journalism that's sorely lacking because games journalists don't know how to be journalists; most - and I include myself here - are glorified, paid bloggers. Even Jim Stephanie Sterling went by the credentials of working in "garm jarnalizm" rather than 'game journalism' because they didn't deem the title appropriate for what they did.

I know that IGN gave it a great overall score but some of the things that brought down the score was so miniscule at best and was more a symptom of a lack of understanding of the game mechanics than the actual game mechanics. To be honest, I never did follow up his work but I do like the write up.

[Scorpion]

You raise a valid point! Many journalists may prioritize writing over gaming skills. Passion often enhances performance in any field, including gaming.