Game journalism is a disgrace

Surf Solar said:
This. I don't get the whole fuss about this shit, everyone knows those gaming sites are useless, biased, bought or everything combined.
Click to expand...

No, everyone does not know that.

I happened to look at some streams on youtube for the launching of Halo 4, and it looked just wrong how there was plenty of people/kids praising the developers or the journalists there - for a game that has nothing special except marketing budget.
By visiting only quality websites we often forget they are only few and that people aware of some flaws in video game industries are not a majority.
 
mid 90s i would buy gaming mags

reviews were good overall.

slipping into the late 90s they became more and more filled with ads and less content.

i started buying them less and less unless they had something i wanted.

early 2000s, it got worse and the reviews started to be less accurate in my eyes and the fondling of devs got worse.

by like 2003 or 2004 i had stopped buying them, and whenever i go to a gaming mags site, the reviews i see do not make me want to read their mag. if their mag and reviews were good quality, i would buy them. now i just look for forums and buy games that people like or list off features i like in their games. and then there are some i buy and dont even play or dont play for very long.
 
I get Game Informer because they come free with the membership at Gamestop. I prefer it over any other gaming mag, aside from PC Gamer, but in the 90's, I must have tried every single one imaginable. I used to like Nintendo Power, Gamepro, and EGM a long time ago... Official Xbox Magazine is pretty bad now that I think about it. The writing quality has improved with gaming mags and sites though. Have you read some of those reviews from the Genesis/SNES era? Holy shit they were bad. Usually I will pick one up if they have an exclusive that is interesting, but I find myself caring less and less about what they care about. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2? Nope. Assassin's Creed 3? Nope. Mass Effect 3? Not even a little bit. Gears of War: Judgment, or whatever the fuck it's called...Stay away from my wallet! NO!

Game Informer does a little better though because they do a section on the last few pages that examines older games, like one was for the Gabriel Knight series, another was about 7th Guest, stuff like that. Plus, they have pretty decent articles that I never see in the other mags, aside from PC Gamer, which seems to be focused towards an older audience. The decline in gaming mags has been brought about by a legion of shit gaming sites. The only difference is we can read the shit sites for free, but we have to be exposed to just as many annoying ads, and even louder fan rants. Not to mention lots of "DORITOS HALO EXTREME XP POINTS" nonsense. How about that awful GameBanshee place? :wink:

I get info from numerous places before making my purchase, including but not limited to:

NMA/tO
Various gaming sites. Even the shit ones.
Gaming mags
Word of mouth at Gamestop or other gaming outlets
Customer Reviews on Amazon
Metacritic

This way I can get a clearer picture of what the game might be like. Usually you will hear complaints about technical aspects of the game, like clipping, lag, bugs, etc, and those can't really be debated. The rest you can fit into your existing framework of what you expect out of the game. In order to truly get a sense of what a game entails you must get inside the game itself. You must delve past the hype and fanboy love and find out what the game really is. :cool:

Who made this game? Was it a well known studio or are they an unknown? How long was it in development? How many people worked on it? Is it a controversial sequel that strays from the originals roots? Is it a shooter, RPG, platformer, hybrid, etc? Can you beat the game in 6 to 10 hours? Might be a rental instead of a buy. No real replay value after you beat it? That's usually a quick trade in or a pass. Over 60 hours of gameplay? Often a good sign unless it's all the same shit, like Skyrim or Darksiders. Is it linear or nonlinear? Depends on the genre on if that makes or breaks the deal. Is the game an upgrade of an existing game like Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3? How much content is new, is it a quick reshell money grab maneuver which Capcom is famous for? In that case it was, but I bought it anyway. :smile:

Whether reviews are relevant or important is entirely up to the person and their expectations. I don't read reviews expecting an honest answer to my decision (Yes or no. This game is good.), but I do expect to have a clearer idea of what the game is all about, the overall level of polish, and how many hours I will get out of it. Most of it comes down to opinion and everyone loves to tell people about their opinion. Look at this place for instance. :mrgreen:
 
It is the game journalists job to expose the inner workings of developers and spew some catchy phrase that's been churned out and recycled less times than the competitions. They can't do that if no one even reads the review and hits their page enough to fulfill their quota. People reading want to feel like they know the reviewer, so they can trust that opinion enough to make assumptions about the game without playing it and eventually make the decision if it's worth their money or not. Readers also want to be entertained, so writing skill is paramount. Even that's not enough after a while so they have to keep things fresh by throwing a curve ball every now and then, a bad review for a low budget game everyone had hopes for (and most of the time, are well placed accurate hopes) but doesn't have the hype enough to defend itself from these sharks. Sounding less like the big brother corporation that they are and more like your 'friendly trustworthy chum' is the big pull for raw cash these days.

It's at that point an average joe could see where big name review sites would have motivation to deal underhanded reviews for deserving games, or over the top praise for superficial shiny crap if it makes them an extra 4%. Even to the point of accepting 'bribes' in the form of an official advertisement for a big name game, or supposed 'exclusive first hand look' at one being developed. The sad thing it's been going on so long, that's where the majority of your 60 or more dollars go these days. It's assumed a games success is tied directly to its predetermined popularity, so that being said the biggest slice in this pie graph is the part where they control where your next 60 dollars goes. I know it's an overused word, but yea, hype. That's the biggest money maker in the industry now, the hype machine.


You could say that's the name of business in any sector of capitalism, shake your business partners right hand whilst reaching around him with your left to slide a dagger in his back. The system is so twisted now, and so much of the budget goes to fueling the hype machine, no one gets far with good old fashioned integrity and true interest in the industry. If you wear your heart on your sleeve you won't get anywhere. If you want to make it anymore, learn to polish your silver tongue on your superiors rear end. The talented bull*hitters are the ones left on the top of the pile making real money. They're getting good at it too. So good that the corruption has already started taking a toll on the overall well being of the games being made, quality is no longer the priority here and it shows.

Don't blame the journalists exclusively, they are just a symptom not the cause. If it's corruption you want to eradicate you're going to have to set your sights higher than that.
 
I like all the pissy replies about it being immature to fire someone publicly. It's not MCV's fault this became such a big deal, and it's their good right to make it publicly known they're moving on from someone outed as a sham journalist. Not to say I respect MCV, being shills is what they do, but they had little choice here.

Now Lauren can move on to the job she actually wants, working as a community manager or in PR for some video game company. Best of luck to you, stay away from journalism, you're not good at it.
 
yes, i agree.

a "journalist" who publicly states there is no conflict of interest in accepting gifts or preferential treatment from game companies when you are a "gaming journalist" makes you unusable. especially when there are pictures of your "professional background" makes it clear there were violations in "journalistic ethics" really just makes you unusable as a journalist.

but then again, did anyone really think she was a journalist?

as soon as it started happening, it became quite clear she was not a professional journalist, but rather a bought and paid for shill for the gaming companies while getting her paycheck from a gaming journalistic magazine.

maybe this will allow it to go away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top