Video Game Journalism

Okay, semi-Devil's Advocate here: if you manage a "big" website with a lot of traffic because many players come to see your reviews, you always need an income. Ads are the most obvious source, and of course if you talk about video games, then the brands that will be interested to pay in order to be on your page will be VG-related.

The other possible source of income is, well, the reader. Which is why some websites now use a paywall for some of their articles, and the possibility to subscribe a monthly fee in order to access all of the content. A big French VG website (Gamekult, probably the 3rd biggest in France) uses this system, and its homepage is ad-free - well, there is an ad for the Paris Games Week, but you can hardly say that it will influence their reviews. Now if you go on Gameblog (without an adblocker) you will quickly see the difference - on top of that, Gameblog is (in)famous for the inbreeding between its journalists and the VG producers, the founder proudly posting on Twitter pictures of a travel to Japan Sony completely paid for.

But a large, free, independent website simply cannot exist.

edited 27th Oct '15 10:51:34 AM by Julep

My whole point is that paid or not, whoever actually listens to the suggestions of an opinion article has no one to blame but themselves

We get it, you think video game reviews shouldn't exist and everyone that listens to them is an idiot.

edited 27th Oct '15 11:04:37 AM by Larkmarn

Actually, there is nothing wrong with listening to the suggestions of an opinion article but it is dumb to listen to only one opinion article.

You have instant access to ten of those thanks to internet if you wish to get different opinions. When 10 reviewers start saying the same thing, you may assume that the points they raise are valid.

edited 27th Oct '15 11:05:10 AM by Julep

Not "shouldn't exist". Just that putting them on a pedestal is silly.

I mean, there are sillier ways of making money than that.

Here, have some commentary on video game journalism that has nothing to do with that one large and annoying flamewar that shall not be named.

http://gematsu.com/2015/10/trillion-god-destruction-coming-west-spring-2016

I was just thinking, if this were a story in a standard newspaper...that second paragraph —

...wouldn't be there at all. Because that reads like an ad for the game, complete with addressing the second-person voice and an exclamation point for excitement.

Instead, you'd get something like, say, a bit of perspective noting what other Idea Factory games have been released in the west, to give context. And maybe, for example, noting that the company is involved in the latest efforts to bring JRP Gs to western PC gaming, with a number of its own offerings on Steam. Or something like that. Actually that might not be appropriate here but it's just something I'm personally familiar with it. But my point is that it gives some other context to who's who and up to what.

Or at the very least, a summary of the game's basic premise, but in a more matter-of-fact and non-excited tone.

I don't know that that raises eyebrows. I'm pretty used to game reviews going excited second person every once in a while, doesn't mean they're ads in disguise.

Interactive stuff in general is described like that.

Look up "4d" stuff, like Disney Quest, or some theatre plays and stuff. It is because it is an interactive media rather than a static one where you are no a participant, like a movie.

Yeah, that's really nothing out of the ordinary.

This isn't a review. It's simply a news article mentioning that a game notable enough to warrant a mention is getting a release.

I'm not saying it's out of the ordinary. I'm saying it's a bad thing.

I'm with Ninety on this. I see no reason to get all up in arms over the existence of a news article announcing a new game that talked a bit about the game being announced.

Not sure why you call this "up in arms". I'm just pointing out my opinion on something.

Also, the point isn't that it's describing the game. It could easily do that without sounding like an excited advertisement for the game.

Glenn's point is that even in a completely neutral description of a game's release date, the writers naturally fall into the habit of trying to make the game sound exciting, for no particular reason. It just demonstrates the state games journalism is in.

An opinion made public, and broadcast, is the definition of journalism. Not exclusively games journalism.

Not really.

Journalism — or at least, reporting (as opposed to commentary) — tends to aim for being matter-of-fact and presenting information rather than presenting emotion or opinion.

You mentioned the important bits there. "Tends". "Aims". In reality, not only is media rarely objective, but even if it is to the best of its ability, it cannot present all information there is, only what is available.

Humans have biases. We cannot avoid them. We definitely try, but when we apply criteria to subjective matters (like videogames), there is simply no way give it an objective numerical standarized value.

But that passage wasn't even trying.

The trillion god one? It was describing interactive fiction as said before. It does not sound weird at all.

For example.

Put it side by side with your "forging strong bonds" and other bits of descrption and you will find the similarities: Interactive fiction even when describing, needs to be described as what you will get to do. Otherwise it just appears to be technical and unengaging and no one will read that.

Well if you're going to argue that it's unappealing to the audience, I guess there's not much to say.

I still think it's bad form though.

Then again, yellow journalism and other such phenomena exist for a reason.

Arise, my champions thread, and serve the Lich King in death the forums once more!

Warner Bros got nailed by the FTC for failed disclosure of Shadows of Mordor paid promo videos. They are now on notice, and cannot get away with that again. Oh, and PewDiePie is one of the main culprits.

I'm waiting for them to wake up and realize this isn't going to work in your favor. Be honest, people.

edited 11th Jul '16 9:59:09 AM by TotemicHero

I don't think whatever that guy's real name is cares all that much. He's rich. And WB will be able to pay that fine out of pocket change. They're mega RICH. Nothing much will change. The game developers will still do what they did before - they'll just be that tiny little bit more open about what they're doing, and that's all.

The one game that didn't need it...

Yeah, no kidding. By all accounts, it was a good game. Still, good to see that someone oversees this shit.

<does a necro dance>

Indie developer BadFly Interactive is apparently attempting to bully games reviewers into not giving negative reviews.

Looks like a little dev thinks they've got big britches. Pass the Popcorn.

Edit: I think I'm gonna holler for this thread to get moved to OTC, as it would be a better fit (and get more discussion) there.

edited 17th Jan '17 10:33:47 AM by TotemicHero