Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Actually, this is pretty common in all forms of journalism.  Not that I think Games Journalism has exactly been a shining example of this (ever, not just now).

I think someone earlier mentioned suicides not being covered.  This is absolutely true.  One time I worked for a local paper over the christmas holidays and because I was the new guy they stuck me working the Christmas Eve beat.   Nothing was going on, but we were given access to the police scanner.  I was to cover things like houses burning down because of bad wiring or candles, deaths by carbon monoxide poisoning, theft, murder, etc...

...But Christmas Eve is all about suicides.  LOTS of people offing themselves on that day in particular, more than anything else.


So I got to sit there and listen to things.  When something popped up, I would phone and get the basic information.  If it turned out to be a suicide, or a suspected suicide, I would stop gathering information and then continue to wait.

[Mizhara]

I wholly agree it's not unique to the gaming press, but that doesn't make the practice any less problematic. It lowers trust in the media and it leads to very skewed coverage.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

I don't see it as being problematic, really, especially when you are having discussions about the guiding philosophies around which 'what to cover/what not to cover' is centered.

The only difference now is that the discussion is happening out in the open rather than in a dark and smoke filled room filled with editors and newspaper barons.  If that lowers your trust in the media then I really don't know what to say.

[Victoria Stecker]

Discussing whether or how to cover an event with other people in your profession is not the same as working together to all tell the same story. People will disagree. Unless there's an actual agreement to work together to only show one side of a story, then there's really nothing to see here but people bouncing ideas off each other and seeing what other people think.

This gives you the chance for someone to say, "Hey, I don't think that's a good idea." This is a really really good thing, because without people around to say that, really bad shit happens.

[Mizhara]

It wasn't exactly in the open until someone leaked the whole thing, whereupon the discovery rather blew up in their faces. The impression I got is that this lowered the trust to below freezing. I haven't had much respect for the gaming press for quite some time now, but this dragged the barely breathing remains behind the chemical shed and put a bullet in the back of its head.

If it'd been open, it would have been a subforum somewhere with actual open discussion on what they didn't want to cover on this or that site and why, where people could see the reasoning and choices made if they were interested in that sort of thing.

Again I bring up TB as a counterpoint, as he's responded to these latest kerfuffles with more and more disclosure, showing exactly how easy it is to remain open and trustworthy. When there's some genre, developer/publisher or subject he's not covering, he usually discloses why. If he has any relation to the devs, publisher or game he discloses it and warns that this may lead to skewed results. He makes his biases abundantly clear so his viewers can know about them.

This isn't difficult and it's the reason he's got hundreds of thousands of followers, is the biggest curator on Steam and is generally held in high regard across the gamer community. Hell, he even self-corrects when he realizes he's fucked up or said stupid shit and apologize for it. I've honestly never seen that level of open communication with his readers/viewers anywhere else in gaming.

This sets a standard that gaming press shouldn't be surprised to see being expected from them.

[Victoria Stecker]

It wasn't exactly in the open until someone leaked the whole thing, whereupon the discovery rather blew up in their faces. The impression I got is that this lowered the trust to below freezing. I haven't had much respect for the gaming press for quite some time now, but this dragged the barely breathing remains behind the chemical shed and put a bullet in the back of its head.

If it'd been open, it would have been a subforum somewhere with actual open discussion on what they didn't want to cover on this or that site and why, where people could see the reasoning and choices made if they were interested in that sort of thing.

This sounds... a bit silly. You're saying that people who want to talk about their work with other people in their field should do it in public so you can read over it? Because that way you'll trust them? Something?

That sounds like a catastrophe. Rather than having miniblowups (most of the responses I've seen to this can be summarized as "You did nothing wrong, Breitbart is trying to make a big deal out of nothing again, what are you apologizing for?" There are is a small, vocal bunch that seems to think this is some great scandal, but they really don't seem to be the majority) you would instead have people trying to make hay out of every single little thing and bitch about everything they disagree with. Trying to put these discussions out in public would be the end of these discussions, and I don't see that being beneficial to anyone.

Again I bring up TB as a counterpoint, as he's responded to these latest kerfuffles with more and more disclosure, showing exactly how easy it is to remain open and trustworthy. When there's some genre, developer/publisher or subject he's not covering, he usually discloses why. If he has any relation to the devs, publisher or game he discloses it and warns that this may lead to skewed results. He makes his biases abundantly clear so his viewers can know about them.

This isn't difficult and it's the reason he's got hundreds of thousands of followers, is the biggest curator on Steam and is generally held in high regard across the gamer community. Hell, he even self-corrects when he realizes he's fucked up or said stupid shit and apologize for it. I've honestly never seen that level of open communication with his readers/viewers anywhere else in gaming.

This sets a standard that gaming press shouldn't be surprised to see being expected from them.

TB is completely dependent on making sure his audience is happy. He'll do whatever ass-kissing he has to. He doesn't have a publication behind him that will have his back if he happens to call out his audience on for being stupid. That's not to say that what he is doing is wrong - transparency is great, particulary when it comes to talking about his relationships with developers. But to demand that professional writers open up their personal lives and communications for public investigation is ridiculous.

Want them to mention advertising relationships, personal relationship with developers, etc? That's fine. Want them to make public all of the conversations they have with other people in their profession? Lolno.

Again, I don't want to say that games journalism doesn't have problems. There are huge conflicts of interest involved when you are writing reviews for the same games that are being advertised in the margins. I'm simply saying that this particular google group (and, in fact, most of what has made up the GamerGate stuff) is lacking substance. I'd recommend reading Kyle Orland's response to this particular thing, it makes it pretty clear what's going on, and there's nothing really nefarious here.

[Kala]

Professionals just going to the point of debating between themselves whether something should be ignored or not is frightening, frankly.

...Is it?  I don't find it frightening, personally.  I'd imagine it's...fairly commonplace to discuss what comes under your remit to report on and what's outside of it?

I would agree with you if there were any way of enforcing a consensus once it is reached, rather than arguing the point and coming to similar conclusions at the end of said discussion.  For example, if there was more clout to this google group, as in, it was some kind of game journo's union.  and you had to toe the line on what you reported on, or you would lose the potential benefits of being in this union.  Or whatever else. 

I'm not seeing it, though.  I don't see why someone in that google group, even if the group consensus decided the issues surrounding Zoe Quinn were not relevant, couldn't go against that consensus if they wanted to or had a different viewpoint.


To quote one of the 'leaked' excerpts:

Andy Eddy (@Gamer Magazine)   Aug 19
My two cents: This is barely a game-industry story, no matter how some people want to frame it. This is a story about a person who happens to be in the game industry and their personal relationships (no matter how it may weave back into “the industry” and however poor the person’s judgments may have been) and public expose of private materials by that person’s partner as revenge, so I don’t think we, as games press, should support furthering the story by commenting, editorializing or even allowing others to ruminate on it.

Andy Eddy (@Gamer Magazine)   Aug 19
Personally, there are some lines I don’t think we should cross, and I’ve endeavored during my career to not go into those areas just for hit counts or reader numbers or “because people want to know.”

See, if this guy personally believes that this topic is not only not relevant, but reporting on it would actually be harmful, and he doesn't want to provide a platform for that and doesn't think that should be the role of the gaming press - I have no problem with him having that stance.  If he decides it's a line he won't cross, regardless if people want to read it and adding further fuel to controversy could gain page clicks and revenue, I kind of think that shows more journalistic integrity.  Not less.

I also don't see anything to suggest that everyone has to abide by this person's two cents.  Same with any of the other comments.

It's really interesting how this discussion of collusion and corruption has centered around indie game devs and the more 'critic' oriented writers.  Personally, when looking for corruption, I would follow the money and examine the relationship between the big studios and the commonality in their review scores across the board.  I'd actually reform reviewing in favour of more personal, subjective and biased accounts, rather than the opposite. They are far less likely to be corrupt than a collection of websites all scoring a game highly because the studios are paying for advertising, or only giving advanced copies out to people they know will give them rave reviews...

[Jace]

I can't remember if I posted earlier in this thread about the actual topic or just derailed it at various points.

Whether there is collusion, whether there is an absurd level of bias, whether there is any 'ethical' problem with gaming journalism honestly is not important to me. What is important to me is that the vast majority of their reviews are utterly useless to me unless it is a simple feature comparison. I always have and always will rely on the opinions of friends for reviews.

[Morwen Lagann]

It's really interesting how this discussion of collusion and corruption has centered around indie game devs and the more 'critic' oriented writers.  Personally, when looking for corruption, I would follow the money and examine the relationship between the big studios and the commonality in their review scores across the board.  I'd actually reform reviewing in favour of more personal, subjective and biased accounts, rather than the opposite. They are far less likely to be corrupt than a collection of websites all scoring a game highly because the studios are paying for advertising, or only giving advanced copies out to people they know will give them rave reviews...

I think this is where I stand on the issue, and have stood since long before this #gamergate nonsense took off.

I want reviews of games I might be interested in to not be little more than some person being paid to give the developer/publisher a handjob in public. If the game is a buggy piece of shit, you should be saying so. If the game is lacking in certain areas, you should be saying so. If the game is genuinely good, yes, you should be saying so.

It's a review, not an advert. It's supposed to be subjective by definition, and when 'reviews' are largely that same parroted hand-job, they're no longer reviews. It's paid advertising.

And that's why I (like Jace) depend on friends and other people I know and talk to for reviews, if not personal experience from playing in a beta or something like that.

[Lyn Farel]

The more subjective you make a review, the more sensitive to collusion and corruption you make it.

In a review, I expect two things :

- A clinical analysis and presentation of what the game is, what its features are, and what you can find inside. It has to be purely objective. No need for anything else in that part, it's for the player to just read what to expect of a game. Well, in my case I am fed up reading between lines and retarded amateurish/fanboy comments trying to figure out what the game is truly about and how it works and what I will find inside, trying to grab the few bits about that that are often very scarce, if non existing to begin with... It's the first thing I look for when I have heard of a game and want to see what it's about and if it's something I would like or not. Because I know what I like in games, and what I generally don't. It doesn't mean that something that I usually dislike will not satisfy me in a game since there is always the possibility that done in a certain way, I will like it. But it gives me an objective view of what the game is made of.

- A transitional optional part where the journalist can tell his opinion on why all those features work or do not, using professional knowledge with level headed arguments that you won't find in an amateur review (because the journalist is supposed to have worked in the industry or to have a good knowledge of the field).

- A totally subjective part where he tells basically whatever he wants about the game, gives his opinion, his review. If he can be creative or original, the better, whatever. It's what makes people follow blogs or good commentaries : they create a bond with the audience and someone that will share the same views, the same character, the same affinities will like it and eventually continue to follow it not to get informed (which is what the first part is about), but to share, hear an opinion of someone you usually trust, or that shares your views.

I think those distinctions are extremely important and we never see them.

[Jace]

The more subjective you make a review, the more sensitive to collusion and corruption you make it.

All reviews are subjective. Acknowledging their subjectivity can reduce the pressure to be 'objective' in a certain particular way that is expected of you and let the person just do their review. Trying to keep everyone on the same page of objectivity is just another form of what you are railing against, because it is someone's particular notion of objectivity that is being enforced on everyone else.

[Lyn Farel]

The more subjective you make a review, the more sensitive to collusion and corruption you make it.

All reviews are subjective.

I didn't know that !

The more subjective you make a review, the more sensitive to collusion and corruption you make it.

Acknowledging their subjectivity can reduce the pressure to be 'objective' in a certain particular way that is expected of you and let the person just do their review. Trying to keep everyone on the same page of objectivity is just another form of what you are railing against, because it is someone's particular notion of objectivity that is being enforced on everyone else.

I feel that you did not read what I wrote. A review on technical aspects of a game and basically how it plays, shouldn't have many difficulties to prove objective, since you don't have to include any pieces of opinion..

[Jace]

How it plays is not subjective? Try reading the reviews of any racing game ever. How the vehicles handle, how the traction handles, the variation between cars, all of the 'how it plays' aspects are incredibly subjective.

[Kala]

The more subjective you make a review, the more sensitive to collusion and corruption you make it.

I disagree.  I find people's personal responses to things - what they liked and didn't like, conceivably far less likely to be exploited than a numerical score system - which is *touted* as objective.

I get your point about analyzing purely technical things as a more objective measure, mind.  How well it runs and how pretty it looks as a basemark compared to other things.  Seems a bit...basic, on some level though?

Not saying they aren't important considerations, but bottom line when I read about a game for me is - what's this all about? is it fun? will it appeal to me personally, and will I enjoy it?  do I want to spend money?

Even if they absolutely slate it, if they slate it for personal reasons that I'd probably enjoy it for, that's worthwhile.  Conversely, that's also true for if they love the game for reasons I would dislike it.

I'm not sure they can tell me if I might enjoy it by attempting to be objective.  Rating it on it's graphics, gameplay, sound etc isn't really telling me much on a personal level - other than certain games get high scores.

I also find it a flawed premise to attempt to make an objective review of a medium that is experienced subjectively.  Seems a bit awkward to me; like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

We all like what we like, mind.  Preferring that format is fine, I just find it flawed.

Just I think if someone is saying (as RPS do) 'this is wot I think' on a game, and give a viewpoint, that seems fairly authentic to me.  Whereas trying to state your review is objective, just because you're grading the same way everyone else does...tbh, that has less value to me.

[Lyn Farel]

How it looks is hard to quantify objectively. Everyone will have tastes and just reading most descriptions done by people on the same game will generate as many different answers. It's funny that sometimes a gorgeous game will get defined by someone as ugly.

As much as I really try to rationalize the very work that I am doing everyday - which is graphics and art - even I have currently a LOT of troubles with my art director since I find some of what he does awful, and vice versa. 

The same way rating is purely subjective. It's the same thing I loathe with media journalists in general, especially TV news. They spend their time inserting stupid comments and positively/negatively oriented comments instead of just commenting the reality. If they want to make a debate and present their opinion they can do it after, thankyourverymuch...

In any case, I ask myself the same questions about a game for me - what's this all about ? Is it fun ? Will it appeal to me personally and will I enjoy it  and do I want to spend money ? Well I don't care at all what someone else will think about it. It's someone else, it's not me, and it's subjective. And that subjectivity means that I will maybe not like it.

Also, that's why I added my last emphasis on the subjective part of a review. When you share affinities and like the reviewer, usually that's precisely when his opinion will start to prove interesting and valuable to you. Or to the contrary when you read it from someone you can't stand his opinion. Either way you know why he doesn't like it, that it's actually the same reason that makes you like that kind of things, and that's precisely what will make you like it.

But I want to keep both separate. I'm just fed up trying to get an overview of what I will find inside before reading someone opinion. Sometimes I just don't want someone's opinion. Most of the time actually. I look for it when it's about someone I trust, like a friend, for example, or a reviewer I like, and the latter I have yet to find. Maybe TotalBiscuit, I like him.

I just feel that today, we just skip completely the first part about what the game is about to directly jump to what is great to do in a specific game, or what is awful to do. Well yes, but don't rush it, start with something factual before lashing out on the subjective opinions.

How it plays is not subjective? Try reading the reviews of any racing game ever. How the vehicles handle, how the traction handles, the variation between cars, all of the 'how it plays' aspects are incredibly subjective.

I don't see how it is. I'm not speaking about tactics or personal ways to play it. Even a racing game has brutally factual things that can't be anything other than objective, much like mathematics are.