Support NeoGAF

[choaffable]

Your brain then wires the game x to a positive experience. There are things you cannot influence about this. It's called psychology.

But that also goes to miss the point of Rab's original article: It's not about actual corruption, but perceived corruption. Someone could go on that trip to Germany and ride around in a Ferrari between gourmet dinners and massages, and then review a game "as objectively as possible." Sure, this journalist may be such a paragon of virtue that all that stuff slides off the Ethic 101 textbook that he or she wears like body armour and he or she delivers a fair review or preview.

But from the outside, from a reader's perspective, it looks shady. It makes me question the integrity of the piece, and wonder about bias, even if none exist (and I don't think those psychological factors should be so quickly discounted) That's the problem, the problem of optics.

Also, "journalist" waving off the idea that travel is a perk is pretty disingenuous. "UGH...These trips to all these exotic locales is so lame. Guys, it's the worst. I know you guys haven't done much travelling, but seriously, it's such a hassle. You've got to, like, pack, and like, be on time for things. Forget it. You're better off staying in your small dead-end of a town and just read about travelling."

 

[Kinyou]

Thanks man, saving this!

Keighley shotting sugar water like it's hard spirit with some promo girl at a CoD event is one for the books.

Note how she barely takes a sip.

 

[Oxx]

It's Geoff's darting, wandering eyes that make that scene.

Trying to get a look at the cleavage before thinking better of it.

 

[Drencrom]

Note how she barely takes a sip.

And how he shakes his head after drinking the green goo and flinches when she gets close to him.

Anyway. Our Lord and Saviour, the Doritos Pope, is my new phone wallpaper.

 

[Corto]

Read the Kotaku article. Good reporting of the facts with plentiful quotes from all the parties involved. The commentary of the whole issue was not aligned with my own opinion though. There was no need to be so defensive reiterating several times that only smaller bloggers/sites could be swayed by PR influences and not Kotaku or other bigger outlets. Established and less established games reporters will be equally influenced at a subconscious level by PR as they're both humans. The structure involving their work is what can shield them to some extent to that influence. Could the swag and trinkets that PR send be directed and handled by the outlets and not individual writers? The writers could have access to discs, review code and nothing else? Could that be feasible? Any swag, crap, statue, flags, etc that writers receive while in the act of their job are automatically property of their employers and they will proceed to dispose of them as they see fit excluding employees to keep them? That could be a good system no?

 

[Cipherr]

A good portion of this feels witch hunt esque, but this GIF is fucking hilarious.

 

[EternalGamer]

Note how she barely takes a sip.

There is about a hundred times more dignity in being caught in a sex tape doing the dirty sanchez.

 

[sleepykyo]

It isn't like Keighley is a critic though.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

- or this one for Tactics Ogre?

We all love it when Japanese games get released in English, because they sometimes come with odd and amusing subtitles. Tactics Ogre is no exception with its quaint subline, “Let us Cling Together.” We’re not sure what we’re clinging onto, but let’s do it together.

Oh now it's personal.

 

[Interficium]

Disappointed in Totilo's piece. The most damning parts of the controversy (usually sourced from NeoGaf) are skirted around or quickly dismissed, while "from the horse's mouth" testimonials by the very parties accused of having blood on their hands are treated as unassailable truths as they DENY FUCKING EVERYTHING. Even the title of article is just more veiled "tinfoil hatting" of the issue. Oh those CONTEMPTIBLE game journalists! (wink wink wink).

 

[zkylon]

One thing I've taken from this is that for the first time I've realized reviewers are pretty fucking pissed at some of their readers' distrust. I'm surprised, I've always thought that reviewers have it pretty easy, considering how often they're crazy misaligned with their readers' opinions (think ME3, GTA IV, etc.).

And yeah, Totilo's article was a major waste of time for whoever's a bit informed on the topic (that'd be everyone except the Kotaku readership, since they just thought of covering this craziness now), except maybe for Wainwright's stuff.

 

[gutabo]

Finally read Kotaku's article. I got the feeling that they(Kotaku) see themselves as an incorruptible source and that the problem lies somewhere else. Which of course is not true as many people here has pointed out. Also the swag is not the problem itself, it's a consequence of the biggest PR issue.

I'd like to see more of an opinion, and much more introspection in the future.

There was no need to be so defensive reiterating several times that only smaller bloggers/sites could be swayed by PR influences and not Kotaku or other bigger outlets.

The most damning parts of the controversy (usually sourced from NeoGaf) are skirted around or quickly dismissed, while "from the horse's mouth" testimonials by the very parties accused of having blood on their hands are treated as unassailable truths as they DENY FUCKING EVERYTHING.

Also this.

EDIT: I also read this: http://www.gamefront.com/critics-in-the-headlights/

which was pretty good but it also has this in the comments section:

Something that further illustrates your point is this: Dave Cook was also mentioned in much the same manner by Rab, and the fact that he’s not been mentioned to the same extent as Lauren just goes to show how much better he handled the situation.

He owned up to the fact that he messed up and that it was a bad look (although he expressed disappointment at Rab re: the way he approached that article). He left it at that, and it seems that he’s since been largely forgotten about throughout this whole thing.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Who's ready for a new avenue on this freight train of fear and loathing, and in the direction of a news organisation that should be held to better than internet bloggers?

David Braben's Elite Kickstarter goes up about an hour ago.

A BBC article essentially advertising the incredibly content light Kickstarter (no screens, no video, nothing) goes up pretty much around the exact same time.

So this would have had to have been pre-planned? Braben just phones up his BBC mate, whizzbang curl off some "HEY REMEMBER ELITE?" fluff that the studio has sauntered on past accolades solely for-fucking-ever, and jam in that all important promotional link. To further disguise the odious practice at work here, the article author chucks in a smattering of other Kickstarter links to mask the scent. Not even trying to hide the timing at all, maybe cutting in 1 month into the Kickstarter's troubles (2 million dollars is I think the highest goal tier yet?), nope, straight out the gate.

 

[stonedwal]

Would like to see Kotaku donate their swag to ICHEG or one of the other fine institutions dedicated to the preservation of video games and their history, rather than just dumping them under their desk or tossing them out. It does form part of the history for a given game's release, and I'm sure people would get a kick out of seeing it.

 

[Dakota47]

So this would have had to have been pre-planned? Braben just phones up his BBC mate, whizzbang curl off some "HEY REMEMBER ELITE?" fluff that the studio has sauntered on past accolades solely for-fucking-ever, and jam in that all important promotional link. To further disguise the odious practice at work here, the article author chucks in a smattering of other Kickstarter links to mask the scent. Not even trying to hide the timing at all, maybe cutting in 1 month into the Kickstarter's troubles (2 million dollars is I think the highest goal tier yet?), nope, straight out the gate.

For those who are wondering, this is what the new Dorito pope looks like.

 

[Coxy]

Her argument is that she didn't cover the games she did mock reviews of and therefore thought there wasn't a conflict of interest.

She's specificly saying she didnt review the games she consulted on, she's written tonnes of glowing previews and articles about games she consulted on not that she didnt cover them at all.

 

[stephentotilo]

Read the Kotaku article. Good reporting of the facts with plentiful quotes from all the parties involved. The commentary of the whole issue was not aligned with my own opinion though. There was no need to be so defensive reiterating several times that only smaller bloggers/sites could be swayed by PR influences and not Kotaku or other bigger outlets. Established and less established games reporters will be equally influenced at a subconscious level by PR as they're both humans. The structure involving their work is what can shield them to some extent to that influence. Could the swag and trinkets that PR send be directed and handled by the outlets and not individual writers? The writers could have access to discs, review code and nothing else? Could that be feasible? Any swag, crap, statue, flags, etc that writers receive while in the act of their job are automatically property of their employers and they will proceed to dispose of them as they see fit excluding employees to keep them? That could be a good system no?

Thanks for reading the article.

I expressed skepticism about the excuse that only small sites can be pressured and influenced negatively by PR at least twice in the piece as it's not an argument I subscribe to. Larger outlets can have some strong barriers, such as not being reliant on gaming ads or being able to command a large enough readership to rebuff publisher manipulation. You could also easily argue that smaller sites argue that smaller, newer outlets might have a fiercer independent streak and can be harder to bend to a publisher's wishes. Really, you can argue this any way, which is why I, unlike some of my interviewees, don't put that much stock in the size of the outlet as an indicator of the outlet's ability to fight for and maintain its editorial independence.

I've cited Kotaku's particular case to articulate why I feel we're probably more insulated than many other outlets, but a smaller site might well be even better situated than us. Every outlet has its own traits.

 

[Terrell]

My biggest nagging problem with the Kotaku article is that... OK, if the swag is crap and people aren't taking it, why aren't outlets stepping in and saying "you're wasting your money, stop sending this shit to us" and pressure them to spend those marketing dollars on the game itself, or better distribution so there's less niche buys, or at the very least spending the money to advertise direct to the consumer?!

An attitude of complacency regarding swag is totally unacceptable when this article and the people quoted in it clearly demonstrate that all of you in games journalism are acquainted with one another fairly well and could stand up against such a business practice in a uniform fashion.

You wouldn't even need to do it publicly as a weapon of shame against publishers, so you don't even have to risk pissing them off.

So why is THAT not being done? If it's so abhorrent or meaningless, why even allow publishers to keep trying to influence you at all?!

 

[accathoidprotoss]

edit

 

[conman]

An attitude of complacency regarding swag is totally unacceptable when this article and the people quoted in it clearly demonstrate that all of you in games journalism are acquainted with one another fairly well and could stand up against such a business practice in a uniform fashion.

I think somehow this discussion got sidetracked into swag--which, to me, reads like the same tired old "moneyhat" accusations folks have been railing about for years. The only point of swag is to increase the "mindshare" of a game. It isn't designed to sway opinions. There's a big difference. I don't think the role of swag is an important takeaway from all of this. It's insignificant in this debate. Anyone who's been on the receiving end of this junk knows how ridiculous it sounds that this junk could influence opinions. The industry has enough money that it can afford to be much more subtle.

The "War of Opinions" is a battle of inches.

I think Stephen Totilo's article did an excellent job of highlighting that fact, even if that wasn't his ultimate point. Unlike many here, I don't think that this should be a debate over supposed press "corruption," but rather over how access is doled out, how sites do or do not seek originality, and how journalists develop content. Currently, it seems like almost all three of these things are determined overwhelmingly by publishers (or their representatives in PR and marketing). The 24-hour news cycle has turned journalism inside out across the board, and regurgitating press releases is how the gaming industry reflects that transformation.

That doesn't mean the press is corrupt. It means it's insecure.

The unintended irony in this quote makes me smile.

When a game reviewer posts a review about a game, he puts his layman opinion about that game out to a huge group of experts. Game reviewers have to review so many different games that they are essentially dilettantes. Posters on forums have the ability to specialize in whatever games interest them.

I think you misunderstand what the expertise of a games journalist is. They aren't "professional gamers." They are professional writers.

 

[Tylahedras]

EDIT: I also read this: http://www.gamefront.com/critics-in-the-headlights/

Thank you, I really enjoyed reading that.

 

[Terrell]

I think somehow this discussion got sidetracked into swag--which, to me, reads like the same tired old "moneyhat" accusations folks have been railing about for years. The only point of swag is to increase the "mindshare" of a game. It isn't designed to sway opinions. There's a big difference. I don't think the role of swag is an important takeaway from all of this. It's insignificant in this debate. Anyone who's been on the receiving end of this junk knows how ridiculous it sounds that this junk could influence opinions. The industry has enough money that it can afford to be much more subtle.

The "War of Opinions" is a battle of inches.

I don't think that this should be a debate over supposed press corruption, but rather over how access is doled out, how sites do or do not seek originality, and how journalists develop content. Currently, it seems like almost all three of these things are determined overwhelmingly by publishers (or their representatives in PR and marketing).

That doesn't mean the press is corrupt. It means it's insecure.

I don't disagree with these points at all... but that article trumpeted how things like surround sound speakers and trips to Germany or Disneyland are so tasteless or stupid or whatever other defaming adjective they could find... and yet nothing is done to step in and say "no". Can't be so bad if no one is asking for it to stop, can it? And while these companies are paying to fly people to Germany, these same outlets, whether they take the bait or not, print news stories with publisher quotes about how they are SO strapped for cash that they HAVE TO do things like online passes, which they KNOW to be patently false, since it should be quite obvious that they HAVE money and are misappropriating it on marketing to news outlets that APPARENTLY aren't taking the bait. Seems a bit disingenuous to me. Corruption or not doesn't even factor into this. At that point, they're allowing little white lies to be traded as fact. And if it is indeed a fact and the publisher is cash-strapped, why let them bleed out from sending marketing tools that you don't want to get in the first place?

If we don't want publishers and their PR teams thinking they hold all the cards, perhaps it's time to do the littler things that show them they don't. This is just one optional first step in that direction.

If journalists DO care about the industry they report on, it's time they did some right by it and do what they can to reign in what Totilo claims is wasted marketing expenses.

 

[jett]

The Kotaku article was a pretty good, sensible piece on the whole matter, I thought. Seems like these shenanigans are finally winding down, eh.

 

[conman]

I don't disagree with these points at all... but that article trumpeted how things like surround sound speakers and trips to Germany or Disneyland are so tasteless or stupid or whatever other defaming adjective they could find... and yet nothing is done to step in and say "no". Can't be so bad if no one is asking for it to stop, can it? And while these companies are paying to fly people to Germany, these same outlets, whether they take the bait or not, print news stories with publisher quotes about how they are SO strapped for cash that they HAVE TO do things like online passes, which they KNOW to be patently false, since it should be quite obvious that they HAVE money and are misappropriating it on marketing to news outlets that APPARENTLY aren't taking the bait. Seems a bit disingenuous to me. Corruption or not doesn't even factor into this. At that point, they're allowing little white lies to be traded as fact.

If we don't want publishers and their PR teams thinking they hold all the cards, perhaps it's time to do the littler things that show them they don't. This is just one optional first step in that direction.

If journalists DO care about the industry they report on, it's time they did some right by it and do what they can to reign in what Totilo claims is wasted marketing expenses.

Yes, I agree that the press should be better about policing itself. The question is, should we expect outlets to call out other outlets for questionable ethical standards?

Honestly, I don't think that's necessary. Like the mainstream press, the gaming press should gradually transform into obvious categories that separate the "tabloids" from the "respectable" press. I hope that we as readers continue to be vigilant. And I hope that the press doesn't get complacent with its existing standards and practices. It was a bit of a disappointment to see how many outlets were reluctant to do some basic ethical "housecleaning," but it's been refreshing to see how frank some other outlets have been. Like others here, my reading habits will change going forward.

This whole hubbub has been necessary and healthy to the industry. And I hope this isn't the last time this happens. And I hope at least some members of the press continue to be responsive to these expectations. It's frightening that some called this a "witch hunt." Ethics should be the beginning and ending of all journalism.

 

[EternalGamer]

I think somehow this discussion got sidetracked into swag--which, to me, reads like the same tired old "moneyhat" accusations folks have been railing about for years. The only point of swag is to increase the "mindshare" of a game. It isn't designed to sway opinions. There's a big difference. I don't think the role of swag is an important takeaway from all of this. It's insignificant in this debate. Anyone who's been on the receiving end of this junk knows how ridiculous it sounds that this junk could influence opinions. The industry has enough money that it can afford to be much more subtle.

The "War of Opinions" is a battle of inches.

I think Stephen Totilo's article did an excellent job of highlighting that fact, even if that wasn't his ultimate point. Unlike many here, I don't think that this should be a debate over supposed press "corruption," but rather over how access is doled out, how sites do or do not seek originality, and how journalists develop content. Currently, it seems like almost all three of these things are determined overwhelmingly by publishers (or their representatives in PR and marketing). The 24-hour news cycle has turned journalism inside out across the board, and regurgitating press releases is how the gaming industry reflects that transformation.

That doesn't mean the press is corrupt. It means it's insecure.

I think you misunderstand what the expertise of a games journalist is. They aren't "professional gamers." They are professional writers.

Incredibly well said. In fact, I am envious of the phrasing.

Which brings me to a larger point. I kind of wonder if the desire of enthusiasts to cultivate insightful thoughts about a hobby they are invested in but have no financial dependance upon does not at some point overwhelm the boundaries possible for exploration by those whose livelihood are financially invested in the careers of games media.

At the very least it would require an amazing amount of bravery on their part.

 

[accathoidprotoss]

edit

 

[jschreier]

I think Stephen Totilo's article did an excellent job of highlighting that fact, even if that wasn't his ultimate point. Unlike many here, I don't think that this should be a debate over supposed press "corruption," but rather over how access is doled out, how sites do or do not seek originality, and how journalists develop content. Currently, it seems like almost all three of these things are determined overwhelmingly by publishers (or their representatives in PR and marketing). The 24-hour news cycle has turned journalism inside out across the board, and regurgitating press releases is how the gaming industry reflects that transformation.

That doesn't mean the press is corrupt. It means it's insecure.

Now this is an interesting topic of conversation! That sort of PR-driven cycle is something we've been trying very hard to avoid at Kotaku in recent months, which isn't exactly easy when your site runs something like 50-60 stories a day. And of course if Rockstar posts a GTAV trailer or Bethesda announces new Skyrim DLC, we're going to cover that. Our #1 goal, remember, is to serve readers, not fight PR.

But I think that people who pay close attention to the games press will notice that our site often looks very different than other sites, because we don't really concern ourselves with publishing every press release that a company sends along.

That said, press releases are not bad things. Companies want to disseminate a message, and sometimes it's the press's job to get that message to readers. It's also our job to filter out that message and call out the bullshit, when necessary. But that's not our only job: reporters like me should be constantly striving both to produce as much original work as possible and recognize which press releases really aren't worth our bandwidth. That's not exactly an easy job, but we should always be thinking about it.

 

[Terrell]

Yes, I agree that the press should be better about policing itself. The question is, should we expect outlets to call out other outlets for questionable ethical standards?

Honestly, I don't think that's necessary. Like the mainstream press, the gaming press should gradually transform into obvious categories that separate the "tabloids" from the "respectable" press.

Really? I thought that line thinned with each passing day, especially in a post-Fox News world.

Expecting outlets to police themselves? Nah, this car's been off-roading without a driver for so long that if no one's grabbed the wheel to bring it back on the road, we can't really trust that anyone will.

Token gestures of good faith when someone gets caught aren't enough to make everything OK, and band-aid solutions all we are seeing so far, no ground-up overhauls are being discussed, no grand moves to fix the problem where it originates. Without continued and relentless pressure from readers to do the right thing, only the bare minimum will be done, as always.

Part of the problem is us, as well. Many people relentlessly torture news outlets for better reporting (some countries even have a 3rd-party organization to rule on matters of improper conduct), but most of the time, we see gamers just write off terrible conduct as "that news outlet is shit, news at 11" and move on because no matter how hard we bitched, we didn't have a smoking gun to force outlets to do anything about their behavior. Why wait for the next bungle when we can and should keep this perfect storm rolling? Other news outlets expect that as part of the business, and games journos should expect nothing less from us gamers.

 

[Dyno]

Having now read many opinions and arguments I come to the realization that the gaming press has become the story, one bigger than any game in circulation. That must give one pause for any outlet claiming to produce proper journalism. When News of the World and it's phone hack scandal became a story bigger than any it reported on it resulted in the closure of a major newspaper that began in 1843.

Am I wrong to conflate the two? Not really, because both outcomes result in the same thing to you the reader: you no longer can trust them for a clean story.

Why put up with a media source which has many instances of becoming the big story? The PR - Game Journalist relationship is being described as PR spin absorbed by press - prizes deflected - and then these reporters delight in unspining it for you! It's something of a Willy Wonka type device and I've asked myself if I should bother seriously sorting through it.

It's a structural problem: sole source advertising is not a model in which journalism can thrive. I enjoy the work of the individual contributors but they work in a suspect regime. It should certainly exist! And happily! Entertainment Tonight exists and people love it.

But if you don't watch that kind of program you may just come to a place like this instead.

 

[conman]

Now this is an interesting topic of conversation! That sort of PR-driven cycle is something we've been trying very hard to avoid at Kotaku in recent months, which isn't exactly easy when your site runs something like 50-60 stories a day. And of course if Rockstar posts a GTAV trailer or Bethesda announces new Skyrim DLC, we're going to cover that. Our #1 goal, remember, is to serve readers, not fight PR.

But I think that people who pay close attention to the games press will notice that our site often looks very different than other sites, because we don't really concern ourselves with publishing every press release that a company sends along.

That said, press releases are not bad things. Companies want to disseminate a message, and sometimes it's the press's job to get that message to readers. It's also our job to filter out that message and call out the bullshit, when necessary. But that's not our only job: reporters like me should be constantly striving both to produce as much original work as possible and recognize which press releases really aren't worth our bandwidth. That's not exactly an easy job, but we should always be thinking about it.

I see what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree.

I think that this approach to "disseminating a message" will ultimately lead to your irrelevance. Why would a publisher leave to press outlets what they can do better themselves? The PS Blog and the Major Nelson blog are just the beginning. And look at the many other effective ways that publishers are already using to circumvent the press (like the Youtube channels discussed earlier in this thread). This is a fear expressed by many of the journalists (current and former) who have posted here. The answer isn't to rally readers to "read our site anyway." It should be to toss out the press releases and generate original and compelling content. Otherwise, you're dooming yourselves to obsolescence.

I want nothing more than for sites like yours to succeed. We need regular checks and balances to publisher-generated "messaging." It sucks that sites like yours depend on those marketing/PR-generated filler stories to survive. The current state of games journalism is emblematic of the broader crisis in mainstream journalism. It's no coincidence that the same weekend that this story exploded in the gaming press the BBC story exploded alongside it.

Journalism is in the midst of a public trust crisis. This gaming journalism "flare-up" is just a small instance of a much larger issue.

 

[Risible]

I see what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree.

I think that this approach to "disseminating a message" will ultimately lead to your irrelevance. Why would a publisher leave to press outlets what they can do better themselves? The PS Blog and the Major Nelson blog are just the beginning. And look at the many other effective ways that publishers are already using to circumvent the press (like the Youtube channels discussed earlier in this thread). This is a fear expressed by many of the journalists (current and former) who have posted here. The answer isn't to rally readers to "read our site anyway." It should be to toss out the press releases and generate original and compelling content. Otherwise, you're dooming yourselves to obsolescence.

I want nothing more than for sites like yours to succeed. We need regular checks and balances to publisher-generated "messaging." It sucks that sites like yours depend on those marketing/PR-generated filler stories to survive. The current state of games journalism is emblematic of the broader crisis in mainstream journalism. It's no coincidence that the same weekend that this story exploded in the gaming press the BBC story exploded alongside it.

Journalism is in the midst of a public trust crisis. This gaming journalism "flare-up" is just a small instance of a much larger issue.

Damn, Conman be preaching it. Some serious words of wisdom here for gaming journailsts, especially the bolded.

 

[jschreier]

I see what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree.

I also think that this approach to "disseminating a message" will ultimately lead to your irrelevance. Why would a publisher leave to press outlets what they can do better themselves? The PS Blog and the (currently defunct) Major Nelson blog are just the beginning. And look at the many other effective ways that publishers are already circumventing the press. This is a fear expressed by many of the journalists (current and former) who have posted here. The answer isn't to rally readers to "read our site anyway." It should be to toss out the press releases and generate original and compelling content. Otherwise, you're dooming yourselves to obsolescence.

I want nothing more than for sites like yours to succeed. We need regular checks and balances to publisher-generated "messaging." It sucks that sites like yours depend on those filler stories to survive. The current state of games journalism is emblematic of the broader crisis in mainstream journalism. It's no coincidence that the same weekend that this story exploded in the gaming press the BBC story exploded alongside it.

Journalism is in the midst of a public trust crisis. This gaming journalism "flare-up" is just a small instance of a much larger issue.

It is very possible that press release rewriting will eventually go the way of dead tree media, but I don't know. I think that a large number of readers don't like to read the PS Blog or Rockstar Newswire or whatever because they want to get that information through reporters and websites they trust to filter it out and provide an honest perspective. Other people just read sites like Kotaku because they like our personal voices -- we are good (and getting better and better) at adding an original touch to some of the press release rewrites we handle every day. I also don't think "here's a GTA5 trailer" or "new Skyrim DLC out next month!" is filler. I think it's news. It might not require as much hard work or effort as, say, an original story about X-Men Destiny and Silicon Knights, but to some readers it's just as important. Some readers aren't interested in inside looks at studios: they just want gaming news, filtered through voices that they've learned to trust over the years.

Maybe one day a site like Kotaku will exist only for original reporting. I don't think a site like that is financially feasible -- people in the Internet age are hungry for a constant stream of content, and we're here to serve those people -- but that's all speculative. Right now, I think what's important is for reporters like me to make sure everything we write is honest, fair, and interesting or informative to readers. That indeed means getting better at ignoring bullshit press releases. But it doesn't mean ignoring the ones that matter to the people who read Kotaku. It would be a disservice for us not to give our readers information that we deem interesting or important.

But as I've said earlier in this thread, I try not to spend a lot of time doing this sort of thing, and I don't normally have to. On my best days I spend 10% of my time posting press release news or videos or whatever and 90% of my time reporting, chasing stories, interviewing people, and writing original content. That's one of the reasons I love working at Kotaku.

 

[choaffable]

What I don't understand is why it seems these regurgitated press releases take up so much of gaming websites. Most gaming magazines didn't spit out the amount of press releases per issue that seems to make up most of the content on sites like Kotaku.

I get the difference in deadlines, but the thing for me is that print editors were able to convey what was important or a priority through layout and design. Regurgitated press releases were usually delegated to the front, but were very much separated from the rest of the features. With sites like Kotaku or Joystiq, it seems all the stories have the same weight, regardless if it's an indepth feature or a press release rewrite.

Gaming websites should take a cue from the Onion AV Club. The stream of regurgitated press releases are kept to their own little sectio (and having a writer as hilarious as Sean O'Neal would be a bonus). All the other stories on the site, from regular features like Commentary of the Damn or a Movie Review, are labelled and kept away from the press releases. I'd like to see that demarcation of content happen on gaming sites.

Also, I am digging the Gamelogical Society on the AV Club, who do stories never covered elsewhere.

 

[conman]

I get the difference in deadlines, but the thing for me is that print editors were able to convey what was important or a priority through layout and design. Regurgitated press releases were usually delegated to the front, but were very much separated from the rest of the features. With sites like Kotaku or Joystiq, it seems all the stories have the same weight, regardless if it's an indepth feature or a press release rewrite.

To be fair, this is more or less where almost all news is now. It's an endless stream of undigested bits of information, with few indications as to its relative importance. We live in a world of information pastiche.

 

[herod]

Totilo doth protest too much. I used to like him before he started making excuses at Notaklu.

 

[Fistwell]

he put quality ahead of being timely

Quality. He couldn't be arsed to even proofread his piece.

Its been so common

Gertsmann seems quite angry that we don't all just act like "adults" and accept that people are just doing what they can to make a living. But he wants to apply a higher standard to himself and his site than them. That in a way is quite a hypocritical and self-righteous position to take.

What I don't get is, he was all set to do a mock review and seems like he didn't feel there was anything wrong about that at the time. From what I read and heard on his podcast, he wouldn't hire people who've done mock reviews to write for him. Was he gonna abandon writing about games forever himself? Does he feel it's ok for him because he's a grown up but it's not ok for others?

You seem to completely miss the point of his comment.
He said he wanted to do just to see the process, but once he saw what it involved he declined to do it. What's hypocritical about that?

My understanding was that he declined once giant bomb was becoming a thing and he was about to get paychecks from there. I missed the part where he declined to do it "once he saw what it involved." But that's kind of beside the point. He seemed at some point to have been ok to do it himself, but he wouldn't hire others who would have done it. Nowhere have I seen him even imply that this is due to whatever insight he would have gleaned on mock reviews from having almost done one, but again, maybe I missed that part. I believed the issue was with writing about games whose publisher's money went in your pocket at some point prior.

Yeah, though he doesn't call himself that, it was an example of journalism as a process. "I wonder how this whole mock review thing happens. Let's see if I can find out."

Well if that was the case, that completely eluded me. Where was he going to get this published? From what he said, he considered doing it after leaving gamespot but gave up on it before giant bomb.

Finally read Kotaku's article. I got the feeling that they(Kotaku) see themselves as an incorruptible source and that the problem lies somewhere else.

Yeah, don't they all. Although, it is nice that they covered the events. Interesting to have some quotes from Wainwright in there.

Cross ref from the halo4 launch pic thread.

 

[Shaneus]

Don't be silly.

When John Walker said, "When a review disagrees with a reader's strong opinion, it's much more satisfying to conclude the discrepancy is the result of corruption," he wasn't talking about a reader's strong opinion on the Oxford commas.

Reviewers must be good writers and accurate assessors of a game. If you want to call them professional writers, God bless you. But if a great novelist tried to right a scientific treatise on a subject he was ignorant about, he would be ripped apart.

So I repeat, unfortunately, when a game reviewer (who may well be a TREMENDOUS writer) has his incomplete or incorrect opinion harshly critiqued by people more familiar with the game or genre, instead of embracing it, he lashes back.

Which, as I said before, makes John Walkers quote highly ironic.

Shit man, I couldn't agree more. I actually blew up on IGN because of a reviewer who was clearly out of his depths in writing a review for WRC3 (a licensed rally game, for the uninitiated). I won't post the parts of it that infuriate me (I'd be posting the whole fucking thing) but when it's clear that a reviewer doesn't have even the basic knowledge in the particular genre to back up certain reasonings, it makes me hate gaming media even more.

[url=http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/10/15/wrc-3-fia-world-rally-championship-review#comment-683059767]My comment on it:

So, are we surprised that a broken turd like F1 2012 (which is up to it's SEVENTH patch on PC) get 9 when a game that does everything right as far as the sport goes only gets a 5 on IGN? No, we are not.

I sure as hell hope that no-one doesn't buy the game because of this review. For an actual informed, passionate opinion on this piece, check out a site like TeamVVV or InsideSimRacing. Hell, I bet even a non-racing-specific site like Eurogamer would understand the idea of WRC better than Matt does.

Comments like "You’re likely to have to make numerous passes at any track before you conquer it" shows a complete lack of knowledge of how racing games work. What good is it if you "conquer" a track in a racing game the first time? You'd only play each track on F1 2012 or Forza once, and it'd kill a game like Daytona when there are only three tracks anyway.

Ugh, frustrating.

I'd pick apart more that's wrong with the review, but it'd wind up longer than the review itself (and would probably take me longer to write it than the reviewer spent actually playing the game).

The most infuriating thing is that this isn't a game by a big studio like Codemasters or Activision or EA. It's done by a relatively small team who live and die based on how well their titles get reviewed, lest they lose a good portion of their already limited (by the franchise's fanbase) sales.

 

[Antiwhippy]

Quality. He couldn't be arsed to even proofread his piece.




What I don't get is, he was all set to do a mock review and seems like he didn't feel there was anything wrong about that at the time. From what I read and heard on his podcast, he wouldn't hire people who've done mock reviews to write for him. Was he gonna abandon writing about games forever himself? Does he feel it's ok for him because he's a grown up but it's not ok for others?

You seem to completely miss the point of his comment.

He said he wanted to do just to see the process, but once he saw what it involved he declined to do it. What's hypocritical about that?

 

[xenist]

You seem to completely miss the point of his comment.

He said he wanted to do just to see the process, but once he saw what it involved he declined to do it. What's hypocritical about that?

Yeah, though he doesn't call himself that, it was an example of journalism as a process. "I wonder how this whole mock review thing happens. Let's see if I can find out."

 

[Deitus]

My understanding was that he declined once giant bomb was becoming a thing and he was about to get paychecks from there. I missed the part where he declined to do it "once he saw what it involved." But that's kind of beside the point. He seemed at some point to have been ok to do it himself, but he wouldn't hire others who would have done it. Nowhere have I seen him even imply that this is due to whatever insight he would have gleaned on mock reviews from having almost done one, but again, maybe I missed that part. I believed the issue was with writing about games whose publisher's money went in your pocket at some point prior.

You must have missed the part where he said he was going to do this for a single dollar as compensation, at his request (he actually suggested free, but the company's legal team felt better with something on the books).

 

[Fistwell]

You must have missed the part where he said he was going to do this for a single dollar as compensation, at his request (he actually suggested free, but the company's legal team felt better with something on the books).

No, I did not miss the part where, after he knew GB was gonna work out, he felt it was inappropriate to take money for doing both a mock review and covering games at the same time.
Before that, as interested in discovering the fascinating process of mock reviewing as he may have been, he did not seem to mind doing it and taking money for it. Which, hey, good for him, I don't care either way.

What I'm curious about is whether he at that time felt that it would bar him from ever writing about games again. Which would be consistent with his stance on not hiring people who've done mock reviews.

Didn't you just answer your own question?

No?

Are you saying he's ok with people doing this process sequentially, working freelance, then doing mock reviews, back and forth, only not at the same time? I thought he would not hire people who had done mock reviews period, not just people still currently in the process of doing "consultant work." Genuinely trying to understand here.

 

[Antiwhippy]

No, I did not miss the part where, after he knew GB was gonna work out, he felt it was inappropriate to take money for doing both a mock review and covering games at the same time.
Before that, as interested in discovering the fascinating process of mock reviewing as he may have been, he did not seem to mind doing it and taking money for it. Which, hey, good for him, I don't care either way.

What I'm curious about is whether he at that time felt that it would bar him from ever writing about games again. Which would be consistent with his stance on not hiring people who've done mock reviews.

No, I did not miss the part where, after he knew GB was gonna work out, he felt it was inappropriate to take money for doing both a mock review and covering games at the same time.

Didn't you just answer your own question?

 

[Antiwhippy]

No?

Are you saying he's ok with people doing this process sequentially, working freelance, then doing mock reviews, back and forth, only not at the same time? I thought he would not hire people who had done mock reviews period, not just people still currently in the process of doing "consultant work." Genuinely trying to understand here.

Could you just post a new post when you want to answer a question? kind of annoying not knowing if you want any responses to my response.

Going back to the podcast again to get more context, from my understanding he only has issue with people whose main bread and butter are mock reviews when there are other freelancers he could use (not that giantbomb uses any really). According to what he said he is going to do one out of fascination of the process (if you believe him) but when giantbomb if about to be formed he decided not to due to what he believes is a conflict of interest. Though I really don't think it's because he thinks giantbomb will be a more lucrative opportunity, because during the early periods giantbomb is hardly a sure thing.

 

[TheD]

I think the desire to see conspiracies and corruption in all of the gaming press is largely based on a far wider malaise in the world, of people wishing to demolish notions of expertise or more respected opinions. Where once [expertise] was desired, it's now considered arrogant oppression. So when a review disagrees with a reader's strong opinion, it's much more satisfying to conclude the discrepancy is the result of corruption.

Nothing like a bit of false equivalency.

Most gaming journos are not experts!
You have no right to try and put yourself on the same level as the people that bare the brunt of things like that.


Gaming journos are just people that get paid to write about games, often they make a large number of mistakes in what they say and do not even complete games!

 

[Fistwell]

Could you just post a new post when you want to answer a question? kind of annoying not knowing if you want any responses to my response.

Going back to the podcast again to get more context, from my understanding he only has issue with people whose main bread and butter are mock reviews when there are other freelancers he could use (not that giantbomb uses any really). According to what he said he is going to do one out of fascination of the process (if you believe him)

Yeah, getting complicated to follow for me as well, I'll just directly rebound on what you're saying here.

My understanding was that he would not hire people who have done mock reviews, period. I did not get he was only talking about people for whom it was their bread and butter.

I did not get either that this fascination of his with mock reviews was the sole or even main motivation for him to do one. I only recall him saying that he was going to do one after his departure from GS and that it was a weird time in his life. He did bring up his interest in the process to justify it, but I assumed that his being otherwise unemployed at the time implied he was also kind of interested in earning some money.

but when giantbomb if about to be formed he decided not to due to what he believes is a conflict of interest. Though I really don't think it's because he thinks giantbomb will be a more lucrative opportunity, because during the early periods giantbomb is hardly a sure thing.

Agreed on the conflict of interest being why he didn't do it. I don't think it was because one or the other was more lucrative either.

What I'm wondering is, when he signed up to do it, did he see it as the end of his "game journalism" and reviewing career?

 

[Antiwhippy]

It might be the end, which I think would happen anyway as far as his credibility goes, but we're reaching hypothetical stages now. All we have to go on really is that he doesn't believe in using people who have done mock reviews, even though he at one point was about to do one.

Also he did mention that he was interested in how the process went, and ever since forming giantbomb he has also followed it up by talking to people who have done it.

 

[Jintor]

Also, "journalist" waving off the idea that travel is a perk is pretty disingenuous. "UGH...These trips to all these exotic locales is so lame. Guys, it's the worst. I know you guys haven't done much travelling, but seriously, it's such a hassle. You've got to, like, pack, and like, be on time for things. Forget it. You're better off staying in your small dead-end of a town and just read about travelling."

Have you ever travelled for business purposes before?

 

[Eighthours]

Have now read the Kotaku piece and wasn't particularly impressed.

I find it very unlikely that Lauren just mentioned legal action and EG folded as she claims. Tom Bramwell was very clear: she made it plain that she wouldn't back down.

The article as a whole fulfilled the "so long it must be making good points" criteria. It was quite clearly majorly biased in favour of the status quo, and for Totilo to be talking in such glowing terms about Kotaku's journalism and lack of recycled press releases was hilarious. It's telling that the reaction I saw last night from game journos on Twitter was to completely accept the piece, almost breathing a sigh of relief.

This whole saga has made me look differently at the industry, with particular interest in how several people I know at least well-ish have reacted. Looking from the outside in, the closed shop approach hasn't done anyone any favours, and it's been eye-opening to see how easily journos fell into either defending the status quo or subconsciously trying to play down the issues.

 

[CPS2]

There was one very interesting quote in the Kotaku article by John Walker.



The unintended irony in this quote makes me smile.

When a game reviewer posts a review about a game, he puts his layman opinion about that game out to a huge group of experts. Game reviewers have to review so many different games that they are essentially dilettantes. Posters on forums have the ability to specialize in whatever games interest them.

For example, I have yet to see a main stream outlet adequately review an RTS to my standards. I have played RTSs since I was 8. I've played an RTS nearly every day since then. Some summers, I used to play 6 hours a day every day. I've played them competitively at LANs. Do any of you honestly think someone who plays all the newest releases will be able to assess an RTS as well as I can?

Whenever a one of these dabblers posts a review, it will be rightfully critiqued, and unfortunately the reviewer's reaction is usually to trust his "strong opinion" over the 'arrogant expertise' of the forum posters who know better.

Don't believe me? Just watch these purported experts play public multiplayer (after a couple of sessions, you'll be able to create your own "excuse bingo" card).

This, so much.

 

[Fistwell]

It might be the end, which I think would happen anyway as far as his credibility goes, but we're reaching hypothetical stages now.

Agreed, I'm speculating on his thought process. Although, the following is factual,

All we have to go on really is that he doesn't believe in using people who have done mock reviews, even though he at one point was about to do one.

Which sounded like a double standard to me.

Also he did mention that he was interested in how the process went, and ever since forming giantbomb he has also followed it up by talking to people who have done it.

Yeah, I genuinely believe he's interested in it.