Support NeoGAF

[SomeNorseGuy]

It's fine. Wouldn't this work in SkillUp's favor in this case? Because he doesn't use a score system, there's zero incentive to lower or heighten a value based on publisher pressure, which they have done in the past. He simply lays out the good and the bad, with gameplay clips to show each point, and then says if he feels who it's for and if it's even worth someone's time. He tries to approach things from as neutral of a point as possible for the average consumer, and I think that's why some of his content has resonated with me and why his viewership and support has been on a steady increase (though I also agree with people that his podcast is boring).

Also, haven't most publishers moved on from sponsoring traditional media to those same hobby-reviewers/gamers that you're mentioning? I think at a certain point it's up to the viewer/listener/reader to decide which voices they feel seem the most unbiased when it comes to these impressions and reviews, or as others have said here, check out a multitude of different sources to make sure if you might like to purchase a game or not.

There are so many different sources today, sponsored and non-sponsored, that it can become easy to figure out whether a game is great, good, decent, or bad at this point for most people unless they blindly follow a person who hates nearly everything or a person who likes nearly everything. However those two polar opposites are easy to spot.

Could be that his point-less () system can work for him here. But it wouldn't take more then a negative paragraph/conclusion/clip from him going viral to ending up in publishers bullseye. There's been many accusations of publishers being vindictive, but there hasn't been many who has actually brought receipts. So even if there has been many articles about how broken the publisher-media relationship is, we can't say with 100% certainty how widespread this is. Just another case of how this industry's hate for transparency sullies the trust with the consumers.

Just to clarify, when I talk about hobbyist reviewers I'm talking about people without large audiences. That don't need or want to earn money from it. But yeah, publishers has been targeting more mid sized reviewers/streamers over the years. I also don't necessarily hate sponsored content, as long as the reviewer/outlet/streamer refrain from reviewing said game.

100% agree, the best way to judge if a game is for you is to listen to a multitude of voices. Even professional written reviews might go into depth on a topic that interest you. So, as with all things in life, there is nuance. And when it comes to trusting a single source, I dont't think many of us enthusiasts does that no. Unless it's for some platform/brand warring.

I just wished we lived in a world where we could trust the industry we love.

 

[March Climber]

Could be that his point-less () system can work for him here. But it wouldn't take more then a negative paragraph/conclusion/clip from him going viral to ending up in publishers bullseye. There's been many accusations of publishers being vindictive, but there hasn't been many who has actually brought receipts. So even if there has been many articles about how broken the publisher-media relationship is, we can't say with 100% certainty how widespread this is. Just another case of how this industry's hate for transparency sullies the trust with the consumers.

Just to clarify, when I talk about hobbyist reviewers I'm talking about people without large audiences. That don't need or want to earn money from it. But yeah, publishers has been targeting more mid sized reviewers/streamers over the years. I also don't necessarily hate sponsored content, as long as the reviewer/outlet/streamer refrain from reviewing said game.

100% agree, the best way to judge if a game is for you is to listen to a multitude of voices. Even professional written reviews might go into depth on a topic that interest you. So, as with all things in life, there is nuance. And when it comes to trusting a single source, I dont't think many of us enthusiasts does that no. Unless it's for some platform/brand warring.

I just wished we lived in a world where we could trust the industry we love.

But that's the thing, this industry isn't about trust, it's about enjoyment.

Same thing with movies, music, books, etc. Either the people gravitate towards something, or they don't. Either you yourself enjoy the product or you don't, that's how it is at the end of the day.

A lot of what you're stating in your post was the worry 15+ years ago back when journalists were the gatekeepers of whether or not a person should check out content. The minute we entered the streaming era of twitch, tiktok, youtube, etc. where everyone had a voice, that all slowly faded away until only a few of them are left. That's why I understood the initial gamergate movement idea before things went out of control. However, the streaming generation took a big hammer to all of this and smashed it into a million pieces. That's why we don't need that trust. There's no one specific entity (or handful) that we have to answer to anymore.

There is no more gatekeeping with magazine articles, websites, Cable TV, and pictures, because the streaming era killed all of them.

That's why today my worries lie with destructive content over constructive content. To elaborate, I don't mind people who have a harsher view of the industry (mainly the AAA side), as many here and elsewhere tend to. The issue I see is that if someone is going to spend time pointing out all of the bad aspects of everything, they should at least recommend something else in exchange. Even the harshest of reviewers in history will still have their own top recommendations of the year or past years.

However, there's a new phenomenon where people simply aren't doing this, leaving the audience with...well, nothing. Or even worse, leaving them with an added dose of misery, distrust, or overall hatred. For an entertainment hobby with such a vast amount of different experiences, past and present, it is very saddening to see.

 

[SomeNorseGuy]

But that's the thing, this industry isn't about trust, it's about enjoyment.

Same thing with movies, music, books, etc. Either the people gravitate towards something, or they don't. Either you yourself enjoy the product or you don't, that's how it is at the end of the day.

A lot of what you're stating in your post was the worry 15+ years ago back when journalists were the gatekeepers of whether or not a person should check out content. The minute we entered the streaming era of twitch, tiktok, youtube, etc. where everyone had a voice, that all slowly faded away until only a few of them are left. That's why I understood the initial gamergate movement idea before things went out of control. However, the streaming generation took a big hammer to all of this and smashed it into a million pieces. That's why we don't need that trust. There's no one specific entity (or handful) that we have to answer to anymore.

There is no more gatekeeping with magazine articles, websites, Cable TV, and pictures, because the streaming era killed all of them.

That's why today my worries lie with destructive content over constructive content. To elaborate, I don't mind people who have a harsher view of the industry (mainly the AAA side), as many here and elsewhere tend to. The issue I see is that if someone is going to spend time pointing out all of the bad aspects of everything, they should at least recommend something else in exchange. Even the harshest of reviewers in history will still have their own top recommendations of the year or past years.

However, there's a new phenomenon where people simply aren't doing this, leaving the audience with...well, nothing. Or even worse, leaving them with an added dose of misery, distrust, or overall hatred. For an entertainment hobby with such a vast amount of different experiences, past and present, it is very saddening to see.

I think that's where our basic requirements for buying games diverge, as in my eyes games are products, entertainment or not. And I can't stand being promised something and then get a lesser product in exchange for my hard earned cash. I get where you're coming from and I fully support you having this conviction. A balance of both viewpoints is healthy IMO.

It would (and might've been) much worse if this happened a couple of decades ago as we only had printed magazines to judge the quality of a game. But I don't agree about access media being gone/gotten less in the slightest. Content creators/streamers/reviewers NEEDS press/early access to games to get revenue from releasing a review/impressions as early as possible -> Publishers decides who get access. In my eyes, this is a lopsided symbiotic relationship.

But as you say, the moment the game has had it's general release it's extremly easy to either fund voices you agree with or just watching some raw gameplay.

We live in an age where everything is extreme, on that we agree. People are either soul-less shills or hateful grifters. Wish normalacy could have a comeback. But as long as click-bait works on the masses there's not much we can do sadly. If only the big platforms would reward quality over quantity/popularity...but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

[March Climber]

It would (and might've been) much worse if this happened a couple of decades ago as we only had printed magazines to judge the quality of a game. But I don't agree about access media being gone/gotten less in the slightest. Content creators/streamers/reviewers NEEDS press/early access to games to get revenue from releasing a review/impressions as early as possible -> Publishers decides who get access. In my eyes, this is a lopsided symbiotic relationship.

I agree with your points, but I think we will agree to disagree on this specific one. I see what has been happening lately and it has been personality-based content winning over the public, which includes gamers as well.

In that regard, I truly don't think the personality-based guys need publishers, not like they used to when streaming first started hitting big. Now it's publishers asking if the biggest streamers and youtubers to cover their game, having to speak with their agents or reps, because those streamers and youtubers have younger audiences that the publishers really want. Of course there will always be exceptions, but that lopsidedness you speak of has experienced a bit of a table flip.

It's why you see giants like Ubisoft scrambling for some type of audience and sometimes throwing out panic sponsorships left and right, because they know that the millennial and older audiences cannot sustain them long-term.

 

[SomeNorseGuy]

I agree with your points, but I think we will agree to disagree on this specific one. I see what has been happening lately and it has been personality-based content winning over the public, which includes gamers as well.

In that regard, I truly don't think the personality-based guys need publishers, not like they used to when streaming first started hitting big. Now it's publishers asking if the biggest streamers and youtubers to cover their game, having to speak with their agents or reps, because those streamers and youtubers have younger audiences that the publishers really want. Of course there will always be exceptions, but that lopsidedness you speak of has experienced a bit of a table flip.

It's why you see giants like Ubisoft scrambling for some type of audience and sometimes throwing out panic sponsorships left and right, because they know that the millennial and older audiences cannot sustain them long-term.

That's a great point, hadn't really thought about that. When it comes to throwing bones to variety streamers/influencers that aren't dependent on purely gaming content, the ball is very much in their court. And they do reach a lot of people especially the younger audience. Their streamed/entertaining experience with a game might not get added to the metacritic score, but they sure add to sales. Good argument.

Yeah, nothing wrong about having different views about stuff. Im the end I think we both want a thriving industry that can deliver fun experiences.

 

[KenaiPhoenix]

I like the initiative, deciding to go out of the normal way and be free to publish whatever we like, we constantly argue about how big "gaming journalist" just suck it up to whoever is paying, or too afraid to speak because it can be censored/downplayed.

And people complaining because there is a pay wall... just sad. People usually requires money to live, and they get it through work, I dont think it is a bad thing charge for the work they are doing on the website. The quality of it is jet to be seen, hopefully this not another Kotaku or Polygon full with more activists than gamers, time will tell.

 

[Ashamam]

I'm just impressed by the website design tbh.

 

[digimaster7]

Skill up is trash, never watch their content anymore ever since they don't recommend Lost Judgment, its pretty clear they have a completely different game preference than me

that's why I'm not gonna waste my time watching their crap anymore