Support NeoGAF

[Jonnyboy117]

Not to pick on you, Jonnyboy117, but that's exactly why no one will ever accuse videogame reviewers of actual journalism. It isn't ethical for a real journalist to accept payment like that; in such a case it is just as important to avoid the appearance of impropriety as the act itself. It is the responsibility of a legitimate journalist to refuse those freebies and have their publisher pay for flights/hotels at junkets, not to accept accommodations from the companies you're supposed to cover. Instead, we see reviewers always bragging about the "swag" they got at E3 or how much free booze they drank at Microsoft's latest game launch.

Well I don't claim to be a real journalist, and if I ever accidentally say something to that effect, you can call me out on it. I write about video games and try to do it in an intelligent, critical way that is useful to other gamers. If I had investors and a real office, I would gladly pay for travel expenses to any press event. Unfortunately, my site doesn't have nearly that kind of money. I would rather we accept the trip from a publisher and write about the games honestly (even at the risk of offending the publisher), which is what we do, than not go on the trip at all and have a big hole in our coverage of those games. Yes, we've been to press events, come back and written previews or impressions, and had PR reps from the event complain that the coverage was too negative. And you know what we did about it? Nothing. And we're still being invited to press events by that company. We have a similar protocol when PR reps complain about negative reviews. I tell them to send me another copy of the game (since my staff is scattered all over), and I'll have someone else do a second review which will be published in addition to the first one. If the second review is as bad or worse than the first one, then the PR rep learns his lesson and doesn't complain the next time. (Yes, this has happened as well.) But the second review will be based on the quality of the game, not any agenda to prove a point.

These are the kinds of things I can do to make a difference. Is it much? No, but it's probably more effective than bitching in an editorial.

 

[stewy]

I would however feel burned if a movie/book critic relentlessly hyped up a product based on something that is not the final product (such as a trailer) and then reveiws the final poorly. This, however, is the norm in videogame journalism. There is rarely any thought provoking analysis involved in writing about games as in other types of criticism, and instead what the gamer get is a ten page hype sheet/price guide to the XBox-360 (to cite an example from EGM, but I am not singling them out) and I do feel burned about this.

But that's the entertainment industry in general. Remember that magazines like EGM are a business, and therefore have to cater to what's hot, or at least what they perceive their readers are interested in.

Take The Matrix, for example. EGM did a big cover story on that game. Hyped it up like crazy. Then the game came out and it was shit. Well, hey, EGM did nothing wrong in hyping that game. They were catering to what they thought their readers were interested in. They need to sell issues. They aren't going to do that by ignoring one of the hottest movie properties around at the time because they have an inkling the game may not live up to its potential. What if they're wrong? Then they've lost loads of revenue thanks to a poor hunch. That's just not how it works.

The simple fact of tha matter is most of these decisions are made based on market direction and what's currently hot. Game mags (or movie mags, for that matter) can base their decisions only on what they have access to. That's not irresponsible or lazy, it's just working with the tools they have. If I'm making a decision on what 10-page preview to run, I can't expect to "go over the heads" of the PR and ask someone higher up if the game is any good. Like they'd give me an honest answer. I can only go based on the popularity of the game/license, and what I know or have seen, which is usually very little at that point.

While I think the complaints of "payola" and the idea of corrupted reviews can be debated, I really hate when people complain about how hyped up a game is before its release, but the it gets reviewed poorly, and then suggest it's a "problem with gaming journalism." It's that way with any entertainment medium. Previews are always going to skew to the positive, because that's the only fair way to judge something that isn't complete yet -- honesty mixed with a bit of optimism. Whether that's CDs, movies, television, or games. Tom Cruise's next movie will ALWAYS get more hype than a spectacular foreign film, simply because that's what sells magazines. The Rolling Stones will ALWAYS get more hype than some new garage band out of god knows where, because the Stones will sell the magazines.

The thought-provoking analysis you're talking about it what reviews should be for. It really doesn't have much to do with a 10-page preview of the next hot game.

 

[Flynn]

I would however feel burned if a movie/book critic relentlessly hyped up a product based on something that is not the final product (such as a trailer) and then reveiws the final poorly. This, however, is the norm in videogame journalism. There is rarely any thought provoking analysis involved in writing about games as in other types of criticism, and instead what the gamer get is a ten page hype sheet/price guide to the XBox-360 (to cite an example from EGM, but I am not singling them out) and I do feel burned about this.

I don't see what this would leave you feeling burnt. Products don't always live up to expectations. Would you rather they not write about a product until its in its final form, or to stick to their guns and keep saying the product is awesome when it isn't.

A good example of the phenomenon you're describing does happen in other media. I think the lead up and reviews of Star Wars: The Revenge of the Sith is a good example.

The problem is that we're working in an enthusiast medium. Gamers, like sci-fi fans, track the progress of projects to an extreme degree. You rarely see fans following the recording of a record or writing of a novel with such interest and in such numbers.

 

[Stinkles]

Hey, game journos, hands up how many of you have at LEAST one PR person really mad at you?

oh, you almost all have your hands up. 95% of you in fact.

Why are they mad at you?

oh. because you went on their junket, drank claret, ate Chateaubriand, and then went back to your office and slammed their shitty game anyway.

OK, sounds like you are all used to the gladhanding, it's just how the business works and you can simply go about your job in a professional manner. So the 5% is more like the number of half wits who insist on being flown first class and ten to work for smaller, weirder publications and or newspapers?

Phew. Crisis averted.

 

[Ghengis Cohen]

Take The Matrix, for example. EGM did a big cover story on that game. Hyped it up like crazy. Then the game came out and it was shit. Well, hey, EGM did nothing wrong in hyping that game. They were catering to what they thought their readers were interested in. They need to sell issues. They aren't going to do that by ignoring one of the hottest movie properties around at the time because they have an inkling the game may not live up to its potential. What if they're wrong? Then they've lost loads of revenue thanks to a poor hunch. That's just not how it works.

But the question how do separate the hype/advertising from the review? If you convince a person to buy it before the review has come out and then you make it sound like a completely different game in the final analysis haven't you done your reader a disservice? Or does the "we need to make money" (and I understand both sides of this) excuse absolve you of any of that responsibility?

 

[FortNinety]

I'll be forthright when I say that "game journalism" is just a hobby based on my hobby of gaming.

Do I recieve free shit? Yes.
Do I care about the legitimacy of my writing? No.
Have I ever let a flashy trinket sway my opinion of a game? No.

No offense Matlock, but that's really one of the main problems with the field: way too many people involved who don't care about the validity of what they do.

Well, you are pretty unjustifiably bitter and angry, but it's not just you.

I never allow my annoyance over a specific issue affect what I write about on the printed page, or someone else's site, when I'm being asked to cover a particular subject, especially if I'm being paid to do so.

 

[Stinkles]

At least most of the "unprofessional" journalists who write about games have the guts to sign their real names to articles.

QFT. And Safety.

 

[stewy]

But the question how do separate the hype/advertising from the review? If you convince a person to buy it before the review has come out and then you make it sound like a completely different game in the final analysis haven't you done your reader a disservice? Or does the "we need to make money" (and I understand both sides of this) excuse absolve you of any of that responsibility?

No, needing to make money doesn't absolve you of that responsibility. But like I said before, you have to work with what you get. When you only get to see certain bits of the game, you can only judge the game based on those. If those bits of the game are great...well, wouldn't you assume the game will be good. It's really as simple as that in most cases.

On the other hand, if you get complete access to a game and you see bits that are just horrible (say, a really bad framerate, loads of bugs), you can't just slam the game if it's not done yet. A lot of that stuff does get worked out near the end of a cycle. So the best route there is cautious optimism. Though I do believe in pointing out that the game does have some issues to work out even in the preview.

There are obviously right and wrong ways to do this. But my point remains the same -- being optimistic about and giving loads of coverage to a big name game and ultimately reviewing it poorly is not some big conspiracy, nor is it irresponsible.

 

[SiegfriedFM]

Game writer here, and I'll probably will never call myself a journalist because of the reasons already stated: my job is to say/write what I think about something. In fact, the few times that I actually do journalism *cough* unreleased, self-captured SC3 pics *cough* we get in a bit of trouble with the PR guys. That's how it works and that's why "game journalist" is an oxymoron to begin with.

However that doesn't change the issue, how can you be trusted by the reader/consumer to be given a true or worthwhile opinion if you are recieving perks from those whose products you are meant to be reviewing?

Then in fact you shouldn't trust any review released before street date, since you're getting the free game from the company to be able to review it in time...

But the question how do separate the hype/advertising from the review? If you convince a person to buy it before the review has come out and then you make it sound like a completely different game in the final analysis haven't you done your reader a disservice? Or does the "we need to make money" (and I understand both sides of this) excuse absolve you of any of that responsibility?

People think previews are reviews, it happens all the time. People are idiots, if they rush out and buy something before actual reviews it's their own fault