I halfway agree, but you don’t quite get my point. Obviously when it comes to some games like Injustice or Star Craft 2, having a top player who is capable of sniffing out the nuances and subtleties the game may have is immeasurably more effective at evaluating the game on it’s own merit compared to a paid critic who likely has played more games than most people but is a jack of all trades gamer rather than an expert. However, a top player primarily reviews games to inform a niche group of others who are presumably already fans of the game/genre as to whether it’s depth is beneficial or not to the spirit of the game. Paid critics on the other hand, reviews games to inform the less hardcore, less up to date masses on whether they accomplish their intents on a broad level and are entertaining enough to justify their price point.
To say that critics should not review fighting games just because they don’t scour SRK forums for bnb’s is ridiculous. They are not reviewing games for the types of people who apply frame data, they do it for those who have an interest in games but are not informed enough to know whether or not it’s something they’re willing to pay for. It’s immature of you to condescend to other gamers for not being as nerdy as you, your post reeks of elitism.
We definitely need more expert, specialist critics out there, whether on the mainstream sites or their own media outlets in some organized fashion however, layman critics like the IGN guys have their place too.
Totally agree, but in the mean time every little bit helps, and white listing at least 1 or 2 sites you visit regularly should be where people start…unless the ads in question happen to be overly obnoxious.
I’m sure water seeks its own level but the title you gave this thread is “why game journalism sucks” while all they do is cater to their audiences, like you said. So it’s ok for you to say that other people “suck” but when I do it it’s “immature and reeks of elitism”, yes?
Tataki has a point regarding fighting game reviews. You can’t know how good or bad a game is with just a few hours of play. You don’t have to know frame data to be qualified to write a fighting game review, but you have to put in a considerable amount of time to know whether the combat system is worth the time investment. Fighting games have the potential to be played for years.
That’s why the majority of fighting game reviews are no good; they’re written for the people who *don’t *invest that kind of time into the games. Instead, the reviews will focus on the different modes and the story–the stuff that don’t matter in the long run.
The thing that I don’t understand about video game journalism is the appeal outside of something like “Half life 3 announced to come out 4th quarter of 20XX” but that’s something I can grab quickly from gametrailers. If I wanted information about how the game looks, I would prefer to go to youtube and watch one of those “first 10 minutes gameplay videos”. If it was a fighting game, I’d watch some combo videos, exhibition/tournament matches, and all that jazz. PC games are hard to critique as well because everyone has different specs. A game could boast “Vivid and groundbreaking graphics” but if I am running a toaster I don’t care about all of that because I will simply be unable to run the game, god forbid even play it. Videos also take care of a lot of things that I look for when looking for a new game that an article simply cannot do without adding a video (and then why not just make a video entirely?). Game soundtrack is haunting and ambient? That’s nice, but I want to actually hear it and judge for myself. Controls are confusing and make the game difficult? Well, how about showing the tutorial stage of the game so that I know if the game was flooded with unnecessary controls or if the controls make the game new and entertaining. Gameplay is clunky and slow paced? Well, how about a video so I can see if the author was just playing the game his preferred method or if the game is simply unpolished.
Not many games do it, but if a game has a demo available that beats out everything else. Hell, when a game only releases a demo most articles are derived from that demo. I can play the game myself and formulate my own opinion and hopes for when the game is actually released.
Maybe I am more apathetic because I played videogames when there was no internet (anyone else shudder when they type that?) and could only get an idea for a game based on borrowing/hearsay or subscribing to those gaming magazines. I still have some old magazines and after re-reading them ya know what? The quality of information still hasn’t changed. There is still a heavy amount of bias within the articles, rumors that are based around an unknown source, random scoring mechanics for games that seem to have derived from throwing darts on the wall, and nothing that ever makes me think “Man journalism back then was great, what happened?” I did like Anthony Burch’s videos for games and even with the HAWP episodes he would still bring up cool and interesting points, but he stopped doing those a lot once he got hired by gearbox. Ad-blocking reasons? Maybe, but I can honestly say I was not a part of that then.
Although I do feel for the author in the sense that he is fighting an uphill battle especially against people who are playing the system as opposed to taking pride in their work, my personal experience with gaming journalism makes me go “who cares, there are better alternatives”.
i think the good shit is not like “gaming news” or even traditional “reviews”, its when smart people who happen to be good writers make essays about mechanics and stuff
its enriching
the magazine style stuff was never good journalism, but it did have cool pictures when we were twelve, and it let us know gta 3 was gonna be awesome
New Games Journalism is not gaming journalism, more gonzo than anything.
Specifically I look at gaming journalism as this: You got your hard news which provides the necessary scoop of things and if there is more details available within the story such as additional development and whatever, they can be applied into more appropriate longer news pieces/features similar to traditional style writing. The reviews are situated as more or less purchasing advice for the gamer on the ropes.
Things like retrospective experiences can be followed afterward; although in a sense they can be NGJ too but NGJ writers seem pretentious and unnecessarily overtly detailed in what they write.
Also…
Back on topic, I don’t adblock the sites that deserve it.
I honestly think many self-titled games journalists actually genuinely love playing and talking about games. I just don’t see too many of their opinions being the stuff of truly compelling thought. It’s like the average movie-watching group has opinions about films but I’d expect those opinions need to reach a certain level of refinement and depth before they’d deserve to get money thrown at them.
Yes, because I have not condescended to anyone needlessly, I simply pointed out the ad driven business model has hurt the quality of game articles and promotes poor writing. You didn’t do that you outright fail to see why both layman critics and specialists have their places and all but say that layman critics should not review fighting games for their respective audience
It seems you only read the part of my post that Tataki quoted. Also it’s not your place to say story and other modes don’t matter in the long run, to you and me maybe not, but I’m sure that there are a sizeable number of others who think disagree.
This is why so many like myself love the bombast crew with a passion, they cut through the bullshit of journalism, giving you the straight scoop with the right combination of snarky wit and professional insight. Hell, their quick looks are better than 90% of reviews lol.
honestly this is a problem in all journalism.
look at how cozy the white house gets with the press corps with get togethers and functions and not inviting people who are critical to the highly selective and fought-after occasions, sits downs, etc.
just one example from millions of how journalists find it almost impossible to maintain their integrity in the face of constant peer pressure and glittering temptation.
this is why the rare journalist who actually speaks truth to power, has no fear, and scorns popularity, is so memorable.
But they don’t matter in the long run. At the end of the day, what is it that should keep you coming back to a fighting game? Vs. play. Everything else is a diversion from the *main * gameplay mode. It’s important to get more people to purchase fighting games, but it’s even more important that they stick with them. I don’t want players to just play single-player mode and then trade in their game after a month. How does that help the community grow? Look at Starcraft’s community…it didn’t get that way because of its story. Same with COD.
Most reviews don’t help us because they will dock points from a game if it doesn’t have nifty diversions from the main gameplay component. It doesn’t matter if vs. play is the best thing ever. And *maybe *they could explain a few game mechanics and tell the readers how they help or hinder them. Have you ever seen Tommy Tallarico’s Guilty Gear XX review? I don’t want to see reviews like that ever again.
I respect people like GameSpot’s Maxwell McGee because although he has to review fighting games for a general audience, he has a better understanding of the games than most other reviewers. He understands what fighting games need to maintain players for the long-term and will factor that into his reviews. He also writes FG-related articles regularly; I don’t know any other journalist from a mainstream site who does that.