The sad sate of gaming journalism

The Gertsmann/Gamespot shitshow was way worse than this but I guess this one is pretty bad too.
 
rdqlus said:
The Gertsmann/Gamespot shitshow was way worse than this but I guess this one is pretty bad too.
Click to expand...


I don't think the writer is implying that this is as bad as what happened with Gamespot in 07. Not sure how you get that from the article at all. It was brought up as an example to his points about modern game "journalism" which like all forms of modern "journalism" is many kinds of fucked. Stuff like this is why I'm glad to see sites like GameSpy or Gamespot refocusing themselves and becoming more critical and giving a better impression of being gamers instead of just PR mouthpieces versus people like IGN or GameInformer who are pretty obviously catering to publishers and PR people. Hell GameInformer is owned by a large game retailer widely known for fucking people over, why anyone trusts them is lost on me.
 
These days I just watch people stream themselves playing recently released games on twitch, and I decide from there whether or not I want to buy the game.
 
Until games get the same kind of widespread acceptance as films or books where 'games journalists' can support their profession without (or at least not principally from) ad dollars from the people they're supposed to be covering and reviewing, there will be this weird dependency on from the people you're supposed to be keeping honest.

I don't think it's particularly different than the state of any branch of journalism today, just more directly connected to the cash rewards.
 
FreiDOg said:
Until games get the same kind of widespread acceptance as films or books where 'games journalists' can support their profession without (or at least not principally from) ad dollars from the people they're supposed to be covering and reviewing, there will be this weird dependency on from the people you're supposed to be keeping honest.

I don't think it's particularly different than the state of any branch of journalism today, just more directly connected to the cash rewards.
Click to expand...

No one really trusts film "journalists".
 
Way back yonder 10 years ago or so in Journalism 101 over and over again they taught: "Never take any kinds of gifts whether it be a $10 lunch or anything else." It immediately creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest right off the bat even if there isn't.

Then it can downhill from there and all too often it does.
 
Q-BZ said:
Way back yonder 10 years ago or so in Journalism 101 over and over again they taught: "Never take any kinds of gifts whether it be a $10 lunch or anything else." It immediately creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest right off the bat even if there isn't.

Then it can downhill from there and all too often it does.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Though the rules of journalism have to get muddied a bit for reviews, but I hate calling reviewers journalists. They're not journalists, the only reason I'd even consider them part of the "press" is solely for the Constitutional protection it comes with.
 
Who still pays attention to "journalists"? Look at Metacritic and it becomes rather obvious their all paid for their "reviews".
 
DeathPrincess said:
Who still pays attention to "journalists"? Look at Metacritic and it becomes rather obvious their all paid for their "reviews".
Click to expand...

No they're not all paid. Some may be, but there is a hell of a lot more to it than "paid reviewers". In fact I'd almost say them being paid would be preferable to the reality.
 
The silence from the big sites is extremely telling. Who cares that a good writer from the biggest gaming site in Europe is out of his job because he told the truth? Can't risk biting the hand that quite literally feeds them.
 
The biggest offenders have been Far Cry 2 and Bioshock 2 imo. The gaming community was completely polarized on those. The reviewers "Loved" them, but Gamers almost universally reviled them. I hesitate to include Halo and COD because for all the hype most people enjoy them.
 
piscian18 said:
The biggest offenders have been Far Cry 2 and Bioshock 2 imo. The gaming community was completely polarized on those. The reviewers "Loved" them, but Gamers almost universally reviled them. I hesitate to include Halo and COD because for all the hype most people enjoy them.
Click to expand...

Bioshock 2 is a good game. I still don't get some of the hate for it at all.

Far Cry 2 will go down in legend, though. I'll never forget the PC Gamer spreads, the 97/100 reviews and all the rest. The game is a GORGEOUS polished turd. A wonderful simulator in a glass bottle where absolutely nothing you do matters and everything from people to foliage regenerates into eternity.

Far Cry 2 takes "de-motivation" to art form levels. God, I hate that game for the prick tease that it was. I can only hope Far Cry 3 won't be a repeat of that.
 
Q-BZ said:
Bioshock 2 is a good game. I still don't get some of the hate for it at all.

Far Cry 2 will go down in legend, though. I'll never forget the PC Gamer spreads, the 97/100 reviews and all the rest. The game is a GORGEOUS polished turd. A wonderful simulator in a glass bottle where absolutely nothing you do matters and everything from people to foliage regenerates into eternity.

Far Cry 2 takes "de-motivation" to art form levels. God, I hate that game for the prick tease that it was. I can only hope Far Cry 3 won't be a repeat of that.
Click to expand...

Bioshock 2 was just too much like the first game without the good twists and turns and with a weaker villain. Bioshock was great because it was a fresh and unique experience, even for people that had played games like it previously it was able to hit notes that hadn't been hit in games for a long time. 2K Marin tried to copy that experience instead of making something unique and something they can call their own. Rapture had been played out in Bioshock 1, there was no need to go back and the new villain didn't work as well as Andrew Ryan and Fontaine. The history of Rapture was so clearly explored in the first game that Lamb felt out of place. I don't recall her being mentioned anywhere in the first game and that really hurt her inclusion in the second. The over-all story suffered massively and with no enhancements to the graphics or gameplay it just felt too much like a quick, cheap, sequel.
 
Q-BZ said:
Bioshock 2 is a good game. I still don't get some of the hate for it at all.

Far Cry 2 will go down in legend, though. I'll never forget the PC Gamer spreads, the 97/100 reviews and all the rest. The game is a GORGEOUS polished turd. A wonderful simulator in a glass bottle where absolutely nothing you do matters and everything from people to foliage regenerates into eternity.

Far Cry 2 takes "de-motivation" to art form levels. God, I hate that game for the prick tease that it was. I can only hope Far Cry 3 won't be a repeat of that.
Click to expand...

Besides it having terrible PC support double down DRM and on disc DLC it was just really uninspiring and generic. It wasn't a "Bad" game it was just really boring. All the sister saves dragged it out as well. I found by midway through I was really struggling to get through it. Most of that revolved around the plot. Bioshock had a really interesting take on Free market and libertarian-ism where as BS2 just had this generic neo-christian without any endgame goal other than to be idk .. be mean I guess? The only thing I would have done different is to not save any of the sisters and speed through the game faster. 2k Marins lack of interest in the game became obvious at the end when they just start throwing Deltas at you with no rhyme or reason like "well were fresh out of bad guy ideas..just reskin him and make him fight himself over and over."

As far as I can tell FarCry 3 is made by literally the same group so I'm not even remotely interested.

Derangel said:
Bioshock 2 was just too much like the first game without the good twists and turns and with a weaker villain. Bioshock was great because it was a fresh and unique experience, even for people that had played games like it previously it was able to hit notes that hadn't been hit in games for a long time. 2K Marin tried to copy that experience instead of making something unique and something they can call their own. Rapture had been played out in Bioshock 1, there was no need to go back and the new villain didn't work as well as Andrew Ryan and Fontaine. The history of Rapture was so clearly explored in the first game that Lamb felt out of place. I don't recall her being mentioned anywhere in the first game and that really hurt her inclusion in the second. The over-all story suffered massively and with no enhancements to the graphics or gameplay it just felt too much like a quick, cheap, sequel.
Click to expand...

She wasn't. Someone mentioned they tied her in with the book, but if you listen to all the tapes in BS2 the explanation for where she comes into Rapture is pretty shakie. Mostly on the timeline. She shows up around time things start coming a part I think but then they act like she had a big role in it. I think they mucked the continuity up pretty good with her.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone even really read the reviews anymore? At most I might skim them for screenshots and game play videos, but mostly I just go to youtube and look at actual game play videos made by regular people that bought the game. It gives me a far better idea of whether I will like a game or not than even a legit review would.
 
GORANKAR said:
Does anyone even really read the reviews anymore? At most I might skim them for screenshots and game play videos, but mostly I just go to youtube and look at actual game play videos made by regular people that bought the game. It gives me a far better idea of whether I will like a game or not than even a legit review would.
Click to expand...

Depends on the game and the reviewer. I enjoy reading reviews of bad games or games the reviewer hated, it tends to be amusing or other times just looking and seeing what people thought of a game I had never heard of and got a good reception.
 
dragonage 2 got really awesome reviews


it was one of the most disappointing and awful games i've played in the last five years
 
andrewbub said:
dragonage 2 got really awesome reviews


it was one of the most disappointing and awful games i've played in the last five years
Click to expand...

Monster Hunter got really really shitty reviews, it's one of the best games i've ever played. It went on to be ones of the biggest selling series ever, then the later parts all suddenly got good reviews, even though it's pretty much the exact same game...:confused:
 
Looked like they thought they would build credibility by bashing a game they thought would go no where an it backfired. After all, not every game can be an 8.5 - 10.
 
GORANKAR said:
Looked like they thought they would build credibility by bashing a game they thought would go no where an it backfired. After all, not every game can be an 8.5 - 10.
Click to expand...

A lot of times reviewers like to either be in line with everyone else to avoid controversy or to create it by being different. You can always tell reviews that are simply pandering to an audience or written solely to get a reaction, they are usually poorly done or the score in no way represents the text.
 
A. I think reviewers do scapegoat low paid ad games for bad review quotas. Somebody has to get picked last.

B. I think reviewers depend too much on a checklist of what games include. It's been mentioned a couple times that Spec Ops The Line was beaten up over a poor tacked on multiplayer. I don't think it's fair to cut up a review into scores like that. I've been thinking a lot about different review styles and I think pure point based reviews don't work. When I mentally review a game I boil it down to "was it fun? If not why?" One of the sites, I forget which, simply says, is this worth playing? I would add at what price? in some cases.
 
piscian18 said:
A. I think reviewers do scapegoat low paid ad games for bad review quotas. Somebody has to get picked last.

B. I think reviewers depend too much on a checklist of what games include. It's been mentioned a couple times that Spec Ops The Line was beaten up over a poor tacked on multiplayer. I don't think it's fair to cut up a review into scores like that. I've been thinking a lot about different review styles and I think pure point based reviews don't work. When I mentally review a game I boil it down to "was it fun? If not why?" One of the sites, I forget which, simply says, is this worth playing? I would add at what price? in some cases.
Click to expand...

I hate point systems, but it's expected and basically required for big sites. CGW tried to abolish the point system and they got a huge amount of backlash for it so much so that they went back to the point system after it became GFW Magazine.
 
Meh, this happens in political, government, business, international news media as well. Gaming is just one of the last areas to be affected by this.
 
Q-BZ said:
Bioshock 2 is a good game. I still don't get some of the hate for it at all.

Far Cry 2 will go down in legend, though. I'll never forget the PC Gamer spreads, the 97/100 reviews and all the rest. The game is a GORGEOUS polished turd. A wonderful simulator in a glass bottle where absolutely nothing you do matters and everything from people to foliage regenerates into eternity.

Far Cry 2 takes "de-motivation" to art form levels. God, I hate that game for the prick tease that it was. I can only hope Far Cry 3 won't be a repeat of that.
Click to expand...

I was going to say that until game journalists stop giving shit games like Far Cry 2 rave reviews when they are clearly terrible, I'll never put any stock in their opinions. Negative reviews from gaming "journalists" are so rare and the fact is few games are deserving of the accolades they receive in the gaming publications. All the positive comments and the fact that nothing bad hardly ever gets said is by itself telling when the general populace's opinion varies so wildly from the so called professional opinions. They are getting to be as bad as gun reviews. (I've never read a negative gun review from a professional / revenue seeking publication. Ever.)
 
Derangel said:
Destructoid picked up the story with a well written article by Jim Sterling. http://www.destructoid.com/from-a-bag-of-doritos-to-a-bag-of-dirty-laundry-237619.phtml
Click to expand...

Kind of a pussy take on it. "Shits going down. Were not a part of it. Check our record."

Thats it. Though As Jim does mention in the article Destructoid has never really given a shit and even accused Konami of being a shit company with no reason to exist. Destructoid has kind of a right to stay above it.

I respect Jim for at least mentioning he's aware of it, but I would have expected him to take more of a side.


I'm pretty sick of all of it. I'm sick of hearing about goddamn Halo 4 and Assassins QTE III. There's a plethora of games in the Steam Halloween sale that will be completely ignored because no one promotes anything unless there's a giftbag and fucking tickets to Foo fighters involved. *scream*
 
Derangel said:
No one really trusts film "journalists".
Click to expand...

Indeed. I haven't for years , if something looks interesting and well directed I'm willing to gamble some bucks on going to see it in theaters. If I have any doubts I wait for Blu Ray.

Same thing for games , if I truly doubt it's going to be anything less than fun/great I will either rent it or wait for it to drop in price.

You don't need to read reviews to be a smart consumer when it comes to games or movies. No one should tell "you" what you will or will not enjoy. That is a personal choice.

If I listened to what every reviewer has told me and taken it to heart I would have wasted thousands on headphones/DAC's/AMP's that might not sound any different in a blind test from the lower end versions.

Use sound judgement and stop doing what everyone else tells you to.
 
RoffleCopter said:
These days I just watch people stream themselves playing recently released games on twitch, and I decide from there whether or not I want to buy the game.
Click to expand...

If you have a lot of time this is a great option. One that I would use.

While we are at it, one can wonder how the new X-COM picked up so much praise across the board? What a neutered piece of repetitive X-COM that turned out to be.
 
Advertising BS like this gets fixed not by writing articles, but by not buying titles like Halo and Call of Duty.
 
As with all forms of journalism, especially in game/film/music/book reviews:

"Trust, but verify."

Of all the gaming sites, I've come to trust Gamespy over IGN, Gamespot, etc.etc. (even though I'm pretty sure that Gamespy is owned by IGN, but the talent is MUCH better)

When it comes to deciding if a game is worth buying, I like to compare user-reviews (not troll statements, but well written reviews) versus the big-name reviewers across multiple websites like Gamespy, Amazon, the [H], and even Metacritic who does a good job of compiling reviews.

The straw that broke the camel's back for me regarding gaming reviewers was Dragon Age 2. How anyone who had played and enjoyed DA1, or any RPG for that matter, could give DA2 anything better than a 50% score needs their head checked (and all their free EA and Bioware fluff they received confiscated).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top