|
|
|
A Nintendo community by the fans!
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|
Do you take video game journalism and reviews seriously anymore? [roundtable]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@NinSageCall of Duty is relevant to the interests that "gaming journalists" tend to cover. Pokemon is not. Whether or not that's good, bad, or indifferent is up for debate, I suppose, but it is what it is. And that's the larger issue with gaming "journalism" generally. It barely exists. Unlike traditional journalism, or literary/film criticism, gaming "journalism" is largely masturbatory. It exists mostly to market the industry it covers. Traditional journalism isn't like this. Literary or film criticism isn't like this. The former exists to be informative, the latter to prop up the academic study of the medium. Gaming has no established equivalent (though to be fair, the seeds for this have been sown and are begging to sprout, to an extent). The overwhelming majority of writing paid journalists do about Call of Duty X, Madden Y, or Mario Z exists solely to inform customers about a purchase decision. Publishers know this. And they know that the outlets that do this professionally are totally dependent upon them for their very existence in most circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Kal-El814The issue of whether or not that imbalance is bad is at the very heart of this thread's issue. If game journalism doesn't cover games equally, it shouldn't be "taken seriously." There are many factors that could lead one to not take a game journalist seriously. But that is definitely one of them. What we're all getting at, in whatever way we so choose, is that for OUR benefit (our = gamers, not just Nintendo gamers) we need to erase and replace much of the popular media outlets for game journalism. Luckily, places like G4 are starting to feel those very effects. But there is a loooooong way to go. Also, journalism at just about any level I can think of is severely flawed because it relies on ratings/money. However, the reason why I feel compelled to urge people to demand changes in game journalism is because game journalism is still in such an early stage that right now is when we have the time to change the course before it becomes "the establishment." Reporting social and political news has been in place for hundreds of years, book reviews as well, film reviews are closing in on the century mark. But video games? We've had what, ~25 years and right now the most engrained outlets are some blogs and deep, deep cable channels? We still have time to save it!! We just gotta do things like ween yourself off of those outlets completely. I no longer feed Kotaku or G4 or GameTrailers (front page) hits because I disagreed with their journalistic philosophies. I'm just one guy, but it's the only way any of us can make a difference. ... is anyone with me on this? @AnandEven if Joe Public doesn't look at reviews, at least one of his friends does. And that's all it takes. That's why companies spend so much effort targeting "opinion leaders." Unfortunately, in game media, that philosophy is entirely on its head. The most popular outlets for game journalism insist on narrowing that laser focus tighter and tighter and tighter. It's an odd defense mechanism in response to the explosion of the games market. You'd think they'd want to cash in and start hiring a bunch of Just Dance experts, or at least y'know, cover the market leading hardware (Wii/DS/3DS) with some integrity. But, no, it's just HD shooter/aggression simulator of the month 24/7. Yuck. Do you all realize that the 3DS' "poll of the week" has never been updated on GameTrailers? Yet, the Vita's is kept up to date? Just mull that over. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NinSage said:@Kal-El814
The issue of whether or not that imbalance is bad is at the very heart of this thread's issue. If game journalism doesn't cover games equally, it shouldn't be "taken seriously." I disagree. Academic criticism of other disciplines doesn't cover all genres, authors, etc., equally, and I don't think that's necessarily to the detriment of those fields. That said I don't know that the way that the game journalism machine currently functions is particularly healthy, or perhaps, that it's as well rounded as it ought to be. But not all games are of equal merit, and as such, expecting gaming journalism in any of its forms to play a consistently even hand isn't reasonable and probably isn't even desirable. Part of the issue with gaming journalism is the market for it. Print or broadcast news appeals to a much more diverse audience than does gaming press. If I'm reading the NYT or the Journal, I'm going to see a diversity of ads. If I'm consuming print or online gaming journalism, the ads are almost always for the products I'm reading about or are products from the same publishers. Until that feedback loop gets broken, there's not much to be done. Beyond that, I think we need to realize that for as much as people on message boards care... we're the small minority of gamers. Right? So I may be really interested in why something like the legitimately great article on kotaku about Silicon Knight's implosion... most people just want to know if Halo 4 is good. Or if CODBLOPS2 is decent. Or if New Super Mario Bros. 2 is solid. The reason gaming journalism is what it is is cyclical; it's the only way for journalists to consistently get paid, and it's what consumers have come to expect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Kal-El814I mean this with all due respect as I believe we can have a good discussion here... There are some flaws in your logic. First, I'm not asking for a world in which Unheard of Shovelware 8 gets the same attention and effort as the next G___ of War. That would be ... idiotic. No, there are 3 primary companies in the video game hardware business, and I'm asking for a world that treats those THREE equally. If they are more than happy to give two the love and attention they deserve, three should not be too much to ask. Nor should it run any risk of being detrimental to the overall culture or industry. So, yea, they should be giving Pokemon as much attention as CoDBlOps2 because the franchise is nearly, if not more, popular. Unless they specify themselves as a """hardcore""" video game media outlet. But, no, most all of them believe themselves to be generalists --- without actually putting in the effort to earn that title! Second, there is a popular communication theory I once heard that really set off an epiphany for me. That is the concept that "menu = diet." In other words, though you can choose whatever you want, you are limited to what's on the menu. Right now, no, there isn't much reason for game journalists to cater to anyone but the """hardcore""" because there doesn't seem to be as much interest from the larger, more non-niche audience of gamers. But why would there be interest? Why would they go in to the restaurant at all when nothing on the menu is for THEM? So, like many of us, they cook at home, so to speak (see: Stache's above comment). There are a LOT of people, who many or may not want to use the label of "gamer," who would pay attention to media that paid (non-condescending) attention to them. The incentive for gaming media for tapping into this ignored resource goes without saying - it's what they want - it's traffic, hits, ratings, it's revenue. Instead, they are all clinging tight to their old ways of socially outcast elitisms while droves of potential mass audience members go ignored. Why? For "street cred" because they can't give No More Heroes a review until it hits the PS3? (as was the case with Kotaku). Can't report monthly game statistics once a hardcore 3rd party exclusive tops the charts? (as was the case with Kotaku and MH3). The list goes on ... They should be CULTIVATING those new Monster Hunter enthusiasts, those folks who could look past the Wii's "kid friendly" surface and sink their teeth into No More Heroes. It would serve THEM and US better in the not-so-long run. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Oldmanwinterhmmm, we're now we're on different wavelengths and I'm not sure where the break down occurred. Again, I like to number things to keep them easy to grasp. Here we go .. 1. I think my phrasing made the realm we were discussing quite clear. The debate over whether or not "PC" should be considered a dedicated game machine is a can of worms I didn't want to open. So even though I'm well aware of its popularity, we're going to muddy the waters if we go outside the realm of what is absolutely accepted as a dedicated game device. After all, I can't help but notice you didn't include Smartphones. And now you can't help but notice I didn't include Flash games. And now I can't help but notice you didn't include text-based games, etc, etc. 2. "...should be beholden to any agenda aside from unbiased reporting or writing." How are we not saying the same exact thing here? How is claiming to be an outlet that covers Sony/MS/Nintendo not being biased when they ignore quality Nintendo games, even at the attention of low-quality Sony/MS games? Just because they are genuine in their bias (though I think bias is a strong word, but you introduced it) doesn't mean they are being virtuous. 3. I wasn't ever trying to imply that the job of the media should be to cultivate any kind of enthusiast. What I said was, even if we accept "OK, in our capitalist society, media outlets need to make money, so they need to make decisions based on money," then it doesn't explain and further does not excuse those outlets for then blatantly leaving traffic/revenue on the table for the sake of ignoring something cool just because it's on a Nintendo platform. 4. Do you truly believe metacritic reviews are the bottom line metric of media attention? Just because an outlet graces a Nintendo game with a review score, doesn't account for all the "collecting dust" and "kiddy console" and other such tired, lame excuses made for ignoring much more than they ever would if the some product said Sony or MS on it. --- In spite of all this, if I'm not mistaken, the issue here is that you think gaming media can phone-it-in for 1/3 of the dedicated gaming market (market leaders (plural!), by the way) if they so choose and still be considered in the right. Where as I think that is doing a disservice to both themselves and us, the gaming audience. If I've summed our different views up up to your liking, we can probably call it a day since I doubt any amount of evidence can change your mind if you don't consider said evidence pertinent. And hey, that's OK, we don't need to agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@NinSageAgain, I don't think Nintendo is being ignored to the extent that you're claiming across the board. There are absolutely individual instances one can point to in which Nintendo has been shafted. I can do the same for every other developer or publisher, too. To your point about metacritic, no, I think the concept is fine but their execution is garbage. That said, one of the few things that places like metacritic is useful for is to help pick apart the existence of some of these biases. Nintendo games are consistently some of the highest reviewed games out there. Nintendo games have consistently some of the largest volume of reviews written about them. Pokemon Black 2 has more critic reviews than Assassin's Creed 3 on the PS3. Wario Land Shake It has more critic reviews than the Xbox 360 version of Madden 13. Skyward Sword has almost as many reviews as the 360 version of Skyrim. If you're going to places like IGN and kotaku, is there a bias there? Sure. Are those big outlets? Absolutely. But they're not the alpha and omega of online gaming content. So to your last point, I don't think that gaming media SHOULD phone it in for 1/3 of the console manufacturers. And with that said, I don't think that is actually happening, either, at least not broadly. Do the "collecting dust" people exist? Yes. But they exist in an environment in which Nintendo consistently receives critical acclaim and their fair share of attention, as flawed as that environment is overall. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty much with Kal on this.
Anti-Nintendo bias exists, particularly at certain high-profile sites, but that's not really my biggest beef with the state of games journalism, today. If I could point to a host of original, thoughtful, compelling writers who just didn't give Nintendo their due, that'd just be a complaint I'd have as a Nintendo fan, not a reason to despair about the whole field. Instead, I just see a bunch of hacks writing uninteresting, corporate-caressing bullshit that's not fun to read. I don't want people like that coming anywhere near Nintendo, to be honest.
Fix that problem, first. Worry about Nintendo's representation in the conversation, later. That's my view. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|