Video Game Journalist, are they needed?

Like really are they really needed? I am asking because it seems like they're just dwindling in the light.

I mean I love some journalist, but it gets a little crowded for me to see a bunch of people trying to do the most easiest job in the bizz; well it not that easy but you get my point. what is your thought about them and who is your favorite from where ever?

Whatever one might think of their profession, someone has to inform us of new (or even old) games or we wouldn't even know what we could be missing.

Yes, someone has to pay attention to what the fuck is going on in the world of vidya, then relay that information to people like me, who otherwise might as well be living in a cave with a chalk drawing of an EA rep with shit plopping out of their mouth.

The problem is that, when it comes to the mainstream sites (the site that your typical codfag might think of), you're more likely to read about how best to fellate the publishers instead of journalism that informs gamers about troubling business practices or how a claim some spokesperson made is dubious/spurious. The reviews also tend to only give a cursory look at the negatives of a game; instead there's a lot gushing about how fun or exciting the thing is. Some advice I've heard, that I agree with, is to find journalists who you believe have integrity and whose opinion you can trust, then just follow them. If that means following only one person on a site, then so be it. Also, don't be a complacent fuckwit. If that person spouts some bullshit, call them on it. You have to be vigilant and constantly judge whether or not they're worthy of trust.

(protip: not this prick)


Here are shit sites I hope self-respecting gamers would avoid (not exhaustive; I'm sure there are plenty of others that suck):



In general, be wary of reviews from sites that get revenue from advertising the newest big game. If you see a giant picture of Bioshock Infinite in the background right before the game's out, the review will likely be a cocksuckfest.

I would recommend:

Mah nigga Erik Kain: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/
Rock, Paper, Shotgun (John Walker's pretty good. The site also has great writing; always a good read): http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/
William Usher of gaming blend (total bro, though he does say over the top shit sometimes): http://www.cinemablend.com/games/
Polygon (I'm not sure about them myself, but I've heard good things about that site): http://www.polygon.com/
VG247 (just for general gaming news): http://www.vg247.com/
Games Industry, the wall st. journal of vidya (if you care about that kind of thing): http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
Gamasutra (similar to gamesindustry, but doesn't focus as much on the "business" side): http://www.gamasutra.com/newswire

There are also youtubers like Angry Joe and Total Buscuit. Both of them seem to stay vigilant with regard to the games industry.

Agreed with Rbz on everything, ESPECIALLY this. It just seems that review sites are mainly for indoctrinating now, I was hyped up for all these "9 and above" reviewed games, but I always ended up disappointed. The first Bioshock being my first step in being an idiot with buying games, it was a borefest and the only thing that made it a good game, was the fact that the first half was a great plot twist. After that? It sucked a lot. Nowadays I judge video games myself and from there decide if I should buy it. I do listen to AngryJoe since he has lengthy reviews and love what he covers and how he does it.


So what's the big problem about the guy with the Halo 4 Doritos crap? He does look like a major douche, AngryJoe talked about him but I still don't have a good idea.

I really enjoy your posts Rbz.



Have a image:

Like any kind of industry, having journalism is important.

However game journalism I find to be a little stale. With the advent of the internet essentially anyone can do it, and there is a lot of dick riding with video game reviews.

I don't really trust reviews anymore. Instead I either download the demo or watch Let's Plays of that game.

I would love to be able to be a video game journalist. Just spend all my time playing and reporting on video games? But the kind of people that do it now, at least the well known ones, are kinda douchebags ya know?

Thanks, bro.



tl;dr, "It's an important image. Study it."

Also, eurogamer, the site linked in the OP, had to edit the article (luckily that post on /v/ copypasta'd the original) because a certain disingenuous cunt by the name of Lauren Wainwright threatened the site with legal action. Mah nigga Erik Kain wrote about it. I call her disingenuous because she's an alleged journalist who, not only does (or did) freelance work for square enix, but reviewed some of their games.



And

Critics count as Journalist right?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6978-SimShitty
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6863-Previewed-Preordered-Prescrewed
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/6912-Aliens-Colonial-Marines

I'd miss these guys, only guys I find not acting like drugged up zombies, every time a new AAA game comes out.

What RBZ said except for that last bit about Angry Joe and TB.

And as much as I agree with Kain, there's so much more we disagree on, but he's still worth checking out.

I occasionally visit Eurogamer, although I am wary of Dewritogate and I don't blame Eurogamer as much as I do Wainright.

There's also gatheryourparty, although I think there's still a lot of room for them to improve. It's good that they don't have ads or get reviewer copies but they still need a good editor.


As much as some journalism is needed, it's often seen more as a new venue to advertise products. Many of these sites depend on views so they often try to pander to the biggest crowd, have no idea what they're talking about, or are too dependent on publishers meaning in order to get those review copies and put content out on the site first to get views they have to bend over to publishers.

What's your problem with those two? I see people whining about his blunt responses in the comments of his vids, but I fail to see any problem with Total Britfuck.

I think they're both(Joe in particular) are trying to be more entertaining/controversial and opinionated rather actual journalist.

Not saying they're bad, just people I wouldn't recommend.

I can't say the same about joe because he actually goes out and interviews devs/spokespeople, but Total Britfuck doesn't really present himself as a journalist, but a commentator. He's opinionated because that's just what he's like and I've watched his shit long enough to see that he's principled and isn't a simple-minded contrarian. Again, I won't make definitive statements about joe because I have no clue how he views himself, but I would recommend people view him just as a reviewer who appears to have principles as a consumer and knows how the fucking ratings system works. (i.e., 5/10 =/= Bad)

Geoffe Keiley was one of my faves but he turned into a major sell out. I mean he got a chance to get rich and be taken less seriously, but he lost respect from me and many others. I would like to point out that he was a good guy turned corporate asshole.

Games journalism is my prospective career. I've met a few well-known writers and interviewed one, had a piece linked on a respected site. I'm actually pissed that I've been ill recently as I missed out on meeting Ken Levine. I don't mean that to be impressive, it isn't, just to lay out that what little I'm about to say comes with a vested interest.

Games journalism has a lot of unique problems. Games are still developing, and as a unique form people are still exploring how best to write about them, just as developers are still experimenting in their creation. Such a huge proportion of the readership is online, more so than any other entertainment industry, which means there is less public or official scrutiny, no arbiter to maintain quality. And games journos are possibly the lowest paid professional writers with the fewest job opportunities. These last two factors make cozying up to PRs, getting free stuff and going on trips for a good word both incredibly tempting and easy to fall into.

What you also have is some tremendous writing and writers going against that. Rbz has mentioned a few sites, to which I would add Eurogamer (Simon Parkin and Christian Donlan, in particular, could be writing at the top level in any field). The New Statesman crop up with great articles on a regular basis (Helen Lewis and a host of guests - Leigh Alexander an example). The Guardian's Keith Stuart writes excellent features when given the space to, but it's the same kind of content that makes up the whole of the superb Edge Magazine (which I think you can get digitally outside the UK - well worth it). PC Gamer have some very talented staff writers, and occasionally put out a stellar series like the adventures in Skyrim from last year. I don't think Jim Sterling is the most naturally gifted writer, but his Jimquisition video series for The Escapist always nails the latest big issue. Grant Howitt and Rich Stanton are freelancers worth looking up. Penny Arcade is occasionally brilliant, too, and their PA Report compliments RPS' Sunday Papers as a compendium of the latest and greatest games journalism out there.

Even Kotaku and IGN aren't always that bad. The former have just recently done their bit revealing the SimCity server requirements as patently false, and IGN get some good freelancers in from time to time (generally when they can afford to pay them, which is rarely). But it's tough, because when the pay is so poor, you have to really like games and one bedroom flats and not having a family. Unless you moonlight in proper writing, or do a Kieron Gillen and become a hugely successful comic book writer, that's all you'll be finding for at least the next 10 years.



You can't immediately say that because a writer ranked a game highly, and you subsequently disagreed with him, that video game reviews are inherently untrustworthy. That's bullshit. The critic is only their to provide you with their measured opinion on a game. They will hopefully try to explain why they felt a certain way and what prompted their review score in the fullest possible detail. If the prompt for you buying the game was scrolling down to the score and oh, it's a 9, where's my wallet, that isn't anyone's fault but yours. If you read the review in its entirety and thought, 'I like the sound of that' and then it disappointed you, maybe you've misinterpreted, maybe it was badly written or misleading. But it is rarely the writers fault. They can only tell you what they think, and you have to make the conscious decision, based on a variety of evidence and input, to trust them.

My acid test for reviews is if they said anything negative that was at all significant. In my opinion, there is always one bad thing about a game that warrants mentioning. Watch IGNs Mass Effect 3 or Skyward Sword reviews for a lesson in how to kiss ass. I reviewed both games in launch week and - despite really liking both - would not have enough fingers for the problems I noted.

You know, you never sent me that link to that one article you claimed you'd write.



How many blowjobs have you been offered to perform so far? Don't take that the wrong way, I'm not accusing you of anything. It's just that since you claim that you get to see people like Ken Levine, I can't help but wonder how many "cozying up" opportunities you've been presented with, if you know what I mean. Of course you do, I made it explicitly known in the first sentence.



This is why I value and appreciate reviews from Erik Kain and Rock, Paper, Shotgun. All opinion, no score, caveat emptor. Also, someone who was recommended by Erik Kain, and, consequently, someone who I eagerly await reviews from, is Tom Bissel.[size=10]1[/h] I have read through all his reviews and each is a delight. Kain claims to be jealous of Bissell's prose, and considering I went out of my way to see all the other shit he wrote before the Spec Ops: The Line review, the motherfucker is, indeed, a good writer. He looks at games with a unique perspective, commenting on it in a way you wouldn't see from the typical reviewer.

doswillrule wrote...

Unless you moonlight in proper writing, or do a Kieron Gillen and become a hugely successful comic book writer, that's all you'll be finding for at least the next 10 years.

And yet you still pursue it as a career. Mah nigga.

---

[size=6]1 Click the fucking number[/h]

The Ken Levine thing was a fairly open event, I just got tickets by virtue of being in London and on a good mailing list. I went to a Black Ops 2 event and played loads of multiplayer, which I enjoyed, and declined to go to a big Resi: Operation Raccoon City event. But I haven't really had to deal with PRs that much yet. It is definitely hard writing for a small website, as you want attention even more desperately (or the editor does). You're ideally supposed to email every positive article or news story to the relevant PRs to get your site on the map, and make them more open to sending you to events. I hate that but sometimes it is unavoidable.



I've read articles by both before; Kain did some of the best writing about the ME3 ending, if I recall. Will have to keep better tabs on them.



I can't see myself doing anything different. There are such spectacular opportunities for the development of this medium that I want to be there to see. I've had people suggest I write about politics and sport on separate occasions, that I'd be wasted on games, but there's nothing I enjoy so much.

Wait are you a "video game journalist"?

I kind of want to be one. its just me and a couple of friends wanted to get into the business of video games, yet they did there own thing and I got left in the dust. when I mean their own thing they just went to a different direction.

As in reviewing/reporting/discussion video games?

Well you can always start of with a small blog and make youtube videos. You can also contact existing sites, but I wouldn't push my luck with most of them unless you already have experience working elsewhere.

[edit]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/06/misogyny-sexism-and-why-rps-isnt-shutting-up/

Rock paper shotgun is now officially shit.

is that a good thing or bad thing?