I wanted to start this thread as a way to talk about games journalism, how and why it may or may not be corrupt, what can be done about it, what we can do about it, all that sort of thing. This is of course in the wake of the whole gamergate thing, and yes, I am aware that there are currently FOUR (that I have seen) threads on that general issue. However this isn't specifically about gamergate and hopefully can remain more focused on this particular issue.

I do feel this is something that concerns all gamers, if you put aside the sometimes moralistic or 'deeper' articles which may come from the writers own moral agenda, many of us rely on the gaming press to inform us about upcoming games, how good they might be, and of course those all important reviews. Large publishers spend large sums on trying to persuade journalists to write positive articles about their up coming AAA titles, they can impose all manner of restrictions on what can and can't be talked about in reviews, when they can be published, and even allow exclusive deals. But what about the little guys? Smaller publishers and developers? Are they corrupting games journalism? I leave it to you.

Discuss.

Or not.

With youtube, videoreviews and let's plays I couldn't care less about gaming journalism (and actually editorials \ columns are the only reason I visit gaming sites from time to time). 'This game is filled with bugs' will never work as good as 'See? I'm clipping through a rock'). And of course there are fellow gamers' opinions all over the web. Those are usually sincire enough.

Novotnus is right. But I'll say that I think that a lot of it will depend on new sites coming to the fore. Or not. If people stick to the same old corrupted sources then nothing can change. There needs to be a clean break. Otherwise even if things do change, the perception of the status quo will be a long time in acknowledging that.

"Professional" gaming journalism is about as bad as actual journalism. Yawn. Try not to put too much stock in someone's opinions when he makes his livelihood giving opinions.

I don't read articles anymore, I watch gameplay videos to see if the game is worthwhile or not.

What I want to see out of a gaming review or even a YouTube review (I do consider it a form of journalism):
1) Honesty - Selling out for ads or publicity helps us, the consumer, not at all.
2) A complete overview - gameplay, story, music, what kind of game it is, what it resembles, etc.
3) An objective overview - this includes the top two. I don't need to have half the article be about how misogynistic one believes a scene or two out of the game are. I don't need the journalist's political agenda. Warning about a graphic scene, belongs. Dwelling on it the rest of the article does not. Calling it the best game the world has ever seen and telling me how it blows away all the best games of all time, doesn't help. Calling it totally rubbish and attacking it in all aspects, the same. Give me the good, the bad, what has promise, how buggy it is, what it compares to.

Let's face it, we have all seen bad reviews. I've read reviews where about the only thing I get out of the whole review is that one scene has women wearing short skirts. I've read scathing reviews where they only real information I get is it lacks controller support. Seriously, I get it, you have an issue with these things. Worth mentioning, but that is not a complete review. Not everyone uses your brand of controller and not everyone cares if all the women dress business casual. Get beyond your personal hang-ups and give me a total overview, so i can make my own personal decision.

What I want to see out of a news article
1) Use the journalistic code - Don't tell me how you know O.J. Simpson is guilty. Don't tell me how Gamergate is a hate movement. Not true. Use words like alleged. We don't know who these trolls are, what rock they climbed out from under. We don't know whether it's a set-up. Instead of "Gamergate is known for harassing women". something like "Three women have been harassed through Twitter, possibly Gamergate supporters" or some such.
2) Leave the final judgement to the reader - State the facts, discuss the ramnifications, explain what it possibly means, but at the end of the day, let the reader decide the truth. Doing anything else is just propaganda.

I don't know how it works in the rest of the industry, but why should featuring a game company's ads mean that a game magazine/site can't feature articles that may be perceived as being negative towards that company?

If there's no way to fix that, maybe the best thing to do is feature ads for related products that you don't review or talk about.

Essentially what I want is simple.

1. Description of mechanics and a short overview of the control scheme.
2. Aesthetics and how they play a role in the game.
3. Sound/music/voice acting. Really immersive, or over the top?
4. Elements of the story. Is it appropriate for all ages, maturities, etc?
5. Is it buggy? Do the mechanics work as they're supposed to?
6. Is it simple? Is it polished? Are chunks cut out of it? Is it deep?
7. Interesting story advancement, or boring grindfest/brown cover shooter/retro knock off?
8. Disclose any relevant relationships you may have with the publishers, devs, etc.
9. Lastly, is it FUN?

I don't actually care if writers wanna do op ed pieces. DO NOT PUT THEM IN YOUR GOD DAMN REVIEWS. This shit is as fucking stupid as dinging Mario, because you're a PETA member and you're against turtle violence. If you REALLY object to a game's content, then in my opinion: recuse yourself and simply let someone else review it objectively. It's literally that simple. I think there's a functional way to do that. Hardware adverts like Intel, Nvidia, AMD, sites like Newegg, etc, etc, etc.

Is Giant Bomb considered a gaming journalism website? If not, then I guess I can say I hardly ever go to or follow them. I guess there's Emily Rogers (who writes for NintendoForce), but I hardly ever visit that site anyway. I usually just read her tweets on stuff and nothing else. There's also Digital Foundry when it comes to details on certain console games (on EuroGamer), but NeoGAF users usually make threads about those anyway so I hardly go to the site. Looking at the impressions on forums (here, NeoGAF, and some other places) as well as the opinions from folks I follow on YouTube is enough for me.

I really have no issue with gaming journalists writing whatever they feel like about a game. If they feel a particular aspect of it is offensive to them to such a degree that it overshadows the other bits, why shouldn't they dwell on it? That can be a review too. I certainly find such pieces interesting to read.

Personally, there aren't a lot of games I got because of reviews, so maybe I'm not the target audience for that.

I like the idea a lot. One question though, Isn't that pretty much how it used to work?

Not only did it use to be exactly like that (thinking print magazine age) but it was structured more or less into sections like that. :D

I'm with others to think gaming journalism can be as "unjournalism" as classical journalism. (Truth be told, I go a little George Orwell about journalism in general.)
But to tell the truth, I don't care a lot about gaming journalism. Don't resort to them to have an opinion on a game. I tend to prefer consumer reviews. The god and the bad ones, to keep perspective.
I do care about ethics (or absence of it) in it anyway. For the same reason I wouldn't like someone poisoning a pond just because I won't be drinking from that particular pond. It's wrong anyway.

I don't have any particular problem with reviews since I expect them to be subjective and, really, it's freaking hard to find good reviewers/critics of anything, nevermind video games. The best you can hope for is to be able to identify the writer's baseline and adjust your interpretations accordingly.

For everything else, it's really not that complicated. Don't worry about "greater truths" or relativism or whatever, just report facts, avoid potentially slanted language, and let readers come to their own conclusions. As a journalist myself, it's kind of disturbing to see video game journalists (and so many "real world" journalists) struggle so mightily with this concept, but whatever. It's an ideal to strive for. Also quit whining about "access" and crap. You're not supposed to be BFFs with the people you're covering, so if publishing something they don't like means you don't get early review copies or they stop inviting you to their parties, so be it. Maybe it would be good to be that guy who puts developers' and publishers' feet to the fire when it's warranted?

What you get wrong is that isn't journalism. Journalism is supposed to be the art of reporting. If they feel it is so extreme it ruins the game, that can be the conclusion, but in the meantime, they are supposed to be providing an informative review.

Journalism is not supposed to be random people spouting off their opinions, we have forums for that ;) It's supposed to be informed people who have done the requisite research and after having done so explaining their discoveries in an objective manner.

I used to read Roger Ebert's reviews of movies before he died. Of all reviewers, I could read his review and generally be correct whether I would like a particular movie. This didn't mean he liked that movie. Often he would pan a movie for various reasons which I enjoyed. But he wrote his reviews well. He explained his reasoning. And I was able to tell if his objections would be something that would bother me or not. I read gaming reviews like that Bayonetta 2 review, and I have no clue whether I'd like the game or not. That is a crappy review.