Let's Sperg Why do Gaming Journalists Still Exist? - And who are they writing for?

[Secret Asshole]

After this latest Cuphead debacle, in which an inept 'reviewer' failed the most simple task in a game (hitting two buttons in succession) and also once played through an RPG without leveling up, it made me think on it. And that it was just yet another 'lol game journalists are terrible'.

But now Cuphead is actually out, and you have the Journalists all getting their ducks in a row with multiple outlets saying that 'Cuphead's difficulty is exclusionary' and even some going so far as to say that gameplay is irrelevant (which is further going in line with Cuphead and more recently an Ubisoft decision to add an 'explorer mode' to basically just wander around their open world and do uh...nothing).

So you've got major outlets saying its exclusionary, its too difficult, blah blah blah...except it is the top seller on Steam, beating out PUBG and other popular titles, rendering their points worthless. Not to mention the whole 'gameplay isn't important'. You know, the thing that makes a game, a game. I always figured they believed it, but they always danced around the topic. Now they've just out and out said it.

So now I'm just wondering: Who are these people writing for? Certainly not the majority of people who play games. Certainly not to make consumers more informed on choices of games if they actually believe gameplay is unimportant. I'm not even going to bother going into the political angles of it, just the general fact that they seem completely out of touch with the medium, the audience and the general idea of what games are. They seem like they are writing for a small circle of people, people who don't play games or even have an interest in them.

So, I have to ask, why do they exist? They seem to me to serve no purpose. YouTube, Twitch and even Steam Reviews make better purchasing guides and push more copies than they can ever hope to do. Their influence is little, their writing is mediocre at best and petty, condescending and out of touch at worst. They have no real interesting 'inside' stories, which mostly come from independent blogs and YouTube channels. The only time they do care about games is when they are shilling AAA titles and selling merch they get from companies on Ebay. So I have to ask why they are around when they clearly serve no purpose to the intended audience and provide no insight on the medium at hand.

 

[Overcast]

So I have to ask why they are around

Money.

 

[Ruin]

I've heard it speculated that the majority of gaming journalists are failed journalism majors who aspired to write about politics or film but couldn't hack it and are now incredible bitter about their jobs.

 

[RG 448]

Good gaming journalism boils down to “this game is coming out and this is when it’s coming out” and regular journalists could cover that just fine so i don’t know why we still have game journalists.

 

[BoingBoingBoi]

My theory is that gaming journalists want to pretend that they're movie reviewers and it's just not the same. A movie critic is required only to endure a movie for a few hours, and maybe do some supplementary research on who made the movie, how it compares to the creators' other work, how it compares to other movies within the genre, and maybe some behind the scenes stuff. In general though there's a fairly formulaic arc movies have to take in order to hold an audience regarding how points are set up and paid off. It's all quite scientific, actually. Reviewers then inject their wit and perspective on the basis of either their natural talents or their encyclopedic knowledge of other movies. Think jay & mike.

Gaming journalists see that model and say, "hey, i know video games, so my perspective is valuable. i can totally critique video games." but it's just not the same. The interactivity element of games is impossible to skimp on, and indeed skill is required. The only people whose perspectives on games i think really matter are people whose job it is to play games---let's players and other youtubers whose entire life is dedicated to playing games for hours and hours that most people just don't have.

anyway, dunkey made a video about this a while back and i think he makes some good points too.

 

[A Hot Potato]

My theory is that gaming journalists want to pretend that they're movie reviewers and it's just not the same. A movie critic is required only to endure a movie for a few hours, and maybe do some supplementary research on who made the movie, how it compares to the creators' other work, how it compares to other movies within the genre, and maybe some behind the scenes stuff. In general though there's a fairly formulaic arc movies have to take in order to hold an audience regarding how points are set up and paid off. It's all quite scientific, actually. Reviewers then inject their wit and perspective on the basis of either their natural talents or their encyclopedic knowledge of other movies. Think jay & mike.

Gaming journalists see that model and say, "hey, i know video games, so my perspective is valuable. i can totally critique video games." but it's just not the same. The interactivity element of games is impossible to skimp on, and indeed skill is required. The only people whose perspectives on games i think really matter are people whose job it is to play games---let's players and other youtubers whose entire life is dedicated to playing games for hours and hours that most people just don't have.

anyway, dunkey made a video about this a while back and i think he makes some good points too.

Adding to this, the fact that some games play ENTIRELY different from others make it so, in my opinion, you can't just do "general" journalism.

It's like music, you don't see a jazz reviewer writing up about the newest black metal album that's all the rave.

Likewise, I think you need to actually specialize in a certain type of game or two before you can write about it.

An hardcore Call of Duty fan boy can't tell me what I can get out of the newest Harvest Moon game.

 

[Hen in a tie]

A game can be fun no matter how hard, it's so satisfying to finally beat a hard level or boss so the victory feels fun. What I shouldn't be feeling is frustration during game play and angrily saying "finally" after wards due to devs poorly timing or designing certain key factors of a game. A game is never "Too hard" it's either fun or frustrating.


Now another argument I hear a certain "Journalist" say was that the Pixel graphics were poor quality. Has this "Journalist" ever gone to a history museum? Why didn't our caveman ancestors farm and domesticate animals instead of spending so much energy hunting and gathering.

 

[TowinKarz]

Gaming "journalism" is like sports journalism nowadays. It got rendered obsolete almost overnight by changes in technology that empowered the end consumer to get their own on-demand content and do their own research.

That means the only way for it to stay relevant is to offer something that the consumer can't get themselves by just a few clicks on their phone: hot social takes and politicking. The problem with that, in both gaming and sports is, most people don't WANT politicking in those hobbies, and people selected for their ability to fit that mold are not, at their core, gamers/sports fans, and it's painfully obvious. And the overall laziness of modern journalism as a whole shows through as most will just parrot the "narrative" they see developing online in lieu of actually doing any footwork.

A "hard" game can be fun, I still remember playing "Contra" on the NES, regarded as one of the harder titles, and enjoying it. I can still remember the music and SFX of the gunshots, but can't remember a thing about 40 other "easy" games that I beat or got bored with back in the day..... because it was "fair" hard, enemies had a set pattern of attack, the trick was figuring it out.

"Unfair" hard games suck because they kill you for no other reason than player death being required as part of the game, with no obvious hint as to what you should have done or could do next time to avoid it.

 

[AnOminous]

I've heard it speculated that the majority of gaming journalists are failed journalism majors who aspired to write about politics or film but couldn't hack it and are now incredible bitter about their jobs.

Journalism majors are among the dumbest group of undergraduate majors by SAT score (education is the dumbest). Imagine being so dumb you stood out as stupid even in such a population.

This is who ends up "games journalists." People who are too dumb to do what 12 year olds manage with ease.

I'm sure they're bitter about it, but it's not like they deserve better.

 

[Elwood P. Dowd]

and even some going so far as to say that gameplay is irrelevant

Triggered....

Anyone who ever uses the word "gameplay" needs to seriously consider their life choices.

Hasn't PC Gamer banned the word from its articles?

:powerlevel:: It is the occasional gem like this that keeps me visiting KiA, even after all these years.

 

[AnOminous]

Certainly not to make consumers more informed on choices of games if they actually believe gameplay is unimportant.

This is like being a restaurant reviewer, admitting you didn't even eat any food at the restaurant, and reviewing the tablecloth instead.

These people are just fucking dumb. There's no real conspiracy here. Just the blind leading the blind into parroting absolutely ignorant opinions like they were gospel.

 

[Secret Asshole]

This is like being a restaurant reviewer, admitting you didn't even eat any food at the restaurant, and reviewing the tablecloth instead.

These people are just fucking dumb. There's no real conspiracy here. Just the blind leading the blind into parroting absolutely ignorant opinions like they were gospel.

Oh, I'm not saying that there's this conspiracy. I'm just saying that I've never actually seen a good one in over a decade and recently, it just seems that they are completely pointless and more of a detriment to the medium and hobby than an asset. Like you said, its basically like that. Its like a literature reviewer reviewing a book and complaining the language is too complicated and they would rather have it all at a 3rd grade level so its more 'accessible'. The argument that gameplay doesn't matter is absurd.

Adding to this, the fact that some games play ENTIRELY different from others make it so, in my opinion, you can't just do "general" journalism.

It's like music, you don't see a jazz reviewer writing up about the newest black metal album that's all the rave.

Likewise, I think you need to actually specialize in a certain type of game or two before you can write about it.

An hardcore Call of Duty fan boy can't tell me what I can get out of the newest Harvest Moon game.

Back in the day, this is what gaming mags had. For example, in PC gamer (when it was in print and not the shit it is now) they had this historian guy reviewing wargames. He gave grognards everything they'd want: if the strategy was good and detailed, how it held up to history. You used to have different sections that had different reviewers. There'd be RPG writers, action writers, sports writers, etc. So they could actually analyze the game based on their experiences. They even had hardware guys who would only review PC hardware and that was their expertise, so they simply wouldn't regurgitate a company's advertising. The problem is that these people had passion for what they were doing and it didn't pay well to begin with. Once the magazines were replaced with websites, you see all these people just move on to other things where they can actually get paid.

Now its just a roatating cavalcade of idiots who think that 'Dear Esther' and 'Sunset' are the height of gaming and can't review anything else. So, pretty much pointless.

Gaming "journalism" is like sports journalism nowadays. It got rendered obsolete almost overnight by changes in technology that empowered the end consumer to get their own on-demand content and do their own research.

That means the only way for it to stay relevant is to offer something that the consumer can't get themselves by just a few clicks on their phone: hot social takes and politicking. The problem with that, in both gaming and sports is, most people don't WANT politicking in those hobbies, and people selected for their ability to fit that mold are not, at their core, gamers/sports fans, and it's painfully obvious. And the overall laziness of modern journalism as a whole shows through as most will just parrot the "narrative" they see developing online in lieu of actually doing any footwork.

A "hard" game can be fun, I still remember playing "Contra" on the NES, regarded as one of the harder titles, and enjoying it. I can still remember the music and SFX of the gunshots, but can't remember a thing about 40 other "easy" games that I beat or got bored with back in the day..... because it was "fair" hard, enemies had a set pattern of attack, the trick was figuring it out.

"Unfair" hard games suck because they kill you for no other reason than player death being required as part of the game, with no obvious hint as to what you should have done or could do next time to avoid it.

Unfair hard games are extremely rare nowadays and are usually relegated to 'Impossible' modes in strategy games where the computer blatantly cheats (but that's the point of those modes). Back in the day, when resources were limited and you had to extend the time a player played a game to justify its price-tag, they made them unfairly hard so you'd spend more time thinking you get your money's worth. Like some of the early Megaman games. Holy shit, they were insane.

Nowadays gameplay (that dirty word that doesn't apparently matter) is focused on consistent mechanics. Like (I hate to mention this) Dark Souls, deaths were typically your fault for lack of skill. Same with Cuphead, which requires you to learn patterns and have quick reaction time. And because hard games nowadays don't fall into the unfair territory, basically anyone can beat them as long as they try hard enough and put the time in. Which is the problem with journos, they don't want to do that. There was this 67 year old dude or something that died 2000 times playing Dark Souls, but he beat it.

The thing is that hard games don't exclude anyone, they're accessible if you try and want to do it. The problem is that they aren't accessible to journos, so that means they aren't accessible to anyone else. Which is obviously a blatant lie. There's also the hypocrisy of them celebrating shitty, shitty indie pixel crap that looks worse that NES games but they shit on a game that uses fucking cel shaded animation where each frame has to be individually drawn.

And like you said, people don't want politics or hot takes in their entertainment. They're really tired of it. And you can also see the poor research that they do. Like the Dean Takhasihi asshole just skimming wikipedia and getting the devs of Cuphead completely wrong. And this isn't even going into how terrible they play games (See Sonic at IGN and Polygon on Doom)

 

[BoingBoingBoi]

Unfair hard games are extremely rare nowadays and are usually relegated to 'Impossible' modes in strategy games where the computer blatantly cheats (but that's the point of those modes). Back in the day, when resources were limited and you had to extend the time a player played a game to justify its price-tag, they made them unfairly hard so you'd spend more time thinking you get your money's worth. Like some of the early Megaman games. Holy shit, they were insane.

Nowadays gameplay (that dirty word that doesn't apparently matter) is focused on consistent mechanics. Like (I hate to mention this) Dark Souls, deaths were typically your fault for lack of skill. Same with Cuphead, which requires you to learn patterns and have quick reaction time. And because hard games nowadays don't fall into the unfair territory, basically anyone can beat them as long as they try hard enough and put the time in. Which is the problem with journos, they don't want to do that. There was this 67 year old dude or something that died 2000 times playing Dark Souls, but he beat it.

The thing is that hard games don't exclude anyone, they're accessible if you try and want to do it. The problem is that they aren't accessible to journos, so that means they aren't accessible to anyone else. Which is obviously a blatant lie. There's also the hypocrisy of them celebrating shitty, shitty indie pixel crap that looks worse that NES games but they shit on a game that uses fucking cel shaded animation where each frame has to be individually drawn.

And like you said, people don't want politics or hot takes in their entertainment. They're really tired of it. And you can also see the poor research that they do. Like the Dean Takhasihi asshole just skimming wikipedia and getting the devs of Cuphead completely wrong. And this isn't even going into how terrible they play games (See Sonic at IGN and Polygon on Doom)

again, i think it's just a time issue, and with challenging games this is especially apparent. these folks just don't have or make the time to deeply get to know a game, which you would think would be an integral part of the job, but in reality seems optional for most game journalists. trustworthy reviewers will tell you whether or not the challenge is satisfying when you beat it. these games journalist types really seem like they expect to be able to say deep and interesting things about the industry and its products without putting the time in to get to know the product.

it might just be that print journalism and video games just don't go together. a youtube video with gameplay and trustworthy, competent commentary is i feel hands down the best way to inform your opinion on whether or not you should buy a game. i don't think i'd ever prefer an article.

 

[Hui]

Look. I can call myself a fire resistant ball of ice. It doesn't mean it is real. It doesn't mean I am real. Same thing applies here.

 

[XYZpdq]

Reviewing and gossiping about entertainment media is not and will never be journalism.

That said, I do like the idea of "just fuck around and do nothing" mode of games.

 

[Organic Fapcup]

Same reason any and all internet journalism exists: money is made by getting clicks. Inflamatory titles and rhetoric gets people to click on articles, which gets internet journos money. Internet journalism in general favors a large stream of short, clickbaity articles filled with snark and little in the way of informative content. To be a game journo you don't need to be good at video games, play them regularly, what have you. You need a basic knowledge of them, and the ability to write what amounts to verbal diarrhea.

 

[c-no]

Triggered....

Anyone who ever uses the word "gameplay" needs to seriously consider their life choices.

Hasn't PC Gamer banned the word from its articles?

:powerlevel:: It is the occasional gem like this that keeps me visiting KiA, even after all these years.

Taking a look at the twitter in the first link, the guy also wrote a report on git gud because of people making fun of Polygon's DOOM video.

 

[Doc Cassidy]

Triggered....

Anyone who ever uses the word "gameplay" needs to seriously consider their life choices.

Hasn't PC Gamer banned the word from its articles?

:powerlevel:: It is the occasional gem like this that keeps me visiting KiA, even after all these years.

Gameplay is an abstract concept and maybe he has difficulty understanding abstract concepts for some reason.

 

[AnOminous]

Same reason any and all internet journalism exists: money is made by getting clicks. Inflamatory titles and rhetoric gets people to click on articles, which gets internet journos money.

This is why always use archive links for these shitholes that don't deserve a penny.

 

[ZehnBoat]

Why do Gaming Journalists Still Exist?

:autism:

And who are they writing for?

people with :autism: