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

Basically you have a bunch of retards concentrated in SF/LA/NY who spent 6 figures on worthless j-school degrees and realized they couldn't get hired by the tiny handful of remaining national newspapers so they fell back on video game "journalism" as a "career".
 
Basically you have a bunch of exceptional individuals concentrated in SF/LA/NY who spent 6 figures on worthless j-school degrees and realized they couldn't get hired by the tiny handful of remaining national newspapers so they fell back on video game "journalism" as a "career".

You know how dumb the average journalist is? These are people too dumb even to do that.
 
I think that if a game journalist cannot git gud in any game genre, then he or she should become a game industry journalist, and therefore write about things related to games, but not the games themselves.

I mean, Takahashi wrote some interesting articles in the past, so just don't let him write any game reviews or previews and it will be fine. He will even have more time to focus on things he can actually do instead of on jumping in tutorials.

Or they should just start flipping burgers, it's a much more socially productive career anyway.
 
Easy: Games journalist are the filtered-out hacks that couldn't land a job at the big name news sites. . Don't let the name fool you, most game journalists aren't gamers. They don't play games, they can't play games, and they don't like playing games.

As for the whole "gameplay is not important thing"... that's a massive excuse. The guy is just trying to hide the fact that he's bad at video games, which not at all wrong, but don't make excuses and most of all don't say that gameplay, the thing that makes video games... well, video games, is not important. This is the typical moron that thinks "I'm not succsessful, that means the whole system is wrong"
I agree that gameplay isn't the only apect of a game that determines if it's good or not (I really did not like the gameplay in Planescape: Torment yet I still think it's a masterpiece in every other aspect) but saying that it is not important at all, while calling yourself a games journalist?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: ThisAndThat
Why do gaming journalists exist?

It's because they have an audience, plain and simple. It doesn't matter their content actually represents the experience of the core fanbase, nor does it matter that most of them do not understand and even openly condemn the facets of video games that make them video games.

It doesn't matter whether the actual gamers read their articles or visit their webpages. All that matters is that some group does, namely, the mass of Neogafers and "gurl gamers" who prefer meaningless and inaccurate fluff that provides support for their agendas over insightful articles made by people with experience in the field if the latter somehow rubs them the wrong way. Then the casual gamers who only look at the results at the top of the page will give them views and boost their popularity. Simply put, you have a group of journalists who represents their dominant audience.

As long as they cater to the largest and most committed crowd i.e. political motivated crowds, they have little reason to change. They are companies, after all. If there are people, then there will be advertizers, and then there will be salary for the gaming journalists.
 
A few of my more effervescent, more gregarious, more alive colleagues in game journalism are on stage "rocking out" to The Killers. We are on the rooftop of a pricey hotel in Santa Monica, at a press event organized by Rock Band 4's developer and publisher Harmonix.

I'm standing at a safe distance, drinking fizzy water, eating puff pastry canapes and chatting to another colleague about politics in the Philippines. I'm having an OK time.

I'm supposed to be focusing my attention on Rock Band 4, but there's more chance of Ferdinand Marcos leaping onto that stage than there is of me mounting the boards, swinging a guitar strap around my neck and yelling "whooooooo."

I don't care about rock music. I dislike crowds and I dislike loud noises. I don't do public performances, excepting "Toastmasters" which I enjoy from time-to-time, along with half a dozen accountants, schoolteachers and self-improvement nutters.

Look, sometimes in this job you gotta cover games you don't really give a stuff about. I played some Guitar Hero ten years ago and I thought it was kinda stupid. This is not because rock star sims are stupid. It's a perfectly valid fantasy. It's just not my fantasy.

But I can tell from the people on stage, the fact that they are having fun and coming back for more, that Rock Band 4 has something to offer people who get together and enjoy each other and music and the whole rock-'n'-roll ethos. I'm jealous of their ability to enjoy this product.

If my grandmother, who does enjoy a good party, were here on this windswept hotel roof — instead of sitting in an old people's home in Manchester, watching Britain's Got Talent — she'd be up on stage, singing and yelling into the mic, mocking me for being a "boring old fart."

Some of the journos on stage are as old as I am and, frankly, no more rock-star-ish than a bag of spuds. This is a game for everyone. Except me.

All video games are stupid, of course. That whole thing of, 'you're not really shooting terrorists or winning the World Cup, you're just pressing buttons' is patronizing and simplistic but every now and again you come across a game that has so little emotional connection to who you are that you end up standing there, gazing at the screen and saying "I'm just pressing buttons and my life has no meaning," to a slightly bemused PR person.

Music games are often about pressing buttons according to visual cues, which is probably why the whole genre collapsed a few years ago. That and the ferocious greed of Activision, which insisted on publishing way too many of these games.

But Rock Band 4 is also not about just pressing buttons. Various instruments, including vocals, have been given carte blanche to express themselves in ways that are individual to the player, and be rewarded for their personal skill. It's not just about sticking to the colors and the lines. It's about adding your own flavor to the song, through drum-riffs and vocal meanderings.

I'm not entirely dislocated from the appeal of this feature. There was a time when half a bottle of gin and a copy of Lips on Xbox 360 basically turned me into Boy George. I can do a gorgeous "Do You Really Want to Hurt Me," assuming there's no-one else in the house.

But I found, with that game, that I could sing it worse and score higher, by doing what the software wanted me to do, rather than what my Tanqueray-fueled inner-Culture Club needed to release.

Rock Band 4, as Harmonix keeps telling us, is not so much about creating a game in which there are scores and channels and targets and RPGish upgrade paths (though they are all certainly present) but in creating a really fun experience in which people get to sing, guitar and drum their fave tunes their way and generally have a good laugh and not be booed off stage by AI douchebags. So far as I can tell, the company is making a good fist of this endeavor.

At the end of each song, the game offers up suggestions for the next track, which band-members can vote on. The AI crowd shouts out requests. This keeps the fantasy alive, avoids the tedium of back-tracking through menus, helps iron out the social difficulty of choosing the next song. This seems to me to be part of a convincingly earnest attempt by the people at Harmonix to do the thing they are best at, which is making music games that actually make people feel good, that allow people to have a good time.

There are new guitars and drums being made by Mad Catz (no keyboard) but you can use your old Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 wireless contraptions on the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 versions, which are due out later this year. Exported songs from those old games can also be uploaded.

A new group of journos are on stage banging out some Fleetwood Mac. My friend, the one I was talking about the Philippines to, has wandered away. I go in search of a developer to interview. Perhaps there's a nice quiet room where we can sit and chat.
 
Easy: Games journalist are the filtered-out hacks that couldn't land a job at the big name news sites. . Don't let the name fool you, most game journalists aren't gamers. They don't play games, they can't play games, and they don't like playing games.

They're also not even journalists.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: ThisAndThat
"Gaming Journalism" isn't a thing. "Gaming Journalist" isn't a profession. Gaming News Sites are blogs, and their employees, bloggers. That's all they'll ever be, and they know that, which is why they try so hard on Twitter to ascribe importance to what is essentially getting paid to play video games, and then writing a two-page essay on why everything in every game is racist, sexist, anti-semitic, islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and bigoted.

The only reason they believe they're important, is because it's easier to do that than make peace with the fact that they fucked up in life enough that THIS fucking bullshit is their glass ceiling. I mean, I'd probably do it too if I was that much of a failure.

Failing that, they can always walk it back to telling the very group they're writing for that their multi-billion-dollar international industry is dead, and that the consumers of the product are of the Melvin-level nerd archetype, because they like things that are offensive to these prestigious and efficacious journalists of such a high calibre. Once again, a product of that same self-validation facade these mongoloids put up.

All gamergate did was expose to the world that Gaming Journalists are barely-literate windowlickers who don't even like video games. Look, if you want to blogpost about video games, then that's perfectly fine, but if you take that medium seriously, as if it's some kind of career, or political soapbox, then go back to college and get a real degree.


One final thing to put this into perspective. How many gaming journalists do you see actually investigating things? How many gaming news articles do you see that aren't entirely OP;ED pieces on things absolutely nobody but them pay attention to? I don't see Jim Sterling following a platoon in Mogadishu to get that tasty new scoop.
 
Last edited:
It could have something to do with the fact that they only have to give one company money or gifts to review a game and that company will give a pittance of that to the actual reviewer. Meanwhile to do that with Youtubers you have to deal with each one separately and they would want to stick with telling the truth and divulge any information about gifts and money offered due to some Youtubers getting into trouble with the FTC.
 
It could have something to do with the fact that they only have to give one company money or gifts to review a game and that company will give a pittance of that to the actual reviewer. Meanwhile to do that with Youtubers you have to deal with each one separately and they would want to stick with telling the truth and divulge any information about gifts and money offered due to some Youtubers getting into trouble with the FTC.
I remember mombot saying that Jed Pressman was only paid $3oo a month for his reviews.

I've read some video game theory like Boghost but typically he's able to separate his politics from his criticism. The people at Polygon still want the status of cultural critics but I doubt the market's there for them much anymore.
 
I remember mombot saying that Jed Pressman was only paid $3oo a month for his reviews.

I've read some video game theory like Boghost but typically he's able to separate his politics from his criticism. The people at Polygon still want the status of cultural critics but I doubt the market's there for them much anymore.

I'm a bit old, but I believe gaming journalism died when magazine market folded back in the early 2000's. You had Gamespot for information, but that's about all. You wouldn't really get a good personal "review" until let's players became a thing. You could see more than one person play a game and give their impressions on it. Sort of like say Electronic Gaming Monthly back in the day when they had four or five different reviewers each reviewing the same game. Just with added benefit of some additional conversation making it more akin to an article in a magazine.
 
Also, does becoming a "games journalist" get me a free Twitter "confirmation"? Practically all of them no matter how obscure has that stupid blue "Verified" tick even though they have like 20 followers

All you have to do to get that tick now is dox yourself to Twitter. All it really means is you're a Verified Autist.

I'm a bit old, but I believe gaming journalism died when magazine market folded back in the early 2000's.

Review aggregators like metacritic have made individual reviewers pretty much irrelevant and interchangeable. You just pay off your stable of fake reviewers to rig the ratings, which effectively mean nothing.
 
Gaming journalism as is could best be described as a half finished abortion. As it was, back in 2000-06, when gaming and tech journalists were actual journalists with honest ethics, was probably the high water mark.


Some of the older tech heads may remember when Andrew Cuomo filed an anti trust against Intel in 07 and the tech journalists had a field day digging into Intel's frankly sordid past and discovering new things to reveal about a mega corporation. That was journalism. That's what it should be now.

Gaming and tech journalism go hand in hand, but gaming journalists are a pack of mctardos compared to the tech ones.
 
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.

Well Game Journalists really were always kind of paid marketers. Today they have been largely supplanted by Let's players and other YouTube celebrities who can demonstrate a game in real time and offer commentary and comparisons.

Writing about videogames is defunct. The only way to remain relevant and get clicks is to construct a narrative, or push a social/political agenda. Since videogames are so popular now, you can piggyback social/political messages along with your games media.

And what is the social political axis that the Technology centers of the world adhere to? Videogame "Journalists" and "Writers" have nothing else to offer but social/political propaganda disguised behind games critique. Same thing could be said for many online "movie reviewers" these days too.
 
Back