jschreier said:
When a site like RPGCodex writes a screed like this and positions themselves as The Only Outlet Worth Trusting
jschreier said:
it reads like someone [...] using that as an opportunity to write about how you should only trust him and his site and no other game journalists. I feel like I've seen this same thing written a thousand times before, on a thousand different blogs, all vying for your eyeballs.
I must apologize to every reader for this grave mistake. The last thing I want is to encourage people to trust the RPG Codex, and I would never call myself a 'game journalist.' God forbid. As I've said in the comments section on the Codex, we're just a bunch of volunteers, with no obligation to, or claims of, integrity. Trust us? Don't you ever. Trust us only as far as we seem to make sense.
The point I'm trying to make in the article is that people are supposed to be able to trust people like you, Jason Schreier, much more than guys like me. I'm just some random lame-ass doing this for kicks. While you, Jason, you are a serious professional with a tough job, and one that is important to our shared culture.
And that's the whole problem, isn't it? When people think they have as little reason to trust guys like you as they have to trust guys like me. When your integrity as a paid professional is just as questionable as the integrity of an anonymous amateur like me. And not because you are corrupt or take bribes or some conspiracy like that - I don't make such unfounded accusations because for all I know Jason, you are an honest guys who aspires to professionalism.
But because Jason, you report from conferences where everything you view is crafted with the intention of making it hard, if not impossible, for you to get a clear picture. Or, as I write in the piece:
Grunker said:
Both models of game demonstration allow little room for critical interviews or researching games in depth. For all intents and purposes, Gamescom is a seller's market, a place where the money finances an outlet for PR and community managers to communicate with reporters, who then communicate with potential customers. It is simply impossible for a journalist to get anything except the official version of game stories here. Almost nothing can be extracted except exactly what the PR departments want. It is a place where journalists get glances, which they will later name 'previews.'
So, I apologize if someone got the impression that I was making the Codex out to be a beacon of light, capable of divining truth about video games in settings where others are not. My point of "nobody can" would ring pretty hollow, were that my claim.
I also have little reason to "vy for your eyeballs" seeing as I am unpaid and write to a very specific audience.
jschreier said:
Many writers work quite hard to ensure that they're reporting fairly and honestly and accurately - even at trade shows!
My dear Schreier. I do not doubt that you are a hard working man who would love to report fairly and honestly and accurately. Even at trade shows. In fact, I think the majority of people who work in games journalism are quite passionate and knowledgable about games - why else would they seek this job? What is called into question here is not your good intentions. It is the fact that those intentions pave the way to critical thinking hell.
The very point of my editorial is that it is impossible to produce anything of much depth or quality based on a trip to a conference. I don't care if you won a pulitzer, you do not have the time nor the surroundings for good journalism at Gamescom. Gamescom is designed to make your job harder, it is designed to only show you what is essentially marketing, and its design shows how little respect these venues have for you. In sports, the journalists have booths with nice seats and free food, because they are the communicative link between the athletes and the audience, and the industry relies on them. In film, the work of critics is viewed with utmost scrutiny by their peers, and their integrity is often so unquestionable that major studios and directors fear the popular reviewers and their detailed analysis of their films, because it can make or break the box office in some cases. In real journalism, journalists are hailed with generous prizes for integrity and they have entire institutions devoted to secure journalistic standards.
In video games, you get to stand up on a cheap carpet in an industry hall the size of a major train station or sit in a crowded room and take notes about games shown in what amounts to elongated TV commercials. You and your craft are not taken seriously. You are laughed at by the people whose job you are supposed to, in Rab Florence's words, "make very challenging." If you do not take a stand, forgive me, but then I will not respect you. The industry takes the piss out of you and tramples you, yet you argue that everything is fine. You take shit no other industry of critics would accept.
In the end, you provide the damning piece of evidence yourself:
jschreier said:
Except... lots of people are very aware that the demos we see at conventions are all part of marketing plans, and lots of websites have specific policies about how to handle these events. We revisited ours earlier this year:
http://kotaku.com/5985143/apologies-...h-that-preview
"Listen to me, a wise experienced journalist, o naive youngster from the Codex. We're not stupid. We know that previews are useless, and we know conferences are nothing but marketing ploys."
Well, mr. Schreier, that does beg the question... why do you keep reporting on them?
