Which is why they demand feedback and express appreciation of it any chance they get. Somewhere along the way it got cringe-worthy.It was a good idea. Pandering is the best trait of modern BioWare; they're dependent on that to a significant extent.
While ME3 would certainly not be my pick for RPG of the year (that'd be The Last Story), it's infantile to pull out the "omg lol game journalism" card because you disagree with an outlet's choice of awards.
Those journalist/fan conflicts aside, don't you think it's possible that IGN's staff simply thought Mass Effect 3 was a great game?
You have been very open and honest in this Thread so thank you for that. I’ll have to ask you a question that’s slightly related, though.Those journalist/fan conflicts aside, don't you think it's possible that IGN's staff simply thought Mass Effect 3 was a great game?
I mean, if you don't want to agree with them or trust them, that's fine -- I always recommend that readers should find specific writers who they personally trust, then just follow those specific writers' work (which is why Twitter is so helpful) -- but to conclude that they must be taking bribes or sucking up to AAA developers just because they enjoyed the game is absurd.
I played around 10 hours of Mass Effect 3 and I thought it was very good. I've never been a huge fan of the series (I don't like sci-fi that much), but I enjoyed what I played. I can totally understand why some people fell in love with it, even if a lot of fans didn't. My personal GOTY pick (so far) is probably Virtue's Last Reward, which NOBODY played, but I'm not gonna get mad or scream "bribery" when it misses everyone's GOTY lists. I recognize that my taste is rather niche, and that AAA games will always have an advantage (as AAA products do in every industry).
Really, though, if you don't trust game reviewers, that's OK. Just try to ignore them. But if you do care about this sort of thing, and you do find yourself getting angry over review scores and GOTY lists and whatever, then the only way to keep your blood pressure down is to find specific people who you trust, even if you disagree with them sometimes.
That means paying more attention. That means looking at a writer's work and saying "oh wow, he does more actual original reporting than I thought anyone in game journalism did" or maybe saying "wow, he does nothing but aggregate other people and rewrite press releases all day." The more attention you pay, the more you'll start to notice just how good -- and just how sloppy -- different writers can be. And if you really care about this field, that's exactly what you should try to notice. Praise the good writers. Call out the sloppy ones. Pay attention to specifics, instead of condemning sites for their GOTY choices or screaming "lol game journalism" every chance you get. That's the only way to help make things better.
As a bystander during the whole Mass Effect ending saga, I noticed a LOT of reviewers calling gamers a bunch of whinging/entitled/infantile/juvenile/immature/insert-pejorative-here man children.
.
That's because gamers pretty much are a bunch of whiny man children. Most outspoken nerds are. The ending to a video game pissed them off so much that they helped vote EA the worst company of the year. Worse than other such clearly rotten establishments like BoA, Paypal, AT&T and Verizon.
Yes, that's possible. But given there is no reason to give benefit of the doubt thanks to the incredibly low standards gaming journalism is held to, its always going to be seen as a tainted vote.
Journalists have to earn credibility. So far, few have.
Is this supposed to be a joke post or am I missing something? You’re not happy with the result because you feel another company deserved that title more. You’re doing the exact same thing those “whiny man children” get called out for all the time. Someone’s opinion is not the same as theirs so they complain about it. They’re doing it, you’re doing it as well.That's because gamers pretty much are a bunch of whiny man children. Most outspoken nerds are. The ending to a video game pissed them off so much that they helped vote EA the worst company of the year. Worse than other such clearly rotten establishments like BoA, Paypal, AT&T and Verizon.
While you are certainly entitled to say that journalists need to earn your trust, just how many journalists have you actually paid attention to? How many staff at Kotaku can you name? How many IGN writers do you know? How often do you read the bylines of reviews you read? How many game writer freelancers can you list offhand?
Who says gaming journalism is held to low standards? Who is holding game journalists to low standards? My boss certainly holds his staff to high standards. I set unrealistically high standards for myself every day.
While you are certainly entitled to say that journalists need to earn your trust, just how many journalists have you actually paid attention to? How many staff at Kotaku can you name? How many IGN writers do you know? How often do you read the bylines of reviews you read? How many game writer freelancers can you list offhand?
I totally get (and sympathize with) your skepticism, but how can you expect journalists to earn credibility in your eyes if you're not specifically paying attention to the work those journalists do?
If these issues really bother you -- and they certainly bother me -- then get educated on them. Maybe you'll say to yourself "okay, I won't trust Jessica Chobot again because she previewed a game she was in without disclosing that information." Or maybe you'll say to yourself, "wow, Simon Parkin sure writes some fantastic stories for Eurogamer, I should get him on my radar." Pay more attention to the specifics, to who is worth trusting and who isn't worth trusting in your eyes, and you'll be better for it.
You have been very open and honest in this Thread so thank you for that. Ill have to ask you a question thats slightly related, though.
Do you and your colleagues talk about your audience at all? I listen to a lot of gaming podcasts and I always get the impression that writers apprechiate that readers make sure the money flows in but continue to hate them.
They want you to comment, subscribe, follow or whatever but when they then go on to harvest the fruits of these things, they call their audience immature, entitled, crybabies and I feel like theres generally just a lack of respect. Sometimes they go on and say I know how many people have read this story and I know the people complaining about X or Y are in the minority, wrongfully assuming that everyone who has a problem will also register and post about it just to prove their point.
Are there ever any discussions about how to treat your readership? It really feels to me like those people have forgotten that, while advertisers pay them directly, their readers are the one and only reason they can do the job they love.
I'm going to assume there is a lot of turnover of staff at gaming sites. So I'll happily admit there are probably a lot of journalists I'm painting with broad brushstrokes here. It's great that you're willing to engage with the discussion at least.
But IGN, Kotaku, Joystiq, 1up/EGM, Gamespot etc have all long since blown their credibility as far as I'm concerned, and they did that years and years ago. Maybe as long as a decade ago in some cases. I couldn't even remember why, in many cases. Driver 3 comes to mind. Kane and Lynch too.
I've got plenty of places to find news - GAF, Retro Gamer, Edge, Eurogamer (they stomp on thin ice regularly though). It's thanks to the sensationalistic types of writers that I've long since learnt not to bother visiting mostly US sites like the ones you listed. It's like reading anything, say a newspaper. If you stop reading it and find you don't miss it, you don't bother coming back. To me, that's how it is with a LOT of gaming sites thanks to losing trust in their impartiality over the years.
It's an easy thing to lose and a very difficult thing to regain.
If you guys are all getting up in arms about a field that you don't even read, how are we supposed to take you seriously? If you're willing to generalize and say things like "game journalism is mostly shitty" or "Kotaku is awful" when you don't actually pay attention to the specifics, know that you're part of the problem.
Do you think it is fair for people to come into a thread like this and say "ugh I hate Kotaku's shitty journalism they have no credibility" when those people haven't read Kotaku in years, and don't know that we have a new EIC and that half the current staff only started in 2011-2012? Do you think it's fair to a writer like me, who started at Kotaku this year and has done a pretty good job (I think) writing interesting things, breaking news, and reporting tons of original stories?
If you guys are all getting up in arms about a field that you don't even read, how are we supposed to take you seriously? If you're willing to generalize and say things like "game journalism is mostly shitty" or "Kotaku is awful" when you don't actually pay attention to the specifics, know that you're part of the problem.
I get all the complaints about the games press, but as Jason says, it isn't one websites fault that others are doing bad work. If a majority of television stations are crappy shows, are you still going to ignore a great HBO show for example?Not really. If a large proportion of the industry is complicit in marketing, that's their fault that people like you are being tarred with the same brush.
This thread stopped being productive and slipped into parody a few pages agoAlso, it's kind of hilarious that you guys are accusing game journalists of only rewarding big-budget AAA games when IGN just named Journey GOTY and The Walking Dead won best game at the VGAs (voted on by game journalists).
Also, it's kind of hilarious that you guys are accusing game journalists of only rewarding big-budget AAA games when IGN just named Journey GOTY and The Walking Dead won best game at the VGAs (voted on by game journalists).
If you would like to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "game journalism sucks Kotaku sucks I can't hear you nyah nyah nyah" then by all means be my guest.
But if you want things to change, I recommend paying much more attention to the specifics. Read big gaming sites every day. Follow game journalists on Twitter. Pinpoint exactly what the big websites and writers do right every day and what they do wrong every day, and then discuss those things, both good and bad. Participate in the ongoing conversation.
If this is a topic you're interested in - and if you're reading this thread, it probably is - you'll find it quite illuminating to pay attention to the specifics of where news comes from, how different sites aggregate different things, which sites are willing to just post any random rumor with little to no vetting, which sites do original stories and which sites just rewrite press releases all day, etc.
Those are the sort of conversations I'd love to see. They're the conversations that make journalists better. As opposed to "I don't read this website because game journalism sucks" or "Kotaku does nothing but shitty journalism" or any of the other sweeping statements that make some of my colleagues call me a moron for continuing to post in this thread.
You lost my hits, and revenue gained from me as a reader when you published substandard, unethical work. You have to earn that back, I'm not simply going to keep letting your site recognize me as an active, regular user when I have no desire to be one. I shouldn't have to watch, digest, articulate, and invest my time into what is good or bad journalism and call you out when I see either or. Put up 100% good content, not influenced by the studios or PR, something your site should have been doing from fucking day 1, and maybe you gain my readership again. Until then I'll keep my distance, thank you very much.
If you would like to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "game journalism sucks Kotaku sucks I can't hear you nyah nyah nyah" then by all means be my guest.
But if you want things to change, I recommend paying much more attention to the specifics. Read big gaming sites every day. Follow game journalists on Twitter. Pinpoint exactly what the big websites and writers do right every day and what they do wrong every day, and then discuss those things, both good and bad. Participate in the ongoing conversation.
If this is a topic you're interested in - and if you're reading this thread, it probably is - you'll find it quite illuminating to pay attention to the specifics of where news comes from, how different sites aggregate different things, which sites are willing to just post any random rumor with little to no vetting, which sites do original stories and which sites just rewrite press releases all day, etc.
Those are the sort of conversations I'd love to see. They're the conversations that make journalists better. As opposed to "I don't read this website because game journalism sucks" or "Kotaku does nothing but shitty journalism" or any of the other sweeping statements that make some of my colleagues call me a moron for continuing to post in this thread.
I didnt say you were bad at your job. I said I have a lack of trust in your site because of things done in the past. I also said several times that I appreciate staff changes occur. I haven't read kotaku (aside from the odd linked story on gaf) for over a year or two, which is before your time.
I get it - you are just after an easy way to discredit all I say because I cannot post a specific example. I said on my first posts on the matter that it happened years ago, and I've had more important and interesting things to remember since then.
it's a problem with the field that has been brewing for a long time thanks to people like Totilo/Chobot/Keighley/that guy who danced with Skyrim last year etc. Those are the people earning games journalism a poor reputation
Since the JRPG article you do, you mentioned above, I would like to say while I don't visit Kotaku that much, I always look at your JRPG articles when I see them on FB/twitter. Being a JRPG fan, I can't resist (though I remember getting frustrated at something in the last one but I forget why now...)
Just thought I'd say something nice considering the threads slightly hostile nature .
Discredit what you say? No, I'm trying to do quite the opposite. I'm trying to get you to prove your point because I'm sick of your baseless mud flinging. Here's what you said:
How is Totilo, the editor-in-chief of Kotaku, earning games journalism a poor reputation? Prove your point.
OK, so go ahead and show us some examples that support all of the accusations you've been making so far. When do we run content that you think is driven by PR? What have we done that has gotten you to the point where you think I'm bad at my job? It is worthless to everyone when you say that the editor-in-chief of Kotaku is giving the whole field a bad reputation but you won't explain just what he's done that is so heinous.
Are you really going to keep speaking in these ridiculous generalizations? Your accusations that my site publishes "substandard, unethical work" or things that are "influenced by the studios or PR" are meaningless to me without specifics. You're complaining without telling anyone what you're complaining about, which has unfortunately become par for the course in this thread.
Gaming journalists have less expertise then some of the posters on gaf, only know the things they are told by the gaming firms themselves and no more and their reviews are more often factually false and biased then not. On top of the general incompetency and irrelevancy they now also seem to be corrupt.... I dont really understand why there is gaming journalists at all and why anyone should pay attention to them
Speaking of specific examples of kotaku losing credibility didn't the sit publish a rumor flat out saying Versus was cancelled with details from their "sources" and it turned out to be completely wrong?
So true. The same reviewer can end up reviewing sports games, platformers, fpses, etc.
Moreover, do they even enjoy playing games when they have to play them in order to be able to pay the rent and put food in their mouths?
there was a post a while back about how some game journos at some event actually talked about games when not in the public eye, and they just shat on them. Then when stuff went up on the sites, guess what, positivity!
Again, this sort of post is useless to everyone without specifics. Who are you talking about? What reviewers cover genres that they don't understand? What journalists lied to their readers after preview events?
Sir, its your job to maintain an image that you are not corrupt and not incompetent by general conduct on your every day work and not a internet forum posters job to proove that in fact you are. We are not prosecutors that need ro prove your guilt. We are consumers that are free to ignore your publication without stating a reason.
Oh for god's sake, this info is so well-known and prevalent you are expected to know some examples yourself, and if you don't then you show a stunning lack of self-awareness for your choice of trade.
IGN's sports game editor covering the latest Championship Manager and complaining it was all managing teams and you hardly played football at all. Review ended up being pulled. You really weren't aware of that event?
No? Link?
The Walking Dead won best game at the VGAs (voted on by game journalists).
Oh man. How could I possibly talk about the ethics of what I do every day without knowing that IGN pulled a soccer game review in 2008? I should just quit my job right now.
Please do.
And that was just one of the many, many well-known example of what Bunny was talking about. Why are gaffers so much more knowledgeable on stuff than the people actually paid to cover it?