I honestly don't have a problem with selling covers of magazines.
And where's the story on the editor selling scores? That's what should be posted up as some kind of proof here, not the Kotaku un-boxing meme that one posters keeps popping up every page or 2. I'd like to read it.
I used to post quite a bit on the CHUD forums years ago, so yes I do.
Closest to the OT on CHUD has 21 replies.
Really? Then I hope you never enter that field.
Why? Do you write about games for a living?
It is merely an allegation made by a well-respected British journalist which hasn't been responded to, but given he claims direct knowledge of the incident I choose to believe him(as unlike the original article this allegation would clearly be libellous without further proof).
Ok, perhaps you are right and it's endemic to the larger culture. Perhaps the internet is just one big shopping mall. Jesus, that's a depressing thought. Where is my copy of Marcuse's One Dimensional Man when I need it.
Yet I just don't really give a shit if they sell their cover of their magazine.. I already basically thought this was par for the course with Game Informer.
Unlike you, I don't think "integrity" is some exceptional thing. I don't think it's "pure" or "idealistic." It's a decision and a commitment, no more difficult or exceptional than deciding to be good at one's job or faithful to one's friends or whatever. It isn't difficult, nor is it some rarefied domain of angels and saints.
And most games writers say (even the ones who claim they aren't journalists) that they pride themselves on their integrity. So, no, I don't think I'm being at all disingenuous. I'm sorry your life is so filled with cynicism.
I do in fact feel let down and disappointed by the response of the press. And rightly so. They're human beings. This has all been rather disappointing and disillusioning. If it weren't, so many of us wouldn't care so much.
Shame, because that's the real kind of story that needs outed. Yet, without naming names or a smoking gun it's can't really be used as proof of a problem in any kind of actual article.
but issues surrounding personal relationships between press and the people they cover are far more frequent than incidents of straight-up bribery or corruption or even cases when journalists work for companies they cover.
Then basically conman was right:
The only real difference between you and most of the people in this thread is that you don't give a shit if it is just marketing and PR and you don't expect anything different.
Covers are just basically giant ad's anyhow, they aren't content. If the content is a bunch lies saying how great a game is that actually sucks then I have a problem.
The stories of straight-up corruption are few and far between, in my experience.
Bigger issues are far more murky and grey, which is why it's good that this discussion is happening and it's good that people are thinking and talking about this. A few too many GAFfers are making it seem more black-and-white than it actually is, and there isn't enough acknowledgement here that there are some very wide ranges of ethical practices, but issues surrounding personal relationships between press and the people they cover are far more frequent than incidents of straight-up bribery or corruption or even cases when journalists work for companies they cover.
Covers are just basically giant ad's anyhow, they aren't content. If the content is a bunch lies saying how great a game is that actually sucks then I have a problem.
If you read through this thread, I think you will find that the vast majority of people posting in it recognize that. They are exploring that very area where the influence between the two is not direct in a lot of different ways.
When there are no generally accepted ethics and principles of games journalism like there are in sports journalism (no cheering in the press box), it's hard not to assume the worst. There doesn't appear to be standards across the board, and no one wants to call out those who cross their own personal ethical boundaries.The stories of straight-up corruption are few and far between, in my experience.
Bigger issues are far more murky and grey, which is why it's good that this discussion is happening and it's good that people are thinking and talking about this. A few too many GAFfers are making it seem more black-and-white than it actually is, and there isn't enough acknowledgement here that there are some very wide ranges of ethical practices, but issues surrounding personal relationships between press and the people they cover are far more frequent than incidents of straight-up bribery or corruption or even cases when journalists work for companies they cover.
Usually covers include cover stories. Previews should be more than just advertisements companies pay for. Previews should be critical because many readers base their purchases on previews. They shouldn't be paid advertisements.Covers are just basically giant ad's anyhow, they aren't content. If the content is a bunch lies saying how great a game is that actually sucks then I have a problem.
Previews should be critical because many readers base their purchases on previews.
Usually covers include cover stories. Previews should be more than just advertisements companies pay for. Previews should be critical because many readers base their purchases on previews. They shouldn't be paid advertisements.
Usually covers include cover stories. Previews should be more than just advertisements companies pay for. Previews should be critical because many readers base their purchases on previews. They shouldn't be paid advertisements.
How many previews can you think of that are critical? In general previews are almost always nothing but praise. And it really doesn't make sense. That seems like a perfect time to tell developers what's wrong with a game sot hat it can be fixed while also warning gamers of potential faults.
I don't know why you all are replying to Nervous at this point, as they're doing the same thing for which Manos was permabanned. It would be nice to have less of that noise.
I don't know if that would be as true of film or book sites/podcasts as you think. One of my favorite podcasts (Filmspotting) talks about a recent release as their lead story, but they manage to squeeze in their love for old or obscure films in their weekly top-5 lists. It's a great combination of new and old, and they've inspired people to go digging for more. There are some material reasons why this can't as easily be done in gaming, but it's not impossible. It's traditionally been a tech-driven industry, but thankfully that's coming to an end with more retro-gaming, remakes, and general interest in older games. Taking the focus away from the "new" would be very difficult. Really, it would take a greater emphasis on criticism over reporting. But I'm okay with that. Many of today's "reviewers" don't seem to realize how powerful and important "criticism" can be (Ratatouille should be required viewing for them).Here's another part of the problem, as I see it.
I listen to a lot of gaming podcasts and whenver someone is playing a game that is not one of the hot new releases inevitably somebody gives them shit for how it's old and nobody cares to hear about it anymore. I think this is also true in gaming culture at large.
Now imagine a situition where I just watched or re-watched Network (1976) and wanted to talk about how relevant it is to our current media climate (and it is; anyone who hasn't seen it should do so immediately). And somebody said to me, "Oh man, that movie is nearly four decade old." Or if I just read Lolita or Brothers Karamazov and got a similar response. Only in videogame culture is the cult of the new so prominent that any discussion of older products is largely discouraged and dismissed in this fashion. Older games are far less relevant.
Why is that? My guess is that it is directly related to what mainstream videogaming media is and what it does. It is about marketing the next big thing. When they aren't doing that, they aren't serving their primary purpose.
When there are no generally accepted ethics and principles of games journalism like there are in sports journalism (no cheering in the press box), it's hard not to assume the worst. There doesn't appear to be standards across the board, and no one wants to call out those who cross their own personal ethical boundaries.
Yeah, that's where I am after all this. I'm disappointed, but in myself. I always knew it was enthusiast press, but somehow felt it could grow out if that into something more substantial. The juvenile responses, twitter jokes and calls for us to move on have really opened my eyes. I'll stick to what I can get on GAF, but I'm done going to any 'professional' gaming site. They're just a glorified extension of every publishers pr team. I hope their days are all numbered to be honest.From now on I won't refer to these people as journalists, I'll just call them what they really are - game marketers. No reason to retain any integrity then. Case closed.
It isn't easy to tell the difference between marketing, enthusiast writing, blogging, criticism, interviews, investigative work, etc. The distinctions are all very blurry.
Oh, asking for my ban because you disagree with me. That really furthers discussion in here!
Has Wainwright poked her head out at all over the weekend?
Because you aren't reviewing a finished product, so you have to go by what they tell you will be fixed by the time it releases. There are previews that mention faults though, it's not always glowing.
Take for example Keighley's "Final Hours" or even the regular "interviews" he does on GT.You can't tell the difference between criticism, interviews and investigative work?
Take for example Keighley's "Final Hours" or even the regular "interviews" he does on GT.
Is that advertising along the lines of celebrities showing up to a late-night talk show? Is that a journalist doing an interview? He likes to think he can also "dig up" information that his interviewees don't want to give. Is that investigative work? And so on.
Games writing/reporting doesn't make it easy. And to be fair, most popular journalism in all fields has gone down this ugly road. But just because everyone else is doing it is no reason to do likewise.
Part of what I'm talking about today is the double xp program that Mountain Dew and Doritos are bringing back which actually allow gamers to rank up inside of Wargames in Halo 4 by purchasing Mountain Dew or Doritos. So this is a great example of a brand saying 'Hey we wanna actually give benefit and value to gamers' so if you buy Mountain Dew, you buy Doritos you get a code... and your gonna get some experience in the game. It's a good partnership. - Geoff Keighley
jschreier said:I think accepting and keeping review copies is OK - what if some other reporter doesn't? Why should I let that reporter dictate how I do my job?
That's another problem then. They can't actually tell us the problems with the game because publishers will say "This will be fixed/That will be fixed". That really isn't benefiting anyone but the developers. Gamers are left thinking that something may be amazing while it could have plenty of issues. You can easily sell people on a game with previews.
If games are truly going to be duds we pretty much always know sometime after the early previews are long done and before the reviews come out.
Writing scathingly critical previews isn't really all that useful, and it if it became the norm you'd just lose access to seeing or playing early builds of games.
Besides how many of those games shown early that are rough turn out great by the end, it'd be unfair to judge them on what isn't finished yet.
Covers are a giant banner saying "we think you should care about this!" It has your magazine's logo plastered right above it. It associates your name and judgement with the product.Covers are just basically giant ad's anyhow, they aren't content.
As someone who follows a great deal of sports journalism, I really don't think there's any sort of unified ethical system at all. In many ways I think it's worse than gaming journalism - if you think Halo 4 unboxing videos are bad, what about ESPN striking multi-billion dollar deals to be the only outlet that televises the product it reports on? (But this is a whole different conversation.)
There are no standards across the board because there is no "across the board." As Stephen mentioned earlier, bigger sites like Kotaku can afford to have very strict standards (and ethical standards are one of Kotaku's strongest points, in my opinion), but who's going to tell some college kid that he has to follow certain ethical standards for the volunteer site he writes for? And who gets to decide what those ethical standards are? I think accepting and keeping review copies is OK - what if some other reporter doesn't? Why should I let that reporter dictate how I do my job?
The conversation is very important, but again, please keep in mind that this is not black and white, and there are different levels for every issue.
Take for example Keighley's "Final Hours" or even the regular "interviews" he does on GT.
Is that advertising along the lines of celebrities showing up to a late-night talk show? Is that a journalist doing an interview? He likes to think he can also "dig up" information that his interviewees don't want to give. Is that investigative work? And so on.
Games writing/reporting doesn't make it easy. And to be fair, most popular journalism in all fields has gone down this ugly road. But just because everyone else is doing it is no reason to do likewise.
What about the average Joe that reads one preview and decides that he wants the game. Isn't that doing the reader a disservice when you gloss over fundamental flaws in a game, because you have to worry about access being taken away.
Covers are a giant banner saying "we think you should care about this!" It has your magazine's logo plastered right above it. It associates your name and judgement with the product.
More to the point, covers are attached to lengthy cover stories. They definitely are content.
If games are truly going to be duds we pretty much always know sometime after the early previews are long done and before the reviews come out.
Writing scathingly critical previews isn't really all that useful, and it if it became the norm you'd just lose access to seeing or playing early builds of games.
Besides how many of those games shown early that are rough turn out great by the end, it'd be unfair to judge them on what isn't finished yet.
Honesty is always useful (and essential), whether it's in a review, a preview, a reported feature, a tweet, or anything else. If a reporter is worried that his/her access will be limited if he/she is honest, that is a serious problem.
What's the solution? I have no idea. Publishers have been conditioned to treat press a certain way over the past few decades, and the press who aren't big enough to be unconcerned with these issues don't have all that many options. For a smaller website that needs early Metacritic review traffic to survive, access can make all the difference. Not that I want to pick on the smaller guys, many of whom do some great work. But it is indeed a problem.
Honesty is always useful (and essential), whether it's in a review, a preview, a reported feature, a tweet, or anything else. If a reporter is worried that his/her access will be limited if he/she is honest, that is a serious problem.
What's the solution? I have no idea. Publishers have been conditioned to treat press a certain way over the past few decades, and the press who aren't big enough to be unconcerned with these issues don't have all that many options. For a smaller website that needs early Metacritic review traffic to survive, access can make all the difference. Not that I want to pick on the smaller guys, many of whom do some great work. But it is indeed a problem.
No insult, no finger-pointing intended in the following.
Pharmaceutical company companies extensively research physicians' hobbies and personal interests, send attractive spokespeople to "inform" said physicians about their products over three-star michelin meals and golf games. Without exception, these physicians insist that they are immune to unethical influence.
Corporations like Coca Cola spend $10 billion a year or more on advertising campaigns with messages that college undergrads -- here I'm speaking from experience as a former instructor -- unfailingly insist they're uniquely insusceptible to.
Either these corporations are somehow recklessly burning revenue by the billions and somehow raking in unprecedented profit despite the sheer stupidity of their business practices or people are prone to maintain flattering though entirely unrealistic images of themselves. Unfortunately for us, replicated psychology experiments point to pervasive self-deception. Fortunately for us, while it's practically impossible for us to accurately monitor our own self-interest, we're marvelous at pointing it out in others. And this is the why the appearance of impropriety matters so much.
Tomes of research on the topic are out there and anyone remotely interested in cognition will encounter the experiments again and again. For those unfamiliar with it I recommend starting here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006IYFCIM/?tag=neogaf0e-20
A teaser to generate interest in the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XBmJay_qdNc#!
i don't think so.
it will be delicious if her next feature is something about tomb raider.
Maybe bigger sites like Kotaku should actually take stands against PR that will help the overall quality of reporting done by the bigger and smaller sites. Kotaku has options. IGN has options. GameSpot has options. They take the easy way out. They shape the way the little guys cover stories. They grow up reading your previews, reviews, news stories, and unboxing videos. They look at those and follow the template that has been set by those before you. The big sites have the power to make a difference, but they would rather not suffer the short-term pain and damage it would take to make a difference. The one that jumps into the pool first will be eaten alive by the sharks.
This is also a very well put post by Shawn Elliott:This is the post:
You're publishing a review. Pretend you're willing to include a sidebar with the subhead "Things that can have no influence at all on my perspective." In this sidebar are photos of you sharing single malt Scotch and haute cuisine with PR people. There are photos of the array of tchotchkes you received at the assorted press events for the title that you attended. There are also photos taken from your night out with your hosts. Despite your confidence in you being the rare exception to rules about human behavior, how likely is your audience to come to the same conclusion?
Apparently, judges' glucose levels affect their rulings: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no...ons-of-judges/
And yet you expect your audience to regard you as a Randian ubermensch rational above your biology.
This is also a very well put post by Shawn Elliott:
Speak for yourself. I want an Elizabeth body pillow.Here is the real bitch of all this. Shawn's posts in this thread have been so insighful and succinct in cutting to the heart of the matter that it basically serves as an advertisment for Bioshock Infinite as far as I'm concerned because I want to see what the bastard has been up to for the past 5+ years.
You are welcome, Shawn. That one was free. You didn't even have to send me a golden statue of Fontaine pissing or some shit.