• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos

Status
Not open for further replies.

jschreier

Member
This is in a nutshell the problem for many of the sites we (justifiably) are criticizing.

Filler article after filler article. Look at Joystiq and Kotaku for prime examples.

Let's be real, here. Can you name a single (professional, money-making) publication or website that doesn't post a ton of content? Even the New York Times has "filler" articles.

Our goal is to try to make every article interesting, and to spend most of our time/energy on great original reporting, but I don't think "filler" is necessarily a bad thing. What do you think is wrong with that sort of content?
 

jschreier

Member
It diverts the limited time and energy of your writers from more interesting stories?

Sometimes it might. In an ideal world it doesn't. Stephen encourages us not to spend more than ten minutes on videos or trailers or quick news posts so we can spend that time working on better stuff.
 

Dennis

Banned
Let's be real, here. Can you name a single (professional, money-making) publication or website that doesn't post a ton of content? Even the New York Times has "filler" articles.

The problem is the filler articles being stuff basically handed down by PR departments as Stu mentions. I am pretty sure the filler articles in The New York Times are under somewhat harsher ethical constraints.

And it may be hard for readers to see when something is obviously a fluff piece and when something is meant to be taken as, for lack of a better term, actual journalism.
 
Let's be real, here. Can you name a single (professional, money-making) publication or website that doesn't post a ton of content? Even the New York Times has "filler" articles.

Our goal is to try to make every article interesting, and to spend most of our time/energy on great original reporting, but I don't think "filler" is necessarily a bad thing. What do you think is wrong with that sort of content?

People really find filler to be bad? Gaming press aint perfect, but fillers seems like a minor thing. It's not like you are forced to read every single article to progress downward like a pez dispenser.
 

nofi

Member
Plus most debug units can't even run retail code - they're solely for playing developer builds, with a few extra tools built into the hardware

Clarification on this: PS3 debugs (all I know about) run retail code just fine. That is, retail Blu-rays. They don't run retail PSN games. They can't use retail patches.
 
This is in a nutshell the problem for many of the sites we (justifiably) are criticizing.

Filler article after filler article. Look at Joystiq and Kotaku for prime examples.
Though the criticsm is justified, can there be any change without changing the current business model of games journalism? Are readers willing to pay for good journalism, especially in the knowledge that the current business model has websites being paid by advertising hence the constant barrage of shit articles for enormous page clicks?

Here's an old and interesting article regarding games journalism and money by the delightfully cuntish Stuart Campbell:

RevStu - How 9/11 killed videogame journalism said:
 

NaviLink

Member

I was more talking about the hardware, but the assistance also goes for the accounts, of course. But a hack is a special case, and it was Keighley, so the fact they helped him directly doesn't surprise me.

Well they all received free slim 360s a few years back, an if you think they're talking to CSRs in India like you and me, you're crazy. Remember back when 360s were dying left and right? You can be sure that game journalists weren't waiting 1-2 months for their console to be "repaired." It should be no surprise as to why they are so out of touch with their audience.

Never said they were talking to the usual customer service. They talk to their contact in PR and Microsoft.

Don't know about the Slims, but the biggest outlets' consoles were replaced pretty quickly, if units were available... which wasn't always the case, since they were failing all the time.

Regarding the gaming press and their "out of touchness", it's true for some but not all of them. I think it's a lot more visible in all the bloggers that go to events regularlyfor the sole purpose of getting free games, swag and food.
 
Let's be real, here. Can you name a single (professional, money-making) publication or website that doesn't post a ton of content? Even the New York Times has "filler" articles.

Our goal is to try to make every article interesting, and to spend most of our time/energy on great original reporting, but I don't think "filler" is necessarily a bad thing. What do you think is wrong with that sort of content?

not directly related and i can see the problem but is there a News section of the site that only has actual news articles? kotaku.com/news or something similar, which only had the articles? Hard to check now as the sites down (good luck btw)

as someone else pointed out and i am the same, i don't visit the site unless there is an article linked somewhere. I have tried a few times but if out of the first 20 stories there are 5 actual new items it's not worth the time spent filtering, sorry.
 

jschreier

Member
The problem is the filler articles being stuff basically handed down by PR departments as Stu mentions. I am pretty sure the filler articles in The New York Times are under somewhat harsher ethical constraints.

Maybe, and the PR influence is something we should keep in mind any time we publish anything, but echoing release dates or trailers from PR departments is not always a bad thing, and it's certainly not unethical. If the White House sends out a press release with their statements on some issue, you don't think that news is going in the Times?
 

jschreier

Member
not directly related and i can see the problem but is there a News section of the site that only has actual news articles? kotaku.com/news or something similar? Hard to check now as the sites down (good luck btw)

as someone else pointed out and i am the same, i don't visit the site unless there is an article linked somewhere. I have tried a few times but if out of the first 20 stories there are 5 actual new items it's not worth the time spent filtering, sorry.

Kotaku Core sounds like what you're looking for. kotaku.com/kotakucore (whenever the site is back!)
 

Victrix

*beard*
People really find filler to be bad? Gaming press aint perfect, but fillers seems like a minor thing. It's not like you are forced to read every single article to progress downward like a pez dispenser.

Actually you kind of are depending on the layout of the site. Better sites tend to divide up their material, but a lot of them are fond of the ONE GIANT WALL OF STUFF layout, which I find extremely irritating when all the interesting stuff is mixed in with Latest Press Release.

The latter are definitely useful when you just want some facts/dates/etc about some game or another, but if you're trying to find something interesting to read, digging it out of the mess of those can be a pain depending on the site. Doubly so if those are mixed in with, well, actual filler articles.

Come to think of it, the layout of some of the bigger sites is another reason I didn't mind dropping most of them.

I mean, have you visited IGN today? You literally get attacked by Rhatonkahgekhtong, he charges out of your browser and molests your front page with Assassin's Creed 3333333!!!!!!!!

edit: Which opens a splash ad that has a quote from IGN: "STUNNING!". God I love this stuff.
 

cameron

Member
Has anyone posted Stu Campbell's latest article on this yet?: http://wosland.podgamer.com/the-players-and-the-game/

Lauren's LinkedIn profile (http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/wainwrightli.htm) shows that she worked for Barrington Harvey as a junior publicist for 4 months in 2010. Barrington Harvey is one of the biggies in videogames PR in the UK, and I'm wondering whether this is the reason she deleted her profile.

On the subject of metacritic, the name Barrington Harvey sounded familiar. They did PR for Eidos. They also received some heat for shamelessly trying to "manage" launch day review scores for TR:U, by requesting low scores be held back.

Said a Barrington Harvey rep on the phone this afternoon: “That’s right. We’re trying to manage the review scores at the request of Eidos.”

When asked why, the spokesperson said: “Just that we’re trying to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that’s handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don’t put people off buying the game, basically.”

British site Eurogamer has already gone live with a 7/10 score, an act the rep said had caused “problems”.

http://www.vg247.com/2008/11/21/uk-tomb-raider-underworld-reviews-under-810-silenced-until-monday/
 

aeolist

Banned
For my part I don't read Kotaku because it's Gawker and they don't deserve my time even if Adblock means they're not seeing revenue from me.

The awful site design and presence of creepy assholes like Bashcraft don't help either.

jschreier seems pretty cool but I'm sure there are cool people working for Rupert Murdoch and I don't give them any of my time either.
 
Kotaku Core sounds like what you're looking for. kotaku.com/kotakucore (whenever the site is back!)

I'll give it a go, thanks. If it is mostly if not all feature type articles this might be what to push to us who are not interested at all in the filler instead of justifying it.
 

ElRenoRaven

Member
I don't really have a problem with either that or free games to be honest. Consoles and games are tools they need to do their job. There are far bigger problems being discussed here.

I agree. I have no problem with the free console, debug unit, or live in the case of MS. Those are needed to actually do their jobs. Now the free live for example though should be only for the jobs. They should have to pay for their personal accounts. Personally I'd do it like this. Let's use IGN as an example. They would get let's be nice and say 5 live accounts for their reporters to use. Those would then be labeled like such. IGNone, IGNtwo, IGNthree, etc etc. Those accounts could only be used in the course of their jobs.
 

PaulLFC

Member
Did she actually get legal advice or was this purely stemming from her media law module? If the latter, then it's fucking hilarious how she thinks she's qualified to claim something after having learnt a couple of legal principles in an academic law module once upon a time.
To me, it seems she paid as much attention to this "law module" as she did to Rob's article in its original form - that is to say, not much. If she'd paid attention to the article she would have known that it was making a general point rather than attacking her as she claimed, and if she'd paid attention to the law module then, presuming they were teaching the right content, she'd know that what Rob said wasn't libellous. I mean, come on, I haven't even studied this wonderful law degree and even I can see how that article was intended and that the passage in question was extremely, extremely unlikely to be considered libel if taken to court.

Of course, there is the other, even more disturbing side to this - that being that she may have been well aware that she had virtually no chance of winning should the case go to court, but knew that, such is the power of a libel case in the UK, she had a very good chance of getting what she wanted without even going near a court.
 

Lancehead

Member
Maybe, and the PR influence is something we should keep in mind any time we publish anything, but echoing release dates or trailers from PR departments is not always a bad thing, and it's certainly not unethical. If the White House sends out a press release with their statements on some issue, you don't think that news is going in the Times?

I wouldn't class that as unethical either. But my issue is that a lot of the preview content falls under this filler content; when so many times there's opportunity for criticism, previews rarely contain it, instead it's just restating of the content itself.

I'm not talking just about Kotaku, though.
 
I agree. I have no problem with the free console, debug unit, or live in the case of MS. Those are needed to actually do their jobs. Now the free live for example though should be only for the jobs. They should have to pay for their personal accounts. Personally I'd do it like this. Let's use IGN as an example. They would get let's be nice and say 5 live accounts for their reporters to use. Those would then be labeled like such. IGNone, IGNtwo, IGNthree, etc etc. Those accounts could only be used in the course of their jobs.

Agreed, I see no problems with this. The personal freebies are crossing the line though.
 

Brashnir

Member
I agree. I have no problem with the free console, debug unit, or live in the case of MS. Those are needed to actually do their jobs. Now the free live for example though should be only for the jobs. They should have to pay for their personal accounts. Personally I'd do it like this. Let's use IGN as an example. They would get let's be nice and say 5 live accounts for their reporters to use. Those would then be labeled like such. IGNone, IGNtwo, IGNthree, etc etc. Those accounts could only be used in the course of their jobs.

I don't think it's a real big deal either, but ideally these things would be provided to the journalist/critic by their employer, not the console manufacturer.
 
Actually you kind of are depending on the layout of the site. Better sites tend to divide up their material, but a lot of them are fond of the ONE GIANT WALL OF STUFF layout, which I find extremely irritating when all the interesting stuff is mixed in with Latest Press Release.

The latter are definitely useful when you just want some facts/dates/etc about some game or another, but if you're trying to find something interesting to read, digging it out of the mess of those can be a pain depending on the site. Doubly so if those are mixed in with, well, actual filler articles.

Come to think of it, the layout of some of the bigger sites is another reason I didn't mind dropping most of them.

I mean, have you visited IGN today? You literally get attacked by Rhatonkahgekhtong, he charges out of your browser and molests your front page with Assassin's Creed 3333333!!!!!!!!

edit: Which opens a splash ad that has a quote from IGN: "STUNNING!". God I love this stuff.

Ahhh. point taken.

I guess ill just keep my news input with gaf and rss reader.

internet is scary :(
 

jschreier

Member
I wouldn't class that as unethical either. But my issue is that a lot of the preview content falls under this filler content; when so many times there's opportunity for criticism, previews rarely contain it, instead it's just restating of the content itself.

I'm not talking just about Kotaku, though.

Actually, I've been talking a lot about previews with Kotaku colleagues recently. We don't want to stop doing them -- readers want information/impressions on upcoming games -- but the controlled environment makes it very difficult to get a full picture of what we're actually playing.

I don't know that there's any one solution, but some of us have been experimenting with listicles/bullet-points (both easily digestible and simple to distinguish from reviews/more complete coverage) and videos. Videos are by far the best option for previews, in my opinion. That way, readers can see everything that we see and judge for themselves what they think.

But yes! It is easy to get excited over a vertical slice of a game, and that creates/perpetuates the hype cycle, even when it's unjustified. I try to keep this in mind whenever I write a preview, and couch my excitement accordingly.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
Dennis said:
This is in a nutshell the problem for many of the sites we (justifiably) are criticizing.

The hunt for page-clicks mentality is perfectly exemplified by Eurogamer, ironically enough.

No other site I can think of has used the full flamebait playbook so long and as well as EG has, I think the only thing that gave them pause was when their forums got so toxic with XBox and PS3 fanboys mudslinging noone else got a look in, and as a result traffic fell off a cliff when they got out the banhammer.

One other thing, let noone be under the assumption that Stuart Campbell doesn't also have an well established agenda in all this. The guy has been holding a grudge against a lot of people since he effectively got blacklisted by most of the UK press way back when. He likes to play the "man of the people" card (remember Fairplay?), but you simply cannot ignore his history in the business and factor that in to his perspective.

The point I'm getting at, is that this is an extremely grubby affair that no doubt is informed by personal as well as business motivations.
 

patapuf

Member
Though the criticsm is justified, can there be any change without changing the current business model of games journalism? Are readers willing to pay for good journalism, especially in the knowledge that the current business model has websites being paid by advertising hence the constant barrage of shit articles for enormous page clicks?

Here's an old and interesting article regarding games journalism and money by the delightfully cuntish Stuart Campbell:

While i agree with a lot of criticism about conflict of interest and integrity this is a major point that gets forgotten in this debate.

Are we, the readers, actually willing to support good gaming journalism, with money, in case advertisment money isn't enough?
 

8bit

Knows the Score
On the subject of metacritic, the name Barrington Harvey sounded familiar. They did PR for Eidos. They also received some heat for shamelessly trying to "manage" launch day review scores for TR:U, by requesting low scores be held back.



http://www.vg247.com/2008/11/21/uk-tomb-raider-underworld-reviews-under-810-silenced-until-monday/

Hmmmm...

#41
atheistium
21/11/08, 6:22 pm
Something’s been taken out of hand, I talked to one of the PR guys and they said that this is all a big misunderstanding.

http://www.vg247.com/2008/11/21/uk-...nder-810-silenced-until-monday/#comment-40273
 

Victrix

*beard*
I think it's totally ok to present controlled previews they same way you would present any other press release.

The information is still of interest to your readers (even if they can get it from every other major news site, the same day, the same info).

I'd honestly appreciate it if I could go to a site and go 'ok, here's my publisher PR press section', and it has all their press releases and carefully controlled previews/interviews/whatever else they have their hands on. The information is still there, it's just cordoned off so it's easy to look at it and go 'ok, this came right from the mouth of the PR department'.

And then another section has all of your material, which is original material you do in an uncontrolled form about anything gaming related, be it articles, interviews, features, or whatever else.

If reviews and such also had disclaimer sidebars that showed all the PR events and swag that were attendant to that review from that specific reviewer, it'd be nice, but that's probably a pipe dream. I can't even think of any major newspaper that has that level of disclosure.

I can't see that flying with the PR departments though :D

I also kind of think that review/preview staff and feature staff should be sharply divided when it comes to writing about the same game, shrug.
 

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
I'm not really sure what additional level of transparency you're looking for. We're already quite candid about our policies and have discussed editorial issues like this to death on the podcast over the years. Are you just interested in seeing people in this line of work talking shit about each other? Between this and people Tweeting me nonsense like "HEY MAN POLYGON STOLE YOUR TAGLINE WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT??" I sometimes think some folks just want more Twitter drama in your lives.

I also think a lot of people in this thread are painting everyone who gets paid to write about video games with the same brush, when in reality there are tons of different jobs at tons of different levels. For example, I understand why a freelancer might want to get into the financially lucrative mock review market. I'm not going to begrudge someone doing something that puts food on their family's table, especially these days. But I wouldn't let anyone who writes for me do that, and if they had been doing it recently it'd probably prevent me from even assigning freelance work in their direction because it creates a conflict of interest that I'm not comfortable with.

It's the same reason I once threatened to fire someone because he had vocal dreams about someday working in development. Those two things aren't compatible. I actually used to take it really personally when someone made the jump into development. Nowadays, it's happened enough to people I respect that I've come to understand why some people do it and the ways that it can happen without it causing people to compromise themselves as critics. Sometimes people change their minds. Sometimes people fall into jobs. If my firing hadn't generated a lot of public outcry and I was forced to hit the actual job market, I might have ended up as... I don't know, a publisher-side producer or something insane like that. That shit happens. Sometimes people just grow up and don't want to work the weird hours that people like me end up working. Oftentimes the pay is significantly better. Sometimes there's an asshole like me in the EIC position and it's clear that I'm never going to leave, which in turn prevents other people from getting promoted. There are a billion reasons, it turns out. It took me over a decade of doing this to finally realize that people who went into development weren't betraying their now-former lives.

We'll go over some of the recent happenings on the podcast this week, I'm sure, but I also don't think it'll ever be enough for some of you because it's starting to feel like some of you have smelled blood and have convinced yourselves that this entire line of work is morally bankrupt. That's fine, you're certainly welcome to your opinion, and I'm not really interested in swaying you one way or the other. I spent years wringing my hands about that sort of stuff and sweating it to death and we still got nothing but shit from people who were CONVINCED that everyone was on the take. If you don't feel like you can trust me, go find an outlet that you do trust and support that instead. I'm comfortable enough with our policies and the more I sit and defend it, the more some of you will come up with weird theories about how that just makes me look less trustworthy.

The reason why I think some people in my position are blowing this off is because we've spent the last five years being all navel gazey about our line of work. Getting fired ended up generating a lot of conversation like that. I think the general feeling is that most readers and listeners have already heard us cover this ground and there isn't much more to add beyond "well, some of those people overseas are certainly behaving in a completely inappropriate way, aren't they?" But you all already know that. And I'd like to think that you'd know that I'm not out there behaving like that.

In short, please stop treating every single Tweet you see as a smoking gun of some kind (though HOLY SHIT some of that stuff looks bad).

*****
Boy, all this posting sure makes me hungry. I don't know about you, but when I get Big Hunger I think small! Kentucky Fried Chicken's Chicken Littles are available now at your local KFC!
*****

Fun Fact: This recent uproar over non-endemic product placement might put a bullet in some of the bigger, travel-heavy ideas I've pitched. Maybe that's for the best, maybe the tax on our credibility would be too high. But with the amount of money I wanted to spend shipping the team around the continent and putting on shows it'd be the sort of thing that would need a sponsor, like some sort of "and after the show let's meet up in the Fast Food Restaurant #3 or Big But Failing Tech Retailer #7 Parking Lot" sort of public appearance thing. It's, admittedly, not a great option, but at least it's cleaner than going around and doing verbal mentions of actual games. On top of that, I think going out and filming a world tour kind of thing would be fun.

Either way, the ad market is still really weird. Regular banners are increasingly useless, but video ads are, I'm told, holding their value. This was the basic idea that Whiskey Media's ad plan was founded on, but the process moves incredibly slowly, so most ad buyers wanted to buy raw pageviews (which we didn't have enough of) for their banners instead of this nebulous "engagement" thing that we're quite good at. We're the guys putting up hour-long videos in an era when everyone still thinks anything over three minutes is worthless. I'm convinced that, in the long run, we'll be right and everyone else will be wrong. The completion percentages on our video views already bears that out, to some extent.

Figuring out how to make all of that work as a business without it being completely sleazy is, as it turns out, kind of difficult and requires a series of checks and balances to be in place. So expect everyone in the business of putting content on the Internet to keep trying different things on the ad side. Some of it will work, some of it will come off as completely filthy. I feel like I already have a pretty good idea of where the line is, but the good news is that by letting us know when the line gets crossed anywhere on the Internet, you're potentially helping to define the future of advertising... in some weird way. At any rate, I sent this thread to our sales/marketing team so they can hopefully understand what it's really like out here.

400367_10100099607544495_504711867_n.jpg


Oh, shit, I'm honored with Jeff's presence.

First, I don't want you to think I'm personally attacking you. I just hate when something huge/drama-rama like this is basically brushed aside because 1) "it doesn't effect me/it's the UK's problem," and 2) "I'm not really interested." It's the same thing the Kotaku writer(s) were saying but it's a big deal to your readers and they want to know a bit more the process and inner workings of your writing/site so they can be comfortable about knowing you're not going to be "5/5! BEST GAME EVAR! BUY RESIDENT EVIL 6 IN STORES IN OCTOBER!" (that's a joke for those of you that aren't following GiantBomb in general: RE6 is shit. Don't buy it.) about your review processes.

Though question: Why is there a strong 360 bias in your reviews? It's something that I've kinda noticed, there's a bunch of 360 reviews but not enough PS3/PSP2(er-"Vita")/PC/Wii/Wii2 reviews. 3DS is getting reviews/previews/quicklooks but not enough. I understand you don't have enough writers and "interests" and the like may not be there, but I'm wondering why for instance, the Skyrim PS3 debate didn't make you guys go "hold up, there's performance issues? (Goes to buy a copy) Oh shit there is, maybe we should mention that?" I mean there's no mention of the performance issues in that review and because your site has a bad "backlog" finding ability for older stories that aren't within six recent mentions for the game (so I can't find mention if Patrick did mention it but only in blog posts) it does make me have to ask about that.

I'm actually fine with all that, because even if I have to buy every single game we cover, I will always have the final say. And there are more interesting ways to preview games than to shit out 300 words on Gun #7 or The Food of San Andreas, which has become my favorite example of the preview cycle gone wrong, even if it's a little dated these days. As long as there's an audience that's interested in an independent and considered voice on that topic, people like me will serve a purpose.

Oh, that's why. Sucks that you have to basically do that but it's obviously the route you have to go to continue to step on PR's toes and say what you want to say about the games you're reviewing. Getting all the platforms to run through/test would be too expensive. Well, I take back my criticism a small bit then. Because I'd still like to have issues like that hammered out if they're serious enough to be impacting a sizable portion of your readers/possible people buying that game.

----

You've basically nailed what I wanted from you in regards to your policy about GiantBomb. My respect for you and GiantBomb have gone up from the already high esteem I had for you.

It took me over a decade of doing this to finally realize that people who went into development weren't betraying their now-former lives.

I don't have an issue with that. I do have an issue with the paid-off reviews. Why can't they be impartial or not an obvious plant that is giving "10/10! BEST GAME EVAR!" to something like Barbie's Horse Adventures that runs at 5FPS on any hardware you play it on because they're getting a PR job? Their job at that moment is to let consumers know what issues are in the game and what they think about the game (worth buying/worth renting/not worth looking at). It seems like these people simply do these overblown reviews for the sake of landing that job and that's... scuzzy, ya know?
 

jschreier

Member
The problem with previews, in my experience, is not that reporters are afraid to be critical in them. Kotaku's writers are never afraid to be honest. The problem is that they're so tightly controlled and presented that the game you see at preview events is often totally different than the game you buy for $60.
 

PaulLFC

Member
The hunt for page-clicks mentality is perfectly exemplified by Eurogamer, ironically enough.

No other site I can think of has used the full flamebait playbook so long and as well as EG has, I think the only thing that gave them pause was when their forums got so toxic with XBox and PS3 fanboys mudslinging noone else got a look in, and as a result traffic fell off a cliff when they got out the banhammer.

One other thing, let noone be under the assumption that Stuart Campbell doesn't also have an well established agenda in all this. The guy has been holding a grudge against a lot of people since he effectively got blacklisted by most of the UK press way back when. He likes to play the "man of the people" card (remember Fairplay?), but you simply cannot ignore his history in the business and factor that in to his perspective.

The point I'm getting at, is that this is an extremely grubby affair that no doubt is informed by personal as well as business motivations.
I'd be interested in knowing more about this. I'm sure he used to, and maybe still does, write for Retro Gamer, and I know he wrote for other publications before them as well. That's about as far as my knowledge of him goes, to be honest.
 

Dennis

Banned
The problem with previews, in my experience, is not that reporters are afraid to be critical in them. Kotaku's writers are never afraid to be honest. The problem is that they're so tightly controlled and presented that the game you see at preview events is often totally different than the game you buy for $60.

You should tell your readers exactly how controlled the presentation of the game was every time you write a preview then.

Let the reader see what the conditions were like and let them judge if they can take the preview seriously.
 

jschreier

Member
You should tell your readers exactly how controlled the presentation of the game was every time you write a preview then.

Let the reader see what the conditions were like and let them judge if they can take the preview seriously.

Not a bad idea. I think Stephen's done some stuff like that. Usually it's not all that interesting ("well, I was in a big room with lots of flashy lights and other reporters and I took a water bottle and a roast beef sandwich and PR stood next to me as I played"), but disclosure is never a bad thing.
 

8bit

Knows the Score
So, she has been shilling Tomb Raider since 2008!?

No no, she's clearly just a very big fan who is somehow capable of communicating in her capacity as a fan with one of the biggest PR companies in the UK which represents the publisher of the game of which she is only a very big fan of.
 

notworksafe

Member
Fun Fact: This recent uproar over non-endemic product placement might put a bullet in some of the bigger, travel-heavy ideas I've pitched. Maybe that's for the best, maybe the tax on our credibility would be too high. But with the amount of money I wanted to spend shipping the team around the continent and putting on shows it'd be the sort of thing that would need a sponsor, like some sort of "and after the show let's meet up in the Fast Food Restaurant #3 or Big But Failing Tech Retailer #7 Parking Lot" sort of public appearance thing. It's, admittedly, not a great option, but at least it's cleaner than going around and doing verbal mentions of actual games. On top of that, I think going out and filming a world tour kind of thing would be fun.
If the choice is between having a meetup at the local Burger King or not having a GB World Tour, I'll take the World Tour every time. :eek:
 
Not a bad idea. I think Stephen's done some stuff like that. Usually it's not all that interesting ("well, I was in a big room with lots of flashy lights and other reporters and I took a water bottle and a roast beef sandwich and PR stood next to me as I played"), but disclosure is never a bad thing.

"This loud gaudy music really makes this stealth game preview pretty meaningless."
 

Victrix

*beard*
The problem with previews, in my experience, is not that reporters are afraid to be critical in them. Kotaku's writers are never afraid to be honest. The problem is that they're so tightly controlled and presented that the game you see at preview events is often totally different than the game you buy for $60.

Sure, which is why they should be clearly labelled as such.

I'm not actually sure if some readers believe that previews come from some sort of secret insider access to the developer or not, but uh... they're not.

Well, I take that back. They're not for the big games. Again, for the little guys, that sort of access is entirely possible, and I'd like to see more of it.

Where's the interview with the Crawl dev team, or the author of Brogue or DoomRL given the popularity of roguelike elements in gaming? :O

But yeah, that's a tangent - full disclosure leaves it up to the reader to decide how tainted the information is, and leaves the writers hands significantly cleaner than if the information shows up distorted months later in the lattest TWITTERPOCALYPSE.
 

Lancehead

Member
The problem with previews, in my experience, is not that reporters are afraid to be critical in them. Kotaku's writers are never afraid to be honest. The problem is that they're so tightly controlled and presented that the game you see at preview events is often totally different than the game you buy for $60.

But they don't actually prevent you from seeing the preview content, do they? If so, why does it matter that it'll end up totally different in the released game? When I say criticise previews, I mean just that. Criticise what you see, instead of worrying it might be different in the final game. Because you have reviews for that purpose.
 

Zeliard

Member
But they don't actually prevent you from seeing the preview content, do they? If so, why does it matter that it'll end up totally different in the released game? When I say criticise previews, I mean just that. Criticise what you see, instead of worrying it might be different in the final game. Because you have reviews for that purpose.

One of the things I liked about 1UP and EGM was their propensity to be critical in a preview when previews are largely fawning at other places.
 

Sojgat

Member
Not a bad idea. I think Stephen's done some stuff like that. Usually it's not all that interesting ("well, I was in a big room with lots of flashy lights and other reporters and I took a water bottle and a roast beef sandwich and PR stood next to me as I played"), but disclosure is never a bad thing.

Should this be the standard, so that sites qualify everything they preview?
 

Coxy

Member
Has anyone posted Stu Campbell's latest article on this yet?: http://wosland.podgamer.com/the-players-and-the-game/

Lauren's LinkedIn profile (http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/wainwrightli.htm) shows that she worked for Barrington Harvey as a junior publicist for 4 months in 2010. Barrington Harvey is one of the biggies in videogames PR in the UK, and I'm wondering whether this is the reason she deleted her profile.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=342868

Barrington Harvey are the firm that represented eidos in a scandal of forcing reviewers to give tomb raider good reviews

edit: damn gaf, shoulda refreshed while researching my post I guess
 

Victrix

*beard*
But they don't actually prevent you from seeing the preview content, do they? If so, why does it matter that it'll end up totally different in the released game? When I say criticise previews, I mean just that. Criticise what you see, instead of worrying it might be different in the final game. Because you have reviews for that purpose.

If a press preview is a carefully cut build made specifically for that event, polished and given additional QA, with a very specifically chosen section of the game that shows of the key features of that title in the best possible light, it's (gently, softly, carefully) misrepresenting both the current state of the game, and potentially, the trajectory of the game for release.

A glowing preview generates hype. A buggy broken build that crashes every ten minutes and doesn't show off the

  • Key
  • Features

less so, and can start negative buzz instead.

Not that every dev has the resources or time to do it to quite that extent, nor are the people attending these events so dumb they can't draw obvious conclusions based on what they're playing (doctored or no), but still, point stands - controlled access is just that.
 
I don't think it's a real big deal either, but ideally these things would be provided to the journalist/critic by their employer, not the console manufacturer.

Well, at worst it's a bribe, at the least it is going to bear some influence on the journalist's thinking. You usually don't bite the hand that feeds you. MS should not be giving free consoles or XBL Gold to journalists. That should be provided by the publisher they are writing for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom