Support NeoGAF

[conman]

Right, and when people here are constantly bringing up Giant Bomb and Rock Paper Shotgun while simultaneously ignoring all the great articles that you might find on Kotaku or Joystiq or Polygon or 1up or GameSpot or Eurogamer or wherever else, you can perhaps see why GAF leaves a bad taste in a lot of reporters' mouths.

It's not anyone's job here to be liked. And, frankly, it shouldn't be yours either. Your boss even dropped by to post a truly wonderful anecdote about one of his journalism professors. The upshot of that story was that a good journalist shouldn't have friends--meaning journalists are doing their jobs well when the people they write about don't like them. Readers, on the other hand, shouldn't be treated like enemies. Many journalists have it ass backwards at the moment.

It was an important lesson that Stephen's professor tried to teach him. I hope that he brought it up because this thread reminded him of that lesson.

Right, but I'm not talking about this thread. I'm talking about a hypothetical "watchdog" thread that might be ignored by the press for various reasons, including a couple of the points I've brought up.

All I can say is that you clearly don't read GAF as much as you think you do. It's a forum filled with threads that include content from/by/about journalists just like you. And contrary to your belief--and contrary to the belief of many others in the press--the vast majority of those threads are, wait for it...

positive.

 

[EternalGamer]

Oh, I don't disagree. But when people get involved with the sort of mob justice that GAF has earned a reputation for, it just leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouths. All I'm saying is, if folks do put together a watchdog thread (which would be great!), some reason, rationality, calmness, and positivity would go miles further than the "lol games 'journalism'" we see so much of these days.

Well, it is the internet. Those drive by comments are going to happen. That doesn't dismiss the good stuff.

However, I do reserve the right to say the "good stuff" can be satire, memes, jpegs etc. You can have smart critical responses in a lot of ways. I used to abhor that stuff, but honestly GAF is the site that kind of changed my mind. I realize the soundbyte culture we are in and sometimes you have to fight in a "soundbyte" way to be heard. Those .jpegs can be powerful shit, rhetorically speaking.

 

[DCharlie]

why GAF leaves a bad taste in a lot of reporters' mouths

there's no doubting their are some unsavoury elements with in GAF and there's some , lets say, "over enthusiastic" responses to some events but this whole Press thing is becoming, day on day, an absolute snowball of stupidity from the Press side.

Now - by the same token that not everyone on GAF is some sociopathic rage king, not everyone in the gaming media is an on the take, conflicted, press regurgitator.

With the recent Polygon thing, i dunno - you'd THINK someone would just step back for a little while but it seems, day on day, that the press is trying to one up each other in a "shoot ourselves in the foot" stakes.

 

[Jintor]

I wanted to make some kind of comment about messageboard forums being both conversation and platform; editorial sites can hide/not show the reasoning that they took to come to their conclusions, and thus present an endpoint article that seems solid, straightforward, considered. But GAF and boards like it are both in-progress and end-product; there is no 'final article' which represents a solidified, considered consensus. You see the crazies and the scaffolding and the people who are still considering evidence or gathering it. That must have something to do with perception; because you're not looking at a completed, thought-out idea (or even a stop-gap that appears like it); you're seeing a thousand voices at once shouting at each other.

 

[EternalGamer]

I wanted to make some kind of comment about messageboard forums being both conversation and platform; editorial sites can hide/not show the reasoning that they took to come to their conclusions, and thus present an endpoint article that seems solid, straightforward, considered. But GAF and boards like it are both in-progress and end-product; there is no 'final article' which represents a solidified, considered consensus. You see the crazies and the scaffolding and the people who are still considering evidence or gathering it. That must have something to do with perception; because you're not looking at a completed, thought-out idea (or even a stop-gap that appears like it); you're seeing a thousand voices at once shouting at each other.

This is an excellent point. How many writers when they are composing something write a sentence or just think something to themselves that they wish they could write and then go on to come to a more "reasoned" conclusion? Or how many come to a conclusion and publish an article and then later think about problems with it and second guess themselves but the article stands?

Forums are fluid. That is not necessarily a weakness.

 

[Jake Tower]

Oh, I don't disagree. But when people get involved with the sort of mob justice that GAF has earned a reputation for, it just leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouths.

Maybe it means, in journalistic terms, GAF is doing it's job.

By the way, in terms of PR/Media relationship, or even GAF's relationship to games media, I think this scene from Almost Famous is relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzY2pWrXB_0

 

[EternalGamer]

there's no doubting their are some unsavoury elements with in GAF and there's some , lets say, "over enthusiastic" responses to some events but this whole Press thing is becoming, day on day, an absolute snowball of stupidity from the Press side.

Now - by the same token that not everyone on GAF is some sociopathic rage king, not everyone in the gaming media is an on the take, conflicted, press regurgitator.

With the recent Polygon thing, i dunno - you'd THINK someone would just step back for a little while but it seems, day on day, that the press is trying to one up each other in a "shoot ourselves in the foot" stakes.

They way I view a lot of those drive by comments is as a "vote." Those posters may not be deeply considering the issue and the way they frame their response, but they ARE giving you a snap shot of their general attitude. And if a lot of their general attitude is "fuck _____" then maybe "_____" needs to think about that.

 

[Corto]

Jason, a thread on GAF with a standard of good practices would be the laughing stock of all the journalists outside of this board. "Who are those lunatics to tell us how to do our job?" "Who do they think they are?" etc etc

The good examples of articles get dedicated threads here from members that read those sites or even moderators in some cases. There's no need to create a mega thread with a repository of good examples.

You (Press) should be the ones to meet and discuss standardized guidelines of good practice. It's not the job of your readership to impose you good practice guidelines or act like your PR helping broadcasting and publicizing good examples of your work. .

What happened with Polygon was a perfect storm. But I can't believe still, that people that work for a living through media/internet are so illiterate concerning how to react to negative feedback on the medium. Polygon could have dealt much better with that misstep. Issued an apology for publishing a direct press release without proper identifying it as such. Delete, edit, republish. And never, ever, ever, delete user comments, as long as they don't contain offensive content. There would be still people complaining, and mocking, and I'm pretty sure I would be one of them (on the benign mocking side), but they would earn more respect.

 

[jschreier]

It's not anyone's job here to be liked. And, frankly, it shouldn't be yours either. Your boss even dropped by to post a truly wonderful anecdote about one of his journalism professors. The upshot of that story was that a good journalist shouldn't have friends--meaning journalists are doing their jobs well when the people they write about don't like them. Readers, on the other hand, shouldn't be treated like enemies.

It was an important lesson that Stephen's professor tried to teach him. I hope that he brought it up because this thread reminded him of that lesson.

All I can say is that you clearly don't read GAF as much as you think you do. It's a forum filled with threads that include content from/by/about journalists just like you. And contrary to your belief--and contrary to the belief of many others in the press--the vast majority of those threads are, wait for it...

positive.

People want to be liked. I want to be liked. Maybe a journalist should ideally try to repress that instinct (at least according to one professor), but it's unrealistic to expect me to stop being a human being because of my job. I, like just about every writer I can think of, enjoy the positive validation of seeing people enjoy something I've written, or watching lots of people share a story I'm proud of. And like most human beings, I don't enjoy seeing people trash me on the Internet, especially when I don't think it's justified.

Maybe it's wrong of me, but I think it's human nature to want to listen more to people who are nice, not nasty. I am far more inclined to accept criticism from a colleague or reader who messages me privately and politely than from someone who screams about it and publicly embarrasses on Twitter. I might begrudgingly listen to the latter person, but I'll probably lose a lot of respect for them. I probably won't want to listen to them much in the future. Especially if they trash me for undeserved reasons.

Same sort of thing applies to GAF. Don't you think some reasonable discussion (like this one!) would make reporters more inclined to hear out your points? You guys are acting like there are two sides here: GAF, who know everything about journalistic ethics and what gaming journalists are doing wrong; and the press, who all need to get better at their jobs and listen to GAF's criticism if they want to call themselves journalists. Reality is a lot less black and white.

My job is to serve readers, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to everything that every reader says. And I certainly find it harder to listen to the nasty ones.

Of course you guys can approach discussions however you want, and I don't blame you for being angry about incidents like this Wainwright situation. It's understandable that you guys are feeling betrayed. How many other reporters are working for gaming companies on the side? How many other reporters are entering publisher-run contests for personal gain? Gamers deserve to know, and they deserve better than that. But if you want to help inspire change, some ways are more effective than others. The "lol game journalism" approach is just insulting and immature.

As for your last point: you're right. Every day I see threads about Kotaku articles. Some about stories or columns I wrote or news I broke. Yet the people here seem to dislike Kotaku. It makes no sense!

 

[EternalGamer]

Maybe it means, in journalistic terms, GAF is doing it's job.

By the way, in terms of PR/Media relationship, or even GAF's relationship to games media, I think this scene from Almost Famous is relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzY2pWrXB_0

A completely and totally relevant clip. I love that film. Haven't watched it in a number of years. It is probably among my top five favorite films of all time along with Network, Annie Hall, and La Dolce Vita.

 

[jschreier]

I wanted to make some kind of comment about messageboard forums being both conversation and platform; editorial sites can hide/not show the reasoning that they took to come to their conclusions, and thus present an endpoint article that seems solid, straightforward, considered. But GAF and boards like it are both in-progress and end-product; there is no 'final article' which represents a solidified, considered consensus. You see the crazies and the scaffolding and the people who are still considering evidence or gathering it. That must have something to do with perception; because you're not looking at a completed, thought-out idea (or even a stop-gap that appears like it); you're seeing a thousand voices at once shouting at each other.

Funny enough, you are describing exactly how Nick Denton envisions his websites.

Gawker's down so I can't link to the mission statement he posted a few weeks ago, but here's an excerpt I just found:

Gawker Media begins with a story. I was a newspaper reporter for the Financial Times. It offered unrivalled access to newsmakers in politics and business and some of the smartest colleagues one could find in media. And yet the most compelling anecdotes and opinions that were shared privately — over a drink after deadline — so rarely made it to the page the next morning.

From the foundation ten years ago, Gawker and its sibling titles were intended to give readers a direct connection to writers — and through them a deeper understanding of events and the way the world works. That question asked over a drink by one reporter to another — so what really happened? — is the impetus for all the work we do.

 

[jschreier]

Jason, a thread on GAF with a standard of good practices would be the laughing stock of all the journalists outside of this board. "Who are those lunatics to tell us how to do our job?" "Who do they think they are?" etc etc

The good examples of articles get dedicated threads here from members that read those sites or even moderators in some cases. There's no need to create a mega thread with a repository of good examples.

You (Press) should be the ones to meet and discuss standardized guidelines of good practice. It's not the job of your readership to impose you good practice guidelines or act like your PR helping broadcasting and publicizing good examples of your work. .

What happened with Polygon was a perfect storm. But I can't believe still, that people that work for a living through media/internet are so illiterate concerning how to react to negative feedback on the medium. Polygon could have dealt much better with that misstep. Issued an apology for publishing a direct press release without proper identifying it as such. Delete, edit, republish. And never, ever, ever, delete user comments, as long as they don't contain offensive content. There would be still people complaining, and mocking, and I'm pretty sure I would be one of them (on the benign mocking side), but they would earn more respect.

Honest question: do you think we at Kotaku should be trying to convince other reporters/websites/publications to adopt the same ethical standards as us, or do you think we should just be trying to make our website the best it can be?

 

[PsychoSoldier]

I will say, for the most part, that a great deal of hate for Kotaku has to do with its history and not with its' present state. Fairly or unfairly, it has had a bad reputation here and elsewhere for a great while, and it will take a while to change, if it will change.

Ultimately, all we are here at GAF is a bunch of dudes and dudettes discussing various and sundry things. People like to talk about us as if we were a hive mind or a mob but in a community this large there are going to be all sorts. I doubt any majority opinion would survive here for too long if it's not at least somewhat reasonable. There are too many people who would be willing to call bullshit otherwise.

 

[EternalGamer]

From the foundation ten years ago, Gawker and its sibling titles were intended to give readers a direct connection to writers — and through them a deeper understanding of events and the way the world works. That question asked over a drink by one reporter to another — so what really happened? — is the impetus for all the work we do

I am sorry if this seems like a cheap shot, but when I read that statement, all I can think of is this:

i don't think it is a pretty important story. I think it is the same tired nonsense that some folks love to carry on endlessly about.

What if Totilo gave that response to people at the bar?

 

[Lancehead]

Honest question: do you think we at Kotaku should be trying to convince other reporters/websites/publications to adopt the same ethical standards as us, or do you think we should just be trying to make our website the best it can be?

I doubt you can do that now with specified criticism. Which is why I said perhaps games press should have a baseline code of ethics which facilitates such criticism.

How you go about formulating that code is a difficult question to answer, however.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

That question asked over a drink by one reporter to another — so what really happened? — is the impetus for all the work we do.

"I don't know, I was too drunk from last night's pr party"

 

[Coxy]

Honest question: do you think we at Kotaku should be trying to convince other reporters/websites/publications to adopt the same ethical standards as us, or do you think we should just be trying to make our website the best it can be?

why does it have to be either or? cant you try to be good and at the same time be willing to go "hey guys, not cool"

 

[shintoki]

Oh, I don't disagree. But when people get involved with the sort of mob justice that GAF has earned a reputation for, it just leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouths. All I'm saying is, if folks do put together a watchdog thread (which would be great!), some reason, rationality, calmness, and positivity would go miles further than the "lol games 'journalism'" we see so much of these days.

The mob justice seems to be calling people out on the shit they post. Where they can't delete comments from.

 

[jschreier]

I am sorry if this seems like a cheap shot, but when I read that statement, all I can think of is this:



What if Totilo gave that response to people at the bar?

To quote Stephen from the comments at Penny Arcade:

I do regret the dismissive tone of that comment Ben quoted. Calling it not very important was a miscue because, a) the incident in and of itself was interesting and should have been an item on our site and b) the larger issues of distrust of the games press that have flared up again around this certainly are important. Giving a damn about whether the press can be trusted is always important, and I didn't mean to belittle anyone's concerns about that.

 

[EternalGamer]

To quote Stephen from the comments at Penny Arcade:

Great. Progress. That means the conversation is working.

 

[EternalGamer]

why does it have to be either or? cant you try to be good and at the same time be willing to go "hey guys, not cool"

Agreed.

 

[Corto]

Honest question: do you think we at Kotaku should be trying to convince other reporters/websites/publications to adopt the same ethical standards as us, or do you think we should just be trying to make our website the best it can be?

In Europe is pretty normal the existence of professional associations (doctors, journalists, lawyers, engineers, architects, nurses. etc) that ensure that its members abide by the good practices of that occupation. It's a way to legitimize that profession in the eyes of the public. Of course that they can be perversions to the system, but I think it is indeed a good system to auto regulate your members. I am a member of one due to my profession.

It's the best way to deal with the hacks, they are the ones that are damaging your image. It's you that should deal with them mercilessly. To your own good.

edit: also, I can assure you (and you probably know it already) that your participation in this thread is indeed changing the perception people here on GAF have of Kotaku and of you more specifically. And this coming from a first day that was pretty much antagonistic.

 

[Shinta]

Honest question: do you think we at Kotaku should be trying to convince other reporters/websites/publications to adopt the same ethical standards as us, or do you think we should just be trying to make our website the best it can be?

I just pretend that the question is about gender issues and sexism instead of journalistic practices, and then the answer becomes clear. You guys not only kept that gender stories flowing, but even invited on a lot of Border House writers who were directly criticizing Kotaku's ethical standards in regards to gender to do guest stories. Then you hired a few of them.

At the same time, I get that it can feel weird to criticize other sites for things they do. That's part of what Polygon did that messed up their unveiling so much. It still looks to everyone here like most places have no appetite for this topic because they're all involved on some level.

I don't think you guys had to actually criticize anyone else to write about the story though. Sterling at Destructoid did a decent job of pointing out what happened, and launching into some introspection about his role in the gaming press. That's all that was needed really.

 

[Coxy]

carry on the great conversation guys, I just dunno where else to post this right now

 

[Grecco]

Honest question: do you think we at Kotaku should be trying to convince other reporters/websites/publications to adopt the same ethical standards as us, or do you think we should just be trying to make our website the best it can be?

both

 

[jschreier]

In Europe is pretty normal the existence of professional associations (doctors, journalists, lawyers, engineers, architects, nurses. etc) that ensure that its members abide by the good practices of that occupation. It's a way to legitimize that profession in the eyes of the public. Of course that they can be perversions to the system, but I think it is indeed a good system to auto regulate your members. I am a member of one due to my profession.

It's the best way to deal with the hacks, they are the ones that are damaging your image. It's you that should deal with them mercilessly. To your own good.

edit: also, I can assure you (and you probably know it already) that your participation in this thread is indeed changing the perception people here on GAF have of Kotaku and of you more specifically. And this coming from a first day that was much more antagonistic.

I think the "we do this job better than you" angle is not a good way to get people to change their ways. Just like the "I know how you should do your job better than you do" is not a good way to get people to change their ways.

There is also a drastic difference in the way US press approaches journalism vs the way UK press approaches it, for various reasons.

But yeah, I don't know. Maybe there should be a game reporters' union or unified code of ethics or something like that. People have tried to get things like that together. It never seems to work. Maybe it will one day!

 

[conman]

People want to be liked. I want to be liked. Maybe a journalist should ideally try to repress that instinct (at least according to one professor), but it's unrealistic to expect me to stop being a human being because of my job. I, like just about every writer I can think of, enjoy the positive validation of seeing people enjoy something I've written, or watching lots of people share a story I'm proud of. And like most human beings, I don't enjoy seeing people trash me on the Internet, especially when I don't think it's justified.

The human part sucks. But that's writing. I'm not sure how long you've been at this gig, but as someone who's been writing professionally for over a decade--correction, almost two decades. ach!--I can say that trying to be liked through your writing is a losing proposition. Be liked in your personal life. Don't try to make friends by writing. The readers will come. Respect them, and they'll respect you. The ones who don't can go to hell.

You guys are acting like there are two sides here: GAF, who know everything about journalistic ethics and what gaming journalists are doing wrong; and the press, who all need to get better at their jobs and listen to GAF's criticism if they want to call themselves journalists. Reality is a lot less black and white.

You don't think that journalists such as yourself are just as guilty of reductive thinking?

But if you want to help inspire change, some ways are more effective than others. The "lol game journalism" approach is just insulting and immature.

This thread has been remarkable in that it's (mostly) avoided the "lol game journalism" attitude you're talking about.

And to be honest, whenever I've seen that--for as long as I've been a posting member--I always point out that it's a cop out. It's a cop out for us. And it's a cop out for journalists. It means we won't hold you to any standards because we think you're incapable. And when journalists say they're "not journalists," it means that you're looking for an ethical escape route. I've never been comfortable with that, and I've made that opinion known in these forums for years. But as others have said, this is a huge community made of a million different fluctuating voices.

As for your last point: you're right. Every day I see threads about Kotaku articles. Some about stories or columns I wrote or news I broke. Yet the people here seem to dislike Kotaku. It makes no sense!

It's the fluff. Plain and simple. It turns many people off, even from the quality pieces. But you'll also find plenty of people here who read your site anyway. Haters gonna hate, right? BTW I just read Stephen's review of AC3 and loved it.

 

[jschreier]

I just pretend that the question is about gender issues and sexism instead of journalistic practices, and then the answer becomes clear. You guys not only kept that gender stories flowing, but even invited on a lot of Border House writers who were directly criticizing Kotaku's ethical standards in regards to gender to do guest stories. Then you hired a few of them.

At the same time, I get that it can feel weird to criticize other sites for things they do. That's part of what Polygon did that messed up their unveiling so much. It still looks to everyone here like most places have no appetite for this topic because they're all involved on some level.

I don't think you guys had to actually criticize anyone else to write about the story though. Sterling at Destructoid did a decent job of pointing out what happened, and launching into some introspection about his role in the gaming press. That's all that was needed really.

Very good points, Shinta. Thanks for not mentioning Final Fantasy XIII!

The gender issues thing is a good comparison. That has been a taboo subject for a long time. We cover it more than most major websites, and I think we cover it well, from a broad variety of perspectives. Maybe we should be looking at journalistic ethics in a similar way. I really don't know. It's easy to get jaded because these discussions seem to repeat themselves so often.

 

[EternalGamer]

I think the "we do this job better than you" angle is not a good way to get people to change their ways. Just like the "I know how you should do your job better than you do" is not a good way to get people to change their ways.

There is also a drastic difference in the way US press approaches journalism vs the way UK press approaches it, for various reasons.

But yeah, I don't know. Maybe there should be a game reporters' union or unified code of ethics or something like that. People have tried to get things like that together. It never seems to work. Maybe it will one day!

We do a better job than you is not the same as "You work for a company you are reporting on" or "Halo pizza, really?"

Somebody should be doing that stuff. That is the raison d'etre of this thread.

 

[grimshawish]

carry on the great conversation guys, I just dunno where else to post this right now

I do think Polygon thought if they pretended to C&P a press release from another site (which is just as bad) they could get away with it, but the idea they sat refreshing sites for Pizza Hut offers is ridiculous.

Free pizzas or a Polygon the Documentary 2 I wonder.

 

[Coxy]

Jim Sterling ‏@JimSterling

Well fuck, must've joined GAF years ago, but I sure as shit can't remember the login now.

apparantly Jim Sterling would like to post, is there a mod that can make this happen?

 

[Jintor]

As for your last point: you're right. Every day I see threads about Kotaku articles. Some about stories or columns I wrote or news I broke. Yet the people here seem to dislike Kotaku. It makes no sense!

The issue here is the overall message that a site presents itself as. I definitely see quality journalism from Kotaku, Polygon et al; but I also see mounds, mounds, of useless [to me; I can't speak for everybody] dreck being regurgitated and spewed forth, PR releases, look at this funny youtube video, entire news articles dedicated to what is essentially a friend forwarding me a link. It's mixed in with everything and it simply overwhelms the considered work in quantity. It may be that gaming journalism simply isn't a large or profitable enough field to solely do long-form pieces; but that's why Kotaku is viewed as it is.

To put it another way, I like Kotaku once you start ignoring about 70% of its content.

 

[EternalGamer]

I do think Polygon thought if they pretended to C&P a press release from another site (which is just as bad) they could get away with it, but the idea they sat refreshing sites for Pizza Hut offers is ridiculous.

Free pizzas or a Polygon the Documentary 2 I wonder.

The crazy part to me was that Chris Plante claimed that story went through some sort of committe or review process of some sort and they all went "Yep, should be on our site." Maybe he is exagerating on their process but the comic image in my head when he said that was priceless.

Nevertheless, it is water under the bridge between games media and audience at this point.

 

[Shinta]

Very good points, Shinta. Thanks for not mentioning Final Fantasy XIII!

hehe, the night is still young ...

 

[HoosTrax]

It's the fluff. Plain and simple. It turns many people off, even from the quality pieces. But you'll also find plenty of people here who read your site anyway. Haters gonna hate, right? BTW I just read Stephen's review of AC3 and loved it.

Guilty as charged. The fluff pieces. Articles about cosplay, Dragon Quest meat buns, fast food, junk food (don't we, as gamers, get a bad enough rap for this sort of thing? perpetuate it moar please...). It all leads to a very low brow feel to Kotaku that's easy to have a superiority complex over. Kind of like malt liquor, professional wrestling, and reality TV.

 

[EternalGamer]

The issue here is the overall message that a site presents itself as. I definitely see quality journalism from Kotaku, Polygon et al; but I also see mounds, mounds, of useless [to me; I can't speak for everybody] dreck being regurgitated and spewed forth, PR releases, look at this funny youtube video, entire news articles dedicated to what is essentially a friend forwarding me a link. It's mixed in with everything and it simply overwhelms the considered work in quantity. It may be that gaming journalism simply isn't a large or profitable enough field to solely do long-form pieces; but that's why Kotaku is viewed as it is.

To put it another way, I like Kotaku once you start ignoring about 70% of its content.

If you have a friend that is vapid 80% of the time but says something worthwhile 20% of the time, how do you assess them overall?

The argument of quantity over quality is bullshit. Especially in the era we live in of information overload. This was one of the best points the Brainy Gamer host made in his podcast where he interviewed Totilo. Totilo's response was not in any way satisfactory.

Great podcast, btw. Worth a listen:

http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2012/04/brainy-gamer-podcast-episode-36.html

 

[Jintor]

If you have a friend that is vapid 80% of the time but says something worthwhile 20% of the time, how do you assess them overall?

Not on a law of mathematics, dude.

 

[EternalGamer]

Not on a law of mathematics, dude.

Fair enough. And actually I doubt such a person even exists. But that is what media outlets often are.

 

[jschreier]

Kotaku readers want a lot of content! It's our job to give it to them. I don't think that'll ever change. We *are* always trying to post more interesting things, and avoid the sort of filler press release rewrites that we've done in the past, but much in the way that I'm sure none of you are interested by every single NeoGAF thread, there's no way to get every single person interested in every single Kotaku article. I don't consider funny videos or crazy pictures or even insane stories about french fries to be "filler," but I get where you guys are coming from.

 

[TheSeks]

People want to be liked. I want to be liked. Maybe a journalist should ideally try to repress that instinct (at least according to one professor), but it's unrealistic to expect me to stop being a human being because of my job. I, like just about every writer I can think of, enjoy the positive validation of seeing people enjoy something I've written, or watching lots of people share a story I'm proud of. And like most human beings, I don't enjoy seeing people trash me on the Internet, especially when I don't think it's justified.

No offense, but that's the problem. You can be liked, but at the same time you need to call bullshit on PR people. You need to sit the "Peter Moores" of the industry down like Shoe did and go "why the hell is your console breaking 1 year after launch and the number of reports about this is increasing by the day?"

"...Well, you know things, they break..."

"...Yeah, but they shouldn't be breaking within the first five years, surely?"

Questions like that. Make the subject sweat. It may piss them off, but you're doing your job of investigating/reporting to the masses why the company heads/companies are screwing them in terms of hardware/software/etc. practices.

That isn't to say you can't be buddy buddy with some people in PR, but if you're buddy buddy with those people you need to sit yourself out of those interview/situations due to conflict in interest.

The "lol game journalism" approach is just insulting and immature.

Sure, but it's just as insulting and immature that the journalists can't listen to why GAF/public at large are mocking them. Circle of jerks and all that?

As for your last point: you're right. Every day I see threads about Kotaku articles. Some about stories or columns I wrote or news I broke. Yet the people here seem to dislike Kotaku. It makes no sense!

IIRC, you've come into Kotaku after... 7-8 years of Brian Crecente or however the fuck you spell his name running the site into the ground/making it a joke. My distaste for Kotaku started in 2004 (and ironically enough Joystiq started to go that route shortly after) because 1) they aren't providing too many interesting articles and 2) most of the articles they do provide are either "this is news?" (BUT WE'RE A BLOG!) or "Brian Crecente blogs about his kid" (or whoever the hell Kotaku's owner at the time was) which isn't news and is more a personal blog thing, not a game blog/"journalism" thing.

So you're inheriting a LOT years of distaste and expecting people to let that go is slightly foolish and a fools errand, dude. You want to change my opinion? You have to change yourself and the site itself to where the content that does get posted on GAF is less "LOL KOTAKU" and more "hey, that's actually a good article, there's more of this from Kotaku?"

It can happen but it takes time and effort. Every post you've posted in here so far (and other threads that mention Kotaku) is paraphrasing "Y U GUYZ NOT LYKE US!? D: WE LYKE US! !!!!!" and that's missing the forest for the trees. We've told you why we don't like it (too much "non-news"/unboxing/PR articles) and yet you go "well, that's what readers want!" Maybe that's Kotaku's readers. But that isn't the "GAF hivemind" and so you're not going to convenience us that those articles are good. What would would be more insightful articles like the Silicon Knight's article. But the problem is (and this has been stated by other journalists on Twitter) that PR/dev heads will cockblock your inquires and that dovetails into the "LOL GAMES JOURNALISM" problem. Because you aren't getting these insightful articles unless the entire industry changes and creates a paradigm shift in the industry to where the industry goes "no, fuck you" and stops black-listing/making enemies (sup, Raob and other journalists in the past blowing the whistle), stops having greased palms (sup, 3DS at GiantBomb entry, sup Ass Creed 3 flag and PR letter, sup free games...), and actually buckles down and levels up to the level of normal journalists.

 

[Stuart444]

The "lol game journalism" approach is just insulting and immature.

On this point, can I just say while that's true, so is the "Entitled" angle a LOT of 'game journalists' used during the Mass Effect 3 incident. It goes both way there.

 

[accathoidprotoss]

edit

 

[EternalGamer]

On this point, can I just say while that's true, so is the "Entitled" angle a LOT of 'game journalists' used during the Mass Effect 3 incident. It goes both way there.

Absolutely.

 

[Victrix]

Another thing is you can't expect immediate response.

You're turning the rudder, not (ha!) pushing left on the dpad. Or maybe website perception is just a really shittily programmed game.

Anyway, tortured analogy aside, point is if you keep doing good articles, public off the cuff snap responses will change from 'lol kotaku' to 'it's not lol kotaku anymore did, did you read <x, y and z>?'

There's no point in wasting any of your brain power over it. Either you're doing good work that will be seen and acknowledged as such, or you're not.

And for the umpteenth time, if your site is popular already, continues to be so, and draws in ever more readers, you're doing something right anyway, whatever anyone here may think of you or the site.

And I can't stop laughing at that Polygon fuckup. How could they do that with this floating around in the online space right now.

Seriously. Best unintentionally funny thread in ages. Now I've got a Halo Pizza to eat.

 

[EternalGamer]

Another thing is you can't expect immediate response.

You're turning the rudder, not (ha!) pushing left on the dpad. Or maybe website perception is just a really shittily programmed game.

Anyway, tortured analogy aside, point is if you keep doing good articles, public off the cuff snap responses will change from 'lol kotaku' to 'it's not lol kotaku anymore did, did you read <x, y and z>?'

There's no point in wasting any of your brain power over it. Either you're doing good work that will be seen and acknowledged as such, or you're not.

And for the umpteenth time, if your site is popular already, continues to be so, and draws in ever more readers, you're doing something right anyway, whatever anyone here may think of you or the site.

And I can't stop laughing at that Polygon fuckup. How could they do that with this floating around in the online space right now.

Seriously. Best unintentionally funny thread in ages. Now I've got a Halo Pizza to eat.

TLDR: The discussion is not a QTE.

 

[jschreier]

On this point, can I just say while that's true, so is the "Entitled" angle a LOT of 'game journalists' used during the Mass Effect 3 incident. It goes both way there.

Yeah, there was a bit too much hostility there. I remember tweeting something about people who petitioned for a new ending being entitled. In retrospect, I definitely regret that tweet now. I should have done a better job of respecting peoples' passion.

 

[Stuart444]

Yeah, there was a bit too much hostility there. I remember tweeting something about people who petitioned for a new ending being entitled. In retrospect, I definitely regret that tweet now. I should have done a better job of respecting peoples' passion.

Well I respect that you came out and said that and that in retrospect, you regret it. Many haven't even said anything like that even after the extended cut came out. Good to hear it.

 

[EternalGamer]

Yeah, there was a bit too much hostility there. I remember tweeting something about people who petitioned for a new ending being entitled. In retrospect, I definitely regret that tweet now. I should have done a better job of respecting peoples' passion.

Thanks.

This was part of the discussion earlier in the thread. The fact is that press reviews and plays games in the center of PR hype leading up to release and then we players experience it after the first day or two; in other words, when reality sets in. And when a particular game isn't the brain scorching orgasm it is described as in reviews, a backlash occurs. It happened with Dragon Age 2, Diablo 3, Mass Effect 3 and a number of others.

But rather than taking a look at their own rhetoric and the expectations it set, the games media in general decided to write off criticism as "oh, that's just the internet" or "entitled whiners." It was pretty insulting to see.

I liked everyone one of those games I just sited. But I still thoght none of them warranted the type of crazy praise that was heaped upon them in reviews. That kind of divide is part of the problem.

I am going to take one example because it is fresh on my mind because of the earlier conversation. Arthur Gies said Diablo 3 made Diablo 3 a "footnote in history" and said it set such a high standard for the action RPG genre that it is almost "evil" since no game is likely to match it soon. That is a truck load of hyperbole. Of course that game is not going to meet that kind of expectation. And then, when it doesn't, the games media goes "oh you bunch of whiners"? Really?

 

[jschreier]

Well... http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/03/dragon-age-ii-review/

Not every reviewer felt the same way about all of those games. Just saying.

 

[Barbacoatl]

Preferable to have the reputation of a mob than a corrupt newsletter. At least the interests of one are very clear.