Gaming websites will repost everything anyway, exclusive or not. That's all they're good for.
-
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.
How Nintendo Directs Represent a New Direction and Improvment of Gaming Journalism
- Thread starter Gummb
- Start date
Gaming websites will repost everything anyway, exclusive or not. That's all they're good for.
Nintendo Directs are a great idea for Nintendo and I think a great success so far based on what Nintendo has said, how many people tune in, and how the gaming media has reacted to them.
Nintendo Directs aren't a new form of games journalism they are a way of bypassing the "traditional games media" all together. Based on some of the articles written recently it definitely seems like some journalists feel threatened by Nintendo breaking the traditional method of releasing information thru gaming websites which then gets passed on to consumers.
Its important to remember that one reason Nintendo invented Nintendo Directs in the first place was because of the misinformation about the Wii U iirc. Beyond feeling threatened by Nintendo Directs I hope game journalists are compelled to step their game up as a response and to start acting like actual journalists. They should be critical, not act like fanboys or PR mouthpieces for game publishers, and do some work that is investigative or introspective about the industry as a whole. Maybe they will feel compelled to do so if other companies begin using a Nintendo Direct like format and circumventing the game media's traditional role more often.
Nintendo Directs aren't a new form of games journalism they are a way of bypassing the "traditional games media" all together. Based on some of the articles written recently it definitely seems like some journalists feel threatened by Nintendo breaking the traditional method of releasing information thru gaming websites which then gets passed on to consumers.
Its important to remember that one reason Nintendo invented Nintendo Directs in the first place was because of the misinformation about the Wii U iirc. Beyond feeling threatened by Nintendo Directs I hope game journalists are compelled to step their game up as a response and to start acting like actual journalists. They should be critical, not act like fanboys or PR mouthpieces for game publishers, and do some work that is investigative or introspective about the industry as a whole. Maybe they will feel compelled to do so if other companies begin using a Nintendo Direct like format and circumventing the game media's traditional role more often.
The point is that it is now more up to you to decide whether they are lying/hyping up shit rather than another source of power framing an announcement for you. It also means that we can talk about these products in more varied ways than when a gaming site frames the argument for us.
Again, I'm not saying that this gets rid of bias, but rather it simplifies the system of power. We KNOW Nintendo's opinion is gauged toward Nintendo. However, relying on gaming sites that advertise themselves as giving "facts" and being transparent, etc. is more difficult to negotiate. ND simplifies the process, and we will prosper from its outcome.
Essentially. It's a cheaper version of the press events they used to throw but without the added risk of letting those filthy journalists play their unfinished code and state their opinions on it months before release.
How and in what way? Your comments read as if you did not understand what I am trying to say, so I obviously failed in communicating. Please help me by being more specific.
I don't say that ND are journalism. Please go back.
You are literally describing E3. That's it. You are arguing that the major publishers/consumer have a middle man between them but that isn't true. Various companies have to directly connect with customers, from information being dissipated over Facebook to mailing lists and betas. Nintendo approach is more video directed but the idea isn't new.It's certainly not genius, but it has a direct point that goes beyond what you're arguing. I agree that most news still comes from gaming sites and people go to them for information. I also agree that trade shows are incredibly popular.
However, this concept of a direct video stream of information that is accessible and re-watchable at any time coming from the mouth of the most authoritative person at Nintendo is an incredible change in the way we view videogame media. In the future (omg!!), it could potential change just how popular gaming sites are and trade shows are. We will see.
Bel_Air_Jeff
Banned
This is just like when radiohead released in rainbows....
abstract alien
Member
While I do love ND, I suppose I didn't see it quite like this until you've mentioned it. Well, I saw it like that, but not quite as impactful or important as you put it. I too have always loved seeing announcements as they happen, but I may be underplaying just how strong something like this is. I'm interested in how it will pave the future, if it indeed does.
Nice thread.
I think that is the point(one of them), if I'm understanding it correctly. It isn't journalism, and we still get the news as it happens.
Nice thread.
I think that is the point(one of them), if I'm understanding it correctly. It isn't journalism, and we still get the news as it happens.
This is a very good point. It is representative of how Nintendo has strived to conduct their media relations with the public. Nintendo Directs and engagement through online video and online outlets completely changes the ball game for modern consumers.
Thanks for pointing that out though.
Heh. Causes a small ripple. It's always interesting to live in these times.
i agree that nintendo direct is an informercial. however gaming journalism has degraded itself to informercial plus blogging for years.
I view ND as almost an essential move for them. Mainstream gaming press tend to have a narrow range of ways to post Nintendo news, and as a result they tend to attract very few Nintendo fans. That pretty much sets up a self-sustaining environment, which is fine unless you want Nintendo news that isn't framed almost exclusively in a negative light.
I like watching NDs because there is usually a few interesting reveals. Sometimes a lot of disappointment, sometimes you can tell they are rushed to bring out some news such as this weeks, but its far more transparent than the way the big gaming news sites cover (or dont cover) specific controversial topics affecting other major publishers or platform holders.
I like watching NDs because there is usually a few interesting reveals. Sometimes a lot of disappointment, sometimes you can tell they are rushed to bring out some news such as this weeks, but its far more transparent than the way the big gaming news sites cover (or dont cover) specific controversial topics affecting other major publishers or platform holders.
abstract alien
Member
I'm not sure I would call it an infomercial. I mean, maybe in definition perhaps, but it doesn't carry the connotation that such a term does. At times, especially with the Wii U unboxing, it seems a bit candid. Hell, even Iwata was shuffling through sections at times and messing around with the stand and it went unedited. That part made me feel like it was genuine instead of just "Hey buy our products"
You are correct, I am describing an instance similar to E3, where publishers have more control over their messages.
ND are different in a few critical ways. First, E3 is a trade show that everyone knows about and is actively framing for months in advance. We know a lot of the information that will be coming out before hand and we talk about it endlessly. Second, gaming sites literally have tens of people consuming the media and regurgitating it to us through pre-planned and strategized ways. The framing is nearly immediate. We get "winners" of E3 and "best of E3" among other ways of framing. Third, E3 has a lot of pressure behind it for each publisher and developer in order to appear as the "winner" of E3. This is not constructive, but hurtful for many.
What is so novel about ND is that it takes this concept and renegotiates it into a non-competitive manner. It's literally a single outlet talking directly to its audience in the manner of its choosing. ND is very different than E3.
Precisely. Great response, thank you!
Thank you, and you are correct. I am stating that it presents news without traditional gaming sites framing the experience as if they are trusted sources/transparent unbiased people. In the end, it creates more ways for us to talk about the announcements (at least until game sites play catch-up).
Seeing as nobody will dare do that, for fear of losing advertising revenue and access to preview code, gaming journalism is long dead. And to be honest, I'd rather have my news presented to me by the funny and charismatic Iwata than some ADHD-riddled American manchild with a hard-on for Gears of Duty.
So ND is space world or their conference in the fall. Forgot the name.
It doesn't really change anything. The same media sites that regurgitated whatever Nintendo press releases said now just criticize the video.
The problem is that ND don't have a high propagation level, and only serve the harcore fans. So in the end, the news are still regurgitated by news sites. And realistically I don't see how you're cutting the middle man in the short tetm, they're just too popular especially thanks to that polarizing views on articles, that sells.
Lupin the Third
Member
The OP is saying that gaming websites have long served as a filter and framework for so-called corporate propaganda, which has always existed.
Nintendo Direct disseminates all that information direct to the enthusiasts themselves, skipping the filters and fluff pieces.
It's not that Nintendo has never done this before, but it's obviously been a very successful venue for them to date.
One more thing: Nintendo Power, though a great propaganda vehicle for the big N, was often subverted on Nintendo exclusives in the press back in the SNES/N64 days. Several reveals or announcements were given to other magazines like EGM or GamePro in their heyday that NP would report on later.
If ND continues to be massively successful, I have a hard time envisioning Nintendo wanting to offer the gaming press exclusives any more than they already do.
Nintendo Direct disseminates all that information direct to the enthusiasts themselves, skipping the filters and fluff pieces.
It's not that Nintendo has never done this before, but it's obviously been a very successful venue for them to date.
One more thing: Nintendo Power, though a great propaganda vehicle for the big N, was often subverted on Nintendo exclusives in the press back in the SNES/N64 days. Several reveals or announcements were given to other magazines like EGM or GamePro in their heyday that NP would report on later.
If ND continues to be massively successful, I have a hard time envisioning Nintendo wanting to offer the gaming press exclusives any more than they already do.
that's very clever, but I think it's different in that radiohead was distributing material rather than purely PR media. The material was there to judge and be framed individually by each person who heard the material. The discussion by popular media was probably framed to discuss the unique way they released the album.
Also, I'm going to bed... I spent many hours writing that OP so those who follow it, please help me by doing your best to represent my arguments. I will not be surprised if this topic falls on its face, and that's just find.
Blood Diamonds
Banned
I'm sorry but I laughed so hard at this stupid line.
What the fuck is this shit, dude, we're talking about video games, not some political debate between countries.
BomberMouse
Member
How and in what way? Your comments read as if you did not understand what I am trying to say, so I obviously failed in communicating. Please help me by being more specific.
I understand your point, I just think your argument is flawed.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a media outlet "framing" an article as long as it's marked as an opinion and backed up by facts. Most people take those opinion with a grain of salt anyway.
Even in your utopical case, what will happen when one blogger rises above the rest, gets read by 20mm people a day and the headline is "Is Nintendo doomed?". Nothing has changed. At least by having those big media outlets we get an additional source of information than just your typical press kit. They get early builds and post impressions on those, they get to directly interview the developers with another/no bias. etc.
As Phoenician_Viking noted, at least on the PSBlog you can interact with the developers. Nintendo Direct is PR targeted at the end user instead of the media outlets. You have to be crazy to believe that will lead to better journalism and that the big sites will feel the pressure to make better pieces.
It's nice to have ND as an extra source of information and hear directly from the biased source but it seems to me you are simple afraid of the mass media biasing in a direction you don't agree with and the rest of the world siding with that point of view. It's a legit concern but PR directly to the consumers is not a solution. It's been done way before ND anyway, in the form of official magazines and TV ads. A PR targeted at consumers is an ad.
Your point will only begin to be valid the day we see a ND showing how Batman AC runs way worse on the WiiU compared to the X360 instead of reggie lying about it on TV.
Doctor Decimate
Member
ever watched an E3 conference? maybe one of the company-specific events? because game sites write editorials about those, too. i'm sure you must have felt very smart when you thought you discovered something here, but the reality is that you're only describing how some people wrote some opinions about a video.
IrishNinja
Member
OP i have learned that if you're to make a lengthy opening, it must be filled with gifs (preferably memes) to hope to catch the mob of replies you will get for your subject line only. it's admittedly unfortunate.
in regards to gaming journalism: if this was ever true, it's been quite a while since that point
in regards to gaming journalism: if this was ever true, it's been quite a while since that point
I guess the other point is the matter of trust. Iwata speaks on very specific terms, and measurable ones at that. Either he is lying and the games/hardware never come out, or they do. Given that most of what Nintendo have announced in the past few years have released within a year of announcement, it has been easy to evaluate whether he is honest or not.
You can't say that about game journalists, partly because of questions as to who is manipulating the information - the publishers, the editors, or the writer?
Further, Iwata has apologised for things when they have gone wrong. I can't remember the last time I saw a game journalist apologising for product placement or inaccurate reporting on multiplatform performance issues.
The expectations are different - from games journalists you expect editorialising, are suspicious of motives and influence. With Iwata, you know from day one he wants you to buy his stuff, he tells you what they are selling, how you can buy it and when.
You can't say that about game journalists, partly because of questions as to who is manipulating the information - the publishers, the editors, or the writer?
Further, Iwata has apologised for things when they have gone wrong. I can't remember the last time I saw a game journalist apologising for product placement or inaccurate reporting on multiplatform performance issues.
The expectations are different - from games journalists you expect editorialising, are suspicious of motives and influence. With Iwata, you know from day one he wants you to buy his stuff, he tells you what they are selling, how you can buy it and when.
Saw it this way, too. It doesn't have any big impact now, but the implication is Nintendo can communicate their products directly. We'll never see a direct (heh) result of Directs vs Sales, but the way Nintendo keeps doing it is Nintendo is somewhat happy with the result, without going to the press too.
I don't think the media needs to worry now, though.
Just wanted to say what a well thought out post. I don't necessarily agree with all your conclusions, but I'd rather read that than any of the thread whining or amateur level trolling that's popped up a lot recently.
I think journalism as a whole is moving toward direct sources if for no other reason than to stay relevant with social media. Problem is that's not their strength, their strength is deep analysis and fact checking. Something the gaming press has never done as the gaming world moves so fast all that matters is getting news first (I'd wager an n-gram comparison of the regular press and gaming press with the word "exclusive" would be interesting).
This means the gaming press either has to change to give good quality reasoned analysis or die a death of irrelevance as forums, twitter and direct developer communication destroy first mover advantage.
I think journalism as a whole is moving toward direct sources if for no other reason than to stay relevant with social media. Problem is that's not their strength, their strength is deep analysis and fact checking. Something the gaming press has never done as the gaming world moves so fast all that matters is getting news first (I'd wager an n-gram comparison of the regular press and gaming press with the word "exclusive" would be interesting).
This means the gaming press either has to change to give good quality reasoned analysis or die a death of irrelevance as forums, twitter and direct developer communication destroy first mover advantage.
ok, one more... ugh
It changes two critical things. 1. It definitely changes the pace at which information is distributed from Nintendo. This is important as Nintendo has the opportunity to not only frame their arguments, but reframe them week after week if need be. This is vital for Nintendo and we have already seen how they re-frame Pikmin 3 every time it shows up on ND, or the lack of games for January and February, etc. This is a much more direct (and more editable) way of engaging with the public. 2. There is no pressure to perform beyond the needs of the company. Nintendo Direct offers huge announcements. It also offers small announcements. This is not a trade show that demands big announcements. Going back to the most recent ND, Iwata spent a great deal of time framing MiiVerse for everyone... something he clearly thinks needed more attention. There is no way he would have been able to spend that much time doing that on stage. ND is very different in the way it engages itself with its audience.
You are mostly correct in my opinion... for now. If ND remain popular (where millions of viewers tune in weekly as Iwata stated), then I see it as a successful model. Indeed, there will always be filtering, but my argument also includes the reduction of Exclusive content for gaming sites - something that will reduce their legitimacy and require them to think more about the way they present their material beyond simple framings.
Thank you for this synthesis. I think it will help the topic!
Thank you! Your last sentence is exactly what I'm hoping will happen. Also, adding in the twitter analysis is such a good comparison. It makes a lot of sense and I think it works in a similar (though still different) way.
It changes two critical things. 1. It definitely changes the pace at which information is distributed from Nintendo. This is important as Nintendo has the opportunity to not only frame their arguments, but reframe them week after week if need be. This is vital for Nintendo and we have already seen how they re-frame Pikmin 3 every time it shows up on ND, or the lack of games for January and February, etc. This is a much more direct (and more editable) way of engaging with the public. 2. There is no pressure to perform beyond the needs of the company. Nintendo Direct offers huge announcements. It also offers small announcements. This is not a trade show that demands big announcements. Going back to the most recent ND, Iwata spent a great deal of time framing MiiVerse for everyone... something he clearly thinks needed more attention. There is no way he would have been able to spend that much time doing that on stage. ND is very different in the way it engages itself with its audience.
You are mostly correct in my opinion... for now. If ND remain popular (where millions of viewers tune in weekly as Iwata stated), then I see it as a successful model. Indeed, there will always be filtering, but my argument also includes the reduction of Exclusive content for gaming sites - something that will reduce their legitimacy and require them to think more about the way they present their material beyond simple framings.
Thank you for this synthesis. I think it will help the topic!
I definitely didn't think I was "smart," but simply applying what I learned about media studies in college to my opinion on Nintendo Directs. Also, I've already replied to the argument of E3, and I think NDs are quite different in several ways.
Thank you! Your last sentence is exactly what I'm hoping will happen. Also, adding in the twitter analysis is such a good comparison. It makes a lot of sense and I think it works in a similar (though still different) way.
The problem is game journalism isn't any less bias, and can be even worse. The NDs just present the information for the most part, and they don't try to tell you if something is good or not, while even the example the OP gives, shows how IGN's daily fix tried to tell you what was good and bad about the news they were reporting, and if you think that a gaming site is going to bash a developer or a publisher that feeds them exclusives to help pay their bills. I am not sure you understand the state of our industry, where there is really only PR, and very few voices are unbiased.
If other publishers start doing something similar to NDs, those sites will have to create original content, and at the very least, that will help with the problem of media outlets telling you what you think about a game/movie/music.
BomberMouse
Member
Yep, I edited my post to clarify my point. There's nothing wrong with that at long as it's backed up by facts. They lie or just make stuff up? Just don't pay attention to them.
If it weren't for those sites, how should I know which version of the game runs better? If we only had ND, PSD and XBOXD we would never had any comparative resource.
This a madness post, where do you think NeoGafs gets the majority of its news from? The gaming section of this place is news taken from gaming websites, it's built on news from gaming websites! Just because you don't visit them doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. Now what content should be on these sites is up for debate
Simple yet great first post.
Well, for one... GAF talks about what gaming sites report, and it's often in dichotomous terms.
Where the hell do you think the news on GAF comes from? Thin air?
I admit I have not read your full argumentation but I think you have a point.
Journalism is necessary. However, if one is looking for objective reporting without frames or injected subjectivity, or at least proper separation between opinion pieces and news, there are few outlets that apply.
I'm ok with someone doing the dirty work and getting the info
I think many people are misunderstanding the concept presented.
Personally, the value in Nintendo direct for me lies in the fact that I don't want the medias opinion to affect my own perception of news. No matter how intelligent we are we are all susceptible to this.
As an example, in my personal life, if I meet someoneI refrain to listen to others opinions as to how and who they think this person may be. I appreciate and try to exercise forming my own opinions based on my own perception and experience of the person.
I think its very telling that iwata asked, after showing monolithsoft X trailer: "How was it?"
As far as I'm concerned game journalists can keep their shitty opinions to themselves. I don't want them.
Personally, the value in Nintendo direct for me lies in the fact that I don't want the medias opinion to affect my own perception of news. No matter how intelligent we are we are all susceptible to this.
As an example, in my personal life, if I meet someoneI refrain to listen to others opinions as to how and who they think this person may be. I appreciate and try to exercise forming my own opinions based on my own perception and experience of the person.
I think its very telling that iwata asked, after showing monolithsoft X trailer: "How was it?"
As far as I'm concerned game journalists can keep their shitty opinions to themselves. I don't want them.
Naked Snake
Member
My only issue with Nintendo Direct is having Iwata himself be the host for everything... His English accent is very heavy and he doesn't come off "natural" in front the camera, which might not bother core gamers, but I suspect it would limit the appeal of watching these presentations for a wider audience.
I also find it a little strange that the highest paid employee in the company is personally presenting every video. Surely that's not the most efficient use of his time/company dollars.
I also find it a little strange that the highest paid employee in the company is personally presenting every video. Surely that's not the most efficient use of his time/company dollars.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Not everyone goes to E3 and they have playable demos on the showfloor. Those who wants to learn more about the games on the showfloor still have to rely on the gaming media journalists who went to E3 and played the demo there.
For Nintendo Direct, you receive as much information as those journalists.
It isn't and that's kinda my point... This is not "improving game journalism" because Nintendo Direct itself isn't journalism, it's marketing.
Such a simple way of stating the obvious, but an excellent point. Completely agree.
grimshawish
Banned
Ofter press releases, a gaffers own work, a gaffers own info, and information through other forums.
It's forcing the hand of journalism. They are no longer waiting for payouts through eager PR. How is this issue so hard to comprehend?
Nirolak posted many threads before his appointment as a moderator. Recently he has begun posting many threads with a Kotaku-centric view simply because a lot of GAF users see Kotaku and want to avoid the sunlight like a vampire. I commend him for this attitude - it has caused me a reversal in attitudes because of their way of posting articles. Sure you still have to shovel through the shit, but anyone can take a look at the threads Nirolak has created within the past 12 months and can see the quality and breadth of posts per thread concerning a Kotaku source.
I will never outright state that gaming journalism is a joke. I may kid about the issue, but there are many dedicated individuals within the field that I've known who have perused these forums for over a decade and have dedicated their life to it at that current moment of time. I was one of them. I know what it is like. But this thread should set an example of the turning tide - perhaps it is nothing more than whisperings on the wind, but publishers have always held the key of media hubris. Now it's time for journalists to switch the table and begin their offensive.
1) no-one sends press releases directly to GAF
2) great for a few indie games, not so much anything else
3) very, very rarely
4) and where do these forums get their info from?