I don't really get it. What sort of stories or interviews do you think are not done because people are worried about losing access? What have you seen that gives you the impression that gaming reporters aren't doing things because they're worried about the repercussions from publishers? Are you just assuming all of this?
I have been at Kotaku since February of 2012. I've written hundreds of stories. I've never once had to worry about losing access. I've never once seen co-workers have to worry about losing access. I've never once seen colleagues have to worry about losing access.
Where is this coming from?
Well, I do remember at one point, Sony threatened/did cut off Kotaku's access because Kotaku reported something accurately and Sony was buttmad about that? And then, of course, there's Gerstmangate, which is everyone's favorite go-to for how the industry treats the industry's journalism.
I think a lot of it is just... people look at the "big sites" (IGN, mostly), and they go "the enthusiasm for this stuff looks insane, and the games aren't nearly as good as the hype IGN seems to have for them, so clearly IGN's bought off, and we've got evidence like Jeff Gerstmann, so, uh, yeah, that must be why the industry is so positive, despite our overwhelming negativity for so many things."
Then there are people like me, who think big sites like Kotaku need to do a LOT better on various niche coverage (in my case, PC games); I recall reading a dev's take on their game, where they basically said, flat-out, that the game, being PC exclusive, wouldn't get many hits, so they wouldn't post about it.
Then you've got sites like Kotaku, where writers, particularly Ashcraft and Hernandez, post stuff that just seems like... lol hits hits hits, amirite.
So there's this perception that things are only done for the hits, and there have been cases where publishers/advertisers have pulled stuff because of negative press feedback, and that just all creates this big sense of cynicism that's probably going to continue to stick around for a while. The way to change it, oddly enough, would be to cater to the whims of the people who get upset about these things, so talking about games most people don't talk about, or agreeing with people when they're annoyed with Mass Effect 3's ending would actually help them go "okay, these people are on my side, and they're not afraid to say what I'm thinking."
But then the question is... is that honest?
Me, I liked the Xbox One's reveal, for instance, but I'm a guy who likes consumer electronics stuff. My take on it is similar to
Navarro's, but so far, most people have used "oh my god, they talked about things that aren't games" to find whatever negativity they can about the console. If journalists talk positively about the Xbox One, when there's a lot to be positive about, some of the more, ah, reactionary people get upset and think oh my god, they're being bought off.
Sometimes, I think maybe journalists are just a bit disconnected from some of us--by and large, the pool of opinions, at least as a reader, seems somewhat homogenous; you all grew up playing console games, you value Japan more than some of us, you don't care for niche games, prefer your games to be more gamey (lots of numbers on the screen and whatnot) than simulationy (hi, Far Cry 2), generally only care about the PC as it relates to F2P experiences, Minecraft, Blizzard, or Valve... and so on and so forth.
I mean, unless I go to Eurogamer or a PC-specific site, I don't really feel like I'm coming across journalists who share the same interests as me. And I know there are people with console-leaning tastes who also feel like games journalists all seem to sort of have the same voice.
Actually--and yeah, I get it, I'm rambling now, but what do I care? I spend all my time working in a building that's making me worse, but I can't afford proper medical treatment, and typing about random bullshit like this on the internet provides a nice distraction--I think that might help things as well:
individual voices. I've noticed sites with personalities (or streamers as personalities) tend to get a lot more positive gamer response than those without.
That's why Rock, Paper, Shotgun and GiantBomb seem to be more liked than other, more anonymous sites.
Okay, so, one last thing. I have a game design degree. I got this degree, moreso by helping the game design department at school restructure itself (I helped write some of the documentation outlining the program's future). I'm not some sort of wizard supergenius who understands game design better than everyone else out there, but I do know a pretty decent amount--and when I read reviews, I feel like they're nicely-written reviews by people who literally do not know what they are talking about. Some of my friends, who have backgrounds in things like, yes, game design, as well as film, theater, and stuff like that have voiced similar concerns.
Sometimes, you'll get guys like Stephen (Fire Emblem), Kirk (LA Noire), Luke (Crusader Kings II, that Sim City piece that explained it better than any review I'd read), or yourself (all I can think of are your reportage pieces, like Metacritic), who post these insightful, interesting takes on things, and that's always super fun, but generally, I find myself reading pieces from people who seem not to understand or appreciate what kind of game they're playing (for instance, a bad review of Alan Wake on a major site by someone who has claimed to hate horror games, and gave Dead Space a similar disproportionately low grade), or I read these really dry, boring, clinical reviews by people like a certain someone over at Polygon (I like several of the Polygon reviewers, but one guy in particular has this very dry style, and once said that games don't make him feel anything, and if he did, it'd probably be "ew").
And then there are the overwhelmingly positive reviews of games with
really severe problems--like Mass Effect, which has a button that will, among other things, interact with objects, put you into cover and pull you out of it,
Also, there's a circlejerk around certain personalities in the industry who many gamers find really off-putting, mostly because they're pretentious assholes, or say dumb things with pretty words (like this one guy who couldn't even figure out how to meditate in The Witcher 2 during his review, or this woman who hijacked #1reasonwhy so she could blame her poor drunk podcasting abilities on sexists, and not her own failings) and we have no idea why so many people in games journalism seem to love them. And that's really, really offputting.
I'm still rambling, and I think I'm getting to the point where I'm just trying to distract myself from the pain I'm by saying everything I've ever felt was problematic with games journalism than I am addressing the point, I think--though I do think if the problems were addressed, many of the complaints would go away.
So I'ma go play video games.
I appreciate your presence in this thread, Jason.
