Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 30609]

Yes and so will most of us, but then what media do you actually feel connected to outside of a select few nowadays? Probably not much, if any.

Taking a dead-serious approach to reporting on video games like many do seems completely tone-deaf, in any case, but it doesn't stop people who want their careers to sound important from trying. Subsubsubculture syndrome.

 

[Wazzim]

I don't deal with gaming media anymore outside of articles linked on NeoGAF.

 

[Dance Inferno]

I've stopped putting much stock into the gaming media a long time ago, and most of the RE6 reviews really reinforced why I play my own games and make up my own mind.

It's not really the fault of the media though, games are so subjective that for the most part my opinion of a game is not going to agree with the opinion of a reviewer for a media outlet. I loved Max Payne 3 and I actually even enjoyed the long, overblown, overdramatic soliloquys and cutscenes in that game, whereas most people didn't. That's not their fault, they truly didn't like that aspect of it.

Personally I use LPs as a gauge of whether or not I would enjoy a game. They're much more honest and you can just see what the game looks like without filtering it through a journalist's biases and preferences.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

Pretty much anything I read about gaming other than stuff on giantbomb and things on gaf just piss me off. I feel like 90% of articles are just pretentious bloggers who have no real business commenting on things trying to stir shit up for page views. Lots of reviews seem to just focus on how the story made them feel and completely neglect describing the gameplay systems, or conversely they'll shit on a game because it wasn't exactly what they expected it to be. Regardless of how you feel about the direction the series took, can you really say with a straight face that RE6 is a "1/10" game?

For example this wired post about how MG:Rising's "achilles heel" is that its too hard. IGN's atrocious Double Dragon NEON review also comes to mind.

Polygon, the self proclaimed saviors of games journalism describe Nights as "not a very good game" and complain about the bosses being too hard and having to figure things out for yourself.

Don't even get me started on those "Forbes" "articles" pandering to the reddit crowd.

sorry for ranting, its just frustrating to see so many mainstream gaming opinions influenced by these clueless writers. does anyone play games for the fun of learning new gameplay systems anymore? for me figuring things out and finding secrets in a game is half the fun. I feel like I'm completely out of touch with what everyone else wants out of a game.

I think this is a little funny considering the rant Jeff went on during the last Bombcast about how Nights is and always was a terrible game.

 

[Silly.Mikey]

The only thing i get for main stream media is videos. Otherwise, couldn't care less.

 

[Kai Dracon]

There are still people in mainstream gaming journalism that care about doing a good job and aren't neo-hipster california blogopundit types. Unfortunately the institutional structure seems to help undermine their efforts, sometimes even their direct contributions.

I've listened to stories of editors literally dumbing down articles and game reviews because the writer was "too hardcore" and that was "elitist" and not like "real gamers" - real gamers being purely the stereotypical dudebro. Don't like that term? Well, it seems to be increasingly accurate to reality.

One of the biggest purported problems with game reviews, in fact, is editors assigning staff writers based not on their ability to fairly write about the game... but on how well the editor thinks that writer will "speak" to what the editor assumes is the audience the game is aimed at. I've seen great defensiveness at this, the usual "but that is correct, the writer must be an expert at communication." Were it so easy. Putting someone on deck who is a complete jackass about the kind of game they're given ultimately serves no one. No matter their "credentials" as writer.

But generally, as much as you may not like it, it's a job and a living. So you don't really see writers sinking their career and getting themselves canned just to make a point. Not when doing so would really violate some unspoken rule in their particular organization, or situation.

Having said that I think it is also a true observation that you kind of can't just say "the gaming media" anymore. It really is big enough that it has subcultures within subculture. RPS or Giantbomb are as significant as anything these days. I think we also see signs of this with wannabe organizations cropping up to take advantage of the fact that it's splintering by trying to set themselves up as the curators of some new flavor of gaming media. Whether they succeed or not.

 

[rohlfinator]

I love podcasts. Opinion pieces and reviews, not so much.

Same. The only time I was ever really "connected" to mainstream gaming media was during the 1UP years of 1UP Yours and GFW Radio, but even then I didn't really read the sites.

I much prefer a conversation about games than just hearing one person's opinion.

 

[Muffdraul]

What's up with the "California" bubble/asshole comments? What does that even mean? As a native Californian asshole who probably hates Californians more than you do (especially here in LA,) I'm curious. I have no idea. Apparently I'm in the bubble.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

I feel completely disconnected from the majority of people who call themselves gamers, media or not.

 

[Izick]

Can't remember the last time I've mustered up the interest to actually read a review, let alone a preview or something. It's all about video now, and I'm happy with that. If there's no video review, then I usually just check out the game's scores and do some recon on Gaf before deciding to purchase or not.

 

[gryz]

I think this is a little funny considering the rant Jeff went on during the last Bombcast about how Nights is and always was a terrible game.

fair enough but I don't think his rant would be published as their review.

 

[Osietra]

Yes I do, and as a non-member of the enthusiast gaming press, it will stay that way until I find out that there's a brand new Xbox Fluid console underneath the very chair that I'm sitting on. After being told that there is.

So get to work weird looking Don Mattrick of MS with my awesome above suggestion.

 

[Mzo]

I agree with the OP.

There are still some great sites out there, though. Ignore the drivel. I personally find that Eurogamer lines up with my way of thinking 9 times out of 10. I love them.

 

[Noaloha]

If people are saying things you don't agree with and those people are doing so successfully without getting binned after half a year, then they're not 'wrong'. They're appealing to some audience, to some opinions. Either treat it as outside your personal interest, or read it with empathy, with a view towards seeing this shared interest through another group's eyes. Take a step away or just take a step back. Perspective grants perception.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

It feels like all game journalists have the exact same background and tastes and they're only interested in the same few certain genres and that becomes pretty damn boring after a while. Nothing interesting ever gets said because they're all covering the same things and in the same way.

 

[gryz]

I agree with the OP.

There are still some great sites out there, though. Ignore the drivel. I personally find that Eurogamer lines up with my way of thinking 9 times out of 10. I love them.

yeah forgot to mention them in my op, they are holdin it down. their tokyo jungle review is pretty great.

 

[see5harp]

You don't have to agree with someone to like the content they are creating. There are many people here who find Giant Bomb hilarious but may not agree with Jeff's opinion of cuisine or gaming.

 

[danwarb]

Eurogamer make an effort.

 

[gryz]

It feels like all game journalists have the exact same background and tastes and they're only interested in the same few certain genres and that becomes pretty damn boring after a while. Nothing interesting ever gets said because they're all covering the same things and in the same way.

i remember in older magazines like PC gamer they had the RPG guy, the Simulation guy, the grandpa Wargamer guy etc. review the games for their respective genres. those reviews were usually pretty good.

wonder why no one does this now?

 

[kitsuneyo]

I agree with OP too.

I personally find that Eurogamer lines up with my way of thinking 9 times out of 10. I love them.

I've fallen out of love with that site. Is it just me or do they try too hard to be funny now? Really slow with news as well.

 

[Mzo]

I've fallen out of love with that site. Is it just me or do they try too hard to be funny now? Really slow with news as well.

Yeah, I can see that. It's just that whenever everyone is shitting on a game like Jet Set Radio or NiGHTS, I know where I can turn to and not feel like everyone who gets paid to do this job is total shit at it.

 

[gryz]

Yeah, I can see that. It's just that whenever everyone is shitting on a game like Jet Set Radio or NiGHTS, I know where I can turn to and not feel like everyone who gets paid to do this job is total shit at it.

yeah I started appreciating eurogamer when they were the only site to give armored core 5 a fair review.

 

[jlh]

I stopped following the games media when I realized that they weren't even good at pretending to be journalists. If I want to read the opinions of a lot of enthusiasts I can read that on GAF, Something Awful or reddit. Now I mostly just wait a day until good gameplay footage is up on youtube or watch some Twitch streams to see if I may enjoy a game.

 

[AlimNassor]

I don't take gaming reviews serious...compared to movie reviews, I feel gaming reviews are just one big "buy this game".

 

[n0b]

Pretty much anything I read about gaming other than stuff on giantbomb and things on gaf just piss me off. I feel like 90% of articles are just pretentious bloggers who have no real business commenting on things trying to stir shit up for page views. Lots of reviews seem to just focus on how the story made them feel and completely neglect describing the gameplay systems, or conversely they'll shit on a game because it wasn't exactly what they expected it to be. Regardless of how you feel about the direction the series took, can you really say with a straight face that RE6 is a "1/10" game?

For example this wired post about how MG:Rising's "achilles heel" is that its too hard. IGN's atrocious Double Dragon NEON review also comes to mind.

Wait, what? That's what a review is supposed to be. An opinion based on the taste, preferences and expectations of a specific individual. That's why I stopped reading from major games websites because they spent far too much time explaining what the gameplay systems are and had far too little actual input on the game. If you want to read press releases the games press parrots those back to us enough already.

The point of any publication having a consistent reviewer is so that whether you agree or disagree with them, you have a point of reference for their opinion. That way you can go: "oh mr.reviewbuts doesn't like jrpgs, but he likes this one! Let me read why...oh he dilikes it for his usual reasons, so that means maybe I will like it considering I have liked most of the games he's talked about in this way."

Also you didn't read the article you linked because he never says the game is too hard, he says specifically (mechanically, in the way you seem to want) that having a mechanic that slows all action to a crawl is counter to the flow of an action game like MGR is in all other ways except for the cutting mechanic.

fair enough but I don't think his rant would be published as their review.

Why wouldn't it? That is his review. He doesn't think its a good game. Sure, it would be formatted as something besides an off the cuff rant, but if that's his opinion I would HOPE that he would express that opinion in his review.


I stopped reading most games sites because they spend way too much fucking time explaining the game mechanics instead of really talking about what the games make them feel and what makes them like it beyond OH MAN IT IS SO SATISFYING TO HIT THE BUTTON AND MAKE X HAPPEN. The only games website I read anymore is Rock Paper Shotgun, and the only podcast I still listen to is Idle Thumbs.

 

[Clockblockers]

it seems that there's evidence that review scores play a part in sales of a game.

http://penny-arcade.com/report/edit...-why-critics-have-more-control-than-we-think1

for better or for worse they're not gonna change.....

EDIT

They mostly seem to live in the california bubble, and it can get annoying during podcasts and the like. They do seem disconnected.

I think age can play a part of this; I've noticed the california bubble more with the early to mid 20 somethings. I think they fall into the same trap that a lot of people do. Their out of college, in a career, and think they have it all figured out. Usually it takes some experiences before that attitude goes away.

 

[AlexBasch]

If I had taken review sites seriously I wouldn't have given Alpha Protocol a chance. Just saying.

 

[JakkuFurosu]

I could care less.
The only time I ever go to a mainstream site is when a GAF thread pops up that looks EXTREMELY interesting and the full article isn't posted. Otherwise I can get the gist of the article through the posts and 9 times outta 10 the posts are "I wasted a click on that rubbish?? wish I didnt".

 

[gryz]

Wait, what? That's what a review is supposed to be. An opinion based on the taste, preferences and expectations of a specific individual. That's why I stopped reading from major games websites because they spent far too much time explaining what the gameplay systems are and had far too little actual input on the game. If you want to read press releases the games press parrots those back to us enough already.

The point of any publication having a consistent reviewer is so that whether you agree or disagree with them, you have a point of reference for their opinion. That way you can go: "oh mr.reviewbuts doesn't like jrpgs, but he likes this one! Let me read why...oh he dilikes it for his usual reasons, so that means maybe I will like it considering I have liked most of the games he's talked about in this way."

Also you didn't read the article you linked because he never says the game is too hard, he says specifically (mechanically, in the way you seem to want) that having a mechanic that slows all action to a crawl is counter to the flow of an action game like MGR is in all other ways except for the cutting mechanic.


Why wouldn't it? That is his review. He doesn't think its a good game. Sure, it would be formatted as something besides an off the cuff rant, but if that's his opinion I would HOPE that he would express that opinion in his review.


I stopped reading most games sites because they spend way too much fucking time explaining the game mechanics instead of really talking about what the games make them feel and what makes them like it beyond OH MAN IT IS SO SATISFYING TO HIT THE BUTTON AND MAKE X HAPPEN. The only games website I read anymore is Rock Paper Shotgun, and the only podcast I still listen to is Idle Thumbs.

what mainstream game sites are you reading that give in depth discussions of gameplay? most of the ones I see just talk about cutscenes and what stuff looks like, and the requisite space filling rambling about the state of the industry or something.