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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quick story about a venture into Gamer/Tech blogging I had a year or so ago.

A while back someone tweeted to me that a female blogger was looking for girl gamers to review titles on her tech site. I was still in Uni, and had a little experience briefly posting news and a few reviews for another site. I jumped at the chance and gave it a go. Checking the blog it seemed the blogger got to review an awful lot of stuff, I guess you gotta have samples or hands on time with tech to be able to review it all, so I dismissed it.

The lass tried to set up a means to get me free games to review, as I was struggling for funds to get new titles at the time (despite having a job between my Uni hours). She managed to get a games company in touch to send me 2 games to review. I reviewed them, felt a little weird about getting the titles free, but presumed this was the standard thing, so I shouldn't feel too bad about it. The companies PR stopped responding soon after, so I don't know what happened there...

Though it became quickly apparent that this blog was giving super positive reviews for EVERYTHING they got their hands on. Then the head of the site got pregnant and started running a blog about latest baby tech and support devices, and suddenly was being sent random stuff like baby hammocks and those baby fontpack things. I realized the bloggers intention was simply to get free stuff - it wasn't about covering the news or growing as writers at all. I felt a bit sick and upset about the whole thing, realizing the whole thing was merely a means to get free stuff for practical infomercials. Which made me wonder if my reviewing was impacted too.

It seems to be far from the norm, but it really switched me off trying to pursue gaming journalism on anything other than my own terms for now.
 
Shit like this is why I've sidestepped the gaming press for anything but podcasts in the last 5 years. It's reached critical mass, the whole circus. There's no going back, no getting better. The glory days are over.

This is why I read and make purchasing decisions based on what I read here. I trust a gaggle of posters here because my tastes typically align with mine and they don't have to filter their opinions.
It never was the glory days it was just never talked about, and my tastes align with mine too. ;)
 
Exactly. It is about transparency. Expecting everyone to be a paragon of morality is a bad way to ago about life. But expect them to at least be transparent in the process.

Its not like Giant Bomb's relationships are hidden under the rug. You know where they stand, and you have the right to assess whether that relationship matters to you.
You are absolutely correct. Their transparency allows us to assess these things. That is precisely what I am doing. Transparency is great, but it is not in an of itself indicative of a free pass on any criticism.
 
So RPS don't think they should write an article about a subject that for me ultimately comes down to the potential misrepresentation of games to the game BUYING public.

Yet they are prepared to publish a pretty crass article that mocks the issue.

From RPS:
The Flare Path: Blows The Whistle

Enough.

The lying, the self-justification, the sleepless nights… it all stops here.

What follows is the story of a games journalist who touched pitch and was defiled. The confessions of a fool who, having strayed far from the path of probity, is now desperately trying to find a way back. Judge him if you must. Forgive him if you can.

People have been paying me to write about games for well over a decade now, and at no point during that time can I remember any of my paymasters ever taking me to one side and saying “Tim. Ethics-wise, this is what we expect from you.”. It’s always been up to me to draw my own lines in the sand.

And draw them I have. Plenty of them. But you know how it is with lines in sand – one high tide, one particularly heavy shower or especially champagne-drenched preview event in a Frankfurt fetish bar, and suddenly they’re bloody hard to make out.

When I walk around my home today, I see accusatory fingers pointing at me from almost every shelf and nook. For the sake of my sanity, it’s vital I begin (there are far too many to cover in a single article) cataloguing those fingers.

The Wages of Sin (part 1 of 8)
A day after I fired this fizzing warning shot across Shogun II’s WIP bow, representatives of SEGA were round at my house enquiring as to what it would take to secure a flattering Stone review. I didn’t mince my words. I told them that if they wanted unbridled positivity, they’d need to supply not two, not three, not four, but one satsuma-ware coloured 20cm-tall samurai figure with detachable sword.
and the article goes on.....

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/10/26/the-flare-path-blows-the-whistle/

Poor show RPS, very poor.
 
i think what i'm getting with all this slanted response is that we need a new type of video game website.

polygon has already failed the test.

we need a website that reports on the industry for the industry and enthusiast fans, not just consumer blogs for consumers, because apparently that's what everyone is right now and that's just not working out.
 
Here's a thought:

If games writers want to stop being called "journalists," maybe they should rename certain sections on their websites. Rename "news" as "shit the PR department sent me." And rename "reviews" as "opinions of a self-proclaimed hack."

Come on, journalists. You can understand why we hold you to these standards. You either pass on press releases and entertain us in the process, or you stick to your guns and expect us to respect your opinions and insights. You can't have it both ways.
Now this is transparency I can get behind. I would visit a site that called their news section "Shit the PR Departments Sent Us." That is awesome.
 
It seems like maybe there's too much anger about this in this thread.

Then again, there's probably too much apathy from game journalists about the psychological effects that this type of stuff can have. Not sure how to feel about what this thread is trying to accomplish.
Seems to me there is a healthy and understandable level of anger in this thread.

Full-of-themselves games journalist icons turns out to have serious integrity and spine deficiencies.
 

Antiwhippy

the holder of the trombone
If they are so small, wouldn't that mean Nintendo would be LESS likely to want to send over a truck full of women?


I dont totally disagree about the transparency thing. But Kotaku doing their unboxing of $500 worth of Halo 4 crap is also transparent. The problem is it also allowing PR to dictate content.

I am not saying GB is evil and corrupt. Nor am I saying videotaping the whole thing isnt better than just ignoring thr charade part of it. But there certainly is a PR collusion going on there. Nintendo successful got their (frankly awkardly misogynistic) marketing stunt on tape.
I believe it was a tour around to send various press their 3ds kits? No way they would do it for just one outlet.

Again though, it is PRish and it is up to you to decide if it's affecting their content, but also I honestly don't fault them, because in a way PR do dictate the content. Companies and PR release the information they need to provide their audience the latest information regarding games, get them early coverage, arrange interviews and host events which they need to attend to serve the latest information for their audience, among many other things. It is the sad fact of this industry and every other piece of enthusiast press, but in the end if the outlet does show that they can speak with their own voice on the content, independant from the PR language, I think that's enough.

Again, it's about transparency and trust.
 
i think what i'm getting with all this slanted response is that we need a new type of video game website.

polygon has already failed the test.

we need a website that reports on the industry for the industry and enthusiast fans, not just consumer blogs for consumers, because apparently that's what everyone is right now and that's just not working out.
Something akin to NPR's "On The Media." Actually I had that idea for a site quite a while ago. One that would even cover game reviews as a critique/review of reviews (Gamepro did something similar in their last year of publication). Unfortunately, PHD work got in the way of it going further than an idea.

But the idea is awesome. A section where you got anonymous websites to send you PR kits (cause there is no way the companies would send them to you directly), so you could make them transparent too would be great.
 
Quick story about a venture into Gamer/Tech blogging I had a year or so ago.

A while back someone tweeted to me that a female blogger was looking for girl gamers to review titles on her tech site. I was still in Uni, and had a little experience briefly posting news and a few reviews for another site. I jumped at the chance and gave it a go. Checking the blog it seemed the blogger got to review an awful lot of stuff, I guess you gotta have samples or hands on time with tech to be able to review it all, so I dismissed it.

The lass tried to set up a means to get me free games to review, as I was struggling for funds to get new titles at the time (despite having a job between my Uni hours). She managed to get a games company in touch to send me 2 games to review. I reviewed them, felt a little weird about getting the titles free, but presumed this was the standard thing, so I shouldn't feel too bad about it. The companies PR stopped responding soon after, so I don't know what happened there...

Though it became quickly apparent that this blog was giving super positive reviews for EVERYTHING they got their hands on. Then the head of the site got pregnant and started running a blog about latest baby tech and support devices, and suddenly was being sent random stuff like baby hammocks and those baby fontpack things. I realized the bloggers intention was simply to get free stuff - it wasn't about covering the news or growing as writers at all. I felt a bit sick and upset about the whole thing, realizing the whole thing was merely a means to get free stuff for practical infomercials. Which made me wonder if my reviewing was impacted too.

It seems to be far from the norm, but it really switched me off trying to pursue gaming journalism on anything other than my own terms for now.
As I feared. Thanks for sharing your story.
 
Something akin to NPR's "On The Media." Actually I had that idea for a site quite a while ago. One that would even cover game reviews as a critique/review of reviews (Gamepro did something similar in their last year of publication). Unfortunately, PHD work got in the way of it going further than an idea.
ah right on. it would be difficult to establish for sure. i hate to say watchdog group, but it could have a pinch of that alongside solid unbiased news reporting as well.

or as you say, just relabel sections of current websites and we'd almost be there lol.
 
This conversation (and thread) has clearly reached a level that I don't think any of the games media outlets were prepared to have to deal with. This is a huge issue that is not going to go away, at least with enthusiast who follow games news/reviews daily.

I have no idea what the answer is, but someone needs to come out with some Jerry Maguire like shit and take a stand for the good of those who are doing things the right way.

 
Would it really be so shocking that most of these enthusiast rags are on the take for hype, swag and marketing dollars? I'm amazed anyone finds this eye opening, this always seemed like the norm. There's a reason why 2/3rds of the sites I "read" I only do so as RSS feed padding for press releases and headlines.
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
This thread has convinced me that the worst part about being in game's press isn't the low pay or the pushy PR people. It's the batshit insane readers who think a slice of pizza is enough to throw away a decade of track record.
There's just so much angst and anger in this thread.

That pizza might have given you, like you know, the urge for some Mt. Dew, which would give you the urge to give Halo 4 .5 to 1 point higher than it deserves.
 
It is the sad fact of this industry and every other piece of enthusiast press, but in the end if the outlet does show that they can speak with their own voice on the content, independant from the PR language, I think that's enough.
I am not disagreeing with you but it IS pretty sad when our response is, "Well, at least Giant Bomb videotaped the truck full of ladies Nintendo sent them."
 
Do you really think Nintendo wouldnt just send them a 3DS if they said "No thanks to the truck full of pretty ladies. Please just send us a capture unit"? Especially given how big Giant Bomb is now? Do you really think that every single gaming media outlet that got a 3DS was obligated to have a truck full of Nintendo girls show up to deliver it?

Maybe that is really true but if so, wow, right?
I'm pretty sure I recall at the time that they asked for just the units. Basically that was the one way Nintendo was sending out early units to all the press in the area. (The reason the ladies don't really stick around is they have several more stops to make.)

It's not too dissimilar to how they showed the 3DS off at the unveiling by having each unit literally attached to a pretty lady who was there to "demo" it for you if you had any questions. Presumably.
 
I've read every single post in this thread and I have to say that I'm happy to see how nuanced and informative the conversation has been. With a few exceptions ("Publication X is total shit!" comments are too broad and inflammatory to be of any use), the criticisms being leveled at games writers have a lot of merit to them. It's distressing to see so many publications (including, surprisingly, RPS) shy away from addressing the issue when so many people clearly care about it. Look at the comments sections for the original Eurogamer story, Patrick's thoughts about it on Giantbomb, or even just the view count for this thread; people absolutely want to hear about this.

I'll contribute to this thread by describing my own (admittedly limited) professional experience in public relations. I recently served as the social media director and PR contact for a small consumer electronics company that sells home audio products and portable speakers. Putting it simply, my job was to "get the word out," contact as many people in the press as I could about our products and develop a corporate image.

In addition to providing information about our products and arranging to have review samples sent out, part of my job was developing a rapport with my contacts. Phone conversations that didn't need to be more than five minutes long were often more than twenty minutes long. Instead of just giving boilerplate descriptions of products, I would put a more personal spin on things and pitch them in the context of a broader mission that my company was passionate about.

I definitely influenced how our products were covered and many of the people that I contacted had a similar influence on me. If I was looking for a new promotional partner or platform, for example, I would like to think that the suggestions I would make at meetings would be from a purely logical standpoint. In reality, I was more likely to push for an advertising package put forward by someone that I had gotten along with and trusted. Being "chummy" with people makes you more likely to want to contact them with followup questions, giving them additional opportunities to sell you on what they're selling.

I hope that I'm not making this sound too sinister. I felt that I did my job with integrity, and I certainly never lied about the products that my company sold. But, to be blunt, my job was to both get more coverage for our products and influence *how* they were covered. That's why they paid me. If they didn't think that controlling the message was important (or something that was possible), I wouldn't have been hired in the first place.

Games writers being friendly with PR people gives PR people more influence. Games writers attending press events and receiving special gifts and press kits gives PR people opportunities to control the message. Games writers relying on PR people for review copies and information about the game before its release give PR people even further leverage. If you want to see thoughtful, independent coverage of this industry, it's safe to say that you should demand that there be as much distance between press and PR as is possible.
 
Would it really be so shocking that most of these enthusiast rags are on the take for hype, swag and marketing dollars? I'm amazed anyone finds this eye opening, this always seemed like the norm. There's a reason why 2/3rds of the sites I "read" I only do so as RSS feed padding for press releases and headlines.
I don't even do that because most are horrible. I literally get all my gaming reviews from gaf. The most I read a review is the score and by what publication in one of the game threads a person makes for an upcoming game. Even then I could care less.

I see a thread about a good article on RPS or another site, I'll check it out. I've literally given up on the gaming "journalism" industry years ago.
 

Antiwhippy

the holder of the trombone
I am not disagreeing with you but it IS pretty sad when our response is, "Well, at least Giant Bomb videotaped the truck full of ladies Nintendo sent them."
It is sad, but at least we get a look at how the PR cycle works. Also at least the coverage doesn't just stop at that. They did a comphrehensive (well, their style of comphrehensive) coverage of the 3DS in the same video, not a list of talking points from nintendo. That I think is where the line is.
 
I'm pretty sure I recall at the time that they asked for just the units. Basically that was the one way Nintendo was sending out early units to all the press in the area. (The reason the ladies don't really stick around is they have several more stops to make.)
If that is true then that deserved to be a news story. "Nintendo only sending 3DS to press that accepts a truck full of beautiful women with it."

Think of the hits you could get on THAT story. Not just from gamers, from mainstream interests.
 
This thread has convinced me that the worst part about being in game's press isn't the low pay or the pushy PR people. It's the batshit insane readers who think a slice of pizza is enough to throw away a decade of track record.
Flip it around, and imagine our disgust at having thought we were reading work with integrity when it turns out we may have been fooling ourselves the whole time. It's like discovering your spouse has been having a "harmless" affair for the past ten years. You kind of thought something might be happening, but chose to ignore it because you didn't want to be thought paranoid or "batshit insane." And then they have the gall to tell you to "just move on and get over it." And maybe you do for a little while, but then you're given even more reasons to doubt them, and they refuse to come clean in a convincing way.

The kind of responses we're getting from journalists sound like the classic responses of the unfaithful spouse. "You're paranoid." "You're insane." "You're being unreasonable." Etc. Etc.
 
Something akin to NPR's "On The Media." Actually I had that idea for a site quite a while ago. One that would even cover game reviews as a critique/review of reviews (Gamepro did something similar in their last year of publication). Unfortunately, PHD work got in the way of it going further than an idea.

But the idea is awesome. A section where you got anonymous websites to send you PR kits (cause there is no way the companies would send them to you directly), so you could make them transparent too would be great.
I've quite recently been interested in doing something like this; as I feel like the notion that just because gaming is about "consuming and selling a product" there can't be intelligent discussion, debate, criticism and even reporting on issues regarding it. Would film/television/literature be as touted as those mediums are if they had the same level of integrity and intention as gaming 'journalism'? Doubtful, it's the fact that there is an audience out there that wants to discuss the intellectual aspects of an artistic medium that give credence to those existing. All these folks rationalizing that it's not important, or not what the audience wants are simply part of the problem here.

I stopped listening to Weekend Confirmed almost 2 years ago; good to hear that I'm not missing much. Just more pandering to the status quo. That discussion in this weeks episode is really telling.
 
I'll contribute to this thread by describing my own (admittedly limited) professional experience in public relations. I recently served as the social media director and PR contact for a small consumer electronics company that sells home audio products and portable speakers. Putting it simply, my job was to "get the word out," contact as many people in the press as I could about our products and develop a corporate image.

In addition to providing information about our products and arranging to have review samples sent out, part of my job was developing a rapport with my contacts. Phone conversations that didn't need to be more than five minutes long were often more than twenty minutes long. Instead of just giving boilerplate descriptions of products, I would put a more personal spin on things and pitch them in the context of a broader mission that my company was passionate about.

I definitely influenced how our products were covered and many of the people that I contacted had a similar influence on me. If I was looking for a new promotional partner or platform, for example, I would like to think that the suggestions I would make at meetings would be from a purely logical standpoint. In reality, I was more likely to push for an advertising package put forward by someone that I had gotten along with and trusted. Being "chummy" with people makes you more likely to want to contact them with followup questions, giving them additional opportunities to sell you on what they're selling.

I hope that I'm not making this sound too sinister. I felt that I did my job with integrity, and I certainly never lied about the products that my company sold. But, to be blunt, my job was to both get more coverage for our products and influence *how* they were covered. That's why they paid me. If they didn't think that controlling the message was important (or something that was possible), I wouldn't have been hired in the first place.

Games writers being friendly with PR people gives PR people more influence. Games writers attending press events and receiving special gifts and press kits gives PR people opportunities to control the message. Games writers relying on PR people for review copies and information about the game before its release give PR people even further leverage. If you want to see thoughtful, independent coverage of this industry, it's safe to say that you should demand that there be as much distance between press and PR as is possible.
Excellent post. Worth being in the OP.
 
Seriously. People are going after fucking RPS now? RPS as a site has no obligation to champion anyone's cause, either the cuase of their colleagues or the cause of their fans. They are doing their job. They are doing it better than anyone. Maybe their personal code of ethics extends to not getting the site involved in this. And why should they? We know their pinions as people already. People couldn't stop linking Walker's piece earlier and now just because he's not saying the same things again under RPS's banner he's somehow shameful.

Direct your anger properly. Direct your anger consistently. By hunting for excuses to paint with the broadest brush possible you are dulling your point. You're giving ammo to pithy "new games journalists" to start with the "Meh, nerds hate everything, no cause for concern."
 
Something akin to NPR's "On The Media." Actually I had that idea for a site quite a while ago. One that would even cover game reviews as a critique/review of reviews (Gamepro did something similar in their last year of publication). Unfortunately, PHD work got in the way of it going further than an idea.

But the idea is awesome. A section where you got anonymous websites to send you PR kits (cause there is no way the companies would send them to you directly), so you could make them transparent too would be great.
I've quite recently been interested in doing something like this; as I feel like the notion that just because gaming is about "consuming and selling a product" there can't be intelligent discussion, debate, criticism and even reporting on issues regarding it. Would film/television/literature be as touted as those mediums are if they had the same level of integrity and intention as gaming 'journalism'? Doubtful, it's the fact that there is an audience out there that wants to discuss the intellectual aspects of an artistic medium that give credence to those existing. All these folks rationalizing that it's not important, or not what the audience wants are simply part of the problem here.

I stopped listening to Weekend Confirmed almost 2 years ago; good to hear that I'm not missing much. Just more pandering to the status quo. That discussion in this weeks episode is really telling.
Count me in.
 
But the idea is awesome. A section where you got anonymous websites to send you PR kits (cause there is no way the companies would send them to you directly), so you could make them transparent too would be great.
I fear this is missing the point slightly, or the point which I find most disturbing. The PS3 competition and some of Ms Wainwrights stuff were clearly breaches of ethics, anyone can see that. If that's all we are criticising then most journalists are going to think that the criticism doesn't apply to them and think little more of it.

I don't think PR firms are doing many shady deals with the press, the stakes are just too high. I think in general the sites are fairly honest about showing what goodies they are getting, I mean surely that's the point of a branded collectible; the PR company want exposure of that. I don't think it's acceptable for websites to allow PR to dictate their content in this way, but I don't think transparency matters much here.

A far more worrying issue is how the press are allowing PR people to cosy up to them, take them out to meals etc. There is simply no reason that these things should be happening beyond the greed of the press, and yet we have repeatedly seen people partaking in this stuff and not seeing the clear conflict of interest there, or worse somehow arguing that they are immune. This is basic psychology and the PR are playing on fundamentals of human nature. It is their job to distance themselves from it.
 
I mean really its always been pretty obvious with IGN "exclusive reviews" and GT reviews always favouring games which have been featured on GTTV.



I am just dissapointed in the so called journalists who dont even realize how their integrity has been comprimised.
 
I am not disagreeing with you but it IS pretty sad when our response is, "Well, at least Giant Bomb videotaped the truck full of ladies Nintendo sent them."
To be fair they(if I remember it properly) were pretty disparaging towards the publicity stunt (& they do film a lot of viewer received mail too, so it didn't really seem out of the ordinary for them).

I can see why people are viewing the lack of a DC3 review as suspicious given the fact that some publishers award bonuses on hitting various targets on metacritic (especially considering that the GB reviews system doesn't really translate to metacritic very well), but GB have always been perfectly upfront with the relationships they have with various people so people are free to make their own minds up( & the one member of staff that I think sees himself as a journalist has commented on the Eurogamer situation in a perfectly reasonable & measured manner).
 
I've read every single post in this thread and I have to say that I'm happy to see how nuanced and informative the conversation has been. With a few exceptions ("Publication X is total shit!" comments are too broad and inflammatory to be of any use), the criticisms being leveled at games writers have a lot of merit to them. It's distressing to see so many publications (including, surprisingly, RPS) shy away from addressing the issue when so many people clearly care about it. Look at the comments sections for the original Eurogamer story, Patrick's thoughts about it on Giantbomb, or even just the view count for this thread; people absolutely want to hear about this.

I'll contribute to this thread by describing my own (admittedly limited) professional experience in public relations. I recently served as the social media director and PR contact for a small consumer electronics company that sells home audio products and portable speakers. Putting it simply, my job was to "get the word out," contact as many people in the press as I could about our products and develop a corporate image.

In addition to providing information about our products and arranging to have review samples sent out, part of my job was developing a rapport with my contacts. Phone conversations that didn't need to be more than five minutes long were often more than twenty minutes long. Instead of just giving boilerplate descriptions of products, I would put a more personal spin on things and pitch them in the context of a broader mission that my company was passionate about.

I definitely influenced how our products were covered and many of the people that I contacted had a similar influence on me. If I was looking for a new promotional partner or platform, for example, I would like to think that the suggestions I would make at meetings would be from a purely logical standpoint. In reality, I was more likely to push for an advertising package put forward by someone that I had gotten along with and trusted. Being "chummy" with people makes you more likely to want to contact them with followup questions, giving them additional opportunities to sell you on what they're selling.

I hope that I'm not making this sound too sinister. I felt that I did my job with integrity, and I certainly never lied about the products that my company sold. But, to be blunt, my job was to both get more coverage for our products and influence *how* they were covered. That's why they paid me. If they didn't think that controlling the message was important (or something that was possible), I wouldn't have been hired in the first place.

Games writers being friendly with PR people gives PR people more influence. Games writers attending press events and receiving special gifts and press kits gives PR people opportunities to control the message. Games writers relying on PR people for review copies and information about the game before its release give PR people even further leverage. If you want to see thoughtful, independent coverage of this industry, it's safe to say that you should demand that there be as much distance between press and PR as is possible.
In light of this, what would your reaction have been to someone who said, "Yeah, yeah, whatever. Look, just give me the facts and knock off the spin. I'll give you guys a fair shake, but I don't need to hear this stuff."
 
Jeff has dealt with this on his Jar Time videos(which are unfortunately subscriber-only, it's usually the place he deals with issues such as these), he says it is more to do with spending the budgets they(PR) are given so they don't lose out on money for the next game they do PR for.
He has also said (on the Octoberkast yesterday) that he has been told by PR men that they(the PR men) have admitted buying magazine covers in the UK(add that to the allegations made by Stuart Campbell, & how people can claim that it doesn't happen is beyond me).
I have a sneaky suspicion that this is the greatest lie gaming PR has gotten away with. I keep hearing it over-and-over, and there might be a kernel of truth to it. But what they are actually saying is, "Don't feel bad about the extravagance. We're just wasting The Man's money, lulz." Meanwhile they are getting away with exactly what Shawn talked about.

edit: I just saw that EternalGamer made the same point.
 
Seriously. People are going after fucking RPS now? RPS as a site has no obligation to champion anyone's cause, either the cuase of their colleagues or the cause of their fans. They are doing their job. They are doing it better than anyone. Maybe their personal code of ethics extends to not getting the site involved in this. And why should they? We know their pinions as people already. People couldn't stop linking Walker's piece earlier and now just because he's not saying the same things again under RPS's banner he's somehow shameful.

Direct your anger properly. Direct your anger consistently. By hunting for excuses to paint with the broadest brush possible you are dulling your point. You're giving ammo to pithy "new games journalists" to start with the "Meh, nerds hate everything, no cause for concern."
If we're castigating sites like Kotaku for not covering it there's no logical reason RPS shouldn't fall under the same brush. We aren't playing favorites here. That's how you remain consistent.

The idea is to get this conversation out there in the public sphere so it isn't just forgotten and neglected. RPS has a large audience and this story would be well-served being discussed on the site.
 
If that is true then that deserved to be a news story. "Nintendo only sending 3DS to press that accepts a truck full of beautiful women with it."

Think of the hits you could get on THAT story. Not just from gamers, from mainstream interests.
One of Rab Florence's Eurogamer features just prior to the Doritos one was on booth babes and their ilk. It was a direct criticism of Eurogamer, and Eurogamer was again super awesome in actually running the piece.
 
Seriously. People are going after fucking RPS now? RPS as a site has no obligation to champion anyone's cause, either the cuase of their colleagues or the cause of their fans. They are doing their job. They are doing it better than anyone. Maybe their personal code of ethics extends to not getting the site involved in this. And why should they? We know their pinions as people already. People couldn't stop linking Walker's piece earlier and now just because he's not saying the same things again under RPS's banner he's somehow shameful.

Direct your anger properly. Direct your anger consistently. By hunting for excuses to paint with the broadest brush possible you are dulling your point. You're giving ammo to pithy "new games journalists" to start with the "Meh, nerds hate everything, no cause for concern."
This.

RPS is the closest thing we have to the gaming site utopia people are asking for. I can´t think of any other site that has been close to deliver the kind trashing RPS has given to the big publishers - Activitision, Ubisoft, EA and even Valve.

It´s one thing to think that they should cover this story more, but please try to not loose it completely.
 
I don't even do that because most are horrible. I literally get all my gaming reviews from gaf. The most I read a review is the score and by what publication in one of the game threads a person makes for an upcoming game. Even then I could care less.

I see a thread about a good article on RPS or another site, I'll check it out. I've literally given up on the gaming "journalism" industry years ago.
Well, I don't really read reviews from any source, I just don't have much use for them. There was actually a good, though brief, bit on the Giant Bomb podcast a little while ago about the merit of reviews nowadays. Especially for those who know what they want, like in how many cases it can just seem like people are using them for reaffirmation or fanboy wars, etc. I mean look at our own threads for that kind of thing and you can totally see that in motion.

For me, who knows what they want, usually a bit of video content and some nice previews or impressions sets are enough. NeoGAF, RPS, Giant Bomb, wikia's and a few individualist sites for certain games are the strong bulk of my gaming media experience with a few shitty sites in the RSS for news.

But you're right, there are plenty so incredibly shitty that I can't even tolorate them in that regard, like...Kotaku! Even as one line RSS fodder I found them grating.
 
If that is true then that deserved to be a news story. "Nintendo only sending 3DS to press that accepts a truck full of beautiful women with it."

Think of the hits you could get on THAT story. Not just from gamers, from mainstream interests.
I totally agree, but to be fair to GB it feels like taping it (and making it as awkward and self-aware as possible) was their way of making it the story, as much as they made anything a story back then.

I wonder if Patrick would have changed anything about the handling of that weirdness if he'd been with them at the time. This was before they really acknowledged themselves as a "news" site outside of podcast ruminations and they focused solely on the review side, but maybe if something similar happened now there would be an article. Hard to say, though. Patrick seems to fancy himself more of an investigative journalist and something so many of his peers in the industry would already be aware of might not strike him as "news-worthy."
 
This.

RPS is the closest thing we have to the gaming site utopia people are asking for. I can´t think of any other site that has been close to deliver the kind trashing RPS has given to the big publishers - Activitision, Ubisoft, EA and even Valve.

It´s one thing to think that they should cover this story more, but please try to not loose it completely.
I like RPS a lot. And I am not even saying that they absolutely need to cover this story. However that excuse they gave is pretty lame. So I see no reason not to call them out on it. Again, nobody is above criticism and being critical doesn't automatically mean "worst shill in the world." It can be simply that a really good site and really cool people kind of missed the boat on this one.

It doesn't always have to be "you are best site in the world and above all criticism" or "you are the worst shill in the world and everything you do sucks."
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Flip it around, and imagine our disgust at having thought we were reading work with integrity when it turns out we may have been fooling ourselves the whole time. It's like discovering your spouse has been having a "harmless" affair for the past ten years. You kind of thought something might be happening, but chose to ignore it because you didn't want to be thought paranoid or "batshit insane." And then they have the gall to tell you to "just move on and get over it." And maybe you do for a little while, but then you're given even more reasons to doubt them, and they refuse to come clean in a convincing way.

The kind of responses we're getting from journalists sound like the classic responses of the unfaithful spouse. "You're paranoid." "You're insane." "You're being unreasonable." Etc. Etc.
Come on man, I've read every post you've made in this thread and this is absolute bullshit. You've never once thought that the gaming industry was some bastion of integrity.

One visit to any of these sites and you can see that they are full on entertainment blogs with occasional journalistic piece and game criticism.

Seriously, is there anyone who can load up IGN and think it's the Wall Street Journal of the gaming world?

If you're going to keep spouting off your crap, at least pretend to be honest.
 
I totally agree, but to be fair to GB it feels like taping it (and making it as awkward and self-aware as possible) was their way of making it the story, as much as they made anything a story back then.
That's an excellent point. However, that also reveals the weird thing about covering something "ironically." You kind of get to have it both ways. There was no overt criticism of it. It was more ironic bemusement. I definitely hear what you are saying, though.
 
This.

RPS is the closest thing we have to the gaming site utopia people are asking for. I can´t think of any other site that has been close to deliver the kind trashing RPS has given to the big publishers - Activitision, Ubisoft, EA and even Valve.

It´s one thing to think that they should cover this story more, but please try to not loose it completely.
I fail to see how PR arms of publishers are not part of the games industry, I think that's why people are questioning RPS as the reasoning they have given for not covering the story makes little sense.
 
John Walker from RPS wrote the first article before the Eurogamer edit, two more after it, hosted a fourth written by Florece itself in which he implies that publishers and MCV editoral's were involved. He also has spoken strongly against this on twitter. It seems to me that you guys are looking really hard for corruption in games media when he has being doing it for a while in his blog before you even cared. Granted, they have talked about the behind the scenes before but they tend to be cheeky.

The guy explained since the beginning that he wasnt gonna involve RPS because the site is about games, granted, he has put critiques in the sites before, but its not like he has tried to stay away from the issue, playing it down, avoid blaming eurogamer or say he is not a game journalism. Im a avid reader from the site, and believe me, you dont need to read their code of ethics to know where they stand on this issue.
 
Come on man, I've read every post you've made in this thread and this is absolute bullshit. You've never once thought that the gaming industry was some bastion of integrity.

One visit to any of these sites and you can see that they are full on entertainment blogs with occasional journalistic piece and game criticism.

Seriously, is there anyone who can load up IGN and think it's the Wall Street Journal of the gaming world?

If you're going to keep spouting off your crap, at least pretend to be honest.
You enjoy speaking in extremes. "Integrity" doesn't mean "Wall Street Journal" (and if you knew me, you'd realize you really stepped into it by making that particular analogy). The world doesn't resolve into extremes of black and white, good and bad. Integrity comes in all forms, not just in world news and interest rates.
 
John Walker from RPS wrote the first article before the Eurogamer edit, two more after it, hosted a fourth written by Florece itself in which he implies that publishers and MCV editoral's was involved. He also has spoken strongly against this on twitter. It seems to me that you guys are looking really hard for corruption in games media when he has being doing it for a while in his blog before you even cared. Granted, they have talked about the behind the scenes before but its then to be cheeky.

The guy explained since the begging that he wasnt gonna involve RPS because the site its about games, granted, he has put critiques in the sites before, but its not like he has tried to stay away from the issue, avoid blaming eurogamer or say he is not a game journalism.
Thanks for the links. Some fantastic articles there. Especially this one. The fact that I nor anybody else in this thread has linked to it yet kind of maybe proves the point, though? RSP gets a lot more attention and a lot bigger audience. Those articles are fantastic. They deserve a wide audience.
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
You enjoy speaking in extremes. "Integrity" doesn't mean "Wall Street Journal" (and if you knew me, you'd realize you really stepped into it by making that particular analogy). The world doesn't resolve into extremes of black and white, good and bad. Integrity comes in all forms, not just in world news and interest rates.
Did you even read what you wrote?

Flip it around, and imagine our disgust at having thought we were reading work with integrity when it turns out we may have been fooling ourselves the whole time.
You are directly implying that you feel like you were lied too because you once thought gaming websites were something than what they are.

That is disingenuous to say the least. Your username seems to fit.
 
If we're castigating sites like Kotaku for not covering it there's no logical reason RPS shouldn't fall under the same brush. We aren't playing favorites here. That's how you remain consistent.

The idea is to get this conversation out there in the public sphere so it isn't just forgotten and neglected. RPS has a large audience and this story would be well-served being discussed on the site.
The problem is that the discussion has now turned into the entire business of game journalism being corrupt or unethical. Completely unfair.

As well, sites that choose not to write about this issue, all stemming from one "journalist" who demonstrated some tremendous lapse of judgement and a photo of Geoff Keighley doing a promo piece for an established marketing campaign, is their prerogative.

As for sites like Giant Bomb, I do trust that they can keep their personal relationships and their critique separate. I have found them to be open and honest in their communication and have never once felt that they were shilling for a company.

Yes, there are some serious issues in the world of game journalism, but let's not paint everyone with the same negative brush.
 
You are directly implying that you feel like you were lied too because you once thought gaming websites were something than what they are.

That is disingenuous to say the least.

Because if anyone is painting the world in extremes, it would be yourself.
What on earth are you talking about?

I hate this "well d'uh" reply that comes up on NeoGAF all too often. You are implying that you somehow have a perfect grasp on the writing, conduct and motivation of all gaming websites.

I have found this discussion hugely insightful and interesting. I consider myself better informed because of it, and am more well-prepared to be skeptical about journalism in multiple fields. I'm also more comfortable with why I find doing anything PRish for my games a less than wholesome act. Heaven forbid someone might learn something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.