Editorial RPG Codex Editorial: Where Journalism Goes to Write Itself

[Grunker]

Although we had fun at Gamescom, our overall impression of the conference was not very positive. We were just fans who wanted to write about games for other fans, who finally got a look at how the business of games journalism is conducted behind the scenes at conferences like this one. It was a troubling sight.

Ever since Jeff Gerstmann was fired for writing a negative review, and especially since the proliferation of that famous image of another "journalist" staring blankly at the camera next to a table of commercial products, criticism of modern games journalism has become widespread.

In the following piece, we add our contribution to this ongoing criticism. Have a snippet:

I cannot think of anything similar in any other field of journalism. I cannot conceive of a large industry of “film previews” where a bunch of critics write about a film's trailer based on the words of its producer and neither can I conceive of a silent press conference with a room full of journalists jotting down the words of the host and nothing more. Should you feel the need to make a sarcastic jab here – i.e. “that's pretty much what the White House press conference is, isn't it?” - then take heed: not even from the most politically or or journalistically sceptical point of view is the comparison apt. No matter how passive you might think modern journalism, film criticism, or whatever are, they're nothing like this silent crowd of people, with their headphones switched on and their minds switched off.​

Read the full article: RPG Codex Editorial: Where Journalism Goes to Write Itself

 

[Maiandros]

I cannot conceive of a large industry of “film previews” where a bunch of critics write about a film's trailer based on the words of its producer and neither can I conceive of a silent press conference with a room full of journalists jotting down the words of the host and nothing more

Oversimplifying..the cancer of the western culture effect..
It is one thing to be opinionless and quite another to be content with transmitting..allowing others to think for themselves
Perhaps this should ring a bell or two..closer to home..yes?

From the new paradigm shift of pasting other people's work, we have moved on to pasting other people's work and adding our very own personal comment in the bottom of our pasted foreign text..so all our readers may get to read it prior to having a look at the article itself. Word springing to mind is predisposed. Informative? Oppressive? Misleading, or merely amateuristic? Subjective? Or perhaps objective? Opinionless, to get back on track, or merely disrespectful of the average Codexian's capability to form their own idea?

I know how the Codex benefits..i do..google algorythms, etc-wise..i understand.
Does that suffice however? Prior to looking at the neighbour's mansion (ie Gamescon), perhaps we should focus on our very own tiny abode.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Darth Roxor]

So... "gaming" "conferences" are nothing more than gigantic ads? More news at 11

As with so many other things in life, people are not to blame here. Systems are.

The moral of this story is: You can't trust the system!

 

[Maiandros]

and who is it that forms, maintains and empowers the current power relations (what you call 'system') ?

The end result is never the culprit. It is but the excuse

 

[thesheeep]

Really good article. This might be the first Codex article I shared on various networks.

 

[felipepepe]

"News is what somebody does not want you to print. All the rest is advertising", so goes the saying...

 

[Grunker]

and who is it that forms, maintains and empowers the current power relations (what you call 'system') ?

The end result is never the culprit. It is but the excuse

Well, I am not ready to postulate solutions, but I doubt a good one is saying that people are lazy or stupid. The central point I was trying to make is that even if a critical journalist turned up to produce critical journalism, he would have zero chance of doing that at Gamescom, which is supposed to be a venue for communication between those that make games and those that play them. Film Festivals have pretty good conditions for critics in comparison, and critics are "major players" at the festivals. Because the industry needs them. Because the public listens to them. Critics or "game journalists" have no power whatsoever at places like Gamescom. They practically have to lick the boots of the industry and say "thank you" and "amen" when they get sneak peeks on advertisement.

I really do think, also qua the addendum, that games journalism and criticism is becoming more and more irrelevant, except for niche youtubers and media. The mainstream production of information for video games is being overtaken - to a large degree - by advertisement (except if you want to discuss how IRL politics and video gaming mix on Kotako or something). Down-to-earth mainstream criticism like video game versions of major film critics who the broad public listen to are not forthcoming.

And I don't think they don't exist. There are plenty of smart, charismatic, potential critics. The problem is that there is no mainstream venue for them to communicate.

Perhaps the closest thing we have is, God forbid, TotalBiscuit. I can't believe I said that, but frankly, I don't see who else can claim to have a sort of "normal" critical profile and a huge audience in the world of games criticism.

The moral of this story is: You can't trust the system!

Touché

Though, to be fair, one of my points is that I don't set myself apart from all this. Throwing it on the ground won't help shit

 

[felipepepe]

Perhaps the closest thing we have is, God forbid, TotalBiscuit. I can't believe I said that, but frankly, I don't see who else can claim to have a sort of "normal" critical profile and a huge audience in the world of games criticism.

Totalbicuit and AngryJoe are the people you go to when you just wanna see the game & hear some impressions. Text Pharaohs like bro sea or forum threads is where to go for long, detailed text reviews & discussions. A fan reviewing games for free, with no strings attached, do it much more passionately, more deeply, honestly and with more knowledge than a gaming journalist that has to review 10 games per week. Seriously, have you ever seen a "professional" 6-page review?

IGN, Kotaku and the likes can't afford/manage/bother to make 30 minutes videos for each game, and their written reviews can't ever match the likes of GameBanshee or forum threads, so what's left for them? They survive on quick accessibility, exclusives, "celebrities" like the Doritos Pope and, recently, social crusades.

 

[Grunker]

Perhaps the closest thing we have is, God forbid, TotalBiscuit. I can't believe I said that, but frankly, I don't see who else can claim to have a sort of "normal" critical profile and a huge audience in the world of games criticism.

Totalbicuit and AngryJoe are the people you go to when you just wanna see the game & hear some impressions. Text Pharaohs like bro sea or forum threads is where to go for long, detailed text reviews & discussions.

You misunderstand. Everything does not have to be supercritical, indepth analysis. In fact there's plenty of that in niche gaming media. What we lack are basic mainstream critics. People who know video games intimately and offer criticism to a wide audience. The Roger Ebert of games, so to speak, but not just an Ebert. We need a mainstream "industry" of critics that the broad audiences like and trust, and the real industry come to rely on. Like every single other entertainment industry has; movies, books, music, whatever.

The closest thing we have that I can think of is TotalBiscuit, and frankly that underlines how non-existing mainstream video game criticism really is.

 

[Roguey]

What we lack are basic mainstream critics. People who know video games intimately and offer criticism to a wide audience. The Roger Ebert of games, so to speak, but not just an Ebert. We need a mainstream "industry" of critics that the broad audiences like and trust, and the real industry come to rely on. Like every single other entertainment industry has; movies, books, music, whatever.

 

[Zeriel]

Hahhahaha, oh boy. "Gaming journalism" in a nutshell, that image.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Journalists he says...

 

[MicoSelva]

Great article. It is also good to read a confirmation of one's suspicions from someone who experiences the whole thing first-hand. This quote sums it all up best for me:

I've always had a gut feeling that these conference previews all looked eerily similar regardless of the journalist who wrote them and the magazines who published them. After visiting Gamescom, there is not a shadow of doubt in my mind as to why.

 

[M0RBUS]

I used to care about game journalism. I used to go on sites to search for news and previews and reviews and all that sort of stuff. Hell, I even used to have a news-site of my own, with a team and all! And while that's all well and good, and while I was perfectly aware of the problems raised in this article, I find myself, now, disillusioned with the whole scene of game journalism.

I just don't care anymore. I don't give a rat's ass.

I play just as much as I used to, if not more, but I just don't have time to read or listen to tripe from people who I don't respect or find relevant in any way. I'd rather read the user's opinions in a forum and read about what they DON'T like, than read the ravings of a paid professional going on about the subtleties of the setting and the production values of a game, things that are important, sure, but usually not the defining aspects of a game.

Take the latest Tomb Raider for example. To put it simple, it's a dumbed down, rail-roaded third person shooter in the most hollywoodesc manner with an impossible plot and setting where the most fun you get is if you're a completionist like me and try to find everything and explore every area. And even then, halfway through the game you'll find yourself bored and hoping that you're near the end.

I guess the other way to have fun is if you just not give a damn. But that's the way to have fun with ANYTHING.

I can't say for sure, of course, but I doubt any journalist was paid to write about Tomb Raider in such manner. But people in forums are much more straightforward. And over the years I've learned to filter through the shit, and I can pick up a single line or sentence from a whole thread and make my mind up about a game, or a movie, or a series. Even if the line is saying the exact opposite. "The film is to be commended for its thought provoking premise"? My conclusion: read the synopsis and you're set. "Confident rather than ambitious"? My conclusion: same old, same old. That sort of stuff.

 

[Zed]

Also don't forget to check out grotsnik's well-received article on the subject, written shortly after the Doritos thing: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8579

 

[Kem0sabe]

Traditional news outlets, like news papers are also guilty a lot of the time for lack of good and independent reporting, especially smaller papers.

A lot of them here in Portugal do little else than transcribe official press releases.

Journalism, with precious few exceptions is a dying profession, considering what it once was.

 

[Ninja Destroyer]

self-respecting games journalist

The talk with Alexander is interrupted by the fact that I have to go back to Ubisoft's invitational party so as not to seem rude to my hosts

So now yoy have met some new drinking buddies. Don't go that road Grunker.

Maybe in the future we will have only a few biggest advertising plants pretending to be journalists, and the rest of the crew will be taken by PR department? Reading about the process of making the "articles", it wouldn't be bad by disposing them for good. After reading something made for free by someone who really put some effort into it, I'm sure that nothing of value will be lost.

 

[sea]

Nice article, and I think it hits the nail on the head for why venues like E3 and Gamescom really have nothing to do with journalism anymore and instead are largely designed as a media circus, where the biggest, loudest, most impressive games are the ones that come out on top, both in the eyes of journalists and the gaming community at large.

The hilarious thing is that E3 was redesigned some years ago to become a more serious venue for journalists, getting rid of public participation and much of the glint and spectacle. It was also a failure largely because the journalists were no longer attracted to it after these changes, and quickly it was returned back to its old ways. That tells me that many journalists are less interested in doing real reporting and more are interested in simply having an entertaining time.

Many of the better sites out there no longer even make much effort to cover E3 and other big conferences directly, because although the information that comes out of them is rarely worth witnessing in person. Going to these conferences is extremely expensive and time consuming, and as the sites with more integrity tend to be smaller it often makes very little sense for them to shell out the cash just to be yet another voice in the crowd repeating the same filtered information.

I thought about trying to get into real "games journalism" a few years back but quickly realized that I would never actually become successful unless I was able to brown-nose my way to the top. The field is incredibly cliquey and success has nothing to do with your quality of reporting, writing or analysis and everything to do with your ability to latch onto trending ideas, coddle other journalists and make connections with influential people. That is primarily what games journalists are concerned with, not with providing high-quality coverage, and deep down they know that they will never be as critical as they need to be simply because once they do that, people start to get pissed off and the gravy train begins to run dry.

For the record: I agree with Grunker above that there is little need for six-page critical analysis in the mainstream. There is a place for it, but reviews like the ones I write aren't really targeted at the "average gamer" but rather the kind of person who is already familiar with a genre or game, and is more interested in discussing it rather than mere purchase advice. There's a place for that as much as there is for the IGN-style reviews, but the real problem with that side of the spectrum isn't so much in the tone or breadth of the coverage as it is in the integrity of the piece to begin with.

 

[Maiandros]

Grunker
You mix different issues in your reply to me, and most of which i would agree with. Generally speaking you seem to have grasped both the tendencies and the 'needs' of all those gaming business satellites existing out there. Journalism primarily among them. It is what it feeds on to thrive.

My hints/remarks were however made specifically in regards to the Codex. Native to our needs is less of a mainstream oriented coverage and more of an in depth questioning and analysing. I stop here, because although i believe everyone and their mommy is in need of that, the world shall not change, not through the Codex ^^
So in regards to the Codex? Shall we pick?

1. Journalism [dare i call it that? no..] as the jewtron pasting other peoples' work, flavouring them with a two liner at the end since people started, reasonably so, blaming him for brofisting
2. Journalism in the sense of our guy interviewing Larian. Which was more of a fanboi's cock sucking treatise rather than the actual thing. Views it got, smiles it produced, gaming journalism it was not.
3. Journalism in the sense of Codex's Numenera interview..was it you who did that? Or another? Have forgotten who it was..now THAT was gaming journalism. The interviewer displayed a depth of knoweldge in regards to his subject, sufficient skill to navigate through the context the developer wished to focus , while still managing to extract important information and through difficult questions. Juicy, in-depth, relevant to your medium's --specific-- needs, revealing. edit: i think it was grotsnik?

Which would you pick?
And if it mattered to everyone equally, would you be seeing all those moronic threads in our Site Feedback? No..so what does that tell you..

 

[Infinitron]

1. Journalism [dare i call it that? no..] as the jewtron pasting other peoples' work, flavouring them with a two liner at the end since people started, reasonably so, blaming him for brofisting
2. Journalism in the sense of our guy interviewing Larian. Which was more of a fanboi's cock sucking treatise rather than the actual thing. Views it got, smiles it produced, gaming journalism it was not.

1. The Codex isn't a gaming journalism site. The purpose of the Codex front page is to supply people on the forum with stuff to talk about, not to "do journalism".
2. The way I post news is directly from DarkUnderlord's own newsposting guidelines. It's not something I invented.

 

[Darth Roxor]

That tells me that many journalists are less interested in doing real reporting and more are interested in simply having an entertaining time.

Eh, can you really blame them? I mean, they essentially do "reporting" all around the clock all the time (aka copypasting news from different sites or whatever), so once something big and/or different happens, they might as well go ahead and do something different as well.

 

[Grunker]

Maiandros: I would agree with you if not for one thing: this is just a volunteer fansite. We have no obligation or need for journalistic integrity (though I'd say we actually have a pretty good deal of it - The Codex rarely compromises).

While I personally thought Gragt's Larian visit piece was way more positive than I would have written it, I have no problem with the piece as part of the Codex profile. Because we are just random fans and volunteers writing how it suits us. Infinitron's newsposting is perfect, because it's either that or nothing. It's a blessing that we have a dedicated person like him to pick through the flood of shitty gaming news and find the stuff relevent to Codex interests.

The difference is that we're just random guys on a website doing things on our spare time. We're not doing this as our job. The fact that our profile has more integrity than most of the mainstream games criticism doesn't mean we're beholden to that profile; it means something is seriously fucked up with mainstream games criticism.

There is a big reason we don't call ourselves games journalists in our articles from Gamescom. We're not. We're just fans/gamers/whatever.

In short: the people who generously donate their time to the users of this site - for free - owe nothing to nobody. If they got paid, if they told their users "you can trust us enough to let us earn a living on informing you", THEN there would be a huge issue of integrity.

Also: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/might-magic-x.81387/page-71#post-2826894

Also don't forget to check out grotsnik's well-received article on the subject, written shortly after the Doritos thing: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8579

Should have mentioned this in the summary. That truly is the quintessential Codex commentary on modern games criticism.

 

[Maiandros]

Infinitron You contribute man, i don't. I recall that first and above all else. It's not personal a thing, in the slightest..let us just say that our views clash, even if your take on it is that you are merely going by DU's directives.

Grunker But we could be...we really could be; It only has 2 prerequisites you see..critical thinking (with all it entails), and a commitment to a higher standard. Sound familiar?

 

[Grunker]

But we could be...

You do not work for free unless you have fun. The minute we have to cross-check everything, the minute we have to "force" people into doing extensive quality control and double-check sources, that is the minute that managing this site's content becomes less fun and more work. You said Infinitron did too much copy-pasting, which means you want us to produce our own news stream. That's hard work. That takes lots more manpower than we have, lots more writing, and lots better editing. Where do you propose we find that? Because until we do, Infinitron's selective news process is what we're going to get. I for one am glad we have that over nothing.

I think our profile has plenty of integrity and that our news stream is excellent. I don't think there are (m)any sites that have content profiles with as much depth as us when it comes to the genre-related content we do.

That is more than enough for me until the day DarkUnderlord decides we need to be about serious buzinezz, makes a set of coherent content-criteria and starts paying us.

(and regardless, my main point was that niche-media like us don't matter that much - this is first and foremost a problem with mainstream media criticism)

 

[Darth Roxor]

While I personally thought Gragt's Larian visit piece was way more positive than I would have written it

I'm sure you would

Also, am I the only one who doesn't exactly get what's Maiandros's point?