Editorial RPG Codex Editorial: Where Journalism Goes to Write Itself

[Grunker]

I'm sure you would

^ I dare say that piece was more critical than Gragt's

 

[Outlander]

Nice write-up mang. As usual, everything is shit. And it will continue to be shit for a very long time, since the readers, writers and least of all the companies don't care to change this.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Grunker
I was afraid that Ubishit bought you...but the codex delivers

 

[Sceptic]

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

You are not alone.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Nicely done, bro.

I am starting to believe that your contributions to Codexia somewhat outweigh your despictable views on Fallout, and that it wouldn't be a net benefit to purge ourselves of the stain of your existence.

Also, we still need that MMX swag photo. Act like a real journalist for once.

 

[Wyrmlord]

All this editorializing on RPG Codex is resembling a teenager making love for the first time.

At first, there's pangs of guilt for having done something never done before. And then suddenly, the habit becomes more brazen with each successive act.

I thought editorializing was a Kotaku thing, not a Codex thing.

 

[Gentle Player]

The root of the problem is, as you've correctly identified, the system itself. And that system is capitalism. I don't want to get political about it, but it's pure logic that you aren't going to get fair, balanced and critical journalism when there are vested interests at stake such as advertising money, publisher pressure, exclusive scoops, etc. If a so-called critic submits a "wrong" review, his job is at stake. If an editor allows multiple "wrong" reviews to be published, and they annoy the wrong people, publishers pull their adverts out and the publication goes out of business. However, this is certainly nothing new and I don't agree that it's mostly relegated to gaming journalism (though games journalism probably comes off as looking worse than say, film or literary journalism, simply because the game journos are less sophisticated in their lack of integrity, probably as a result of gaming as a whole being a much newer and less sophisticated medium).

If anyone has a few minutes to spare, they might like to read this short essay by Orwell, published in 1936. It concerns the reviewing of novels, and the public's perception of the novel as a result of these hack reviews. The setting and the subject are different, but the cast is largely unchanged and the themes are uncannily the same: publications relying on advertising money, greedy publishers, journalists starting work with a genuine passion for the novel and a desire to write critical reviews becoming disillusioned or losing their jobs, virtually everything being praised in hyperbolic language, and, my personal favourite, most of the intelligentsia looking down on the novel as an inferior form of art because "when all novels are thrust upon you as words of genius, it is quite natural to assume that all of them are tripe." Sound familiar?

 

[Zed]

All this editorializing on RPG Codex is resembling a teenager making love for the first time.

At first, there's pangs of guilt for having done something never done before. And then suddenly, the habit becomes more brazen with each successive act.

I thought editorializing was a Kotaku thing, not a Codex thing.

nothing and everything is a codex thing.

we do what we want.

 

[Minttunator]

None of this is really surprising, sadly. Good article nonetheless!

 

[Kz3r0]

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

You are not alone.

Actually Maiandros has more of a point than you think, originally game journalism was from the fans for the fans, then you got fanboy reviews like Gragt's one, not bad, very well written and entertaining but not exactly journalism either, also being a fan means that it's easy to become a whiteknight against the unbelievers as Grunker did with the whole Logic Artists and Bitcomposer deal, who was right or wrong doesn't matter, the final step was the hiring of the fans for PR like inXile did with Brother None, and people made fun of Bioware for hiring community managers.
To clarify, and avoid to sound as Skyway, all of the above examples aren't a form of accusation to the Codexers cited, they did their unpaid job with honesty and quite well, but, remember, game jounalism didn't become as is now only because of corporate culture and money or dishonesty, in many cases enthusistic teenagers found themselves in their thirties with a family and no better job than gaming journalism.
To conclude, the fundamental reasons why the Codex is still better than others is not because of monocleness, but because they are the only basement dwellers with a paid job outside the gaming industry.

 

[Cosmic Misogynerd]

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

You are not alone.

 

[Grunker]

The root of the problem is, as you've correctly identified, the system itself. And that system is capitalism.

Let me stop you right there. Mainstream critcism of all other entertainment industries are in a way better, way more mature state than that of video gaming. Say what you will about movie, book or music criticism - it might suck according to you or it might be alright - the fact is, most of it is way more focused, more critical and has better conditions than game criticism.

My point is not political. As such, political discussion on this subject is missing the point.

You're free to think everything would be better one way or the other, but better criticism can and should exist within capitalism as well. I'm not saying you (or Orwell, God forbid) don't have point, I'm saying my point is unrelated to it.

 

[Scruffy]

I will try to be serious here, for once.

(oh and of course, tl,dr: only listen to Andyman Messiah)

First of all, we all knew. We all knew that gaming journalism is shit. We have all played a game that was highly praised on gaming magazine X, only to be strongly disappointed at how shit it was. The more this happened, the more it was clear that “gaming journalism” wasn’t doing its job.

I used to read Zzap! and similar stuff, because at that time internet wasn’t what it is now, and finding information on games was difficult. Sure, you could simply try every single game on the latest Twilight, or even play the demos that came on the CDs enclosed to the magazines, but a better alternative was checking what someone who had actually played it thought. And the whole obvious, implied thing was that you trusted the opinion of someone you didn’t know, you trusted his integrity, and in a way his taste.

Because that’s what actual journalism is: I haven’t been there, but you, Mr. Journalist, you have. And you tell me that this is how things are going. I have no way to verify it, so all I can do is take the information you gave me and either trust it or not.

And while trusting or not trusting someone on the war in some place in Africa won’t probably affect me much, trusting someone who was describing as good something I would have to spend money on, for a moneyless teenager was a p. big deal.

I still remember reading how awesome Lands of Lore 3 was supposed to be, and how enraged I was for spending money on it (it was shit). I even remember writing a letter to the magazine I used to read complaining that they claimed it was good. (no answers).

Today, it’s p. safe to say that the situation is inverted: whatever a gaming journalist says, it’s bound to be received with skepticism, at least by “adult” gamers. Kids are a big part of the market, and shit games like Oblivion or Skyrim are aimed at them, with the pretty graphics, the instant gratification and the brainless repeating of the same shit over and over again.

Of course the whole shift happened when VGs started being a popular pastime and not just a shameful nerd practice. When you are trying to fill a niche, you have to give your customers exactly what they want. When your market becomes huge and populated by retards, the quality of the product can go fuck itself and all you need is good PR to show morons the shiny baubles.

So, the integrity of the journalist is no longer necessary, its figure changes from a person who knows what X is and is telling you why/if you should buy it too, to a whore. And all a whore cares for is money. A whore doesn’t care about you, about your feelings, about your taste. A whore cares about your money, and that’s it.

Kids don’t have an income, don’t have money to spend, all they know is that Mr. Parent will buy them this game if they ask. And the internet said that this game is cool, so it must be. An actual gaming journalist needs to start gathering to a niche again. The niche of old time gamers, who are now adults with an income, and want something different from the pretty retardation that is constantly put on the shelves.

If they’re not gathering to a niche of people who actually want honest information about a game, then they’re just selling their integrity to whomever gives them money. Again, that’s what whores do. And you shouldn’t listen to whores when it comes to something different from how to be fucked. That’s all they know.

 

[Maiandros]

Kz3r0

 

[Xi]

I never read Profeshunal ReeVues. Instead, I would look at user comments. After reading a 20-30 of those, and varying between positive ones and negative ones, you get a good sense of what you are in for. However, even those have been corrupted as people are clearly paid to write those too.

Edit:

This problem is not limited to video games either.

 

[Sceptic]

Actually Maiandros has more of a point than you think, originally game journalism was from the fans for the fans, then you got fanboy reviews like Gragt's one, not bad, very well written and entertaining but not exactly journalism either, also being a fan means that it's easy to become a whiteknight against the unbelievers as Grunker did with the whole Logic Artists and Bitcomposer deal, who was right or wrong doesn't matter, the final step was the hiring of the fans for PR like inXile did with Brother None, and people made fun of Bioware for hiring community managers.

I'm, uh, still confused. First define "originally"; because when I think "game journalism" I don't think some random internet blog, I think of the old early-80s computer game magazines. Sure they were "by fans for fans" but they were (the good and successful ones at least) run by people with good business sense; they wouldn't survive otherwise. Back then if you wanted people to read your game review you didn't write it on blogger; you actually had to get it printed and published, usually using your own publishing house. That's as far from "from the fans" as you can get, and certainly a LOT further from it than we are now. If anything I'd say the decline of game journalism happened precisely because it shifted and was taken over by fans writing their unadultered praise of whatever they're a fanboy of at the time - and when they suddenly get offered a free flight and hotel and dining to do more of that it all suddenly looks like the Good Life. Compare again to those 80s reviewers, many of which bought the games with their own money (there's a reason I and many others considered Scorpia incorruptible), and the whole structure of the game magazine relied on a complete separation of the editorial and advertising departments.

As for Gragt's review... why isn't it journalism? I totally agree with the guy with no time for crap: Gragt reported VERY METICULOUSLY on everything he saw and heard. That's the very essence of journalism. His personal opinion matters suddenly a lot less because I have so much information, as much as he does almost, and I can formulate my own opinion on whether this game is good or crap.

I have no idea what the whole Grunker whiteknighting thing you're talking about. I didn't follow that whole thing much.

Nobody makes fun of Bioware because they hire community managers. People make fun of them because their community managers are terrible. See Chris Priestley.

remember, game jounalism didn't become as is now only because of corporate culture and money or dishonesty, in many cases enthusistic teenagers found themselves in their thirties with a family and no better job than gaming journalism.

I'm not sure I agree, looking back at the history of game journalism.

 

[Zarniwoop]

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

Well, I, for one, am shocked. SHOCKED!!!

 

[Humanity has risen!]

It's the Internet that's the problem, there's dozens of millions of excited teenagers ready to work for free for breadcrumbs and to do anything. Paid and professional will never win against free. The Internet magnified the supply and demand factor, which was already off the scale to begin with.

And we see that with mainstream news media as well, now they all outsource media and stories from bloggers and the public. Jeff Bezos mentioned that when he acquired the Washington Post last month.

 

[Kz3r0]

I'm, uh, still confused. First define "originally"; because when I think "game journalism" I don't think some random internet blog, I think of the old early-80s computer game magazines. Sure they were "by fans for fans" but they were (the good and successful ones at least) run by people with good business sense; they wouldn't survive otherwise. Back then if you wanted people to read your game review you didn't write it on blogger; you actually had to get it printed and published, usually using your own publishing house. That's as far from "from the fans" as you can get, and certainly a LOT further from it than we are now. If anything I'd say the decline of game journalism happened precisely because it shifted and was taken over by fans writing their unadultered praise of whatever they're a fanboy of at the time - and when they suddenly get offered a free flight and hotel and dining to do more of that it all suddenly looks like the Good Life. Compare again to those 80s reviewers, many of which bought the games with their own money (there's a reason I and many others considered Scorpia incorruptible), and the whole structure of the game magazine relied on a complete separation of the editorial and advertising departments.

I have read some of those old magazines, in my opinion they weren't much different from what you can read on internet fora nowadays.

As for Gragt's review... why isn't it journalism? I totally agree with the guy with no time for crap: Gragt reported VERY METICULOUSLY on everything he saw and heard. That's the very essence of journalism. His personal opinion matters suddenly a lot less because I have so much information, as much as he does almost, and I can formulate my own opinion on whether this game is good or crap.

I too appreciated his piece, but in my opinion if you want to go the 'real' journalism route you need something more than a faithful chronicle.

I have no idea what the whole Grunker whiteknighting thing you're talking about. I didn't follow that whole thing much.

It's not important.

Nobody makes fun of Bioware because they hire community managers. People make fun of them because their community managers are terrible. See Chris Priestley.

I remember that they made fun of the thing in itself, I can be wrong.

I'm not sure I agree, looking back at the history of game journalism.

Can vary from country to country, for sure it's true for Italy.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Many computer magazines were a lot different than what we have today.

 

[Gragt]

I'm sure you would

^ I dare say that piece was more critical than Gragt's

Well I got a better bribe.

More seriously I didn't want to be overtly critical for various reasons. One was that it was my first experience visiting a developer and trying their games in-progress. The second was that I had a good contact with them and they were genuinely nice people. Of course it's no excuse to cover things up and that's why I tried to be as objective and thorough (maybe too thorough according to some people …) as possible when describing what I saw. I noted the potential of some aspects and how fresh they felt, but again it all depends on the final product and it may very well be shit. And I didn't feel it'd be fair to analyse everything in a work-in-progress, but I'd be more critical in case of a final product.

With this article here, which was a good read, you wrote about stuff I thankfully didn't have to encounter during a very small-time event like my visit to Larian. Being a misanthrope, I'm sure I would have dipped my pen in vitriol if I had been there.

 

[tuluse]

Gragt, I liked your article, and it was fine for what it was. But your reasons for not being "over critical" read exactly like a list of reasons why your piece shouldn't be treated as objective journalism.

 

[Kz3r0]

Actually more than the quality of Gragt's piece is the nature of the article itself that it's pure fanservice, Larian is well liked around here and people were interested in their next game, so the Codex sent a representative to review fundamentally a work in in progress, this is nothing different from what mainstream gaming journalism does, they just add the exclusive bit to it.
Nothing wrong with that the Codex is still well far away from becoming another IGN but the similarities are there.

 

[LundB]

All this editorializing on RPG Codex is resembling a teenager making love for the first time.

At first, there's pangs of guilt for having done something never done before. And then suddenly, the habit becomes more brazen with each successive act.

I thought editorializing was a Kotaku thing, not a Codex thing.

Wut.

Post would have made a lot more sense if it read "All this editorializing on RPG Codex is resembling a teenager making love for the first time. By which I mean they do it while drunk."

 

[Lancehead]

I'm, uh, still confused.

I believe Maindros point was that the Codex may be getting a little too close to the fire with some of the coverage. If we look back at the doritos-gate, the issue wasn't that there was explicit corruption in gaming journalism, which was very likely rare, but that the nature of relationship between the journalists and the game PR/companies compromises the former's ability to stay neutral. I think shades of that (though it isn't PR, but developers themselves in the Codex's case) were somewhat evident in Gragt's preview, extremely thorough though it was, and more substantively in the Gamescom previews. Plenty of words were dedicated to informing how nice the developers were, their passion for the games they're making, how their hearts are in the right place, how hard they're trying, how hopeful one should be about the games etc. How much truth is in there is not the question, and it's likely all that is true, but the previews do not read like written from a neutral perspective.

There is no wrongdoing, and I don't intend to belittle the efforts of those that contribute to the Codex voluntarily, but I think the Codex should try to keep a healthy distance from developers.