Editorial RPG Codex Editorial: Where Journalism Goes to Write Itself

[Gozma]

Meh, I like the system where the mainstream is purely an insulting capitalist shitmill better than the replacement system that is probably gonna evolve, which is where criticism is mirthless Kotaku-Cromwell moralism looking for weaklings to push around.

 

[deuxhero]

I cannot think of anything similar in any other field of journalism

Clearly you haven't been paying attention.

Eh? I was talking specifically about demo previews. Not sure how that relates.

There's also the craziness of American political journalism where "journalists" will repeat politicians, even down to the same buzzwords.

 

[Grunker]

I cannot think of anything similar in any other field of journalism

Clearly you haven't been paying attention.

Eh? I was talking specifically about demo previews. Not sure how that relates.

There's also the craziness of American political journalism where "journalists" will repeat politicians, even down to the same buzzwords.

My response is in the article (and the snippet in the OP):

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.

Critical questions are asked at press conferences. You might think journalism isn't what it used to be, and I'd agree, but most of it is a far cry from the complete mind blank of modern game criticism.

 

[Gragt]

I think there is a point to be made there, he's simply not broad enough in his observation. In fact, maybe your gamescom impressions aren't broad enough in their generalization either, and tuluse is actually right - this is all a problem because game previews are a weird editorial form that inherently gravitates towards mirroring publisher PR. I mean, for all intents and purposes, the previews you and Gragt wrote, for Logic Artists and Larian respectively, were informative, exhaustive, and fair. The problem with them is that you're ultimately just reporting what the developers show and tell you, with no way to verify it. You can ask pointed questions, and they can answer to your satisfaction, but there's no guarantee a particular feature will ultimately make it into the game, and this isn't through anyone's ill will (look at the SRR gameplay demo vs how that mission looks in the actual game).

There's really nothing you can do about this. You can strive for a neutral tone and refrain from describing how nice the people you met were, but that doesn't change the content of your piece in any meaningful way, and that content is unilaterally determined by the developer and publisher.

So maybe it's not really Gamescom that's the problem. It's the fact that everything's a preview. And that's not even to mention the exclusivity deals around early access to games in production.

Bingo. Short of it being obvious that your interlocutor is feeding you PR bullshit (I've seen some of it during my student years), there is a limit to what you can do short of getting the full product to review. And even then I'm of the opinion to avoid immediacy and instead sit on it a couple of months before publishing a review. What I do find important in previews though is the ability to give some perspective, compare it to what has already been done, what it's trying to achieve, etc. Again with my article on Larian, I don't remember reading any other preview where Original Sin's combat was compared to The Temple of Elemental Evil's. Unless there's some glaring problem, I don't think it's fair to bash the game for it right away. Actually that's the reason I told the guys at Larian that I thought that using the relationship stats only for flavour was a wasted opportunity. They seemed to take it seriously, which was a nice surprise, but I don't know how it'll end up.

Anyway it isn't wrong to have biases as long as you're aware of them.

 

[:Flash:]

I mean, it's a matter of target audience and/or perception. Sometimes overlooking some stuff and focusing on other is fine and dandy if your audience is aware of it, and you can get away with it freely. As it was said before, an article on IGN with all kinds of "impartial" information saying how the latest call of d00ty is great, cinematic and visceral is sure as fuck not gonna convince me to buy it on day one. But if I see a bloke I trust on the 'dex say that game_x fucking rocks and he doesn't give a shit about what anyone else says, I'll consider his opinion, solely on the basis that this is basically a no-bullshit environment where nobody takes any profit from such activity.

That is true. It is also the reason why the Codex is a target of PR machinery. The suits at Ubi have, for whatever strange reason, decided to make an oldschool RPG. Their PR department knows that the target audience for such a game doesn't give a rat's ass about what a major gaming website writes about it (which is one of the reasons they normally stay away from this - their normal modus operandi doesn't work). They also know that the target audience reads the Codex.
Might be that the devs are nice people.
Might be that the Ubi PR department told them to tell the 'dexers what they want to hear.
Might be both.

 

[Darth Roxor]

I DON'T KNOW WHO TO TRUST ANYMORE

 

[Kz3r0]

I DON'T KNOW WHO TO TRUST ANYMORE

trustn1

 

[Grunker]

I DON'T KNOW WHO TO TRUST ANYMORE

 

[Lhynn]

TL;DR if an article on the 'dex wanks all over a game, odds are it's for a reason. And if there's no reason, there's gonna be a hundred rageposts under it calling the author a retard with no taste. And everything stays in the family.

I believe we all got what you meant. problem with the industry is that its driven by non gamers for casuals, because of money.

 

[Grunker]

Might be that the Ubi PR department told them to tell the 'dexers what they want to hear.

Oh for christ sakes, this is some 9/11-type conspiracy shit. You cannot fake Julien Pirou's knowledge of the Might & Magic series. You cannot fake the knowledge of multiple fora member's opinions. Even IF (which is insanely unlikely) these guys had only spent a million man hours to read a bunch of forums to impress some random idiot from the Codex on the off-chance he would mention it in his article, that alone would be proof of dedication.

There is a hard line between manipulative PR and conspiracy theories about puppet mastering publishers. Again, like I told CM and multiple others in this thread: the problem isn't some evil circle of business people manipulating information and holding secret briefings with developers where they brainwash them into saying only the right things to a bunch of lazy journalists only there for mountain dew. The problem is that there are no conditions for proper journalism at a place like Gamescom. I cannot conduct critical interviews. I can't even sit down with the developers. I don't have time for long exchanges, and we can skip-jump through conversational topics. The problem is irrelevant, inexperienced and poor journalists, developers only interested in getting their games made, and publishers with control, power, money and little need for the journalists to sell their products.

Gamescom is engineered as a PR management project, and that's why you can't conduct proper journalism. Not because Pirou sat down with a Ubisoft communications expert and was told precisely how a Codexer would like to hear about M&M X.

 

[:Flash:]

Might be that the Ubi PR department told them to tell the 'dexers what they want to hear.

Oh for christ sakes, this is some 9/11-type conspiracy shit. You cannot fake Julien Pirou's knowledge of the Might & Magic series. You cannot the knowledge of multiple fora member's opinions. Even IF (which is insanely unlikely) these guys had only spent a million man hours to read a bunch of forums to impress some random idiot from the Codex on the off-chance he would mention it in his article, that alone would be proof of dedication.

There is a hard line between manipulative PR and conspiracy theories about puppet mastering publishers.

It was more of an example (even if possibly a poorly chosen one) of what might happen than a conspiracy theory.

 

[mindx2]

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.

I couldn't disagree more. I want the Codex to be THE PLACE where developers can go to and receive honest and open criticism and encouragement. Keep the business suits and PR/community managers away but the developers themselves should be a part of the Codex. I've learned more about the inner workings of my favorite hobby by reading rants arguments discussions from Vault Dweller, the Doublebear guys, Blackthorne, etc. and even Brother None before he turned to the darkside. Even though we joke around about our "Prestigious Magazine" cred, in reality we aren't a wannabe pseudo-journalist website. We're a fan-site dedicated to the glory days of cRPGs and the hopeful return of the . If we want that return... why wouldn't we want as much contact with developers as possible?!

 

[Cowboy Moment]

I think there is a point to be made there, he's simply not broad enough in his observation. In fact, maybe your gamescom impressions aren't broad enough in their generalization either, and tuluse is actually right - this is all a problem because game previews are a weird editorial form that inherently gravitates towards mirroring publisher PR. I mean, for all intents and purposes, the previews you and Gragt wrote, for Logic Artists and Larian respectively, were informative, exhaustive, and fair. The problem with them is that you're ultimately just reporting what the developers show and tell you, with no way to verify it. You can ask pointed questions, and they can answer to your satisfaction, but there's no guarantee a particular feature will ultimately make it into the game, and this isn't through anyone's ill will (look at the SRR gameplay demo vs how that mission looks in the actual game).

There's really nothing you can do about this. You can strive for a neutral tone and refrain from describing how nice the people you met were, but that doesn't change the content of your piece in any meaningful way, and that content is unilaterally determined by the developer and publisher.

So maybe it's not really Gamescom that's the problem. It's the fact that everything's a preview. And that's not even to mention the exclusivity deals around early access to games in production.

You are missing the point entirely, in my humble opinion.

An interview is an interview is an interview. It's not some sort of factual review and it isn't supposed to be - it doesn't attain quality in the attempt to be. When I visit Logic Artists, I have time for critical questions, I have time to ask for clarification. I sit down with the developers, and everything - the surroundings, my time with them, everything - is focused on my questions for them. As such, the premise is worthy of a good report. You can't make reports better. I'm not sure what you expect from a report beyond a good overview of what kind of developer we're talking about and what their intentions are for the game.

This has purpose, depth and meaning.

The problem with Gamescom is that it cannot even offer that. There is no room for contemplation. It is just "go here, get fed, regurgitate for audience." It was a struggle to get enough impressions and conversation time with Pirou and Winter to be able to write about the team behind M&M X, and I had a million questions that could have made the report much better.

From your post it sounds like any piece of games journalism has to report factual information about finished games to be worthy, and that's completely false from my perspective. There are great interviews out there with Lars Von Trier or whatever that shows his character and his attitude toward films in genereal, and they provide worthwhile, critical looks into the director's role in current cinema. Why shouldn't we do the same with games? You write:

You can ask pointed questions, and they can answer to your satisfaction, but there's no guarantee a particular feature will ultimately make it into the game

as if the point with reports is to give factual information about games. It isn't. The point of journalism and criticism isn't to provide readers with fact sheets.

EDIT: Gragt is missing the point as well

I actually agree with everything you say. Interviews and reports are perfectly valid forms of journalisms, and should be taken for what they are.

My point is, that game journalism arrived at a bastardized fusion of the two, which they deigned to label a "preview", which discards everything personal and interesting a real report or interview would contain, and instead simply focuses on the properties of an upcoming product. And it desperately tries to obfuscate the fact that it's inherently incapable of providing any factual information on the game in question. The name says it all, really - it's meant to be a proto-review, a prelude to the majestic glory of the true 10/10 Dorito-laden beast. And as tuluse rightfully points out, whereas journalists covering other forms of entertainment make do with interviews and reports, game journos love the preview, they're unique like that.

Like I said, I have no complaints about what you and Gragt wrote. Since Kzero was complaining about the "preview" parts of your reports, and that you were too chummy with the developers for his tastes, I wanted to point out that his problem is really with the form itself, rather than you or Gragt specifically. Since, again, whether you love or hate the people you interact with, in terms of actual information you can only report what you've been told, and that indeed does not carry any guarantee of truthfulness. I think the idea that what you wrote should be a source of factual information to some extent is what causes this cognitive dissonance. Because that's what previews are supposed to be.

 

[tuluse]

BTW, how do other trade fairs work?

Hardware tech is shoveled in much the same way that video games are in huge conventions with nearly identical conditions. Yet hardware technology* reporting is miles better than video game reporting.

*Except cell phones, where there are almost no proper reviews, and especially before launch.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

The conclusion of every forum discussion about corruption and the game industry ever: the industry has no right to present endless self-congratulatory circles as legit, it's only forum posters that do.

 

[Lhynn]

The conclusion of every forum discussion about corruption and the game industry ever: the industry has no right to present endless self-congratulatory circles as legit, it's only forum posters that do.

Hes on to us

 

[LundB]

The conclusion of every forum discussion about corruption and the game industry ever: the industry has no right to present endless self-congratulatory circles as legit, it's only forum posters that do.

Well to be fair, that's true. Forum posters aren't getting paid for coverage of games, and aren't portraying themselves as 'journalists'.

Though to be honest I'm not convinced that there even CAN be such a thing as games journalism. The highest heights it can aspire to are those of entertainment criticism, reaching the bar set by film/lit/etc critics. This is perfectly fine, and hopefully games coverage will reach that level, but it isn't journalism. After all, Roger Ebert isn't a journalist. The non-criticism aspects of game coverage are really nothing but a form of PR/marketing, and by their very nature can't be anything more. Any actual journalism there is to be done would be business journalism, not games journalism, since it won't have much to do with the games themselves (do we call news about the dealings of big pharma companies 'medicine journalism'?). For that, it'd be best to just rely on traditional sources of business journalism.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

I'm just tired of people saying they "only ever trust forum opinions from true hardcore unbiased warriors" and going on about how every single game reviewer or preview writer is a sleazy, shallow manchild with a fratboy mentality and everyone in the industry either a soulless suit who only cares about shareholder value or a soulless mouthpiece, all the while they spend hours every day dissecting their stuff.

Try discussing any mainstream game in any positive light and the same true unbiased hardcore forum warriors transform into the bizarro version of what they despise. I can't buy an Xbox One to play Forza 5 on it, I necessarily MUST be a braindead sellout with no taste and the console exclusive MUST objectively have no redeeming or worthwhile values whatsoever.

 

[tuluse]

Try discussing any mainstream game in any positive light and the same true unbiased hardcore forum warriors transform into the bizarro version of what they despise. I can't buy an Xbox One to play Forza 5 on it, I necessarily MUST be a braindead sellout with no taste and the console exclusive MUST objectively have no redeeming or worthwhile values whatsoever.

By doing so you're feeding the system that's been destroying video games as a creative pursuit. So you deserve to be shamed for doing so.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

How is this different from Angry Joe and the ilk of Kotaku insinuating that if you don't think Skyrim is a legendary masterpiece your opinion has no value whatsoever?

It's always harder to look inward. Much easier to pin all the blame elsewhere.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

I'm just tired of people saying they "only ever trust forum opinions from true hardcore unbiased warriors" and going on about how every single game reviewer or preview writer is a sleazy, shallow manchild with a fratboy mentality and everyone in the industry either a soulless suit who only cares about shareholder value or a soulless mouthpiece, all the while they spend hours every day dissecting their stuff.

Try discussing any mainstream game in any positive light and the same true unbiased hardcore forum warriors transform into the bizarro version of what they despise. I can't buy an Xbox One to play Forza 5 on it, I necessarily MUST be a braindead sellout with no taste and the console exclusive MUST objectively have no redeeming or worthwhile values whatsoever.

I still don't understand why you don't post on neogaf about your next-gen console woes. There are people there who actually plan to buy these mythical machines, they might be able to help you with your problems.

 

[Metro]

You had me until...

...and games journalists certainly aren't lazy by any stretch of the word. Being at Gamescom to fetch content is hard work. You walk for 10, 12, 14 hours among huge crowds of people, constantly trudging back and forth, juggling ten pages of notes along with maps to help you find your way around the giant conference center, while trying to pen down more notes when you meet someone interesting or play something worthwhile.

...and the following apologist slant for game journalists. Sorry, it's not hard work. Not by any stretch of the imagination. That said, I do agree with your critique of the system and that it is the heart of the problem.

Edit: (Unless that was intended as sarcasm.)

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I fucking hate humanity.

 

[Metro]

Though to be honest I'm not convinced that there even CAN be such a thing as games journalism. The highest heights it can aspire to are those of entertainment criticism, reaching the bar set by film/lit/etc critics. This is perfectly fine, and hopefully games coverage will reach that level, but it isn't journalism. After all, Roger Ebert isn't a journalist. The non-criticism aspects of game coverage are really nothing but a form of PR/marketing, and by their very nature can't be anything more. Any actual journalism there is to be done would be business journalism, not games journalism, since it won't have much to do with the games themselves (do we call news about the dealings of big pharma companies 'medicine journalism'?). For that, it'd be best to just rely on traditional sources of business journalism.

I'll take this a step further. Roger Ebert is actually trained/educated in film. Unlike games there are a lot of technical aspects to film making that are relevant to his critiques. Granted Ebert made most of his fame and money through 'At The Movies' which eschewed any forms of deep criticism as it was targeted to people who just wanted a quick synopsis. The thumbs up/down and star ratings leading to what we see in most game 'journalism' today.

To review/preview/critique games no comparable knowledge is required. Any moron off the street who plays games can be one. You arguably need more knowledge to be a sports writer as, for example, in (American) football you need to know various personnel, schemes, formations, statistics, etc. 99% of game journalism is basically 'is this cool?' You do have to be passably literate and capable of penning high-school level one page essays but that's not a particularly high bar to overcome.

I can't buy an Xbox One to play Forza 5 on it, I necessarily MUST be a braindead sellout with no taste and the console exclusive MUST objectively have no redeeming or worthwhile values whatsoever.

Paying $400 to play one game is pretty strong evidence of brain death.

 

[LundB]

You arguably need more knowledge to be a sports writer as, for example, in (American) football you need to know various personnel, schemes, formations, statistics, etc.

I'll go one step further and say you should take 'arguably' out of this sentence altogether. Of course I'm not saying where games coverage IS, but the highest I could see its potential reaching. I do think there is the potential to have criticism of games done by people who are well-versed in technical aspects and include them in their critiques (though as in film, 'is this cool' mainstream stuff would be the norm), so I still would argue that games coverage COULD reach the level of film critique. Will it? Probably not. The main point is that it will never be journalism, as the raw potential just isn't there, but it could become worthwhile criticism.