Game Journalism - Unfit for purpose?
A simple question, is game journalism unfit for purpose?
As with any other form of journalism, game journalism should strive to inform and constructively criticise the games industry from an objective viewpoint, or as near as that is actually possible considering personal bias. It should try and move the industry forward, challenge degenerate practises and give us the buying public, without which there would be no industry, a voice and an unbiased view. And of course as with any journalism it should maintain integrity, and a certain professional distance from the subject matter it is supposedly judging impassionately.
It does not do this by and large, it hypes games, it provides PR for upcoming titles, sometimes simply issues the information that publishers want released. No criticism, no questions and certainly no raising previous failures and the customers viewpoint. There is not enough scepticism, criticism or logical reasoned questioning.
Bad journalism: Nathan Greyson sleeping with developers, IGN reporters appearing in games that their firm will be reviewing (and then giving a score of 9.5 out of 10,) The Escapist giving Dragon Age 2 10 out of 10 despite this being a clear degeneration of the series, Kotaku (obviously,) the Dorito Pope emphasisng that he has been bought and paid for by corporate interests.
The list goes on, they are in a symbiotic relationship with publishers and developers, that serves their own interests not ours. Then they have the gall to lecture us on ethics and moral responsibility, like we are children that need educating by their supposed wisdom, when their integrity has been bought and paid for like the whores they are. No sorry whores are more honest and useful.
Good journalism: Eric Kain of the New York Times retracting a piece he wrote that specualted on the critics of Dragon Age 2 being only motivated by homophobia, which was a ridiculous claim as Dragon Age 2 was a clear degeneration in every respect from its predecessor, with worse gameplay, less features and content, poor writing, a ridiculous concept and all together no redeeming features for anybody with taste.
Totalbiscuit in the following video:
So what are your thoughts? Does gaming jounalism cater to you and provide you with unbiased, objective criticism and a legitimate push to improve the industry or is it simply a mouthpiece of the industry, that peddles clickbait articles and rides whatever outrage is currently fashionable? Or does it lie somewhere in between?
A simple question, is game journalism unfit for purpose?
As with any other form of journalism, game journalism should strive to inform and constructively criticise the games industry from an objective viewpoint, or as near as that is actually possible considering personal bias. It should try and move the industry forward, challenge degenerate practises and give us the buying public, without which there would be no industry, a voice and an unbiased view. And of course as with any journalism it should maintain integrity, and a certain professional distance from the subject matter it is supposedly judging impassionately.
It does not do this by and large, it hypes games, it provides PR for upcoming titles, sometimes simply issues the information that publishers want released. No criticism, no questions and certainly no raising previous failures and the customers viewpoint. There is not enough scepticism, criticism or logical reasoned questioning.
Bad journalism: Nathan Greyson sleeping with developers, IGN reporters appearing in games that their firm will be reviewing (and then giving a score of 9.5 out of 10,) The Escapist giving Dragon Age 2 10 out of 10 despite this being a clear degeneration of the series, Kotaku (obviously,) the Dorito Pope emphasisng that he has been bought and paid for by corporate interests.
The list goes on, they are in a symbiotic relationship with publishers and developers, that serves their own interests not ours. Then they have the gall to lecture us on ethics and moral responsibility, like we are children that need educating by their supposed wisdom, when their integrity has been bought and paid for like the whores they are. No sorry whores are more honest and useful.
Good journalism: Eric Kain of the New York Times retracting a piece he wrote that specualted on the critics of Dragon Age 2 being only motivated by homophobia, which was a ridiculous claim as Dragon Age 2 was a clear degeneration in every respect from its predecessor, with worse gameplay, less features and content, poor writing, a ridiculous concept and all together no redeeming features for anybody with taste.
Totalbiscuit in the following video:
So what are your thoughts? Does gaming jounalism cater to you and provide you with unbiased, objective criticism and a legitimate push to improve the industry or is it simply a mouthpiece of the industry, that peddles clickbait articles and rides whatever outrage is currently fashionable? Or does it lie somewhere in between?
