Support NeoGAF

[Chinbo37]

I honestly never go on any "game websites".

I get all my news and reviews from GAF. I read OTs, various threads, and form my own consensus regarding genres I like. If reviews are hilariously bad or very well done, they usually end up on GAF anyway.

 

[madmackem]

I don't really expect to win over a lot of people in this thread, but I'm happy to give a constructive reply and give it a shot.

(1) You're right, in an article written in August I absolutely gave Microsoft the benefit of the doubt as it pertains to the Xbox One ecosystem. No one had any idea the extent of the problems that awaited the console when it finally released. When that piece was written, the Xbox 360 had drafted the blueprint for how online on a console could be done, and Xbox Live was a brilliant ecosystem. It was reasonable to think Xbox One would only make the online multiplayer experience (i.e. the games themselves, not the DRM) BETTER. I try to be an optimistic guy, so I'm always going to give the benefit of the doubt. I just prefer to live my life that way. It's pretty easy to put on the 20/20 hindsight glasses and criticize me for that, but so be it.

(2) PC gaming is still largely thought of as a desk-based, monitor-viewed experience, even if Steam's Big Picture mode is slowly starting to change that. And remember who IGN's audience is: most of them are not the hardcore NeoGAF user who knows every little trick to getting their PC gaming going on an HDTV. I think a lot of criticism towards IGN by NeoGAF in general stems from that. A lot of times we write things that you guys already know and you rip us for it. And that's fine. You guys are the power users. You're the hardest of the hardcore. Most people reading ANY of the major media sites don't fall into that category.

(3) Here I feel you're just criticizing my writing style, and again, that's fine. I do my best to write even-handed previews, but if I got carried away on this one (and universal media enthusiasm for Titanfall suggests I'm not alone if I am in fact guilty of that), then it's my mistake and I'll try to do a better job of reeling it back in going forward. In fact, I've written dozens of previews since then and not one of them has been called out here, so perhaps Titanfall was an aberration. I wonder if you think my last Thief preview is even-handed or not? I try to be even-handed, but because these are not final, reviewable games, I will ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt in a preview even if my gut tells me they're not going to improve. That's just my philosophy.

Look, I get it. I write for IGN. That puts a big target on my (and any IGN editor's) back from the hardcore gamers like yourselves. That I wrote for OXM before that just doubles my alleged fanboyism even though Microsoft had nothing to do with the magazine (how it actually worked/works is that Future, the publisher, pays Microsoft for the rights to use the "Official Xbox" name and the Xbox nexus logo. That's the extent of the relationship; there is no editorial relationship). Do I prefer doing my gaming on the Xbox platform? Sure I do, but that's not unlike many fellow NeoGAF users and millions of gamers out there. I play games on all platforms and I'll get my own PS4, in time (for the Wii U, it's going to take a price drop and a mainline, Galaxy-level Mario to get me to bite). But I've been in this business for 11 years and I hope to be in it for many more. I am always trying to improve myself, because if I don't, there will always be someone else eager to take my job.

I'll conclude by saying that I've done stuff that NeoGAF actually had overwhelmingly positive things to say about recently, like this and this. But if you'd like to write me off for one over-enthusiastic preview from last year, I get that this post probably isn't going to change your mind. But I thank you for at least reading my thoughts here.

Its great you responded to this thread and im glad youve cleared up a fair bit of what i had issue with. I wish more would do that rather than just say hive mind gaf has it in for me, i think your writing is good and i do like that your enthusastic about a brand infact its why i love gregg and colin, however i do feel they are more likely to say sony fucked this up than you are to say xbox did so. I guess that comes down to as you say you look for the positives in life, i do think gafs been a bit unfair to you in some ways i think its still the fall out of the whole fucking horrible vibe ms has gave off from day one with xboxone, that anything or anyone that pushes ms into better light sends alarm bells ringing, and the readers connection to sites and there trust in them has been almost destroyed by it.

Anyway thanks for replying on here i wish more people in the games media would engage with gaf, while there are alot of horrible people on here the majority arnt arseholes and just want to make this whole industry we all love more transparent and better for all.

 

[GrizzNKev]

All of the bullshit will keep building up. Games will get easier (making things like Dark Souls so much sweeter) and the lies and exaggeration will grow and the review scores will go up.

Then it will topple and fall apart and everyone will move on to something else and we can form our own new society.

 

[U-R]

Titanfall's previews didn't start from "very positive", "definitely worth looking forward", "a new great take on the online shooter genre", they started right at "absolute utterly majestic fantastic killer app of awesomeness".

The concept that money didn't cross hands for this to happen is just as ridiculous as believing your secret Nigerian uncle is a prince, how this money crossed -menacing ad removal, or plain bribery- now that's more of a contentious argument. I have relatively little problem with advertising being pushed as "articles" when it's so obvious it's self-parody, but gaming journalism looks awkward when it tries to wear the advertising shoe in one foot and the journalism shoe in the other; putting together a paid preview of a game on one page and a skeptical preview of another game in another.

Almost as awkward as saying a user is a hardcore PC technician if he can connect a hdmi cable between his video card and his TV and push "big picture" on steam's interface. You're the specialist journalists, you're the ones that should teach your audience those amazing tricks, not craft artificial dumbness to match a pre-constructed audience stereotype, salvo bitch and moan when the real audience congregates on a forum like this one and mocks the entire game reporting industry.

Now, being realistic, i don't expect game journalism to stop writing paid or forced previews, that's how the game is rigged right now, but at least i do expect them to discover Minecraft a week before 4chan, i do expect them to hit the resolution-gate with the same strength as NeoGAF did, to detail what TV PC gaming is, and stop posting straight bullshit, like 720p is just like 1080p, DRM is harmless, the audience is powerless, and other complete fuckups the press has collected as of late.

If even this is "too much to ask", why exactly this whole "gaming journalism" thing exists?

 

[Zakalwe]

Funny how you give the impression that PR/marketing has nothing to do with each step of this process.

Of course it does. But not every example of barely contained excitement = shill.

Yes the industry is in a bit of a mess, but that doesn't mean many of these guys are genuinely excited. The quote in the OP, for example, is perfectly fine. The game is very frantic, so the quote fits.

The crap at the end of the article about Xbone being the only environment to experience it fully is a lot more suspicious though.

I understand why people are cynical, but sometimes they take it a little too far.

 

[DryvBy]

This quote from IGN's Titanfall preview cracks me up every time:



You WILL buy an XBO for Titanfall, even if you have a PC capable rig for it, because REASONS! Xbox ecosystem! YOU CAN NEVER GO BACK!

Of course people will interpret calling out absurd self-perpetuating media driven overhype as a critique of Titanfall's quality, but it's not. I said this same shit over the ridiculous way IGN jerked off all over GTA5 during its Grand Theft Auto week.

There is no such thing as perspective apparently with these guys.

I had a friend read this yesterday at work and after he got in the beta last night, he is now questioning how much money MS/EA shelled out to win awards and articles like this above. Hyped to a new level.

 

[jschreier]

The concept that money didn't cross hands for this to happen is just as ridiculous as believing your secret Nigerian uncle is a prince, how this money crossed -menacing ad removal, or plain bribery- now that's more of a contentious argument. I have relatively little problem with advertising being pushed as "articles" when it's so obvious it's self-parody, but gaming journalism looks awkward when it tries to wear the advertising shoe in one foot and the journalism shoe in the other; putting together a paid preview of a game on one page and a skeptical preview of another game in another.

What world do you live in?

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Of course it does. But not every example of barely contained excitement = shill.

Yes the industry is in a bit of a mess, but that doesn't mean many of these guys are genuinely excited. The quote in the OP, for example, is perfectly fine. The game is very frantic, so the quote fits.

The crap at the end of the article about Xbone being the only environment to experience it fully is a lot more suspicious though.

I understand why people are cynical, but sometimes they take it a little too far.

'barely contained excitement' vs 'shill' ? nope; I prefer to think in terms of PR-engineered excitement where the public is manipulated to think that new game X is the next best thing ever, game journos have a steady influx of click-baitable media content for their consummers, and the marketing dept is glad because it gets to see its new baby talked about daily in media outlets and game forums.

I'm conscious it's a gross oversimplification, but I think it's the public image people have when talking about game journalism these days.

 

[Fattony12000]

You should probably just pay attention to the video game media outlets that you like/enjoy/trust.

 

[Mackins]

What world do you live in?

Why do you ask? I think he's talking sense.

 

[ValeYard]

For allegedly hating me so much, you guys seem to spend an awful lot of time thinking and talking about me.

Now I feel really bad for posting in this thread, especially because I criticized IGN explicitly. However, due to me working in sociology, I didn't mean it as a personal criticism, but as a structural one that applies to all big sites, e.g. Gamespot too, and also to blogs like Joystiq that often just repeat news so that there is often just a lot of noise and not much substance. I think all sites are more or less aware that they have to adapt, but they are also businesses that need to earn money with advertising and don't want to burn bridges with companies all the time. It's a practical problem that will not be easy to solve and one that isn't unique to games journalism. I mean, let's be real here, no gaming site does anything as reprehensible as some news sites twisting truth and manipulating public opinion according to agendas of the political parties they are supposed to report on.

As far as people at IGN go, I think, like at any site, there are great people there. Greg Miller may often be a target here, but I enjoy what he does, and as a regular listener of Podcast Unlocked I would attest that Ryan McCaffrey who I didn't realize was targeted so explicitly here makes insightful points, is not hyperbolic about MS, and actually has more insight into MS and xbox one through good connections with Phil Spencer than most.

Sometimes when I daydream instead of writing my awful PhD that's currently going nowhere fast, I think maybe it would be nice to work in games journalism, but the reality is very different: As I stated previously, they are in a really tough spot, the pay ain't brilliant, it's competitive, not massively secure, and you are open to criticism that I'm sure isn't always easy to deal with. I think the real 'problems' are more at a structural level, as exemplified by the Kane and Lynch incident at Gamespot, and regarding the people actually writing about games, I feel we should be as accepting of their work as we would hope to be of our own. A text like the Titanfall preview quoted here, was probably written with a very finite time limit and captures very well the excitement the author felt, for the rest of the criticism here I'd say de gustibus non est diputandum. That's my two pennies worth, probably less that that actually.

 

[jschreier]

Why do you ask? I think he's talking sense.

It's just so dumb. Think about it for a second: every hardcore gamer on the web remembers GerstmannGate, and not only was that 7 years ago, it wasn't even direct bribery--just an advertiser putting pressure on a gaming outlet, and the gaming outlet giving in. We remember it because it's the rare example of something like that ever happening. It was an anomaly. It was crazy.

If money was actually exchanged for positive editorial coverage, don't you think that'd have come out by now? Don't you think there'd be a huge scandal? Wouldn't both the publisher and outlet be tarnished for years to come? Why would it even be worth it for anyone involved?

Sometimes it's time to put down the tinfoil hat and accept that the simplest explanation - people get excited for things, and excitement generates interest - is usually true.

 

[Kosma]

Almost as awkward as saying a user is a hardcore PC technician if he can connect a hdmi cable between his video card and his TV and push "big picture" on steam's interface. You're the specialist journalists, you're the ones that should teach your audience those amazing tricks, not craft artificial dumbness to match a pre-constructed audience stereotype, salvo bitch and moan when the real audience congregates on a forum like this one and mocks the entire game reporting industry.

So good I read this bit twice.

 

[Interfectum]

Gies has been full on Titanfall shill mode all weekend. I wish MS would just officially hire him already. Poor guy is putting in some serious hours.

 

[Curufinwe]

Sometimes it's time to put down the tinfoil hat and accept that the simplest explanation - people get excited for things, and excitement generates interest - is usually true.

I agree you with you that money changing hands stuff is bullshit. But it's also a fact that certain websites have such low standards that they employ people to write about games who are the worst type of extremist fanboys. Gies does not have to be paid by Microsoft to be dishonest, it just comes naturally to him.

 

[Kosma]

Sometimes it's time to put down the tinfoil hat and accept that the simplest explanation - people get excited for things, and excitement generates interest - is usually true.

Well if my paycheck came from advertising, and I was depending on EA to play the game first at all Id be very excited too.

American game journalism is very deeply invested in the xbox and ea brands

 

[Jonboy]

GAF is not one person and neither is IGN. People are writing these reviews/previews.

We need to focus on the writers moreso than the publication, although the latter can be a culprit.

Even though the Gies obsession here gets overbearing, I do like that he's called out specifically for whatever inaccuracies or inconsistencies. That's a better approach.

This. Exactly this.

Far too often, people group many into one category. "IGN...lol at the GTA IV Review...lol at the MGS IV review..." well guess what, those editors aren't there anymore and haven't been for quite some time.

You have to find a select group of folks you really trust. Listen to their podcasts, read their reviews, follow them on twitter... They won't always be right, but you'll know it's coming from an honest place.

What's incredibly worrisome for me is that it's getting more and more difficult to discern who is trustworthy, especially after what we learned about many of our favorite youtubers. I'm not accusing a single person here, but I would completely bet on there being paid posters here on GAF (and other message boards for that matter) to spread positive messages. Heck, it makes a ton of sense for the companies to employ that type of stealth marketing. You have a select audience that you know for 100% fact is part of your target market and you know exactly the types of issues they're interested in. To me, that's terrifying. Sadly, I'm not sure what anyone can do about it. In fact, if the paid poster is really good at it, you'll never be able to tell whether the opinion is paid for or not.

 

[DryvBy]

For allegedly hating me so much, you guys seem to spend an awful lot of time thinking and talking about me.

I think most of us would like to know why your eyeballs were having a hard time processing the game. Was it the muddy textures or the tearing that was doing it?

Seriously though, that article you wrote about this game is something else. I don't hate you at all but we are in a forum discussing related topics.

 

[Curufinwe]

Gies has been full on Titanfall shill mode all weekend. I wish MS would just officially hire him already. Poor guy is putting in some serious hours.

It's going to be very interesting if the PC and Xbone versions of Titanfall get the same score despite one having significant framerate issues.

 

[Zakalwe]

It's just so dumb. Think about it for a second: every hardcore gamer on the web remembers GerstmannGate, and not only was that 7 years ago, it wasn't even direct bribery--just an advertiser putting pressure on a gaming outlet, and the gaming outlet giving in. We remember it because it's the rare example of something like that ever happening. It was an anomaly. It was crazy.

If money was actually exchanged for positive editorial coverage, don't you think that'd have come out by now? Don't you think there'd be a huge scandal? Wouldn't both the publisher and outlet be tarnished for years to come? Why would it even be worth it for anyone involved?

Sometimes it's time to put down the tinfoil hat and accept that the simplest explanation - people get excited for things, and excitement generates interest - is usually true.

Exactly this.

People get excited at the potential of an idea/footage/hands-on/etc.
Excitement of individuals is catching so excitement spreads.
Buzz is generated.
People get hyped.

Gaming journalists have enthusiasm, they're supposed to, asking them to quell it or assuming people can't be extremely excited about an idea/piece of footage/hands-on experience without it bringing their objectivity or integrity into question is ridiculous.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

My only complain about gaming press is the lack of articles like that one that gave a more in depth look at treehouse, or the recent one on polygon about underground game developers in peru during the 90s , or the little documentary on the vgx about the competitive donkey kong arcade crowd, actual investigative journalism

 

[jschreier]

Well if my paycheck came from advertising, and I was depending on EA to play the game first at all Id be very excited too.

American game journalism is very deeply invested in the xbox and ea brands

What you have to understand is that at professional media outlets (like, say, IGN, or Kotaku) there is a strict wall between the editorial department and the advertising department. I can speak from personal experience: I have no idea what Kotaku's ads will be on any given day. My paycheck comes every two weeks no matter what I write or say, and no matter what companies I praise or criticize.

If you don't trust that a reporter or reviewer or outlet is maintaining that wall and being transparent about any potential conflicts of interest, don't read them. Find people you trust. If you care enough about the gaming media to be participating in a NeoGAF thread about the gaming media, that shouldn't be too tough.

 

[CornBurrito]

I look to actual gamers(I mean people who don't play games for a living) for opinions now.

This can be just as bad. There have been numerous occasions where people freaked out about an over hyped game getting like an 8/10 or 9/10, and declaring the writer to be trying to clickbait. Before the game was even out for them to play. People sometimes determine the score a game deserves long before even playing it.

 

[ShadyJ]

I've been playing games long enough to tell what I will like and what I won't like.

I don't need a site to tell me otherwise

 

[Bedlam]

It's just so dumb. Think about it for a second: every hardcore gamer on the web remembers GerstmannGate, and not only was that 7 years ago, it wasn't even direct bribery--just an advertiser putting pressure on a gaming outlet, and the gaming outlet giving in. We remember it because it's the rare example of something like that ever happening. It was an anomaly. It was crazy.

If money was actually exchanged for positive editorial coverage, don't you think that'd have come out by now? Don't you think there'd be a huge scandal? Wouldn't both the publisher and outlet be tarnished for years to come? Why would it even be worth it for anyone involved?

Sometimes it's time to put down the tinfoil hat and accept that the simplest explanation - people get excited for things, and excitement generates interest - is usually true.

I think most people understand that there are no actual bags of money involved (though I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that such things happened; there are suspicious pre-embargo reviews from small, unknown sites out there). Sure, Gerstmann-Gate was seven years ago but I have no reason to believe that things have changed. The incestious relationship between reviewers and publishers still exists (and now increasingly incorporates video bloggers). Sites like IGN still operate the same way: "Hey AAA-publisher, we hype up your games, you give us more exclusivity/advertising deals in the future." That's the mutual, unwritten agreement between those sites and pulishers.

What you have to understand is that at professional media outlets (like, say, IGN, or Kotaku) there is a strict wall between the editorial department and the advertising department. I can speak from personal experience: I have no idea what Kotaku's ads will be on any given day. My paycheck comes every two weeks no matter what I write or say, and no matter what companies I praise or criticize.

If you don't trust that a reporter or reviewer or outlet is maintaining that wall and being transparent about any potential conflicts of interest, don't read them. Find people you trust. If you care enough about the gaming media to be participating in a NeoGAF thread about the gaming media, that shouldn't be too tough.

I would bet that no IGN writer would be allowed to slam a game that's part of an exclusivity or advertising deal. Higher ups would step in and demand changes to the text or score or just assign someone else that writes a more favorable review. But there's probably not much need for such interventions since the writers know exactly what they're hired for. They know that IGN's continued success is highly dependent on a good, amicable relationship with the big publishers and that's how their texts and scores turn out the way they do. Even the usually employed 7-10 review scale is such a concession to publishers.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

but I would completely bet on their being paid posters here on GAF (and other message boards for that matter) to spread positive messages.

Sometimes I seriously wonder about it too when visiting a thread about Titanfall or the X1 (among many other examples).

 

[SenjutsuSage]

You have to be cynical towards both the games media and towards gamers, and generally for good reason. I was entirely certain this would be about Titanfall before even clicking on the thread, for example.

Gamers are no better than the games media, because gamers share all of the same tendencies and habits that people often criticize the games media for possessing, and normally to an even more extreme degree. In fact, I firmly believe the games media takes its cues from gamers, and not the other way around.

 

[jschreier]

I think most people understand that there are no actual bags of money involved (though I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that such things happened; there are suspicious pre-embargo reviews from small, unknown sites out there). Sure, Gerstmann-Gate was seven years ago but I have no reason to believe that things have changed. The incestious relationship between reviews and publishers still exists (and now increasingly incorporates video bloggers). Sites like IGN still operate the same way: "Hey AAA-publisher, we hype up your games, you give us more exclusivity/advertising deals in the future." That's the mutual, unwritten agreement between those sites and pulishers.

That's another issue entirely. I was talking to the guy above who said "The concept that money didn't cross hands for this to happen is just as ridiculous as believing your secret Nigerian uncle is a prince."

 

[ValeYard]

My only complain about gaming press is the lack of articles like that one that gave a more in depth look at treehouse, or the recent one on polygon about underground game developers in peru during the 90s , or the little documentary on the vgx about the competitive donkey kong arcade crowd, actual investigative journalism

These are my sentiments too, and they apply to a lot of branches of journalism, not just gaming.

Also, at the risk of being contrary, I really don't like the mob mentality against Arthur Gies, we should try to be better than throwing rocks at someone. Sure, maybe he's said stuff you disagree with, that's fine, voice that, but not ad hominem. Listening to Rebel FM, I've always been impressed by his knowledge of how graphics engines work and found him very reflective regarding his opinions. Okay, I'm going to hide now.

 

[DryvBy]

What you have to understand is that at professional media outlets (like, say, IGN, or Kotaku) there is a strict wall between the editorial department and the advertising department. I can speak from personal experience: I have no idea what Kotaku's ads will be on any given day. My paycheck comes every two weeks no matter what I write or say, and no matter what companies I praise or criticize.

If you don't trust that a reporter or reviewer or outlet is maintaining that wall and being transparent about any potential conflicts of interest, don't read them. Find people you trust. If you care enough about the gaming media to be participating in a NeoGAF thread about the gaming media, that shouldn't be too tough.

People just find it fishy. For example, Battlefield 4 was released broken. The reviews rolled in with positives and just mention "oh yeah, servers are having problems". Nothing about the console versions and PC versions crashing all the time. Nothing about friend's not being able to join the same game. Nothing at all about that. Corrupt saves. Nope, the review was glowing. And if you looked at the ads on these sites, Battlefield 4 is out now.

NBA 2K14: Polygon gave it the best review. Everyone else ignored the broken online gameplay and gave it glowing reviews. Pretty graphics isn't enough.

Kane & Lynch is unplayable to this day on my PC and several, several others. Crashing constantly. IGN - 7.0. How do you give a game that doesn't run past the first level anything but a bad score?

Skyrim on PS3. Good reviews, nothing negative given for the framerate issues it had which made it unplayable after a certain level until they patched it.

And even the best thing from last year, the mainstream media talking about how much better the PS4 looked over the Xbone version of COD: Ghosts due to 1080p. Then we find out the game patched in 1080p later.

I'm not saying you or your crew do this. But Gamespot, IGN and others are constantly doing this. It seems more than opinions to an outsider, don't you think?

 

[SenjutsuSage]

This quote from IGN's Titanfall preview cracks me up every time:



You WILL buy an XBO for Titanfall, even if you have a PC capable rig for it, because REASONS! Xbox ecosystem! YOU CAN NEVER GO BACK!

Of course people will interpret calling out absurd self-perpetuating media driven overhype as a critique of Titanfall's quality, but it's not. I said this same shit over the ridiculous way IGN jerked off all over GTA5 during its Grand Theft Auto week.

There is no such thing as perspective apparently with these guys.

I suppose I can see and understand what you're getting at there, but somehow I suspect this post would have never happened if the comment was about the PS4 instead of the Xbox One while using the same exact reasons to justify it. See how that works?

 

[nynt9]

You have to be cynical towards both the games media and towards gamers, and generally for good reason. I was entirely certain this would be about Titanfall before even clicking on the thread, for example.

Gamers are no better than the games media, because gamers share all of the same tendencies and habits that people often criticize the games media for possessing, and normally to an even more extreme degree. In fact, I firmly believe the games media takes its cues from gamers, and not the other way around.

The difference is that the average gamer isn't being paid to be a mouthpiece and write an article for a site with hundreds of thousands of viewers. When you increase the stakes, you must increase the accountability.

Edit: seriously, if you're trying to shift the blame away from journalists on major sites to random fanboy posts on a relatively niche forum I don't even know what to say to you. Also ironic, because you're part of the problem yourself.

 

[semiconscious]

It's just so dumb. Think about it for a second: every hardcore gamer on the web remembers GerstmannGate, and not only was that 7 years ago, it wasn't even direct bribery--just an advertiser putting pressure on a gaming outlet, and the gaming outlet giving in. We remember it because it's the rare example of something like that ever happening. It was an anomaly. It was crazy...

i agree, it was an anomaly. not that it happened, but that it was exposed ...

assuming that the one time someone's actually caught with their hand in the cookie jar demonstrates how otherwise no one's stealing cookies is pretty naive. as in, maybe they've just gotten better at it?...

 

[Curufinwe]

I suppose I can see and understand what you're getting at there, but somehow I suspect this post would have never happened if the comment was about the PS4 instead of the Xbox One while using the same exact reasons to justify it. See how that works?

I see how you're wrong because the PC version would still be noticeably and significantly superior.

 

[Kosma]

What you have to understand is that at professional media outlets (like, say, IGN, or Kotaku) there is a strict wall between the editorial department and the advertising department. I can speak from personal experience: I have no idea what Kotaku's ads will be on any given day. My paycheck comes every two weeks no matter what I write or say, and no matter what companies I praise or criticize.

If you don't trust that a reporter or reviewer or outlet is maintaining that wall and being transparent about any potential conflicts of interest, don't read them. Find people you trust. If you care enough about the gaming media to be participating in a NeoGAF thread about the gaming media, that shouldn't be too tough.

I still occasionly buy Edge and GamesTM

 

[Amneisac]

I can't help but think that while the "games media" clearly isn't amazing, this is how almost all enthusiasts feel about a lot of the coverage of their chosen hobby. I'm sure it's the same thing with gun reviewers, or crafting blogs, or whatever else.

 

[inky]

(2) PC gaming is still largely thought of as a desk-based, monitor-viewed experience, even if Steam's Big Picture mode is slowly starting to change that.

Maybe that is because people like you keep perpetuating that idea. That somehow it is not easy or friendly to get better results on PC, even on your comfy couch. Maybe if that "not teh hardcorez" audience you are writing to knew they had options they'd consider them more often, but you don't do that.

 

[U-R]

What world do you live in?

One where game publications can't avoid to be blackmailed by publishers: the audience wants to get sold hype, and the publishers are the only one who can give hype material (previews, events), publications are simply put in the middle. It's actually amazing they aren't more corrupted and more often.

I have less problem with obvious almost-Colbert-style ads than the more subtle publisher pandering, like the disgusting DRM support.

 

[Alo81]

It was almost too much for my eyeballs to process

Yesterday I showed my girlfriend the game and she complained "There's way too much going on I have no idea what I'm even supposed to be paying attention too.

It's really not an invalid thing to say.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

Yesterday I showed my girlfriend the game and she complained "There's way too much going on I have no idea what I'm even supposed to be paying attention too.

It's really not an invalid thing to say.

get a new gf, she's not wife material

 

[FryHole]

That's another issue entirely. I was talking to the guy above who said "The concept that money didn't cross hands for this to happen is just as ridiculous as believing your secret Nigerian uncle is a prince."

I wouldn't say it's another issue entirely, more like that it's like one of those idealised sandbox games (or, to get really retro, it's like Mercenary III). There is a goal to be achieved, and multiple ways of going about it.

A straightforward, blatantly corrupt handing over of cash from one party to the other on the understanding that the product is given a glowing writeup is like the 'go in guns blazing and kill everyone in the way' solution, whereas less overt scenarios involving a quid pro quo environment of implicit understandings where nothing barely even needs to be said, except perhaps from old hands advising new entrants on the location and departure time of the gravy train, is the subterfuge or stealth approach.

 

[Xdrive05]

Releases that have big expectations are almost always over rated where previews and reviews are concerned. Sometimes dramatically so, such as the console Zelda games. It seems like the hype around the product factors more into the review score then the actual product itself for most reviewers. This is been happening for quite some time.

This new movement of "democratization of games journalism", with the Let's Plays and so on, has helped this problem some I believe. Or maybe not.

This industry is kind of fucking weird.

 

[jschreier]

I wouldn't say it's another issue entirely, more like that it's like one of those idealised sandbox games (or, to get really retro, it's like Mercenary III). There is a goal to be achieved, and multiple ways of going about it.

A straightforward, blatantly corrupt handing over of cash from one party to the other on the understanding that the product is given a glowing writeup is like the 'go in guns blazing and kill everyone in the way' solution, whereas less overt scenarios involving a quid pro quo environment of implicit understandings where nothing barely even needs to be said, except perhaps from old hands advising new entrants on the location and departure time of the gravy train, is the subterfuge or stealth approach.

Is this all based on your assumption of how things work or do you have specific examples in mind?

 

[Kerned]

It's just so dumb. Think about it for a second: every hardcore gamer on the web remembers GerstmannGate, and not only was that 7 years ago, it wasn't even direct bribery--just an advertiser putting pressure on a gaming outlet, and the gaming outlet giving in. We remember it because it's the rare example of something like that ever happening. It was an anomaly. It was crazy.

If money was actually exchanged for positive editorial coverage, don't you think that'd have come out by now? Don't you think there'd be a huge scandal? Wouldn't both the publisher and outlet be tarnished for years to come? Why would it even be worth it for anyone involved?

Sometimes it's time to put down the tinfoil hat and accept that the simplest explanation - people get excited for things, and excitement generates interest - is usually true.

Jason, the only reason we know about GerstmannGate is because Jeff got fired. Had he played ball, he would have kept his job and no one would have been the wiser. Do you really think no one else has ever played ball?

I don't think that this sort of thing is widespread, but I'm also not naive enough to believe the the Gerstmann situation is some weird anomaly, that it was the first an only time a publisher tried to exert influence over a publication or website. I really don't think you need to play the tinfoil hat card, it's not crazy talk to assume that publishers will do whatever it takes to make money. That's their job.

 

[inm8num2]

You guys are going to love Sessler's thoughts on Titanfall...I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F3lR7z-QgU

 

[jschreier]

Jason, the only reason we know about GerstmannGate is because Jeff got fired. Had he played ball, he would have kept his job and no one would have been the wiser. Do you really think no one else has ever played ball?

I don't think that this sort of thing is widespread, but I'm also not naive enough to believe the the Gerstmann situation is some weird anomaly, that it was the first an only time a publisher tried to exert influence over a publication or website. I really don't think you need to play the tinfoil hat card, it's not crazy talk to assume that publishers will do whatever it takes to make money. That's their job.

I think that publishers are constantly trying to exert influence over video game websites and magazines, and I think that readers always should be asking questions and criticizing what they see. Yes, publishers try to game review scores and Metacritic all the time, which is one entry on a very long list of reasons that I wish review scores would go away, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. My argument here is that you should be skeptical in a smarter way than "omg money for positive coverage!" The problems are more subtle than that. Ironically, we're in a thread complaining about hyperbole...

 

[DoktorEvil]

I don't really expect to win over a lot of people in this thread, but I'm happy to give a constructive reply and give it a shot.

(1) You're right, in an article written in August I absolutely gave Microsoft the benefit of the doubt as it pertains to the Xbox One ecosystem. No one had any idea the extent of the problems that awaited the console when it finally released. When that piece was written, the Xbox 360 had drafted the blueprint for how online on a console could be done, and Xbox Live was a brilliant ecosystem. It was reasonable to think Xbox One would only make the online multiplayer experience (i.e. the games themselves, not the DRM) BETTER. I try to be an optimistic guy, so I'm always going to give the benefit of the doubt. I just prefer to live my life that way. It's pretty easy to put on the 20/20 hindsight glasses and criticize me for that, but so be it.

(2) PC gaming is still largely thought of as a desk-based, monitor-viewed experience, even if Steam's Big Picture mode is slowly starting to change that. And remember who IGN's audience is: most of them are not the hardcore NeoGAF user who knows every little trick to getting their PC gaming going on an HDTV. I think a lot of criticism towards IGN by NeoGAF in general stems from that. A lot of times we write things that you guys already know and you rip us for it. And that's fine. You guys are the power users. You're the hardest of the hardcore. Most people reading ANY of the major media sites don't fall into that category.

(3) Here I feel you're just criticizing my writing style, and again, that's fine. I do my best to write even-handed previews, but if I got carried away on this one (and universal media enthusiasm for Titanfall suggests I'm not alone if I am in fact guilty of that), then it's my mistake and I'll try to do a better job of reeling it back in going forward. In fact, I've written dozens of previews since then and not one of them has been called out here, so perhaps Titanfall was an aberration. I wonder if you think my last Thief preview is even-handed or not? I try to be even-handed, but because these are not final, reviewable games, I will ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt in a preview even if my gut tells me they're not going to improve. That's just my philosophy.

Look, I get it. I write for IGN. That puts a big target on my (and any IGN editor's) back from the hardcore gamers like yourselves. That I wrote for OXM before that just doubles my alleged fanboyism even though Microsoft had nothing to do with the magazine (how it actually worked/works is that Future, the publisher, pays Microsoft for the rights to use the "Official Xbox" name and the Xbox nexus logo. That's the extent of the relationship; there is no editorial relationship). Do I prefer doing my gaming on the Xbox platform? Sure I do, but that's not unlike many fellow NeoGAF users and millions of gamers out there. I play games on all platforms and I'll get my own PS4, in time (for the Wii U, it's going to take a price drop and a mainline, Galaxy-level Mario to get me to bite). But I've been in this business for 11 years and I hope to be in it for many more. I am always trying to improve myself, because if I don't, there will always be someone else eager to take my job.

I'll conclude by saying that I've done stuff that NeoGAF actually had overwhelmingly positive things to say about recently, like this and this. But if you'd like to write me off for one over-enthusiastic preview from last year, I get that this post probably isn't going to change your mind. But I thank you for at least reading my thoughts here.

This is why I love the video games industry.

I don't see any other editors openly defend himself against a forum where the power users mingle.

Most editors are too self-righteous to even care, and the quality of the journalism sucks (see Rolling Stone).

I figure IGN is catering to the lax, self identified casual that buys maybe 3-4 games a year, usually sports or FPS related games.

Because of that, they really don't want to bother with any other niche genres(the reader, not the magazine). Gaming is a mainstream hobby, not a kids toy anymore.

I thinks it's important to note that in the majority of magazines, there is a wall between editorial and advertising, they never co-mingle.

Ryan, I think you're unfairly targeted because of your job, but even you have to admit MS and the Xbox division has been making bad calls as far as trying to turn a profit and cater to building a loyal base.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

You guys are going to love Sessler's thoughts on Titanfall...I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F3lR7z-QgU

Posting yet another Titanfall video in a thread about cynism and games media. I shall say that I admire your sense of irony.

 

[EmptySpace]

You guys are going to love Sessler's thoughts on Titanfall...I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F3lR7z-QgU

i just rolled my eyes when he mentioned titanfall in an infamous vid. seriously they're not even in the same genre.

 

[Glass Shark]

The last thing I want in games media is writers and personalities who don't get excited about games. Don't get me wrong, academics like Ian Bogost have their place, but I watch and listen to hours and hours of Giant Bomb content every month because it's a group of guys who clearly care about games and still love them after years and years of coverage.