gaming Game "Journalists" Should You Listen to Them?

[Guest]

So over the years we've heard our fair share of stories that make us all question the integrity of game journalists, and frankly, I am at the point where I literally don't even listen to ANYTHING they have to say anymore because half the time they are reviewing with an agenda in mind, not telling us if a game is worth buying or not. To top it off, review disparity seems to becoming more and more common with critics vs. the general public and the excuses for dismissing that the general public does not like something that critics do or that they like something that critics don't boil down to two main excuses:

• "Those scores are just review bombed/inflated!" the flimsy shield of one who doesn't want to do research. Often times this is said when a game is given great scores for being "progressive" or "inclusive" to some minority, but the fans didn't think the game was a 10/10 like the critics did. The low fan score is blamed on homophobic fans review bombing the game. However, seldom do people actually READ what the fans are saying and there is little way to verify if enough people review bombed it to have an impact on the overall score. This is basically the cheapest defense I see, and it's basically used by lazy people who want to dismiss evidence to the contrary as quickly as they can. Claiming the evidence is not good enough despite not proving it is not sufficient.
• "The average person is stupid!" This is just elitist as hell. You are thinking yourself smarter than everyone. This is often said by those who seem to think that a good review uses flowery language, and writes pages upon pages. It is used commonly with the "long must mean good". People think if a review "feels" more thought out that it must be more "right". Sorry, but no matter which way you slice it, often a game is reviewed by maybe 50 journalists and a couple thousand fans. To say those 50 journalists are smarter than the thousands of fans when you haven't even read said fan reviews shows that you are merely a sheep pseudo-intellectual that thinks a review needs to be 10 pages to be great. Often times the people I see dismissing the average joe's thoughts are those types who think they are so profound and smart.

Neither of these are a good defense, needless to say, however here are my reasons for why I do not take game journalists seriously anymore:

• Many publications have known agendas. We know Kotaku is pretty pro-liberal and pro-feminist. They are owned by Gawker after all who have shown they will support anyone that preaches feminism and social justice.
• The score disparity is often insane and reeks of not rating a game too low to avoid pissing off a publisher.
• Sites that have been called out for their crappy ethics turn around and throw a temper tantrum and try to blame the users.
• We have seen sites get caught being closer to a developer than they originally advertised.
• Review sites get games for free, so they are not going to go into it with the same mentality as an average joe. When the average joe spends money on something, he will try harder to enjoy it because he wants his money to be well spent. Not to mention getting things for free gives incentive to not piss off the game creators and publishers.
• Fear of blacklisting by publishers means review sites will often try to avoid speaking their entire minds.
• We have seen quite a few reviewers prove they are bad at games.

There's tons more, but that's just getting the discussion going.

What are your thoughts?

[Sunny Fox 5,929]

Everyone has an agenda, really. (The way you've titled your thread is definitely slanted in its own right - using quotation marks around the word journalists as if to imply they don't actually merit the name, and the use of "them" implying a "us vs them" mentality... well, you did say you want proof and evidence, right?  A more neutral title would have been "Should you listen to game journalists?" Of course, you're free to use any wording you like - and that's an observation, not permission, IYKWIMAITYD) 

I do agree, though, the ultimate question we as gamers want answered is "If I buy this game, will I get my money's worth out of it?" The views of game critics should be used as one of a multitude of possible resources for one to make their own judgements, rather than just accepted and swallowed whole. But to discount their views purely based on them being game journalists is not very sound logic either. I would say take those views into account, along with gamers' reviews and whatever other information is relevant, and then make up your own mind. 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Sunny Fox said:

Everyone has an agenda, really. (The way you've titled your thread is definitely slanted in its own right - using quotation marks around the word journalists as if to imply they don't actually merit the name, and the use of "them" implying a "us vs them" mentality... well, you did say you want proof and evidence, right?  A more neutral title would have been "Should you listen to game journalists?" Of course, you're free to use any wording you like - and that's an observation, not permission, IYKWIMAITYD) 

I do agree, though, the ultimate question we as gamers want answered is "If I buy this game, will I get my money's worth out of it?" The views of game critics should be used as one of a multitude of possible resources for one to make their own judgements, rather than just accepted and swallowed whole. But to discount their views purely based on them being game journalists is not very sound logic either. I would say take those views into account, along with gamers' reviews and whatever other information is relevant, and then make up your own mind. 

Well yes, but when we say someone has an agenda, we are usually referring to when someone's agenda has only their interest or the interests of a small group at heart. Yes, I will admit I do not approve of game journalists, but my "agenda" is to convince people to listen to those who have the interest of the common gamer at heart. So I guess the simple version to explain it for lack of better terms, is when we refer to people having an agenda we usually mean people who have a "bad" agenda that doesn't coincide with the general public's interest. My interest is people getting their information from people who actually care about them as average consumers and not people who just want to win equality awards and push publishers who give them the most nice things.

I guess a better way to put it is to not take their views as the only ones you look at or even as the majority.

[Once In A Blue Moon 894]

I can't think of an entertainment medium that the above doesn't apply to - that doesn't undermine the validity of concerns that, for example, reviewers and publishers are too close, but it does put them in perspective. So long as the usual caution is applied (check multiple sources, if you have concerns then dig a bit, read between the lines regarding what they don't say so on) it's not a huge issue.

That's my overarching view, although there are a couple of points I'd offer additional remarks on:

1. Review disparity.

I think that TotalBiscuit covered the subject fairly well when he talked about the Mad Max game that came out a little while ago.

Spoiler

 

2. Some reviewers are bad at games - indeed so, but so are some players. Being good at a particular genre gives you a different perspective of a game compared to if you are bad at a genre; a review of a Starcraft II expansion by a Grandmaster-level player is going to have quite a different focus compared to someone fairly new to the genre, and they could come to quite different conclusions, but that's not to say that one or the other is wrong or has no value. As someone who isn't very good at RTS games the 'noob view' is of use to me, but someone who is much better at RTS games might appreciate the technical detail that the Grandmaster-level player can offer; technical details that are largely irrelevant to one such as me who will never play at the level where they matter. To take a couple of other examples, if reviewers who are 'bad at video games' don't enjoy Dark Souls or Cuphead, that is useful information.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Once In A Blue Moon said:

I can't think of an entertainment medium that the above doesn't apply to - that doesn't undermine the validity of concerns that, for example, reviewers and publishers are too close, but it does put them in perspective. So long as the usual caution is applied (check multiple sources, if you have concerns then dig a bit, read between the lines regarding what they don't say so on) it's not a huge issue.

That's my overarching view, although there are a couple of points I'd offer additional remarks on:

1. Review disparity.

I think that TotalBiscuit covered the subject fairly well when he talked about the Mad Max game that came out a little while ago.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

2. Some reviewers are bad at games - indeed so, but so are some players. Being good at a particular genre gives you a different perspective of a game compared to if you are bad at a genre; a review of a Starcraft II expansion by a Grandmaster-level player is going to have quite a different focus compared to someone fairly new to the genre, and they could come to quite different conclusions, but that's not to say that one or the other is wrong or has no value. As someone who isn't very good at RTS games the 'noob view' is of use to me, but someone who is much better at RTS games might appreciate the technical detail that the Grandmaster-level player can offer; technical details that are largely irrelevant to one such as me who will never play at the level where they matter. To take a couple of other examples, if reviewers who are 'bad at video games' don't enjoy Dark Souls or Cuphead, that is useful information.

Bad at games and good at games is one thing, but the issue we're talking about is people who are *insanely* bad. People who act like they never played a game before. We're talking like that Doom footage from forever ago where the reviewer was playing LESS than noob levels, or the Cuphead footage that came out where the dude could barely figure out how to jump.

Is the perspective of someone like that even remotely useful?

That being said, the issue I see is that many people still run to journalists for reviews and it can negatively affect a game that if they had just listened to the fans as well then we wouldn't have the problem.

[Once In A Blue Moon 894]

2 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Bad at games and good at games is one thing, but the issue we're talking about is people who are *insanely* bad. People who act like they never played a game before. We're talking like that Doom footage from forever ago where the reviewer was playing LESS than noob levels, or the Cuphead footage that came out where the dude could barely figure out how to jump.

With my statistical hat on, I'd say that if a portion of reviewers struggle with the mechanics then it's not unreasonable to guess that a comparable portion of the population of gamers will as well (yes yes, it's hardly a representative sample and so on, but lacking other data we'll run with it.) I would also observe that such cases are also quite rare - at least, in my experience, and in the specific cases of Cuphead and doom, it hasn't exactly halted  what were both runaway successes.

 

9 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

That being said, the issue I see is that many people still run to journalists for reviews and it can negatively affect a game that if they had just listened to the fans as well then we wouldn't have the problem.

Negatively affecting a game isn't my concern. I'm aware that some multiplayer games live or die by their player count, but that isn't an argument for anyone to buy it. 

If people miss out on a title they would have enjoyed then that's more of an issue, but I would be wary of fans' views exactly because of the response bias - you will typically only hear from fans who really like the game, or occasionally 'anti-fans' who really don't like it. Neither are an especially sound basis as you miss out the middle of the bell curve - those on the enjoy / didn't enjoy spectrum who aren't going to talk about it because it isn't that important to them. Again, that's not to say that fans' views aren't of use, but standard aggregation techniques aren't going to give the full picture and it's a relatively small sub-set of fans who are able to put together a cohesive and concise explanation of why they like a game whilst also acknowledging the flaws and weaknesses that might put some people off.

[Megas 27,064]

People put way too much stock into reviewers and review scores especially when they’re becoming less and less reliable. Remember how IGN said God Hand was garbage but everyone loved it, or how people were saying Dragon Age 2 was great but everyone hated it?

To quote the great Hideki Kamiya

Edited July 7, 2018 by Whomps

[Passion 3,478]

My answer is very clear, simple and understandable to everyone.

Destiny 2 reviews:

Do I need to elaborate?

 

EDIT: I will elaborate on one thing though. Game critics are NOT paid to play the game extensively and break it down to pieces in depth. They are paid to TRY it, not to finish it if it's SP or get to end game when it's MP.

I never once in my life listened to game critics, and never will. When money's on the line, nothing will be objective.

[A French Derpy full of Salt 404]

The only base of people I listen for a review of a game are players.

"Game Journalist" don't have an opinion, they just regroup some opinions and change them depending on how much money they get.

[Libra 11,690]

No, you shouldn't.

I'm not going into the ceramics of it, but that being said i dont think people should let others think for themselves. Like mentuoned earlier, what critics think is good might be garbage, and vice versa.

People should listen to themselves and play the game on their own to get the experience of what the game is like.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 40,289]

Game reviewing is sadly under the same umbrella that many gaming related things are under: Greed and views. Tons of reviews want to get their reviews out as fast as they possibly can to ensure maximum exploitation of the game's release and the reviews suffer. Other times, we have reviewers playing games of a genre they clearly do not like and thus give the game a score that is unfair because they just do not like the genre. There is also the problem where tons of reviewers get the games for free and thus don't look at the game from a standpoint of the game costing $60+ for the average consumer. So they get the game for free and then barely play it in depth because they want their review out as quick as possible and you can see where they may give scores that are not deserved. Destiny 2 is such a good example and it was already posted. That game somehow got an 83 on Metacritic but from players I have heard only negative things, even from fans of the first game which many agree the first one was shallow and grindy anyways. It also could be a case of publishers paying off reviewers as well or the site or publications being in the publisher's pockets. Game Informer is a wonderful example. Game Informer is owned by Gamestop and Gamestop is clear as day in the pockets of Activision, as Gamestop hypes Call of Duty and Destiny to Jupiter and back. Game Informer also ironically gives consistently good scores to these games, like Call of Duty which always seems to score 8 or above year after year.

In short, gaming journalism is on the same road as Youtube gaming, a platform of exploitation and view hungry reporters desperate to get that sweet gaming money.

[TransitPony 219]

It's up to the person of whether or not they want to listen to that reporter or what he/she has to say. What it definitely needs is reform. Clearly video game journalism is in a corrupt state, and it's only gonna gain back public trust if it gets rid of the people who are in it for the money and not for the interests of the general consumer. 

7 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

Other times, we have reviewers playing games of a genre they clearly do not like and thus give the game a score that is unfair because they just do not like the genre.

THIS!!! Treatment of Sonic is a great example of this (i.e. review of Unleashed). I will never forget the moment that a few IGN reporters made fun of Sonic, his legacy, and the fans even though they know that the Sonic fandom has been around since the 1990's. 

12 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

Game Informer is a wonderful example. Game Informer is owned by Gamestop and Gamestop is clear as day in the pockets of Activision, as Gamestop hypes Call of Duty and Destiny to Jupiter and back. Game Informer also ironically gives consistently good scores to these games, like Call of Duty which always seems to score 8 or above year after year.

I remember during middle school my uncle would always a copy of that magazine, and me and my sister would read what was in it. We don't get the magazine anymore, but the fact that they're involved in that level of corruption damn bro. 

[Rainbow Dash 1,471]

Im sorry, but listening to game journalists is like being told what to eat. Most have no idea what they are talking about, and just read a script. Either from Wikipedia or one that was written by 5 other people, who are left out of the credits. I understand wanting to learn more about a game, and thats fine. I usually look for let's players' review of them. Most arent there to sell you the game; they just want to show it off. Although, some major Let's Play channels (most noticeably Rooster Teeth) are falling victim to paid praise of games that most might find dull.

I think most Game Journalists are only good when they show off gameplay of a game. I usually mute them and see if the game would be something i'd like. I'd also like to point out games are art and art is subjective. I love Firewatch, yet my friend hates it cause its a walking simulator. He loves Destiny, yet i think its a lame cash grab. Yet both games are highly recommended by the internet and gaming journalists.

[Jedishy 3,542]

The way gamer publications/reviewers like Kotaku etc have treated the fans and the games for the last few years I dont consider them useful. Frankly, they are trying to push narratives gamers do not want. They hardly can manage to play the games they cry about. They trash talk the games, the fans and the developers that dare step outside their narratives. Then they wonder why fans are increasingly going to independent reviewers like Youtbers etc for their info. 

So what do they do when that happens? Do they try to adjust and either accept the new client base they tried to cater to? Nope, they cant because that base does not bring in the money and they do not buy the games. So they trash the third party developers and try to take them down by branding them some type of hateful whatever. Dont like our game review? Must be a bigot is the new battle cry. So in short as far as I am concerned they can shutter their doors forever. Because I've been done with them for a good three or four years now.

[Hachiroku 127]

The biggest issue with game journalists is that a lot of them hardly even play games, or they're terrible at them. But this leftist agenda pushing is hardly exclusive in video game journalists, I see it a lot in music journalism as well, and even animation journalism too.

[DixonTheAdversary 1,631]

I usually take everything they say with a grain of salt. I'll use reviews to get a general basis of what the game is about and such, but I won't form an opinion until I actually play it. Hell, most of my favorite games have scores of around 5-6 out of 10.

[Misty Shadow 7,084]

To quote videogamedunkey, "GAME CRITICS F'ING SUCK! Glad to see that most people agree with me."

In a spirit of fairness, every critic and journalist has a bias. There are times where even independent, alternative media reviewers have manipulated facts to meet their agenda (*points to all the misinformation many popular Youtube reviewers were spreading about Metal Gear Survive simply because they didn't like Konami*). While I even take what the critics have to say about movies these days with a grain of salt, gaming is the media where I take what the critics say with the smallest grain of salt. There are simply too many critics and journalists who simply do not share a passion for video games, which is also admittedly the most difficult media to review, as games are not only longer than movies, but also require full interaction from the person playing them. I always just look at the facts and make my own conclusions about the games I play.

[碇 シンジン 27,427]

I never listened them and I don't think I will If I want to buy a game I buy it because it looks interesting or has something else that I am looking forward to  not because someone thinks it's good or bad 

[Here No Longer 5,270]

Simply, no.

 

Game journalists are just like news journalists. Most everything they say should be taken with a good POUND of salt. Most of it is bound to be BS for the sake of money or because they're just so f***ing unqualified for their job, as in they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

[RareGems 175]

I will be honest, I don't care about what journalists have to say in general. Most of them are just glorified bloggers and liberal activists (who hates fun, games and the target audience) at this point. Especially with cultural and entertainment news. Giving them attention just feeds their egos, they don't deserve it. I just laugh at them when they try to be relevant shilling for the elites/big companies etc. while making bad money and living in their sad, sad little apartment with their cat. They are disposable and there are an army of wanna be bloggers to fill up their ranks.

I give way more credit to people who I talk to. I know their opinions and taste so I can judge their opinion better.

[KatonRyu 1,026]

I don't particularly care what game journalists say in reviews, much like I don't care about movie or music reviews either. Whatever score they come up with isn't likely to reflect my own anyway, and when I do read reviews for games it's mostly to see if they mention anything that might be of interest to me, mechanics-wise. In those cases I read it more to find out more about the game itself than to have a value attached to it.

[MangoFoalix 24,898]

Want my honest to god opinion? I really can care less what some else thinks about a game. I may take their opinion as some sort of basis but I find it's always better to make your own opinions than follow someone elses since you may like something they absolutely despise.

[Snow Frostflame 3,567]

I don't listen to anyone, people said Battlefront II was a failure, and I played it, and its currently my favorite of the four (well until the people complained too much and now the game is but a husk of its former self, trying to be what it isn't, but I'm getting off topic). Anyways, criticism is a good thing, especially towards expensive games, but don't let criticism alone make up your mind for you. Buy the game because it interests you, not because someone else said you should/shouldn't.

[Appley Hooves 136]

Journos I don't mind as much as influencers, I did PR work for one for a while and after seeing how low someone will sink to get one more view on a video I tend to avoid publishers that give out piles of review copies now. Most will say a game's good, even if half or more of their preview or review footage shows it's not, cuz otherwise they'll lose access to future game keys. They don't care a wink about causing people to waste their money on faulty products, even if it's a kid who just blew four months of allowance on some half baked AAA title. Now unless I find commentary free footage I don't even go looking on any game unless it's dirt cheap and I can just refund it before the two hour steam cap.

[Steve Piranha 28,781]

I believe them to a point, but sadly, the ethics of such job have fallen into questionable categories. Now reviewers can't make an honest review, because their employers lose money from ads, and they can get fired from that