Gaming "journalism" is over. (article)

Great read right here on Slate. Just a sample below.

The attacks on the press have ranged from well-reasoned to offensive to paranoid, but the gaming journalists unwisely decided to respond to the growing, nebulous anger by declaring that “gamers” were dead. Such articles appeared concurrently in Gamasutra(“ ‘Gamers’ are over” and “A guide to ending ‘gamers’ ”), Destructoid (“There are gamers at the gate, but they may already be dead”), Kotaku (“We might be witnessing the ‘death of an identity’ ”) and Rock, Paper, Shotgun (“Gamers are over”), as well as Ars Technica (“The death of the ‘gamers’ ”),Vice (“Killing the gamer identity”) and BuzzFeed (“Gaming is leaving ‘gamers’ behind”). These articles share some traits in common besides their theses: They are unconvincing, lacking in hard evidence, and big on wishful thinking.

A good number of them link to an obscure blog post by academic Dan Golding, “The End of Gamers,” which argues, again without evidence, that “the gamer identity has been broken” and that the current unrest “is an attempt to retain hegemony.” Kotaku writer Nathan Grayson linked to a similarly obtuse piece of academic argot (“ ‘Gamer’ is selfish ... conservative ... tribalistic”), which in Grayson’s words “breaks down the difference between ‘gamer’ as a manufactured identity versus loving games on multiple levels.” I’ve written essays comparing games to the work of artist Kurt Schwitters and poetKenneth Rexroth, and even I can’t muster this level of vacuous self-importance on the subject.

I absolutely could not agree more. The gig is up, and we've all seen the frail old man behind the curtain, pulling levers and pressing buttons. This is not going away.

Trying to sort through GamerGate is like sinking into quicksand, but the general tenor of the discussion has been: A fair number of gamers hate the journalists who cover them, and the journalists hate them back.

I think this really needs to sink in. How can the gaming press, who are supposed to be and represent "the gamer" hate "gamers" unless they see themselves as a different group of people with different interests? And if they view themselves as a fundementally different group doesn't that open up a conflict of interests?

@Articuno76: It's been the sad nature of this industry for a while. Most journalists are elitist pricks who think their word is god when it comes to video games. Sure the rise of common gamers on YouTube like TotalBiscuit and Angry Joe have curbed the tide a bit, but the reality is that most journalists on gaming websites have become increasingly snobby when it comes to their opinion. It needs to end, as gamers have been saying, but journalists aren't making things easy with hostile articles like these. I personally want both a reform and peace, but one has to come before the other.

Not to mention the main thing that makes most people hate a good numbers of the current gaming journalists: A bunch of them criticize games/gamers but are mostly not good at the games they criticize. A good portion of them are noobs and baddies lol.

Not to mention the stifling ultra politically correct BS a bunch of them spout, soapboxing agendas that dont really have anything to do with gaming, or gushing praise on games because they arent about guns or fighting.

I miss the days when guys like Maxwell McGee who is actually good at fighting games, talked about fighting games.

The current gen is like listening to a bunch of people that arent fans of a football commentate a football game. Horrible.

I think there's a practical issue here of hiring people who are well-versed in each genre. I can speak from experience when I say, more than once, I've had to review a game from a series/genre know nothing about. In one case I was given a review copy of Wolfenstien: The New Order (PS4) to review... even though I hardly game on the PC (so I'm unfamiliar with the series outside of pop-culture), know nothing about the series and hopelessly bad at FPS games. Why was I picked to review it? Cos I had a PS4 and was the only person available to cover it.

And yeah, as prettily worded as the review came out, I really didn't have any idea what I was takling about. If you guys want to see an example of a reviewer well outside of their comfort zone :P

To an extent having to work on genres/games you don't understand is an inevitable part of writing on videogames - you can't possibly be fluent in all genres and you can't just stick to narrowly looking at one genre when there's a piling up workload the site has to get through.

I kinda missed this whole fiasco. But game journalists have pretty much been irrelevant to me since I stopped being one. You just sorta realize that all you're doing is republishing the press packets the companies are giving you. Even the screenshots are not your own half the time. When you get early access and you choose to maybe write up something not so glowing, you get a nice letter telling you about your mistake. You can hardly call it journalism. The closest it ever comes to such is in the actual reviews, which honestly anybody can do well these days especially because of Twitch and YouTube.

I just don't see a point. Pretty much the only time I tune in anymore is during events like E3 or Gamescom or PAX or whatever, when I can't be there in person myself and I just can't wait to see new footage...but then, a few seconds later those very same gameplay trailers go up on YouTube. So even when it comes to these events, places like this are simply packaging for the very same info I can get elsewhere often just as quickly. Often times even closed door footage pops up on YouTube...of course, you see none of these on the professional sites because they are "professional," or, rather they don't want to be locked out of these closed door events in the future.

I think the author of that article hits the nail on the head when he talks about hegemony. i think what it is, publishers have realized they don't really need the journalists to sell their games anymore. This intrinsic link between gaming and internet has really connected the consumer to the producer in ways that just don't exist in any other hobby and it has allowed publishers to really speak to us directly. Journalists are pressing the issue, trying to force themselves in between this direct relationship, to create an importance for themselves that will hopefully convince the world they are still necessary...but maybe people aren't buying it anymore. It reminds me of the church...so many of these religion vs. science dust-ups over the years at their roots have nothing to do with scripture or belief but rather in continuing to justify the importance of the clergy. Hegemony was a good word choice.

I've never visited gaming websites for journalism. I've visited and still visit them for reviews and entertainment, both of which can't really be labeled as journalism. I've also never felt personally attacked by all these people claiming 'gamers' are dead. I never felt like I was part of the group of 'gamers' that was being addressed.

And as (almost) always, people only whine, they only point out, they only seek justification for their complaints (on both sides, that is). Look, they did good, because they pointed out flaws in the system. And now they're standing there, watching the whole thing crumble, but hey, at least they pointed out what was wrong. Yeah, they're all being great critics, because being a critic is about criticising, not offering solutions. Wouldn't it be great if every legitimate complaint would have to include a possible solution or improvement?

Instead they buy all the crap publishers are serving them. Is it even possible to be a legitimate journalist in a context that hardly offers any possibilities to actually do some thorough research on games? Is it possible in a context where the gaming press has to rely too much on the subject it's discussing? I understand why some people are annoyed or angry, but is legitimate gaming journalism even an option? Is an independent gaming journalism website on the scale of, let's say, Gamespot a realistic possibility? And if so, how would one achieve that?

What would that reform entail?

@loafofgame: I would say, for starters, we should actually have investigative journalism be a part of gaming. No other medium has ever been so terrified to hunt down and learn about the new things happening, and is more content with believing rumors than finding out the hard truth from the get-go. I get that games have to be kept hush-hush until the release, but if there are questions regarding technical issues or the base contents of a game, devs shouldn't be so quick to hide from them and/or completely dismiss them until proven otherwise. Also, I believe we should get rid of the number-scoring system for game reviews, and do something along the lines of what Zero Punctuation or TotalBiscuit do--i.e. playing games and showing them off or just talking about their pros and cons regardless of overall quality. Opinion pieces are well and good, but neither should they be for some agenda. If there's a current topic you'd like to give an opinion on, don't try to simply ignite the fire already lit in the haters. It just makes things worse.

Journalists should be representing gamers, but they're clearly not anymore. They clearly ignore the whole Zoe Quinn situation, praise Anita Sarkesian, criticize gamers and don't ask critical questions in interviews. Because they're buddies with the developers, they don't ask the right questions either

Is it even possible to be a legitimate journalist in a context that hardly offers any possibilities to actually do some thorough research on games? Is it possible in a context where the gaming press has to rely too much on the subject it's discussing? I understand why some people are annoyed or angry, but is legitimate gaming journalism even an option? Is an independent gaming journalism website on the scale of, let's say, Gamespot a realistic possibility? And if so, how would one achieve that?

This is something that gets me as well. What are "journalists" supposed to do to meet this standard of journalistic prowess their readers expect of them? Ninja their way into a game developers office and hack their servers?

I think the real issue isn't that games "journalists" aren't producing journalistic style articles, but that the audience treats them with the same expectations as they would a political journalists or financial respondant... when in reality they are closer to entertainment journalists that cover Hollywood.

Well, considering that there is and never will be any thing such as gaming journalism he is right and i cant wait for the day journalist becomes a protected title so these hacks can be called by their real name "critics"

How can there be investigative journalism when there's no room to investigate? Most games are far too big of an investment to accept the risks involved with being more open about the development of your product. We all know how quickly people like to judge. I think publishers will prefer letting the audience make rash decisions in the 'positive' sense (i.e. buying a product based on very limited information) than being fair about what they're making. Maybe the gaming audience should simply be more patient and critical, actually showing they care as much as they claim they do. I don't think publishers and developers are going to change their way, because they know how erratic their audience is. So there will always be very little room for actual investigation...

I sometimes feel that the only way to solve this is that the gaming press is allowed to operate more independently. I feel that people trust in all these youtube critics, because they have far less to lose (and far less responsibility towards the actual industry) and because their revenue through advertising is far less direct. It will be impossible for big websites to survive on public funding alone (because peope don't want to pay for online content anymore) and solely advertising game related material only opens them up to possible conflicts of interests. I think the most realistic option is that these youtube critics take more responsibility and start working together more. If they are indeed the people everybody flocks to (for whatever reasons), if they are the people that appear to be more trustworthy and independent, then they should combine their forces to become a more visible and authoritative source of information, without having to rely on the industry itself. And they should remain transparent about everything they do and inform people not only about videogames, but also about how they work. And audiences should be more resolute in who they want to support and not come here, because they still appreciate The Point or Reality Check, or whatever. In the end, these websites survive on clicks, not integrity. And people keep clicking on all this 'crap'. Audiences should also adjust their demands and accept that there won't be any entertainment (apart from things directly relating to playing a game) or production value anymore. There won't be resources for The Lobby and other nicely edited and recorded shows. And general coverage will probably also be worse, since well, they will have to pay for everything themselves and they will also not get access to a lot of things, because, as true journalists, they should never refrain from asking the hard questions. I doubt that kind of journalism exists anywhere...

I see the value in youtube critics calling these issues out, but that's all they ever do. They don't actually contribute to solving the problem. And honestly, if you claim to be a critic and you have a significant audience, then you better take some responsibility and come up with solutions.

I'm generally supportive of getting rid of number-scoring, although I'm doubtful it will actually solve this particular problem. Besides, scores are important for several parties and I can't sympathise with people making purchasing decisions based solely on scores. If CoD keeps getting 8's, even though it brings nothing new to the table, then that isn't my problem. Even if the review is praising the entire game, I can still take from it that little has changed and that a purchase is probably not worth it. The numbers themselves aren't really the problem; it's what people attach to them. If some reviewer praises a game and gives it a 1, shouldn't that 1, in essence, be totally irrelevant? Aren't the readers attaching too much value to that number?

This is another thing I cannot sympathise with. With the abundance of reviews out there (most of which are extremely similar), there's more than enough information to make a good decision. And I don't even have to watch all these apparently much more trustworthy youtube critics for it. There's a lot of information in bias, especially when it doesn't resonate with the general audience. When judging satire in GTA V I see more value in a biased argument about misogyny than a generic argument about satire hitting its mark. If you want to make an actual fair judgement about a game before purchasing it, you have to consider multiple perspectives and be aware of a reviewer's backgrounds and convictions. I don't think that, when it comes to videogames (or entertainment in general), being biased or having an agenda is particularly harmful. It can even be very useful when given some effort.

Maybe it has got something to do with the interactive nature of videogames (not just that you have to actively play a game, but also that there are ways for consumers to change the content of a game pre- and post-release). It makes for a much more entitled and involved audience. Movies and books are generally closed off; people have very little opportunity to change the content during production or after release. However, if something is flawed in videogames people feel they can still do something about it (alpha's, beta's, patches, added content, feedback on the content of future games). Videogames are a medium that relies much more on direct consumer feedback than movies or books, so there seems to be an almost inherent fear among gamers that people with enough exposure and bad intentions will bring about unwanted changes. Gamers demand that any individual with a stage (such as people from the press) be as impartial and neutral as possible, because any bias that isn't shared by the (assumed) majority can potentially affect the content of videogames in a negative way. They don't want the wrong demands to reach the developers and publishers.

@Randolph: Just who the hell do these people think they are? and how dare they drag gaming&gamers along with their PC SJW bullshit?

Reading these articles is like reading a bunch of 15 yr old girls write about their breakup.. its fucking pathetic..they call themselves "journalists"?? JESUS..

Interesting read. Here's a thought. How about we fire all the game journalists and instead pay gamers to cover video game stories.

What I mean obviously is that a virus is growing in the body of gaming. That virus is not that body's hormones or that body's cells or that body's tissue. It's an outsider that has to be dealt with. That virus is of course gaming journalism. Kill it before it's too late.

i can not understand why the **** such sites even post this crap and undermine us. You know the readers and the guys that visit those sites

"The funniest part of all this is that there’s no answer. The games press is obviously not perfect, but it’s not as if we could swap the current line-up of professionals with the most insightful Reddit and 4chan posters and everything would be glorious and bias-free." - Forbes article

Couldn't have said it better myself. Games journalism will get better, slowly but surely. Replacing the people we have today won't do any good.

I have a bit of a solution. Invest more time into actually criticizing games at the same level that books, film, and music get criticized. Instead of journalism, criticism. There will always be snobs, sure, but at least there would be some level of respect.

Criticism is one thing, but I feel everything revolving around this is just hate. Here's some food for thought for those that do hate:

"Gamer" is a marketing term used to identify demographics.. It's dumb short hand that means nothing. You don't call a cinephile a movier, etc...

The Zoe Quinn situation is none of anyones business, that some people think it is blows my mind..

Sarkeesian is certainly a divisive figure, but I definitely think she is needed in this medium that greatly lacks female voices.

Don't ask critical questions? McShea was one of the most critical "journalists" gamespot has ever had, and you constantly talk about how much you hate that dude.

They don't ask the right questions either..? Who are you to say? If you think you know, why don't you make your own site, certainly it would be very successful since you know "the right questions" to ask.

I'm actually surprised that it took this long for gaming journalists this long to lash back. The amount and level of hate that I see some gamers spew out on a daily basis is revolting. Personally I don't blame them one bit for retaliating in kind.

Hate? if you mean the criticism of them and others referring to their work as gaming journalism since there is no such thing as gaming journalism nor has there ever been. It has nothing to do with hate but just trying to get their inflated egos down to earth again.

Also i think you might have misread the article, he is actually not lashing out at gamers but at gaming "journalism"

Well for one thing, I'd hate to be in the place of a journalist who ultimately will be wrong.

I mean, if gaming were dead, (And I seriously doubt that since there is a lot of creative innovation going on), I would go ahead and proclaim so.

But every year we get an article saying "Gaming is dead"

Could gaming be dead in 2015? I don't know maybe. But maybe not.

So I'd hesitate to make some rash prophecies, or anything of that type.

No I mean hate, as in the name-calling, insults, attacking one's sexaulity, threatening and foul language, etc., etc. I always find it odd how as soon as one mentions the hateful comments posted by others you get 1,001 people jumping in to say, "Oh now we can't criticise their work?". There's a difference between criticising an being a vulgar asshat and too few know the difference.

I know that the article was about him lashing out at gaming journalism but I was commenting on the basis of his article of lashing out at them in response to them lashing out at gamers.

Just because you lack female voices, doesn't mean you settle for whatever you can get. Sarkeesian is and will continue to actively damage her own cause because she has too much ego to realize how fatally flawed her approach is, and she refuses to listen to any criticism that could lead to her videos not being complete shit. Even a SJW trooper like Pedro has called her poison. He was right, Sarkeesian is poison, and she is actively setting women further back in gaming with every action she takes.

It doesn't look like it, at least Gamespot no long has Petit and McShea, so that's at least something

Yeah but see back in the day, GS actually had people well versed in each genre that kind of stuck to their area of expertise. The fighting game guy talked about fighting games, the mmo guy talked about mmos, the rpg guy talked about rpgs, the platformer guy talked about platformers. Actually having a good knowledge base of the game you are reviewing makes all the difference. Sometimes the games arent bad, but the person reviewing just isnt good at them so it will appear to them that the game is bad because they are looking at it thru a different perspective.

There is a lot stuff happening here. The core is pride on both sides. Each "side" thinks very highly of his or her position and no-one wants to back down, causing things to spiral out of control. Lets keep it a tad real, gaming website and the debunk gaming magazines have moved away from being objectively informative to the new extension of game devs and publishers marketing team. It was inevitable. Gaming is attracting more and more money and with the growing potential to make money all of the traditional tactics for generating funds are in full force making sites the hype-man for the trend of the week to generate more traffic. Its just unfortunate that most gaming sites are becoming more and more like the sensationalized magazines we have become acquainted with at the check out counter.

It also seems to me that the people responsible for this recent war between journalist and gamers are the extremists on both sides. I don't care what a gaming website writes about gamers and I don't think other gamers should care that much. Even if you do care, its in everyone's interest to NOT reinforce the content in these articles. You don't extinguish a fire by adding more fuel, that makes no sense.

With regards to this SJW which I am assuming equates to Social Justice Warrior, its just silly. What is the point of that label? Do you really think that labeling and categorizing folks in such a manner is productive? All it leads to is derogative labeling and removes any meaningful discussion. Its very similar to the fire fueling articles that is in question.

The good thing in the end is that gamers can more easily than ever before start a website and do their own gaming journalism.

@MethodManFTW: OH heavens no! she's NOT the kind of person gaming needs!

I think both parts are somewhat in the wrong here.

Those among us Gamers who go off the rails when a review they disagree with comes out and the now paranoia that every single journalist in the gaming industry are crooked and taking bribes for handing out reviews. Now do reviews tend to be biased because of the writers view or opinions, Of course. Does that mean you should hold reviews about as high as a Christian holds the bible or a Muslim holds the Quran?, Of course not. You can read it, you can disagree with it or agree but you don't use them to choose the games you play for you nor would the negativity you disagree with cause a game you enjoy to be worse.

Are there some bad seeds in the industry, Yes. There will always be some bad seeds anywhere wether in business, entertainment, politics or even in public. But generalization never served anyone and frankly you'd think gamers who's generalized the most on TV and media would try to refrain from doing it elsewhere.

As for the journalists, we know there are many of you out there that put hard work and effort into bring us news within the industry and as unbiased reviews of a game that you can. But we also know there are likely those within the industry that accepts gifts and such from studios in hope that they might be extra favorable towards them, be it done at conventions or elsewhere. The difference between a Journalist in the news and a Gaming journalist is seems is that a News Journalists will report what it happening because they want to report things that happen to the public, be it good or bad. A Gaming Journalist however often sees themselves as "representing" gamers, which many gamers seem to agree with, I do not. This is not to say you should not participate within the medium, but rather that it gets difficult to be objective when you have a passion for the things you are reporting on. Having passion for something is great but it can also be a hinderance if you do not control it.

I guess what I am pretty much trying to say to both parts is to control your passion for the industry so it doesn't go out of hand, We're surely not going to get anywhere if it does.

@Treflis: I agree with every word of this, actually. People on both sides need to calm the heck down.

Those aren't mutually exclusive..

I think Sarkeesian is right on with most of what she says.. I'm usually pretty nihilistic so it's not like I'm going to do much about it, but I agree with a lot of her sentiments.

If you actually want to flex some brain muscles, read this study:

http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/30298/dill-et-al-jesp-2008.pdf

@behardy24:

Considering gaming journalism has been getting worse over the years, yeah I don't think it will be getting better anytime soon if at all.

@notorious1234na:

We need people to address all kinds of offensive content in games but we also need them to be qualified and intellectually honest. I don't believe Sarkeesian is either. But that doesn't mean we're not feminists.

The hashtag was invaded by well known anti feminists as Sommers but that doesn't mean the other camp isn't guilty of lumping all gamers or all those who disagree with Sarkeesian in the same group.

wait wait did some one here help fund Skar Skars kickstarter trolololol

how does it feel to pay a con artists rent or her louis vuittons?

I say nothing about any hashtags..

So... No one read that study right? lmao, let me draw a bunch of red lines over a screen shot of someones twitter account, MUCH easier to comprehend.

/sigh

Journalism in general is corporate sponsored....that's one of the main issues right there.

Do you not see the cyclic nature of this?

It seems that the gaming community is decrying the "Us vs Them" articles being written, yet using the same "Us vs Them" diction to describe personalities they don't want associated with their hobby, labeling those as outsiders who have differing opinions and ideas.

I did read the study. I think they shouldn't have included Dead or Alive in the presentation. It's a GUY game just like a GUY's mag. and if a group of feminists think sex industry or any industry related to the sex industry as guy mags is objectifying then that is a big problem. Guy games or ecchi are intended for sexual stimulation. They're aimed towards a certain demographic so they can't be included in a presentation for women's portrayal in video games.

The article said the images served as a primer. Yes, DoA could be considered a "guy game," but the point is the effect it has.

I don't know. Whether or not something is completely focused on and tailored to men seems irrelevant in this context. People see these images and it might have an effect. You can't ignore them just because they tailor to a specific group. Besides, who decides Dead or Alive volleyball is made specifically for men and the other games aren't?

I understand guys need to have their guy thing, but they should also be capable of separating reality from fantasy. If fantastical images affect your view on reality (especially when those images are made with you in mind), then there's reason for concern. That doesn't mean these images should be banned or altered, but it should be clear in what kind of context such images are to be interpreted. I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of people who have difficulty separating media depictions from reality.

I will not agree that those images rationalize women objectification. Rather banning them would do more damage than let's say keeping them to a minimum or as I explained, in the guy's games or girl's games.

A fresh article on this

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140906VL200.html

I think the gamergate movement is far more important than any of us thinks. I have made a thread on system wars with some info if anyone wants to take a look

I don't think this is the case. What has been exposed during "gamergate"? I'm not entirely clear because it's been a muddled mess of shouting. I understand that developers are friends with game critics, but I knew this before gamergate. I understand that game critics may back kickstarter projects, but I knew this before gamer gate.

In the end, the whole scandal does not seem to have any positive influence on the making of video games, just how news is distributed about video games (if that). Console producers, publishers, and developers don't need to respond to allegations because this causes them to become entrenched in this scandal and makes them a target, something they've managed to avoid.

Well it did some good

It made not only the Escapist but the entire Defy media group change their ethics policies and guidelines. They also apologuised for the harm they've done because of false accusations on people.

It made Gamasutra/ Polygon/Kotaku/RPS and the other websites prove how delusional, irrational and out of touch they are. Not only that but they are very hateful and biggoted. These people are not fit to lead anything or leave a dent in gaming culture.

It exposed mass censorship in the gaming media, in forums, places like reddit /neogaf. People know where free speech is allowed.

And dont give me any of that "scandal" bullshit. Gamespot reported when a developer got arrested for owning CP. Suddenly a dev sleeping with a judge of an awards comitee is too scandalous to talk about anywhere on the internet. Anyway it's not about Zoe anymore, it has grown, but they're still making it about her.

I mean think about this. They claim that GamerGate is a movement against Zoe because sexist neckbeard gamers don't want women making games. Are you fucking serious? Not only does it deny all the female game devs and gamers in the history of gaming, but Zoe is also not important to video games and can't change anything. Fucking depression quest, I got it off steam it's free you go play it.

To think we would be going after Amy Henning the lead / director / writer of a Star Wars game. When has a women not been appreciated in any gaming community? I used to play WoW, women were always respected about people beat themselves up about who to help a girl first.

So how does this effect the making of games again? Other than website policy changes nothing has come out of this movement.

I'm not sure what you mean by "dont [sic] give me any of that "scandal" bullshit." Surely you're not implying this isn't a scandal. I'm defining it by what it is, a scandal. Hell the whole "movement" is using a suffix that is synonymous with the word scandal.

it effects game devs. Some have come out publicly, some anonymously in support. They are all saying what these extremists journalists are doing are censoring them and making them walk on eggshels. They all want this to stop. Japan devs get less coverage and bad reviews because their culture and way of making games doesn't fit into these gaming journalists political agendas.

David Jaffe : watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-kJuTbWGKQ

CEO of Stardock : Was accused of sexual harassment of an employer. All of these websites covered this, he got death threats, and threats over the life of his child. This was proven false at court.

If you're not a part of their clique or if you had a disagreement , your chances to break out as an indie dev are lower

Did all of this happen during "gamergate"? What did gamergate do to put a stop to this?

It would be interesting to see how much influence reviews have on sales. I'm not sure there is much of a correlation. Resident Evil 6 still sell millions despite reviews. Okami still sells shit despite reviews. Of course, those are anecdotal examples, but it would be interesting to see a trend.