This morning while reading a post on another game site, I started wondering about video game journalism and critique as opposed to other entertainment journalism and critique. In the movie industry, movie journalists visit the major film festivals, dig up celebrity gossip and visit movie premieres but are never the ones that review movies for publications. Movie reviewers on the other hand are a whole separate breed and although they visit movie events like the ones mentioned it is usually with the goal to review them or to form an opinion for upcoming award shows. Now I'm not saying that the movie industry is perfect by any means, but shouldn't the games industry follow suit and not let the same guys that rub shoulders with developers at trade-shows be the same ones to review those games later? I'm not making any allegations about fixed review scores here, it is just a question about conflict of interest. If the video game model was followed by the movie industry you would have Roger Ebert as a host on E! and Ryan Seacrest reviewing. Both are great at their jobs, but can one person typically be great at both and do so without one influencing the other? I'd love to hear your thoughts on why this specialization has not occurred in the video games industry and what you think the effect may be.
Game critics and Game Journalists
What a great point, I never thought of it that way.
Then again who is going to write the preview of the game? journalist? Not the game reviewers? They can't give their impressions if they can't play the games. Videogames are interactive, movies are not.
I take your point, but I think it just depends how profesional the reviewers are.
Jeff certainly didn't cut Tron any slack
I think that it is a question of man/woman power. Most sites just don't have the money to have people just covering events andpeople just reviewing games. Even at bigger sites there is a lot of bleed over between the two departments.
I think your point is valid, but at this point in the industry, it's just unrealistic.
Also, (former 1up writer) Sharky's did a whiteboard video about this issue. It's not a solution or anything, but it is one journalist's view on this issue.
http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/29448
We can't be totally sure of that, not even Jeff can really. Maybe Tron's would've been a 2-star game if it wasn't for the relationship?Jeff certainly didn't cut Tron any slack "
But I digress.
Game journalism is so effed up I don't even really know how one would go about fixing it up. Currently the only answer I see is to leave it how it is, take it with a grain of salt, and try to have fun with it.
That's probably why I gravitate towards Giant Bomb. Maybe they get a fact wrong here and there, miss a story or event, or breeze past things I would like a deeper look at but at least they seem to be having some fun with it.
" I take your point, but I think it just depends how profesional the reviewers are. Jeff certainly didn't cut Tron any slack "Mickey should've been the same rating if not more than Tron. That's all I'm saying.
" This morning while reading a post on another game site, I started wondering about video game journalism and critique as opposed to other entertainment journalism and critique. In the movie industry, movie journalists visit the major film festivals, dig up celebrity gossip and visit movie premieres but are never the ones that review movies for publications. Movie reviewers on the other hand are a whole separate breed and although they visit movie events like the ones mentioned it is usually with the goal to review them or to form an opinion for upcoming award shows. Now I'm not saying that the movie industry is perfect by any means, but shouldn't the games industry follow suit and not let the same guys that rub shoulders with developers at trade-shows be the same ones to review those games later? I'm not making any allegations about fixed review scores here, it is just a question about conflict of interest. If the video game model was followed by the movie industry you would have Roger Ebert as a host on E! and Ryan Seacrest reviewing. Both are great at their jobs, but can one person typically be great at both and do so without one influencing the other? I'd love to hear your thoughts on why this specialization has not occurred in the video games industry and what you think the effect may be. "i don't think you are right about movie reviewers being separate from movie news writers. There is overlap especially with smaller review sites.
" Most game sites already do that. 90% of the time, the reviewer does not go to previews or trade show events involving said game. "Yes, I've heard the same discussion on the last 1UP podcast.
This policy isn't perfect. If the reviewer didn't hear about preview coverage, then he isn't really representative of the audience, which has been exposed to the hype. Example:
A blank slate reviewer might write a glowing review for a good game, while we the people -exposed to the hype and preview promises- might feel disappointed or even betrayed.
Great thing about GB, is that the reviewers possibly got over the desire to please everyone and past the worry about careful developer relations. This has to do with maturation, smartening up, developing an integrity - something that fake, pretty twenty-somethings on other sites simply can't deliver. Mostly because they were hired to be a face and a voice and instantly appeal to a young audience. Conflict of interest policies aren't going to remove their nativity or their youthful desire to please, belong and conform.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment