What do we as gamers want from journalism?

With physical print becoming a thing of the past, more and more publishing houses are turning to the internet to get their news out to their audience. However, in the case of gaming journalism I feel these publication houses have yet to find a standard formula that not only works, but also appeases their readers. With that being said what is it that we, the gaming public, would like to see? Is it more reviews and previews, is it more of an in-depth look into the games themselves, or do we want more interviews with the game makers? Along those lines, how do we want the material presented? Do we as the gaming public want shorter, more concise articles and reviews or do we prefer a writer who goes into a lot of depth and background? These are important questions that we as the gaming public should be asking ourselves. With physical print slowly dying out major changes to journalism are inevitable. When this time comes these publishing giants along with their writers will be looking to their readers to help shape the way such content is presented.    

With physical print becoming a thing of the past, more and more publishing houses are turning to the internet to get their news out to their audience. However, in the case of gaming journalism I feel these publication houses have yet to find a standard formula that not only works, but also appeases their readers. With that being said what is it that we, the gaming public, would like to see? Is it more reviews and previews, is it more of an in-depth look into the games themselves, or do we want more interviews with the game makers? Along those lines, how do we want the material presented? Do we as the gaming public want shorter, more concise articles and reviews or do we prefer a writer who goes into a lot of depth and background? These are important questions that we as the gaming public should be asking ourselves. With physical print slowly dying out major changes to journalism are inevitable. When this time comes these publishing giants along with their writers will be looking to their readers to help shape the way such content is presented.    

I've heard that a lot of people want shorter articles, but I prefer more in-depth looks at things. Oh, and I'd like more reviews/previews/whatever-views.

why dose it say 0 post for u?

i don't read much apart from original pieces of writing/ features which require some form of literacy  

"I've heard that a lot of people want shorter articles, but I prefer more in-depth looks at things. Oh, and I'd like more reviews/previews/whatever-views. "

" Well since I mostly just get my news from Giantbomb now, I know i know, it is a limited source.  But I want more opinion or feature articles.  The quick looks, especially of bad games, are like that, but I want comparison and opinion pieces of game strategies and stuff, like what sony needs to do to get back in it, the way delays affect the landscape.  Ign does a little of this, but I want the hilarity that Giant Bomb offers. "

" @TheHBK said:

" Well since I mostly just get my news from Giantbomb now, I know i know, it is a limited source.  But I want more opinion or feature articles.  The quick looks, especially of bad games, are like that, but I want comparison and opinion pieces of game strategies and stuff, like what sony needs to do to get back in it, the way delays affect the landscape.  Ign does a little of this, but I want the hilarity that Giant Bomb offers. "

I agree, I think game sites should have quick looks. But I guess that's what makes Giant Bomb unique. Oh well, as long as I still get some Quick Looks I'll be happy. "

As far as journalizing video games go, I think Bradley Shoemaker, Jeffrey Gerstmann, Vincenzo Carravela, and Ryanward Davis do a pretty bang-up job.
 
Of course, I'll never pretend to get my vidjagame news from just them.

" As far as journalizing video games go, I think Bradley Shoemaker, Jeffrey Gerstmann, Vincenzo Carravela, and Ryanward Davis do a pretty bang-up job.  Of course, I'll never pretend to get my vidjagame news from just them. "

I like the shorter review ideas myself. If I want to know about the game "previews" cover that well. When the game is out I just want to know what it does right and what it does wrong. It may say zero posts because I just joined today.

There's no one site that covers all my video game needs. Giant Bomb is great for their Quick Looks, Podcast, and has the best gaming community I've ever participated in, but their news and reviews are scarce. Gamespot is my go-to place for news, reviews and previews, though I'm not a fan of their other content. The Escapist, 1up, and (sometimes) IGN have the most insightful features. And there are more -- magazines included. So my digestion is dispersed across multiple sources, which I suppose is good considering it's a field I hope to break into someday and reading widely has more benefits than sticking to one source. 
 
Personally, I prefer in-depth reviews, because if I don't want to read the whole thing I can read the first and last paragraphs to get a good idea of the game. Then, if it piques my interest, I can go on to read the meat of the review. There's no compromise that way. Though I'll always favour conciseness over three paragraphs about the game's save system, a la IGN. Gamespot's getting better at it; they never publish a review more than two pages anymore. 1up's reviews are of perfect length, being around 800-1200 words.
 
As for games journalism in general, I have a feeling writers are going to have to adapt to a more mainstream style as gaming itself becomes entrenched in the mainstream. This means not only shorter, but better written articles. Gamespot's Kevin VanOrd and Tor Thorsen, 1up's Scott Sharkey, and OXM's Corey Cohen are all great writers who I think represent what all games journalists should strive toward.

If we are talking print, it needs to be nothing but features and articles. I don't need to read reviews, previews, and news in a magazine weeks after I have seen it online. I need deeper content that meets a higher quality standard and explores something novel. Anything that is time-sensitive should stay out of print.
 
In terms of online content, I still prefer features and in-depth content although I generally like my reviews short and sweet. I typically want to know whether or not I should buy the game. However, sometimes I want to know a particular detail about the game which is where the multi-page reviews come in handy. I want previews to be long and detailed since I can't yet buy the game. I want the option of knowing lots about it if I am going to the trouble of searching out information on it.

For me reviews don't have to be too long, but it needs to be long enough and provide enough information for me to be able to determine whether I personally would like it.
 
IGN's five page reviews are far too long, but I don't want something like Tim Tracy's review of Bejeweled either. They need to find a good middle ground.

Well... now that I think about it. I like it when long articles have pictures with captions to go along with the text (a picture's worth a thousand words). I like alot of GiantBomb's stuff because it has a more personal feel to the videos, the articles and reviews. I've started to go back to Gamespot since they cover more stuff than giantbomb. Also lately i've been watching my bandwidth intake, so I haven't been watching any videos lately on giantbomb, which is probably another reason why i've been going on gamespot more.  
 
on reviews: I like in-depth because as a person who can't/isn't allowed to buy games very often (think one or two games a year) I need to know as much about a game before I buy it and decide to learn and master that game.
 
P.S. if a picture's worth a thousand words then a video must be worth... a million words? I duno, but I wouldn't want it to be JUST video (especially since it takes up way more bandwidth).