What is good games journalism?

So with the blow up of Peter Molyneux and the recent interview of Rock Paper Shotgun with him which was very rough with him, one part I glad someone has finally grabbed him by the collar going "why!?" yet the result is not a despicable man...just a naive man that is ever closer to the end of his rope.

This interview was journalism, it was games journalism. The quality is debatable but when 90% of game coverage is just PR and Advertising.....what is games journalism? Giant Bomb is a Games REVIEW site, Jeff is an Editor in Chief for review and criticism of game, yet in the current climate of things Jeff tends to be a better games journalist than most outlets. Sadly he doesn't make it official as his reports are simply just his interactions with developers friend or not in non offcial settings.

Patrick he is less a games reviewer and more a games journalist and he did his work. Interview dump truck, written interviews and exploratory reports on events E.G Eve online gathering. He was Scoops in charge of the news for GB, somthing I am starting to feel a an absence of good news and journalism around here, its not something that makes the site any less as the content they bring is what I want. However it was a nice extra.

So with that I start running out on people or sites I can recognise as games journalist and not game reviewers. We have Patrick Klepek, John Walker of RSP anyone else there, Eurogamer and Kotaku........that is my list that is my list for hard hitting journalism for people who ask the questions nobody wants to ask in fear of alienating the contact.

This is for INSIDE the games industry tho, outside well you have all manner of people to pick things apart and be as rough as John Walker was with Molyneux. Newspapers and Tech magazines that can burn these contacts and not ruin their job. While someone like Patrick or John Walker maybe strong games Journalist in their efforts...they still need to come back to this person 7 months and get the spoon fed interview of "Ok so this is out game. and this is why it will be great!" the semi PR semi advertising that is covering a game. Game reviewers who are not always reviewing become game reporters, they are the newsroom host who says "Good morning! In latest reports...." they instead go "In reports EA is releasing a new IP and it looks interesting, here is the info we have from an interview from a lead developer." then all questions are about understanding to better to express the game to their audience, many places simply become the PR release home or advert/teaser/trailer hub.These people cannot take a person to task over the games or industry or company as they are needed to be as free flowing with information as possible, or else you are now out of the job as no one is talking to you. So I ask....

"What is good games journalism?"

After seeing the equally flustering responses to the Peter Molyneux RPS interview and peoples opinion it was a joke of an interview and even Peter himself felt it was an attack. It makes me realise I do not know what good games journalism looks like and I do not know what bad games journalism is....well ok Kotaku helps guide in that aspect the same as a tabloid newspaper or TMZ guides news journalism, sure they have some good works but thats not the day to day.

I may only recognise the differences in games reviewer, games journalist, games reporter and further more the "Enthuthiast game reporter/review" (which ecompases the youtube crowd E.G Totalbiscuit and Angry Joe, with Angry Joe trying his hand at games journalism.) since I took Media and Communications in college and learned about journalism and news reporting. Which is also why I have formatted this in the form of an article.

Yet do other people? Is the world of games lacking game journalists? In a time you can simply go onto youtube and find a game reviewer or game reporter by just typing in the search box "Review" which only further muddies a journalist trying to be investigative by the fact companies now say "oh you want to talk to us? Well you see you have a reputation for being inflammatory and not helpful to our promotions.... we do not need you. This kid on youtube has 5 million eyeballs if we give him the game for free we get far more people looking than with you bad mouthing us. No deal."

News journalism is a day to day thing journalists dig for information even suit up and put themselves into danger for the "Scoop" while these people can lose their lives they do it nonetheless, a games journalist loses companies talking to him or jobs which is....kinda freaking important. I do not see it often It could just not be looking in the right direction....that too is possible.

There is a man I quit well respect as a news reporter and new journalist, his name is Jon Snow.....and no not "Jaaawwwhnn Shnaaaaawww" from Game of Thrones. Jon Snow the long time newsman of UK Channel 4 who has done his leg work as a journalist in his younger days now sends most of his older days sitting behind/on the news desk reporting and also taking people to task during interviews....yet....when he needs to, he gets out of that newsroom and heads into the field to report. Last year he reported on The Gaza conflict and this is not his first warzone and may not be his last.

However at times goes on the tenacity and drive it is being lost even in news reporting and it makes me feel it is long gone in games or maybe it was not there? Infact Charlie Brooker is probably the modern cross between the two, Charlie makes cutting satirist analysis of both mediums with profound accuracy, which that seems to be long the fact for such news reporting in the games industry, look back to Jeff's exit from Gamespot in 2008 it was Penny Arcades strip that broke the news in detail. Which is safe from being shunned from the people they have a symbiotic relationship with, while a few years ago Robert (Rab) Florence did a questioning article piece on "game journos" participation in companies giveaways to win games and consoles by advertising the event and sponsor with a tweet. This resulted in many "journos" being unhappy with him asking for their names to be removed with one person go as far as to sue for slander. Which caused friction between Rab and Eurogamer as they wanted to edit is article, while the person who started the legal train their recent employer was not pleased with their acts and let them go, with Rab leaving Eurogamer before that resolution.

Only demonstrating the dangers of even attempting to do some sort of Journalism in the industry, the most journalism that any outlet does it over scandals that have already broke, yet no one actually breaks these news stories they just happen and the industry reacts and in some cases...do not.

As much as I may romanticise the old ways of journalism, it certainly does not lend itself to modern days with games as Jon Snow demonstrates with Charlie Brooker vs a PS4.

As someone who's followed gaming media coverage since the first issues of Nintendo Power, I'm of the opinion that "games journalism" hasn't ever really existed which made all the kerfuffle about it last fall all the more absurd to me. There are bits and pieces of it here and there, like the stuff Cara Ellison was doing recently, but for the most part games coverage is editorial, not journalistic. It is opinionated coverage provided through privileged information, not investigative nor rarely completely factual.

But if you'd like two articles of what a journalistic piece of games coverage would be, these are the two that immediately come to mind:

IGN's The History of Naughty Dog (this piece, however, should have been presented as one long form article not something that took several months to publish in five separate pieces).

Madden NFL and the Future of Video Game Sports (though, being Tom Bissell, there is plenty of editorial sprinkled in)

I'd like to add after reading a little more at the end of your post that there is a misconception that "journalism" has to out some perceived evil or take some particular person or entity to task. In my mind, the problem with games journalism is that no one is doing it. As best I can tell, to most others the problem with games journalism is that they're not exposing enough evil in the industry, which is a bit like Rush Limbaugh calling CNN sissies in my opinion. Not every piece of journalism is going to amount to Watergate. Sometimes it's just delving into how people plan to spend money better. Which is boring, but journalism is boring 320 days out of the year.

There isn't any.

Simply put, journalism is about the questions asked. And like philosophy, it's totally subjective as long as you know what you're fucking talking about. It's about showing the world about what is.

Okay right off the bat we need to appreciate that under the BIG umbrella of game journalism there are many roles. These are not official roles, but through them we can see the subtly of job that happens on sites, on podcats, and in magazines.

Game Reviewer
News writer
Industry Pundit
Editorialist
Investigative journalist
Social Commentator
Advocacy writer
Gotcha commentator/journalist
Listicle-ist (Top 10 list writers)
Advatoral-ist (punches up press releases)

To talk about the writer, you have to talk and look at what REALLY their product is.

Jeff reviews games mostly when he is in print, but I think when he is on teh podcast or on Bonus Round (Game Trailers) he is a pundit. Lately, Jeff has had to write some editorials to tell the people coming here to act like people instead of biogot monsters.

Patrick did some pure news writing, but a lot of what he wrote was social/industry commentary. He was a commantror on teh industry, but did some high end Listical stuff where he woudl compile lists of things or do short paragraph hodge-podge articles with "What to Read" or "What to Watch"

Drew does not write a lot but I would say much of what he does write, happens when he travels. I would almost class his writing and video segments as "travel commentary with some game flair"

Dan writes Air Force Gator...the Amazon website will tell you that Customers Who Bought Air Force Gator Also Bought Items By: Michael Crichton.

I agree with this basically so won't write my own paragraph up. It never existed. That interview if anything is proof of that. One thing I would contend with is that Cara ellison also never really did any journalism and all her work was an even deeper foray into editorial literature as opposed to factual reporting. It is fine if you like that sort of thing of course.

Games "journalism" will never truly exist because the relationship between gaming outlets and publishers/developers is too symbiotic in an increasingly one way street to ever be truly covered as it should. How could anyone who rightly calls themselves a journalist complain about embargos that stretch past the release date and hinder their ability to talk about a games shortcomings?

You'll get a different answer from every person you ask. Some people don't even want any real games journalism at all, they just want happy fun times and don't you dare interrupt that with uncomfortable questions. I'm not even condemning them for feeling like that, it's understandable and a totally valid way to view it.

It's always going to be tricky with something like gaming to know what the balance should be, because it's simultaneously completely trivial ("It's only games, don't take it so seriously!") and yet also a multi-zillion dollar industry and therefore very, very serious. If one person looks at it as trivial and another looks at it as deadly serious it's virtually impossible to please both of them with the style of your coverage. This will only become amplified now due to the Kickstarter model coming to fruition, with some gamers believing it's just free money for developers no strings attached and others believing it's no different to buying from a store (and the truth being somewhere in the middle).

You raise a valid point about the conflict between doing journalism and then having to go cap in hand for access / news about their latest game. Ideally it would be different people / sites performing each function, but that of course raises a whole host of other difficulties.

What is really needed is a power shift away from the industry and towards the press and the readers they serve. This would mean that the press could ask their tough questions and it would be the industry which needs to stay in the press' good books in order to still get valuable coverage when they need it, which is exactly how it should be. This can only ever happen if the readers collectively decide that they will be the ones who pay for the press. As long as the industry is funding the press then they are holding all the cards. The only genuinely surprising thing to me about the RPS interview is that Molyneux didn't immediately hang up (and credit to him for that).

I love what Giant Bomb does and I find it entertaining. I like getting my laughs, I like video games, and the GB staff is good at making video games fun to watch and listen to. I don't have TV so this becomes all the more important to me. But it's not journalism. Journalism has to be more than just palling around and drinking with people in the biz, it's about asking hard questions, about making people uncomfortable, about unearthing information that serves the readership and not the people they're covering.

Like Jimbo said, I know it's easy to just dismiss everything with video games as "not that serious" and therefore not worth the legwork, but I think it is important. It's a huge industry and it affects millions of people. The products are costly and the labor side of the game industry is atrocious, treating most employees as utterly disposable, to be overworked however you feel like. There's a lot of trust involved that matters too, and when the public trust in a game developer is broken, that deserves reporting and outrage just as it would with politicians or news anchors.

That RPS article was rough, but I would rather there be more articles like that about outrage in the game development space than almost the entirety of what you see on Polygon or Kotaku these days. It was journalism, like it or not. I don't know what makes "good" journalism (if I did, I would be one) but I know what makes journalism from the wacky fun times on video sites. Even individuals that some people like to parade around as being the "good examples" in the enthusiast press, Cara Ellison or Patrick, don't really aspire to be journalists, and if they did, the former would drop the Suzanne Collins writing style, and the latter would spend more time unearthing stories and interviewing people as opposed to making posts about Resident Evil music that was inspired by comments he read.

I want to stress that I think all different writing styles and approaches to content should be able to coexist, and that RPS thing was far from perfect, but it bums me out when an article that expresses outrage to a chronic liar that has taken millions of dollars for failed promises over and over and over again is shat on by individuals in games writing, but write about how you think someone might be a rapist and mum's the word from your peers. The enthusiast press has interesting priorities.

Just give me interesting stuff that I want to read. I don't give a shit if you call it "journalism" or not.

...Giant Bomb is a review site? Boy, have I been misusing it all these years!

I'm so tired of hearing/reading the term "games journalism".

I thought that piece about how fucked Silicon Knights got was pretty good.

This.

I know I've heard it from the staff at GB but we should really stop calling someone who reports or reviews video games journalists. It implies some old school newspaper room where men with press hats run down leads and scour through records and paperwork to find a story.

In reality they're the media more so than the press. They do report on stories and in that sense are reporters. But more than anything they're personalities who we watch for fun.

It's pretty simple. Good games "journalism" is that which strives for 100% accuracy in presenting its facts.

It only gets complicated because, as duders have made perfectly clear above, "Journalism" is a blanket term which includes many different forms of writing, some of which have no need to incorporate facts in the first place. An editorial about something like the portrayal of a certain character in a game can never be judged with the same criteria that, say, a report on a company's actions should be judged by.

They're just two nouns with an inherently innate meaning. What you're tired of is just the unnecessary context that you yourself evoke when you see them.

The last great piece of games journalism I read was this piece for Eurogamer by Robert Florence as part of his "Lost Humanity" series.

The (then) editor had to comment over why paragraphs had to subsequently be removed in the following days and Florence forced to quit after the utter shit-storm his brave article caused. (the un-edited article is reproduced here.)

@joshwent: Ya, my unnecessary context. Right. Not everyone else who keeps trying say how "games journalism" is ruining gaming. Good to know.

@akyho: Your question, if pared-down to its essence "what is good journalism", is one of considerable debate. It's a wholly subjective term amongst academics, working journalists, and the every day Joe.

One mainline branch of thought is that journalism is an institution that seeks to not only objectively report on the events already big in the minds of the populace, but also to bring up questions and discussion that haven't entered that space. I'll use this definition for the rest of my response, though note it is NOT the only viable definition.

To go back to your question, why is 'games journalism' so thin? That's a complex question, but here's my (wholly personal!) take on it.

1. Games coverage arose at the same time traditional journalism was fading. Organizations that consider journalism their central tenet are lessening each day. Back in say, the 50s, there existed hundreds of newspapers with staffs unbelively large for the time — a consequence of the scale they could reach by being pretty much the only game in town. It was either the paper or the radio, or you're picking up bits and pieces from the bar. Television, and especially the internet, had a huge part in demolishing the upfront cost of reaching an audience.
2. To piggyback on the end the previous points, journalism is an expensive practice. Writers only have so many hours in their day to research, write, and edit their ideas in a digestible format. Good writers are not exactly a dime a dozen. One reason places like the Financial Times and Al Jazeera have such a tremendous output is a consequence of both the size of their skilled staff, and the size of their viewing audience that pays to read it.
3. Journalism is a low-paying profession. We all know this — writing for a job today is a low-paying, unstable profession. Indirectly, this means that there's less incentive for otherwise skilled reporters to enter the domain.
4. Journalism is increasingly a dangerous position. I don't think I need to remind anyone what the costs are for writing something a group of people do not like. True, it's always been hairy for people working and reporting in combat zones and disasters, but the rise of the internet and the anonymity it provides to assholes has undoubtedly had a hand in turning away people from the profession.
5. As much as everyone is interested in games on this site, in the big picture of the international conversation, video games are small things. This notion is rapidly changing, of course. Yet, there's always going to be less people dedicated to in-depth reporting on games, than say, economics or medicine.
6. Reporting on games is still a relatively new phenomenon.

We're certainly in a transitory period. What it's transitioning to, is perhaps impossible to predict. But I can say with some certainty, I don't think games, of all things, is going to singlehandedly reverse ship of what news coverage is heading towards. Proportionally, a smaller percentage of the global literate population seem interested in getting news from a journalistic source than a century ago. The same could be said about how games are covered. But that doesn't mean that journalism is going to go away, either — there is always going to be a group that desires it.

Games journalism (and all the rest of journalism, for that matter) have more stumbling blocks than before, especially for new writers. Being a product of the 70s (which, considering how old stuff like politics, sports, and movies are), games just have less people and resources to start with. Changing this status quo is something that not only needs time, but also a captivated audience. Keep up with it, get others interested, and you'll see change.

There is no such thing as video games journalism nor does there need to be. Give me reviews of games and funny gameplay videos and I'm golden.

Well it depends on what aspect of what people tend to colloquially call Journalism we are talking about, because Games Journalism today some of it well, some of it not so well.

• Game Reviews- I think we mostly get decent choices in this area these days at least in terms of reviewing as a consumer good. I'd like to see some places specialize in the crit lit/art analysis side a bit.
• Industry News Coverage- Joystiq was the best at this imo and was a big loss. There isn't a great one stop shop for this, Gamespot might be the best now by default. Gamasutra too I suppose for a more professional side slant.
• Industry News commentary and Punditry- Youtube, tumblr blogs and Giantbomb cover this area pretty well
• Feature Pieces- This was Polygon's initial aspiration and unfortunately largely failed to make commercially viable. They still do it occasionally. As far as I know nobody really does this consistently now although You'll see IGN or Grantland or a few others from time to time try their hand at it.
• Tabloid & Rumor- Kotaku and Polygon have this covered. I don't like this kind of stuff, but there a lot of people do.
• Investigative Journalism- Nobody does this consistently or well as far as I know. Perhaps impossible to do if you are outfit dependent on access as it would endanger the well being of the outfit too much. Probably only possible as part of a New Organization that covers a lot more than games. I suppose the RPS interview was a sloppy attempt at this.

The Mario Party Party series of investigative journalism.

At the end of the day, I just don't see a lot of people looking really critically at the industry. One of the reasons I love Patrick's reporting so much is that he shows me things about this industry I never knew about. The turmoil in the fighting game scene, and things like that. I want more of that. I feel like this industry needs it.

What we don't need more of, is writers roasting developers under the guise of asking "hard hitting questions" and riling up gamers.

I like to imagine an alternate timeline in which Walker did an extended interview, stayed at the 22 cans studio and tried to understand what lead to the disappoint around the game. The ways in which Molyneux and the studio operates, and how that could have led to this disaster. I wish that would have happened instead, but I'm increasingly convinced that people who enjoy games care less and less about how they're actually made, so long as they have a punching bag to relieve their stress about the failings of kickstarter, mobile, dev cycles, and whatever else.

There are some great journos in games, but far too few. As @akyho said, most "games journalism" is really just glorified PR, so the term isn't really even fitting. Nearly 100% of the interesting reporting around Goober Gate was from outside the gaming press, for instance. Are mainstream outlets even interested in reporting, I wonder? I would be excited to see more people step up.

This. I don't care if you got the story from a game dev who's your best friend, so long as what I'm reading is interesting, well written and offers some sort of insight/angle I couldn't give a shit.

I've noticed here that a number of people see the words "Games Journalism" and instantly do not like what it means and do not think it exists or even has a place in the world of games. Clearly people missed the investigative reporting that went on here in Gaintbomb itself with Patrick, he broke the news on Microsoft doing their 360 changes on Xbox One policies, as well as his coverage on news of events involving video games. Controversies or triumphs at Evo, the research and interviews for Eve online and their massive 24 hours 8000 people battle which is only a small part of the story in a virtual war., this is video game history and I want to have a better report on it than some one guy's entry on a wiki page who never spoke to the top level guys involved.

Finaldasa. This is what I am talking about, Jeff is a editor first a reviewer second and a hundred more things before he is the man with the hat that runs down leads. His leads are appointments and interviews to gain information on games to deliver to us, which is what he has always done and always will do. Patrick on the other hand WAS the man (at one point literally with a press hat) running down leads and scour thought records and paperwork to find a story, Patrick was a video games investigative journalist first a reviewer second, why do you think he is over at Kotaku they do investigative journalism ( I am not saying its mostly good....its mostly trash.) so why this instant fobbing off?

Using the words the Games Journalist to describe Jeff is not accurate or helpful nore it is to describe Jeff or Dan. It is neither correct to say Danny, Mary or Christ Waters. These people are games reviewers/critics/pundits. Using the words to describe Patrick or Johnny Walker can be more accurate to their job description.

I am more confounded by the fact people do not want questions raised and answered. Staying in the dark and just being entertained is a viable pursuit buy games themselves or by the personalities that deliver the news of them to you GB does not need someone to break news for them or investigate Eve online conventions, yet I think the games industry needs someone to be doing, just look at all the shenanigans E.A does and Ubisoft does in recent and everyone shrugs "Yeah it sucks....." then spin theories and possibilities, there is a lack of fact most of the time beyond what the companies let us know.

You can argue the what is Games Journalism, you can argue what is good or bad, you can argue who does it, yet to denounce that it does not exist or has no purpose I find is a very wrong statement.

I won't say there's no game journalism, but I will say that there's very, very little game journalism. About 99.9% of what is posted on gaming websites is not game journalism. That's okay. You can still enjoy what people write without it being considered journalism.

I wouldn't consider the interview with Peter Molyneux to be good journalism, if you were to even consider it journalism. It came off as a hit-piece right off the bat.

This describes most of the game journalism at the moment. Game journalists tiptoeing around with the big publishers and wanting to be buddies with all of them:

Good games journalism is ignoring all the hyper-leftist tumblr twaddle and getting on with things.
As far as examples go... Well. I'm here at Giant Bomb, am I not? I also think Jim Sterling does excellent work. I also enjoy Eurogamer's Digital Foundry articles a lot.

Game journalism is 50% spitting out press releases, 25% finding something to be offended about and 25% pretentious opinion pieces about the state of gaming.

I think there needs to be a distinction here:

1. There is very little actual critiquing of video games in the "enthusiast press".

2. The vast majority of what goes on with places like Gamespot, IGN, Kotaku, and more is preview coverage, opinion pieces, and reviews.

3. There is also very little actual journalism going on and more preaching at you for liking things that are "too violent", "too sexist", "not inclusive enough", or anything else you can pull out of a hat. Poorly cited facts, lazy "research", and more shows where much of what is considered "journalism" in the gaming industry is really just opinionated coverage of a topic. Patrick once said that objective coverage was dumb...or something like that? I can't remember the quote, but he was basically pushing for subjective coverage of topics...which is why the vast majority of ALL real journalism sucks these days. They want to mold the narrative of a topic. (update: user @marokai was kind enough to provide the proper context to this bit about Patrick's comment. You can see it in the next post)

Personally, I wouldn't mind it if Giant Bomb had no real news coverage of any kind. That was most of what Patrick brought to the site, and outside of the occasional interesting interview or once in a blue moon scoop I always found that kind of coverage to not really add anything to Giant Bomb. I considered it the equivalent of Comedy Central hosting 60 minutes every Sunday: what's the point? I know it probably brought in random traffic from non-members, but...I don't know, who cares?

Sites like Polygon and Kotaku have opinion pieces where they want to tell you their message and they find the ways to best do that. You can take some free time and look up Polygon's message: essentially that they are taking a stance to provide a politically sided opinion to video game coverage.

I don't want to talk about GamerGate. I think its possible to discuss it, even at GB, with decency and respect BUT some people on both ideological sides eventually kill that idea with toxicity so it becomes easier for mods to just glass the whole thread for the good of the board...I agree with that stance. That being said, if there wasn't something to some of the things brought up from September to December then so many sites wouldn't have updated their policies. I don't believe that anyone at most of those sites said, "We need to placate these GamerGate fools so they will shutup!"(I was using my best J Jonah Jameson voice for that) Some people like the honorable Jim Sterling in fact made it known that he thought making the process and site policies more transparent was a bad idea. I think ultimately it came down to this: a largely tight knit, and friendly, group of people in the same business didn't like the idea of people who simply read their stuff dictating how they run their sites and so they turned against them. There were very few rational voices in the mix, like Eric Kain, who basically called everything perfectly...but whatever. He has been on the receiving end of people like the honorable Ben Kuchera.

Either way, you want good games journalism see people like Robert Ashley, Eric Kain, and a select few others who can do good reporting no matter what the subject. I would lump Patrick Klepeck in their, mostly, as well, but I think he was too often worried about interjecting his own message in the work. That's what annoys some people.

Updated: Here's a few good examples of what I personally consider good game's journalism. Hell, the first example isn't really from someone you might consider a journalist, as he's one of the creators behind The Vanishing of Ethan Carter. He has one of the few rational and exceptional pieces of retort in regards to Feminist Frequency (there are at least 2 writers for that)

• https://medium.com/@adrianchm/context-matters-on-feminist-frequency-joss-whedon-and-violence-5d131c07e158
• Robert Ashley's A Life Well Wasted series. Unfortunately he hasn't updated it in a while, but he is a fantastic writer as well. http://alifewellwasted.com/
• Forbe's Erik Kain. You might be familiar with him already, but he's the guy that Ben Kuchera tried to run out of the industry with hardly anyone backing him up but non-industry gamers. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/01/24/anita-sarkeesian-releases-kickstarter-breakdown-raised-440000-in-2014/
• Several others, like those (formerly) from Gamefront: Janelle Bonanno, Phil Hornshaw, and Greg Tito. Fairly certain all three of them, or at least 2, are looking for work currently because of Gamefront being shut down :(

@nardak I think that comic was made in reference to Dan Hsu's post-360 launch interview with Peter Moore. Was pretty harsh, but fair. I also brought that up in response to the whole Peter Molyneux thing the other day. Interesting comparison between Hsu's interview with Moore and Rock, Paper, Shotgun's with Molyneux.

A large part of the problem with games media/reporting/journalism/whatever doesn't get your knickers in a twist to say, is that, unlike virtually any other category of journalism/media, there isn't really any form of public checking and balancing from other members of the same press group. There's not really an Andrew Sullivan of the games press, if you get what I mean. It's an incredibly tiny group that is so scared of their own shadows for fear of how demonstrably disposable they are, so aware of the fact that they all shuffle back and forth between different outlets, that there isn't much diversity of opinion on contentious issues. Even cable news, as much of a shit show as that section of the news is, is better at checking and balancing stories against each other by virtue of having opposing channels that actively try to one-up other publications in one way or another. Written news media in particular just handles differences of opinion in a much more mature way; probably because you have to fight with written article vs. written article instead of arguing on complex, nuanced issues within 140 characters.

You just never see many instances of disagreement within the games press unless it's a total dogpile. I remember being so thoroughly disappointed when Patrick ever pretended Bombin' In the AM would actually be some sort of games news roundup with interesting guests, because what we got instead, during periods where there was some serious shit to talk about, he would just rotate through guests that agreed with him. I remember Worth Reading turning into a game of "How long will it take for someone to post an interesting Erik Kain article that Patrick will ignore as if he doesn't believe this person exists?" All the checking and balancing has to be done with individual readers/listeners to get anywhere, which is how you end up with whackjob movements like GamerGate, because where else are you going to see #realtalk when the conversation gets pushed into the dirty gaming back-alleys of the internet like shitty subreddits or 4chan? Anyone of stature just continues acting like the Ben Kucheras and Arthur Gieses of the world are Important Voices and bastions of rationality which you must be a meaniehead to dislike. Look at any attempt at an honest conversation about the substance of Anita Sarkeesian's videos and statements and tell me that the games press is full of compelling, unique voices. It's why YouTube is such a thing.

I continue to not know what "good games journalism" even really means in practice but I certainly can see, after years of being such a political and science news junkie, that the games press lacks something very important in comparison, and that is a maturity to deal with dissent and courage to speak out against publications doing stupid shit in a way that isn't the safest thing ever.

@sammo21: Patrick once said he doesn't seek objectivity, he seeks "truth." Which is all well and good until you realize that what people individually consider the truth varies wildly from person to person and the only way you can come to some sort of valuable, interesting conclusion about things is by laying all facts on the table, debating, and investigating. As opposed to coming to a conclusion in your head and working backwards, a way of thinking that is fundamentally illogical and unscientific, and inevitably leads to you conveniently ignoring things that complicate your narrative.

As a "former games journalist" myself, I'd agree with the fact that there is no real structure when it comes to most "games journalism", especially considering that most outlets who don't specialise in gaming and only feature content as a section of their publication, don't really understand the medium.

While there are certainly writers out there who are pushing for the same journalistic ideals as hard hitting war reports, I've always gone down the route that my content should be truthful, informative, and more importantly, fun to read. This lead me to believe that there's a difference between reporting about gaming, and being a games reporter.

What really opened my eyes was the fact that my best friend spent six years of his life to receive his journalism masters, and he still can't get a gig. I was a network administrator in a rural hospital, and through blogging for my own pleasure, I ended up landing a job in the editor's chair at a leading publication, then went on to freelance for some prominent magazines and online sites. I'm still nothing more than a glorified blogger, but I also feel that I write about gaming moreso than being a journalistic figure.

Games journalism needs structure. It needs to somehow differentiate the need for the no nonsense "here's the facts only" news pieces and interviews, and the fun stuff that you see here on Giant Bomb on a daily basis.

There's no "games journalism". There is journalism. And you won't find any of it in gaming because it doesn't pay for shit and because of all the industries covered by journalists gaming is by far the one that is controlled the most by the industry journalists try to cover, pretty much eliminating the possibility of having real journalism happen in the first place.

Even if journalism is you're career and games are your passion i just cannot picture anyone settling for a position as a glorified blogger for any other reason than it's the best they could get. I don't think that more than a tiny minority of current game writers out there have any real education in this field either.

Fair point Primus. I think an even bigger concern is that most of the outlets don't want actual journalism. It's one of the main reasons I switched to work on the development side - I refused to let my soul be crushed by writing top ten lists for all eternity.

It's weird because I go on game sites that aren't Giant Bomb maybe once a month at most, so all this sounds so foreign like you're talking about the Russian Hockey League or something. That being said I get what's going on to a degree, even if the conversation is tired. There's just a lot of fluff out there that barely adds to anything at any moment and it's grating. Then, when something big happens or spins out of control that's when it gets ugly. That being said there are good, consistent writers out there, if a bit obscure. I always thought Patrick had that ability to be on that top level, just his writing style and few aspects of his philosophy were a bit muddy.

@dudeglove: I wish all reviews were that good.

As others may have suggested, games journalism has not existed in any major way but an example would be getting an 'inside scoop' on something in the industry. Most gaming news is focused on specific game news that has already been available through the developers or publisher. This is hardly journalism. I'm not saying games journalism doesn't or hasn't existed, but it is rare. The industry and technology are just at a point where publishers don't need a middleman to deliver news about their games.

Screenshots of guns and faces in wrestling games.

I think we have to alter our expectations about "games journalism," or at least not assume every website dealing with video games is in that business. Implicit in the phrase is the belief that games journalism should cover the game industry in the way the New York Times might cover the White House. The latter involves matters of policy, war and peace, how our money is spent, the rich and poor, and overall governance. The games industry is about video games, at the end of the day, which are important to us, but they are not essential in the same way, and so I think this is not the right expectation to have.

That's not to say there aren't events surrounding games (such as the Kickstarter situation involving Peter Molyneux) where there's some aspect of consumer-advocacy that needs to be taken. But at the end of the day, most sites are culture critics. They review, talk and discuss games because we care about that above all else. No, we don't want it driven by advertising or anything else, and we want the interesting stories that come up in the process, but at the end of the day this material is primarily about (and driven by) enthusiasts rather than critically investigating a business. My sense is this is precisely what Giant Bomb is going towards (discussion of games, talking with creators candidly about the process and their experiences). I am not saying there's not a need for some actual journalism; that's a void that should be filled by someone. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few subjects that would be worth investigating deeply: games and our brains from development into adulthood, low-pay and long hours for people working at many game companies, and the business model most established game companies have and whether it's sustainable in this new world. It has also been noted that to cover games you need access; and to get access, you cannot actually do the real kind of reporting many want.

just to echo everyone else- games are fundamentally entertainment, so any sort of reporting that takes place is more consumer advocacy than 'investigative journalism' as it's traditionally understood.

sure, there are stories and scoops- but 'games journalism' has always felt like something of a contradiction in terms. again, games are entertainment- and their coverage should be held to a standard appropriate to the medium.

Journalism is definitely not on rails.

Good journalism is factual, truthful, and above all it is written with the interests of the reader as the primary concern. Even inherently subjective forms of journalism such as reviews can meet those criteria. The RPS Molyneux interview fails because it is scandal-mongering, which is not in the interests of the reader and is inherently dishonest. The intention was clearly to get him to admit to some kind of lie or trip him up and force him to contradict himself--although it failed to do so. The reasons an interviewer would do that are fairly obvious; to get more traffic, which is in service of the publication and not the reader.

I think this question illustrates perfectly why giant bomb is so far ahead of the game when it comes to reporting on games. I want a website where I feel like I know the people because games are such a nuanced media. I can pretty much guarantee that if vinny likes a game that I will like it. I also can tell you that brad and I have extemely few things in common when it comes to taste. I still love hearing from brad though. Giantbomb has identified that people don't care as much about the news as they with getting to know the people who report it and knowing their point of view. When I go to game informer or ign I couldn't tell you who writes a particular article because it all feels like one voice.

If you think about it, what real hard hitting questions do you want anyone to get to the bottom of in games? For me the answer is nothing but I like hearing the discussion and whether or not I agree this website is the best with giving all of their writers/editors the freedom to disuss it uniquely

Stuff like this:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-01-shooters-how-video-games-fund-arms-manufacturers

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/22/sweatshop-game-apple-app-store

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/219671/Pay_for_Play_The_ethics_of_paying_for_YouTuber_coverage.php

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/11/video-game-industry/

Although some of those pieces still have editorial slants to them. I do think it's a shame that some hardcore gamers actually don't want outlets to look into this stuff, or to keep it as far away as possible from their nice little bubbles. The desire to cling to ignorance is kinda juvenile when real people are being affected by these issues. As much as we try to put on blinders, everything's connected in this world, people!

If you see a games journalist..

..interview somebody like Kevin Dent who was never allowed to tell his side of the story because what other people in the games journalist "professional" clique say..
..decide to not review something due to personal ties to somebody working on the game or the game itself, while also making sure people learn of that fact..
..cover games and game development and not turn his or her creative outlet into a blog for the most inane unecessary things not related to the job..
..never play favourites or suck up to anybody, but instead speak truth..

..then that is a good games journalist that's trustworthy and earning respect!