|
lynch_69 posted:I honestly think gamers who whine about the sad state of games journalism have this embedded in their brains as to what constitutes proper and honest games journalism: Well that's certainly preferable to "what if I could talk to the monsters in Doom, what would they tell me?" Yet my favorite YouTuber is Errant Signal, who makes analytical thoughtpieces like this. And I can't stand most of the written/blog-format stuff people cite as garbage gaming journalism. There's a couple factors going on here: one is that the best YouTubers are under no obligation to make a video unless they have something to say. The ones that are ultra popular and make huge amounts of cash on YouTube views are under more pressure and perhaps have less to do, but most of those people are running Minecraft channels. Bloggers have to write articles constantly. The other is by making that much content they're inevitably going to reveal too much of their approach to games, or their political philosophy, or something that breaks with the reader's credo having to make what is basically a daily newspaper. They're going to get attacked for articles like "An Ode to Pikachu's rear end" as though they had to write to meet some kind of content quota and it was a slow news day. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but the pressure to deliver more persists. It was easier to simply publish a magazine once a month, even the ones that were over 90 pages like mid-90s EGM were mostly ads. The need for space meant at least some stupid ideas got shelved. Now, they're published.
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
lynch_69 posted:Yeah the whole "I need impartial reliable fact based game review scores out of 100 so I know if I should buy this game" rings hollow in an age where you can see hours of unedited gameplay footage of every new AAA $60 game that will ever be released. I mean who really sits an reads reviews for the scores to decide if they should buy a game or not? I have a feeling it's a bunch of 30+ year old men like us who grew up with video game magazines and still have some nostalgic attachment to numbered review scores. It's an anachronism in this day and age with endless streaming footage of every new game that's coming out. The streaming stuff is big, but it exists largely because games don't have the copyright vigilance that movie studios have, and like a movie a lot of people would like to go in blind in terms of the experience but also would like to know if the product is technically broken in some way. In other words, "but spoilers!" For me anyway, I have an attachment to this stuff because it's also how I experience whether or not to go to a movie. I only have so much money to spend, and RottenTomatoes averages will usually determine whether I see something in a theater or wait for home video. You can't really metacritic rate a YouTube player (which is another thing affecting the industry, given that bonuses etc often hinge on Metacritic scores that ignore Joe Blow On YouTube.) computer parts posted:The point really is that in the not so distant past a guy was fired because he gave a video game a low review. That's not a sign of an industry that has "reliable, down the middle of the plate buying advice". That's entirely a managerial decision. The manager that decided to do that replaced a long-timer who left to go into developing games, and the old manager was strident about editorial freedom. The new guy had barely been around long enough to establish a tone, and so he established one by setting an example. Describing that as representative of the entire workforce is not accurate, either. The people that score games at other sites were appalled by what happened, generally with the tone of, "my boss wouldn't do that, but I'm afraid he might start if this guy somewhere else can and gets away with it." Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Jun 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 07:03
|
|