Journalism and bias in the gaming industry

[Fighter]

Sorry, i do not know either. But i would speculate trangenders (why is 'tranny' a slur? it's just a shorter and easier word?!) automatically congregate since this is mostly about identity and gender politics.

 

Somebody should do a study on this phenomenon.

 

There may be something to this.

[Zoraptor]

So now I had to google the name as well. Is this another transgender person? Makes me wonder why there seem to be so many in this event thingy that is going on. Is it just because they are making so much noise or what? Or is it true what some girl on Reddit a while ago wrote "it's mostly men who want to be women complaining about men"?

 

I suspect that transgenders that are fundamentally happy wouldn't have nearly so much issue with gender/ identity politics as those that aren't happy, and if you are angry you'd be far more likely to engage with such issues and be far more vocal as well. Frankly, given the crap many transgenders have to deal with I'd be a very hard judge to fault their anger, either, especially if they've gone through all that crap and found that little has fundamentally changed. Plus, transgender commentators are far more likely to be noted to be and remembered as such than others.

 

End of the day I don't really think it's relevant anyway. If a point is good it doesn't matter who it's made by, same if it's poor.

[Meshugger]

 

(why is 'tranny' a slur? it's just a shorter and easier word?!)

 

 

It used to be perfectly acceptable, even a preferred term of reference, but it's gone through a couple of rounds on the euphemism treadmill, basically. Here's an old piece by Steven Pinker explaining the concept of the euphemism treadmill.

 

"People invent new "polite" words to refer to emotionally laden or distasteful things, but the euphemism becomes tainted by association and the new one that must be found acquires its own negative connotations. … The euphemism treadmill shows that concepts, not words, are in charge. Give a concept a new name, and the name becomes colored by the concept; the concept does not become freshened by the name. (We will know we have achieved equality and mutual respect when names for minorities stay put.)"

 

 

Uh, people understand the concept of "****" being offence as it was a widespread way to talk down on people just because of the racial features they were born with. It's been in movies, books and of course, in music.

 

So back to tranny. Where has it been used as a negative connotation to anything? I sure can't come up with anything.

[evensong]

The word doesn't need to be used in a specifically negative context, that's the entire point of the euphemism treadmill - as long as being a trans* person is considered a bad thing in society at large, any word used to describe them will be "used up" because it eventually becomes loaded with the preconceptions people have about the people it describes.

 

The same thing happens in lots of other arenas, too. In Norway, at least, the term "patient" has gone "out of style" psychiatric health care, we now use a different word. It's kinda hard to convey the same meaning in English, but basically it amounts to "a person who is using health care services". Now, of course, there's nothing wrong with being a patient, there never has been. But the term still comes loaded with preconceptions of what the role entails that it makes treatment more difficult. A lot of people perceive patients as passive receivers of health care, so if their own participation in treatment is crucial, being labelled as what they perceive a rather passive role can be detrimental to their healing process. No doubt, in another ten years we'll be using a different term again.

 

Whether or not this is a good thing, I couldn't tell you. Personally I feel like it's not really up to me? Like my basic approach to (not) calling people things is pretty simple, if someone doesn't want me using a word to describe them, I won't. Doesn't bother me, switching up words occasionally is healthy anyway, I think. I know it bothers a lot of people, but it just seems to me like a basic marker of respect for people to call them what they want to be called. It's worth noting that the internet (especially tumblr, I guess) tends to make a much bigger deal out of this than anyone I've ever met in real life has - I've been politely asked to use different pronouns in reference to someone twice in my life, and I hang out with a fair amount of trans* people. So yeah.

 

Julia Serano wrote an interesting blog post about the word a while back; about the origin, use and denunciation of the term. (Her book Whipping Girl is also well-written and an excellent introduction to trans* issues, check it out if you want to learn more.)

Edited April 13, 2015 by evensong

[BruceVC]

The word doesn't need to be used in a specifically negative context, that's the entire point of the euphemism treadmill - as long as being a trans* person is considered a bad thing in society at large, any word used to describe them will be "used up" because it eventually becomes loaded with the preconceptions people have about the people it describes.

 

The same thing happens in lots of other arenas, too. In Norway, at least, the term "patient" has gone "out of style" psychiatric health care, we now use a different word. It's kinda hard to convey the same meaning in English, but basically it amounts to "a person who is using health care services". Now, of course, there's nothing wrong with being a patient, there never has been. But the term still comes loaded with preconceptions of what the role entails that it makes treatment more difficult. A lot of people perceive patients as a passive receiver of health care, so if their own participation in treatment is crucial, being labelled as what they perceive a rather passive role can be detrimental to their healing process. No doubt, in another ten years we'll be using a different term again.

 

Whether or not this is a good thing, I couldn't tell you. Personally I feel like it's not really up to me? Like my basic approach to (not) calling people things is pretty simple, if someone doesn't want me using a word to describe them, I won't. Doesn't bother me, switching up words occasionally is healthy anyway, I think. I know it bothers a lot of people, but it just seems to me like a basic marker of respect for people to call them what they want to be called. It's worth noting that the internet (especially tumblr, I guess) tends to make a much bigger deal out of this than anyone I've ever met in real life has - I've been politely asked to use different pronouns in reference to someone twice in my life, and I hang out with a fair amount of trans* people. So yeah.

 

Julia Serano wrote an interesting blog post about the word a while back; about the origin, use and denunciation of the term. (Her book Whipping Girl is also well-written and an excellent introduction to trans* issues, check it out if you want to learn more.)

You seem like a very rationale and reasonable person Evensong, I like the  way you make your  points in that way that is cogent yet not at all belligerent 

 

I hope to see you frequenting the OT section more often 

[Meshugger]

The word doesn't need to be used in a specifically negative context, that's the entire point of the euphemism treadmill - as long as being a trans* person is considered a bad thing in society at large, any word used to describe them will be "used up" because it eventually becomes loaded with the preconceptions people have about the people it describes.

 

The same thing happens in lots of other arenas, too. In Norway, at least, the term "patient" has gone "out of style" psychiatric health care, we now use a different word. It's kinda hard to convey the same meaning in English, but basically it amounts to "a person who is using health care services". Now, of course, there's nothing wrong with being a patient, there never has been. But the term still comes loaded with preconceptions of what the role entails that it makes treatment more difficult. A lot of people perceive patients as passive receivers of health care, so if their own participation in treatment is crucial, being labelled as what they perceive a rather passive role can be detrimental to their healing process. No doubt, in another ten years we'll be using a different term again.

 

Whether or not this is a good thing, I couldn't tell you. Personally I feel like it's not really up to me? Like my basic approach to (not) calling people things is pretty simple, if someone doesn't want me using a word to describe them, I won't. Doesn't bother me, switching up words occasionally is healthy anyway, I think. I know it bothers a lot of people, but it just seems to me like a basic marker of respect for people to call them what they want to be called. It's worth noting that the internet (especially tumblr, I guess) tends to make a much bigger deal out of this than anyone I've ever met in real life has - I've been politely asked to use different pronouns in reference to someone twice in my life, and I hang out with a fair amount of trans* people. So yeah.

 

Julia Serano wrote an interesting blog post about the word a while back; about the origin, use and denunciation of the term. (Her book Whipping Girl is also well-written and an excellent introduction to trans* issues, check it out if you want to learn more.)

 

I get your point on concepts and how they are created. But in this case i cannot even find in anything in popular culture. I feel like the boat sailed and i was not even aware that there even was a boat to begin with.

 

But back to topic, Carla Ellison is in more conflicts of interest: http://pastebin.com/u2334JcG

[evensong]

Well, that's not that strange, to be honest? Trans people have been largely invisible in popular media until very recently.

 

As for ethics in games journalism: Maybe this is because I'm sort of out of touch with the gaming press, but it feels like the "conflicts of interest" people seem to have are like... friendships? Which, yeah, that happens everywhere. Considering we're talking about an enthusiast press, I think it'd be more surprising to find a journalist without friends in the industry than with, you know?

 

Here's an old bit in Ars Technica about how larger publishers ply reviewers with all kinds of ****. This seems to me like something anyone concerned with ethics in games journalism should be more worried about than publicly viewable friendships.

Edited April 13, 2015 by evensong

[evensong]

Actually, I'm gonna pose an open question to y'all - what constitutes ethical behaviour for a video games journalist?

 

(First person to bring up the notion of objectivity gets to stand in the corner.)

Edited April 13, 2015 by evensong

[Meshugger]

I somehow think that you're not as serious as you portray yourself to be. But if you are:

 

Ethics:

 

 

Objectivity: A goal to strive for, not an end.

 

As for being a good game reviewer, see Roger Ebert on how to put aside personal morals in favour on valuing on how good the movie is in itself. Total Bisquit understands this concept pretty well, eventhough i do not agree on his taste on games.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Actually, I'm gonna pose an open question to y'all - what constitutes ethical behaviour for a video games journalist?

 

(First person to bring up the notion of objectivity gets to stand in the corner.)

Disclosure of any potential coi.

[Fighter]

(First person to bring up the notion of objectivity gets to stand in the corner.)

 

Yes, yes. No one can be objective like no one can be honest or breath clean air.

[Hurlshort]

Objectivity would seem to be a bit of a contradiction when it comes to being an entertaining critic.  The successful people seem to all rely on having some sort of opinionated shtick.  That is what brought Siskel & Ebert fame.   

[evensong]

Meshugger: I am being serious. As serious as I'm capable of, anyway.

 

It's impossible to strive for objectivity when talking about art. I'm sorry, but it's impossible. Here's a selection of quotes from Roger Ebert's reviews that clearly contains value judgments made by Ebert (a value judgment is an inherently subjective thing). I picked the reviews more or less at random from the first page of the reviews on his website.

 

"The film's portrait of its small town is finely done. There is a fraught sequence when the faithless mom Tanya returns from California for a visit, and Greta lets her have it. There are indications that life is going to get more complicated here. But when a movie shows a couple of bright kids excited about a mussel, it's hard to say no."

 

"For Bill Murray to occupy his time in this dreck sandwich is a calamity. Of Charlie Sheen, we've seen more than enough, at least until he gets his act together. But there's a sad shortage of Bill Murray performances, and his work here is telephoned in as if Thomas Alva Edison had never been born."

 

"If anyone has trouble understanding "Bless Me, Ultima," it will be the grown-ups, because so many modern movies have trained them not to understand. Some moviegoers are reeling from the way they're bludgeoned by the choices they make. Their movies spell everything out, read it aloud to them, hammer it in, communicate by force. This film respects the deliberate nature of time slipping into the future."

 

"You may have noticed that the trailers for "Gangster Squad" are peppered with hyperbolic review quotes provided by syndicated critics of dubious merit. They're a sure sign of a movie's mediocrity, and my favorite blurb hypes "Gangster Squad" as "the best gangster film of the decade!!" Man, what a drag. If that's true, the next seven years are going to be lousy for the world's favorite crime genre."

 

 

I find it difficult to believe that anyone would consider this in any way "objective". This isn't a failing of Ebert's, the inherent subjectivity follows from the fact that any appreciation of art is inherently subjective - because there is no standard against which to measure a work of art, which is the only way an objective measurement of anything is possible. You can create standards that would allow objective measurements, but they would be completely inane - the minimum possible completion time, for example, or number of unique weapons, stuff like that. Stuff you can measure. You can't measure a game as a whole.

 

I think a better term for what you're aiming for here is neutrality, but this is also fraught with problems, see below.

 

KaineParker:

 

That's fair. I can agree to this, sort of. Some things should probably be disclosed, like direct financial gain from game sales, or - I guess - romantic involvement with a developer. (Preferably, your boy/girlfriend shouldn't write that review, though.) I have some big problems with it, though, mostly that "COI" is a thoroughly nebulous term when it comes to subjective judgements.

 

It seems to me that most of COI disclosure is done implicitly, via different parts of the press catering to different people. I like Ars Technica and RPS. I don't like GameRaptor, Kotaku (maybe uncharacteristically), Joystiq, Gamespot etc. - especially as far as reviews go, I'd much rather read the opinions of people I generally agree with in political, social or intellectual questions, because that gives me an indication of what the game is going to be like for me. Similarly, a Gamespot review gives me comparatively less info about the things I look for in a games review. Reading about a shooter, I'd much rather read a piece that explores the tropes of military masculinity in the game than talk about how I can skin my rifle to a leopard decal if I kill X amount of people or whatever. I see this in myself as well when I play - my politics, and how they influence my views on the world, create a lens through which I filter my experience with a game.

 

And here's the thing: everybody does this. Conflicts of interest are inherent to video games journalism, because the subjective nature of art requires you to have a framework with which to contextualise it. This conflict of interest is only a problem if you assume the writing can be neutral or objective. Most of what makes a video game review, even without a huge gamechanger like having ****ed a dev should not be taken at face value - even if there was nothing to disclose, because reviews, and virtually all other aspects of video game writing, is opinion.

 

I'm also gonna stick out my neck here and say that if anyone took video game reviews at face value up until Zoe Quinn did (or didn't do) the thing, and assumed that GameSpot or PCGamer reviews were somehow not considerably influenced by the major league developers of a billion dollar industry, no amount of COI disclosure can help them.

[Nonek]

As with any other form of journalism, game journalism should strive to inform and constructively criticise the games industry from an objective viewpoint, or as near as that is actually possible considering personal bias. It should try and move the industry forward, challenge degenerate practises and give us the buying public, without which there would be no industry, a voice and an unbiased view. And of course as with any journalism it should maintain integrity, and a certain professional distance from the subject matter it is supposedly judging impassionately.
 

Video game journalists should not have friends in the industry, they should only have acquaintances, whom they use and are used by, they should not represent any developer or worry about their feelings. They should not sleep with any developer, unless they previously disclose this to their editor and publicly recuse themselves from working with or covering their work in any way. Conflicts of interest are easy to avoid, one merely has to act ethically and with public service foremost in their mind, it is not an onerous or difficult duty, and there is no excuse or justification for not declaring ones conflicted interests.

 

Lastly it is there to hold to hold publishers and developers to account, this is their job not the consumers,  to report on and notify the public of any practises that are counter to their best interests. It is not there to hype games for companies, to judge and hector consumers, or to champion personal views that have been disproven time and again. In general there is not enough well reasoned criticism, nor scepticism, nor raising of degenerate practises. It is fine to have a subjective opinion on a subject, however to deny that there are objective measures in video games is dishonest and a pathetic excuse or justification for failing to do ones job.

 

At the current moment video game journalism is a joke and simply unfit for purpose, and however much they castigate consumers and insult the public, they are what is wrong in video games, and their corrupt, unethical and regressive opinions are creating a toxic atmosphere of hatred and censorship. It is a good thing that they are dying, perhaps when they are gone we can have an ethical industry that is fit for purpose, overseen by a neutral ombudsman and with a published code of practises as a multi billion dollar industry deserves.

 

Just ones opinion however.

 

Edit: I should add that my displeasure with journalism does not simply stem from video games, but has to do with the regressive trends and practises that have been destroying all journalism for the past two decades or so.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Nonek

[evensong]

to deny that there are objective measures in video games is dishonest and a pathetic excuse or justification for failing to do ones job.

Could you give an example of an objective standard by which we can measure video games?

[Orogun01]

I think most people equate subjectivity with "whatever the **** I want", I think what most people really want is good service. They don't want to be chastised, hyped, or sold on a game they want an honest opinion of it and they can agree or disagree with it. The problem is that what they're getting from games journalism is a dissertation on women's studies. 

[Nonek]

Texture quality, graphical style - 2d, 3d, fps, tps, isometric, voxels etcetera, UI layout and usability, content density, platform, minimum and recommended specifications, statistical minutiae of the game, gameplay overview, known issues etcetera. The list goes on and on.

[Zoraptor]

The most important thing in a review is that it is fair, not objective. There really isn't any way to judge whether PoE is better than CODITERATION objectively, all you end up with is some sort of subjective judgement with an objective veneer ('CODITERATION uses 3d graphics pushing million of polys, PoE has a few thousands only, hence BLOPS>>PoE graphically; PoE has a few 100k lines of dialogue while CODITERATION has 'press F to pay respects' a few thousand, so PoE is objectively>> CODITERATION dialogue wise) when you try. The key thing is simply to be fair about things, as much as you can

• finish the game in question or at least play a decent amount of it. Plenty of examples where it's obvious the reviewer barely played the game. Relatedly,
• don't get the intern who really wants to review CODITERATION to review obscure RPGs, that isn't fair on anyone
• indeed, if you're going to use interns pay them fairly and don't rely on them as a steady supply of free labour
• obviously, don't accept bribes including in kind bribes; ideally including luxury retreat review events but if you do go make it clear what the circumstances of the review were
• don't have close friends review their friends' products, don't have those with financial stakes in products review them
• don't bring unrelated political guff into your reviews, unless it's the point of your site. I don't need to know that D&D is satanic and will send you to hell- unless your site specifically has a religious viewpoint

The friends one is probably most difficult, because that really is subjective and you'd often need to at least be friendly with developers in order to do your job well; having a picture taken of you with Ken Levine looking friendly at an Irrational promo for B: I then reviewing the game isn't really a conflict of interest because it's part of your job- but then you have Grayson/ Quinn type situations, which look... sketchy; or the guy whose girlfriend worked in Ubisoft PR yet still reviewed Ubisoft games. Nothing is inherently wrong with their choice of partner, but they shouldn't be embiggening products where they'd have an obvious influence on their views.

 

Even with something as obvious as 'financial contributions' it isn't that clear cut; should someone who donated to PoE's kickstarter be banned from reviewing it? Probably not, most would answer, and I'd guess that most people here would say that they're capable of giving poe a fair review despite being fans*. What about if they'd contributed to a (theoretical) JESawyer patreon though? I suspect for some the answer would be different there, due to patreon's reputation. If the reviewer owned shares in the company whose product they were reviewing? I suspect pretty much everyone would have a problem then. What about TIME reviewing Shadows of Mordor when they share the same parent company? A disclaimer about that is probably enough for most, but Mileage Will Vary and some will say that they shouldn't review it at all while others will say that their journalistic integrity (heh) ought to be enough without any disclaimer, indeed disclaimers impugn integrity more than protect it by implying journalists can be easily influenced by such things; much as someone here being told their view on PoE isn't valid.

 

And, of course, you can get those with conflict of interests who are capable of being fair. If Robert Kotick, esquire, wrote fair reviews of CODITERATION and, say, Battlefield# then good on him, despite his obvious bias.

 

*And would dislike being told they're biased and should recuse themselves because they contributed and are fans, incapable of being 'objective'.

[BruceVC]

I somehow think that you're not as serious as you portray yourself to be. But if you are:

 

 

Its funny isn't it Meshugger, someone really wants to discuss bias and ethics in the gaming industry and you don't think he is being serious. It just shows how jaded we have all become around this topic and it  isn't that unusual to question this type of interest in the real topic . It feels like a lifetime ago when the whole Zoe Quinn incident started ...and man this thing has been discussed to death, you think of all the links, outrage and events that have occurred..no wonder you suffering from " topic fatigue " 

 

But he is legitimate, I just wonder how long discussion on "ethics in the gaming industry " can continue considering the past history of debate 

[Meshugger]

Meshugger: I am being serious. As serious as I'm capable of, anyway.

 

It's impossible to strive for objectivity when talking about art. I'm sorry, but it's impossible. Here's a selection of quotes from Roger Ebert's reviews that clearly contains value judgments made by Ebert (a value judgment is an inherently subjective thing). I picked the reviews more or less at random from the first page of the reviews on his website.

 

"The film's portrait of its small town is finely done. There is a fraught sequence when the faithless mom Tanya returns from California for a visit, and Greta lets her have it. There are indications that life is going to get more complicated here. But when a movie shows a couple of bright kids excited about a mussel, it's hard to say no."

 

"For Bill Murray to occupy his time in this dreck sandwich is a calamity. Of Charlie Sheen, we've seen more than enough, at least until he gets his act together. But there's a sad shortage of Bill Murray performances, and his work here is telephoned in as if Thomas Alva Edison had never been born."

 

"If anyone has trouble understanding "Bless Me, Ultima," it will be the grown-ups, because so many modern movies have trained them not to understand. Some moviegoers are reeling from the way they're bludgeoned by the choices they make. Their movies spell everything out, read it aloud to them, hammer it in, communicate by force. This film respects the deliberate nature of time slipping into the future."

 

"You may have noticed that the trailers for "Gangster Squad" are peppered with hyperbolic review quotes provided by syndicated critics of dubious merit. They're a sure sign of a movie's mediocrity, and my favorite blurb hypes "Gangster Squad" as "the best gangster film of the decade!!" Man, what a drag. If that's true, the next seven years are going to be lousy for the world's favorite crime genre."

 

 

I find it difficult to believe that anyone would consider this in any way "objective". This isn't a failing of Ebert's, the inherent subjectivity follows from the fact that any appreciation of art is inherently subjective - because there is no standard against which to measure a work of art, which is the only way an objective measurement of anything is possible. You can create standards that would allow objective measurements, but they would be completely inane - the minimum possible completion time, for example, or number of unique weapons, stuff like that. Stuff you can measure. You can't measure a game as a whole.

 

I think a better term for what you're aiming for here is neutrality, but this is also fraught with problems, see below.

 

 

I didn't say that Ebert was objective, i said that he was good at presenting on what works and why in a good manner. TB has the same qualities even if the medium is different.

 

And i do not see games as art that is to be critiqued. Doesn't stop anyone from doing it though, but that is not what i am looking after when i want a review. For example, I do not care one slightest how the gameplay makes the reviewer feel. I care if it works and why/why not?

[evensong]

Texture quality, graphical style - 2d, 3d, fps, tps, isometric, voxels etcetera, UI layout and usability, content density, platform, minimum and recommended specifications, statistical minutiae of the game, gameplay overview, known issues etcetera. The list goes on and on.

Is a game better because it has 3d as opposed to 2d graphics? Is CoD a better game than Minecraft because it has higher quality textures? If not, how is describing these things of any value whatsoever in a text that is supposed to help you determine whether or not to buy a game? The stuff you describe has an impact on what the game is like, to be sure, but it's akin to reviewing a novel by only looking at the quality of the stitching and typesetting. It's effectively meaningless as a description of the content.

[Blarghagh]

Sure, CoD isn't better because it has higher texture resolution, but Assassin's Creed: Unity definitely is worse because it doesn't work. If you look at that game for the visual art, for example, that loving recreation of France circa the revolution, the beautiful lighting that creates evocative shots... yeah, that's awesome. Doesn't matter, because it's still nothing more than a toaster that burns your toast. It doesn't work. If a book is printed on thin paper that you can see the other pages right through, you're not going to have a good reading experience, and games have much more of those types of situations than a book.

 

Saying games are good based solely on how artistic they are is a fallacy, I think. Mind you, so is judging it solely on it being a product. Especially because not all games are story or art based, but some are. If I want to play a deep RPG, yes, I'm interested in examinations of how good the story is and what emotions the experience causes. If I want to play a fast, competitive shooter game I damn well care if the model readability is sufficient, the lighting isn't obtrusive and how fast the framerate to aid my reaction time. Is Planescape: Torment a great game because it looks great? No, it's got different focus. Crysis, on the other hand, relies entirely on how it looks. The only reason someone would be interested in that is because of the things you just said aren't what makes a game great, or "looking at the typesetting".

 

There's a term for that - personal preference. You may not think those things are relevant to how good an experience is, but some people do. I love first person horror games, but I know that a good first person horror game has to have good ambient occlusion built into the engine for the lighting to work and not break immersion. That is a technical aspect that you don't care about, but certainly influences the atmosphere of a horror game much more than the story does. Saying such things are just the delivery mechanism for the experience, such as a book cover and pages are for a story, is patently untrue. They are a much more integral part of it, because at the end of the day a game isn't just an experience but it is also a piece of software. You can't ignore or downplay either.

 

What we need is reviewers who seperate and clarify when they are talking consumer advocacy, art critique, simply advertising for their friends or sharing what they like. Right now, all those are muddled. Right now, game reviews are half-hearted attempts at art critique to promote what they think people will like masquarading as consumer advocacy. Here's why TotalBiscuit is so succesful and has more clout than the entire staff of Polygon - because he's clear and honest. Total Biscuit considers himself a consumer advocate, yes, but he does his fair amount of art critique. The difference is that he discloses his personal interests and preferences whenever possible, and you get a recommendation based on those. You can trust him to give you a thumbs up or a thumbs down, like Roger Ebert, based on what they like and then you can take that recommendation into your own accounting. That is the complete opposite to the traditional games media, giving a measurable and therefore supposedly objective and criteria based score to accompany an entirely subjective art critique with no disclosures of personal relations or "pwesents" from the studios.

[Longknife]

Sort of off-topic and not really about an objectively superior reporting method, but anyone ever heard someone complain about Yahtzee's (the Escapist) reviews? Me neither. Know why? Because he makes it a point to try and **** on games as much as possible instead of writing an advertisement for them. If Yahtzee doesn't **** on a game, that says something. If he does, then you know it's flawed and you know what flaws to expect. I don't need someone to write me four paragraphs about why they think Skyrim is pretty. I can look at it myself and say "ya that looks nice." I much prefer a reviewer who will call out all of the mistakes and flaws a game houses.Yknow, someone who puts the criticizing aspects back in the name "critic."

 

 

Also, can we talk about what a weird little world we've got going where Yahtzee stands out as a video games journalist for actually providing criticism of games that aren't blatantly bad?

Edited April 14, 2015 by Longknife

[BruceVC]

Sort of off-topic and not really about an objectively superior reporting method, but anyone ever heard someone complain about Yahtzee's (the Escapist) reviews? Me neither. Know why? Because he makes it a point to try and **** on games as much as possible instead of writing an advertisement for them. If Yahtzee doesn't **** on a game, that says something. If he does, then you know it's flawed and you know what flaws to expect. I don't need someone to write me four paragraphs about why they think Skyrim is pretty. I can look at it myself and say "ya that looks nice." I much prefer a reviewer who will call out all of the mistakes and flaws a game houses.Yknow, someone who puts the criticizing aspects back in the name "critic."

 

 

Also, can we talk about what a weird little world we've got going where Yahtzee stands out as a video games journalist for actually providing criticism of games that aren't blatantly bad?

 

I have an issue with his some of his reviews because its always the same, he basically dismisses everything and turns normal gaming components into a joke with his high-speed way of talking 

 

Yes he is funny, but its easy to criticize something. Its much harder to be constructive. 

 

But I don't dislike him, I don't dislike any gaming journalist. He is just not my primary source for reviews about games 

[Blarghagh]

I treat them as entertainment first, reviews second. Although normal gaming components are often jokes anyway. I believe the tradionally used examples are "health kit spawns from exploding oil tanker" and "giant spider drops gold pieces and a crossbow".