"What's wrong with video game reviews?"

[RaBee]

"Wow! Just... wow."

Alright, it is official.
I'm lame.

You can credit most of my rambling in this thread do to a lack of sleep.
Any hour that directly follows noon should not be considered as a conversational period for me. Lesson learned. I lose.

[Bacon McShig]

The problem is that "real writers" probably don't know much videogame history unless they're already interested. You can't hire a videogame writer on the merit of being a good writer only, they also need to have a broad knowledge of videogames and their history in order to be more able to compare and contrast what they're reviewing with what set the precedents used within that game and what notable games to best relate the game they're reviewing to. In a certain sense that could lay down a welcome layer of objectivism, but in another they may end up praising something as a superlative which, in actuality, is directly lifted from another game.

[Cowutopia]

Zeedeater knows everything about videogames. I'm so happy I have a source for any information I might need. He's most impressive.

~Love Always,
Cow.

[Fe 26]

=/ who needs reviews, when I can scan TNL's forums for threads where one or two of you cry about a games flaws?

Content other than reviews is where it is at folks.

[MarkRyan]

Content other than reviews is where it is at folks.

Too true. It's too bad most pubs sucks at thinking of articles that are actually interesting. GameStar actually had an interesting article this month on why most gamers don't finish games. What was most interesting was the comments from developers about how they feel about that, what they do to prevent it, and how they feel it reflects on their game design. That was interesting.

Unfortunately it was the first interesting article in that magazine, and it got canned.

[haohmaru]

We have a bunch of fat, slovenly videogame nerds who have never taken a writing or criticism course in their life, and then theyre thrown in some place where they're given free videogames and allowed to write about them and there's no editors to check their work (see IGN's errors, every day)... I mean, what do you expect?

Most of them anyway.

Problem here is that most of these 'zines are 1.) on very tight deadlines 2.) don't have the $ to hire a "real" editor (notice how many editors are actually "writers" and not editors?) 3.) are catering to a juvenile audience

It will never be about serious journalism until it appeals to a much older crowd that will actually sustain it.

[Jeremy]

IP, you're right on the money about non-reviewing things being "where it's at." I've had more fun doing belt guides than I have with writing a review in quite a while. There's so much more variety and creativity in non-review pieces, as they allow you to really explore different aspects of gaming and the games themselves.

[ssbomberman]

Most of them anyway.

Problem here is that most of these 'zines are 1.) on very tight deadlines 2.) don't have the $ to hire a "real" editor (notice how many editors are actually "writers" and not editors?) 3.) are catering to a juvenile audience

It will never be about serious journalism until it appeals to a much older crowd that will actually sustain it.

Haoh knows his stuff, and I agree. I am going to petition Esquire to allow me to write a monthly gaming article...we'll see how that goes lol.

ssb

[Revoltor]

It will never be about serious journalism until it appeals to a much older crowd that will actually sustain it.

You know, I never thought of it that way.

[Prome]

I think one of the most important questions that needs to be asked when examining the quality of writing in game journalism is, "Who are the magazines writing for?" I love the smart, well-crafted articles that ran in Next Gen, Edge, and other notoriously heady publications, but judging by the material in a lot of game magazines and websites, the people that read the aforementioned mags just aren't part of the target readership places like EGM, Game Informer, and a myriad other top-tier (circulation-wise) outfits are after.

The more I read a lot of the popular gaming mags, the more I think that they aren't going directly after certain segments of the game playing population, most notably the sorts that write articles like this complaining about the current quality of game journalism. Mags still get the point across, letting us know what new games are coming out, interviewing the developers to get more info on new game xyz, and finally the review, all with a liberal smattering of screenshots. Is it proficient? Yes. Is it polished like what a lot of us loved about Next Gen and the gang? No. But are we really the core target audience of these mags that many love to complain about in the first place? Don't count on it.