Current Events > Why is gaming journalism seemingly so mediocre?

(+) Yeah! (+)

There are pretty observable deficiencies in the coverage by game journalists/websites, their coherence, professionalism, etc. But is it just the culture? Is IGN getting job acceptances from top college graduates or from second-rates?
---

it's not mainstream enough to attract good talent.
---

it's the original fake news
---

Literally anyone can do it. There's no standards or qualifications other than having an internet connection and an opinion.

Case in point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMLPy70Ip3M

there's not enough ETHICS
---

ya like prism
---

Gaming websites rely on advertising revenues and the biggest advertisers are the game publishing companies. Also publishers can show favoritism to certain websites and reviewers by providing early access/review copies to those willing to gargle them, or blacklisting those who write unfavorably about their games.

Second would be that most games take a long time to play compared to the time spent consuming most other forms of media so someone reviewing one as a "job" isn't particularly motivated to explore it in the depth it deserves if they're expected to produce so many articles within a given time.

Combine these two aspects, and the fact that the first reviews generate the most traffic and "buzz", you have a recipe for trash that isn't worth the bandwidth spent to read it.

We're talking about an entertainment medium, not real news. Of course gaming articles are going to be opinion pieces, just like film and album reviews are. It's all subjective. I prefer to watch non-commentated gameplay videos to help me decide whether or not to purchase a game.

But I suspect the narrative of this thread is actually along the lines of, "Why don't reviewers expose the evil librul / SJW / feminist agenda that's taking over muh gaems!!" And if that's the case, then kindly fuck off back to 4chan and stay there.

because gamers cant do journalism and journalists are out of touch when it comes to games

Pitlord_Special posted...

Gaming websites rely on advertising revenues and the biggest advertisers are the game publishing companies. Also publishers can show favoritism to certain websites and reviewers by providing early access/review copies to those willing to gargle them, or blacklisting those who write unfavorably about their games.

Second would be that most games take a long time to play compared to the time spent consuming most other forms of media so someone reviewing one as a "job" isn't particularly motivated to explore it in the depth it deserves if they're expected to produce so many articles within a given time.

Combine these two aspects, and the fact that the first reviews generate the most traffic and "buzz", you have a recipe for trash that isn't worth the bandwidth spent to read it.

Came in to post this. Business is business.

Because most of the good journalists are older, and older people arent gonna sit down and play weaboo games for 15 hours a day
---

Ad revenue

Most reviewers are actually terrible at games. When you suck your expectations are a lot lower.
---

The majority of the audience isn't actually interested in actual game journalism. They're interested in pre-release reviews, trailers and easy to read lists.

I remember an IGN writer saying that he put a lot of effort into an article that talked in-depth about the history of Batman in video ones. He also wrote a top 10 list of Batman games. The latter got significantly more clicks.
---