Game journalism and criticism

nesf

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm a little confused about what you mean here. As in any critic who comments on a specific genre needs to an expert? Sure there's always a place for the specialist, but there's also a need for more general observers and commentators here. A film critic might specialise in, say, Asian or horror cinema, but they could have incredibly interesting things to say about the romantic comedy they stumbled into by accident. There's tonnes of great writers out there with a narrow, particular focus, but equally there's lots with an extremely broad, all-encompassing one. Both, IMO, are needed in a robust landscape.

Just to restress I don't think Feminist Frequency is a great critic. I think she makes some interesting points and often very well, but I can see her approach taken to a completely different level in different hands.

Feminist Frequency is more like a Restaurant Critic trying to write a Poetry column.

Retr0gamer

I don't get the whole deal with replayability either. Dark Souls I've played twice so far and find it one of the best games I've ever played for the 170 hours I sunk into it between the PS3 and PC. Similarly Journey cost me a tenner and I got 2 hours out of it. I never want to play it again because those two hours were also some of the best I've ever had with a game.

Really value for money is only an issue if you are broke but I'd still rather play a 6-8 hour game than a massive grind fest that lasts 80+ yet doesn't have the gameplay mechanics to sustain it. If you are looking at the artistic merits of the game value for money shouldn't play a part at all. However it still is important to people, bit of a quandary there. It always annoys me to see people ignore games because they are short but again if money is tight what's for me to say what they should or shouldn't buy.

richymcdermott

I do not like the inconsistency with journalist reviews

sometimes they make the claim the game is repetitive or it does not offer enough innovation yet they give assassin creed or call of duty high scores.


I feel alot of it is down to brand sometimes than he actual game

C14N

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Basically, we need fewer 'reviewers' and more 'critics'. Its the same with film and literary writers. Unfortunately, when it comes to games, all both journalists and readers seem interested in is the question of 'should I buy this?' (I find it amusing that mantra has literally replaced review scores on Kotaku: from one problematic simplification to another).

I completely agree. Reviews need to spend more time digging deeper into the games. Someone else mentioned that they like to read reviews after playing and I'm quite the same. When I finished the Last of Us, I decided to check out some reviews and one of the first I read was the Gamespot one. It was a dreadful review though, at least 60% of it was just description, briefly giving the setup for the plot and then going into describing all the mechanics to the point that it sounded more like a series of gameplay tips than a review.

Gbear wrote: »

There is nothing absurd about any of those concepts.

Games often share elements with literature and film but that is by no means the whole story.
They also share elements with sports or other hobbies.

Every game doesn't need to be a narrative masterpiece. You could have a brilliant game that has no story at all. Equally you can have a game that doesn't seem much like a traditional game - more of an interactive story.

A game just needs to be true to itself and acheive what it sets out to do.
Is Crysis 3 a masterpiece of storytelling? Of gameplay? Probably not.
Is it a technical marvel? Absolutely. That's why it's a lot better than some people give it credit for. It routinely took my breath away at how amazing it looked.

You could just as surely have a game with an engrossing plot, complex and interesting characters but if all the game mechanics are ****e and you don't want to play it then the game could well be terrible.

Dismissing some of the technical aspects of gaming when they are every bit as important as the cultural aspects is very narrow-minded.

Regardless of what the game is, "replay value" or "longevity" or whatever should never be a factor in a review. In a single-player narrative game, it's completely ridiculous to bring it up. In a multi-player focused game like Team Fortress 2, it will depend entirely on how enjoyable the game is. In any case, many review break downs have this category regardless of the game type, even though it's completely preposterous in games like Braid or Portal.

Nobody is saying the review should just focus on the story, the mechanics are of equal importance generally in video games and should be discussed too. The technical aspects (things like graphical quality and game performance) simply aren't as important though. The majority of games all look okay and are on about the same level. A small number (such as Crysis) should get a mention for achievement but it's not something worth dragging into every review. If the game really did take your breath away, that was an achievement of aesthetics overall, not just the technical side of things and that's not something exclusive to games.

Grumpypants wrote: »

Let’s take GTA as it is so new, two online storms at the moment the first from Gamespot that the game is sexist and from the Escapist that the characters are not nice!

You play as three different scum bags who are embroiled in the criminal underworld. Last time I checked it the criminal underworld was not a place for nice guy feminists.

The Escapist review wasn't just saying "I don't want the player character to be a bad guy". It was making the point that yes, your character is a bad guy and we all know that coming in, but in his opinion there was no time spent on why the characters are they way they are and that they really have no redeeming qualities. Basically, he was saying the leads were poorly written. If you look at some really well-done fictional anti-heroes, you'll see that it's pretty much always shown how they got to be so bad because in real life, non-insane people don't just do terrible things for no reason.

Retr0gamer

Dan Houser has never been a good writer so I'm not expecting much from the writing in GTAV. I wouldn't be surprised if the Escapist guy is on the money. Not like anyone plays GTA for the story anyway.

COYVB

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Dan Houser has never been a good writer so I'm not expecting much from the writing in GTAV. I wouldn't be surprised if the Escapist guy is on the money. Not like anyone plays GTA for the story anyway.

I do, which is probably why I never liked it

C14N

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Alas, one doesn't need to look far (metacritic, gamefaqs etc...) to see how narrow-minded some gamers are when it comes to discussing games in any depth. They get hung up on things like price and length, and have an inability to discuss the core game itself in any depth. Honestly, a lot of the problem is that games journalists react to the gamers - and the gamers that speak up are often the ones not worth listening to.

Another HUGE user review hang-up is stuff like day one DLC or DRM, especially on PC. I know these are annoying but it's also annoying seeing a fantastic game get 2.5 stars on Amazon because there was a week 1 DRM issue that has since been solved.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Dan Houser has never been a good writer so I'm not expecting much from the writing in GTAV. I wouldn't be surprised if the Escapist guy is on the money. Not like anyone plays GTA for the story anyway.

Yeah, I remember on Charlie Brooker's Games Wipe there was an interview with Graham Linehan who basically put the problem down to the fact that GTA is written by people who get their inspiration from gangster movies (unlike the likes of The Godfather or Goodfellas where the writers knew about what they were writing).

I think people should be able to go to GTA for the story though, and I do myself. I know it's a sandbox game and plenty of people like it for the sandbox elements but the simple fact is that they usually include a pretty extensive story. GTA 4 had loads of emphasis on story, it was just very poor. I think there's a good space for a crime game with a good narrative too, it's really not a very hotly contested space. There's Saints Row but that's pure slapstick comedy and then GTA has very infrequent releases.

Regarding games as value: I get that some people are on tight budgets for games but the simple fact is that when the review is written, the game is the most expensive it will ever be. The game and the review will survive years later when they price has dropped to a tenner and anyone can buy the game.

Retr0gamer

GTA's story is serviceable, it gets you from mission to mission. That's all it really needs to be though. Would be nice if it tried to be something more lik red dead redemption but rock star north don't have the writers.

Radiosonde

Gta V sounds like its tackling a problem that is key to games evolving as a narrative medium: how can you tell a cohesive story when the gameplay has you killing scores, even hundreds, of people?

Last of Us got around it by having an antihero, Gta gets round it by having antiheroes, though in a different, much less serious way.

Its a big problem for the medium. Most AAA games will involve violence as the main gameplay. Realistically, we cant have sociopathic leads in EVERYTHING, but we dont just want big budget games to be just mindless action with any old story either.

I dont know if the Escapist reviewer is right to criticise the game so harshly for it, but hes not the only one unhappy with the story and characters.

Fnz

Perhaps we should stop throwing around the "journalist" label. I'm sure many of the people we speak of would identify themselves more as 'gaming press'. Journalism is a somewhat loaded term. It implies investigation into subjects that truly are in the 'public interest'. Gaming-related news seldom falls into that category.

Mr.Saturn

richymcdermott wrote: »

I do not like the inconsistency with journalist reviews

sometimes they make the claim the game is repetitive or it does not offer enough innovation yet they give assassin creed or call of duty high scores.


I feel alot of it is down to brand sometimes than he actual game

GamesTM's approach to FIFA could be cited as a particularly annoying example. January to July, there's editorial after editorial calling EA to task for producing the same dirge year-in/year-out; August through December is spent is buried in EA's arse.

C14N

Fnz wrote: »

Perhaps we should stop throwing around the "journalist" label. I'm sure many of the people we speak of would identify themselves more as 'gaming press'. Journalism is a somewhat loaded term. It implies investigation into subjects that truly are in the 'public interest'. Gaming-related news seldom falls into that category.

That's true and it's a good point too. Gaming news outlets are basically a proxy PR device for the big game publishers. For the most part, they don't go and search down stories and do investigations, they just relay information sent to them by EA or Ubi or whoever and put their own spin on it and it's probably part of the problem that it's generally the same people doing the PR job as are the ones criticising the games. Like I said, they're being marketed to and getting things like exclusive pre-release looks at the games will taint the final opinion to an extent.

Fnz

C14N wrote: »

For the most part, they don't go and search down stories and do investigations, they just relay information sent to them by EA or Ubi or whoever and put their own spin on it and it's probably part of the problem that it's generally the same people doing the PR job as are the ones criticising the games. Like I said, they're being marketed to and getting things like exclusive pre-release looks at the games will taint the final opinion to an extent.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, the critic/reviewer is not engaging in PR for the game, in that they have no stake in how well a game sells. The sites that basically republish press releases do so for their own traffic, but those article are not reviews/criticism.

Everyone is being marketed to, all the time. Getting exclusive pre-release access to games really is just part of the job, and probably loses it's magic rather quickly. I don't think a critic's credibility is a cheap and meaningless thing to them. Accusing the gaming press of selling out at every opportunity is the lazy ad-hominem you see a lot of by people who don't agree with a review, or score.

johnny_ultimate

Film writers and book critics routinely get early access to new releases, and that doesn't skew their objectivity.

Unless they're Empire. Ahem.

C14N

Fnz wrote: »

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, the critic/reviewer is not engaging in PR for the game, in that they have no stake in how well a game sells. The sites that basically republish press releases do so for their own traffic, but those article are not reviews/criticism.

Everyone is being marketed to, all the time. Getting exclusive pre-release access to games really is just part of the job, and probably loses it's magic rather quickly. I don't think a critic's credibility is a cheap and meaningless thing to them. Accusing the gaming press of selling out at every opportunity is the lazy ad-hominem you see a lot of by people who don't agree with a review, or score.

I think you are misunderstanding me, I should have been clearer. I was talking about the "journalism" side of it. The part that is supposed to be dedicated to news. I was agreeing you that it isn't really journalism because it's not often you see any actual investigation, most gaming news comes from press releases (unlike in regular current affairs where journalists often have to actually seek out stories).

I'm certainly not accusing the press of selling good scores, and it's definitely not in response to a review I don't agree with. I was defending them from just those accusations when the entire gaming community went berserk about Mass Effect 3 (there was barely an organisation I know of who weren't accused of getting some of EA's apparently bottomless pit of money).

The point I was making was that the "news" section of most games websites often just purely relays information given to them by the PR departments of the companies involved. Let's take a look at some of the top news stories on (admittedly easy target) Gamespot:

Sony aiming to sell five million PS4 consoles before March 2014 - based on an announcement by SCE president at Toyko Games Show
First screens for ex-Bulletstorm dev's new game - officially released by the developers
New GTA: London unlikely, says Houser - coming from an interview in the Guardian with the writer himself
GTAV PC petition surpasses 450,000 signatures - not from the developer, but not really news either

I could go on (seriously, here's the link if you don't trust me), but just about everything comes from official releases of information. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, someone needs to do this and I can't really see what else they could do but it still doesn't change the fact that the press is a big part of the PR for the people who make the games.

By exclusive pre-releases, I don't mean the copy of the finished game a few days in advance. I was referring more to the stuff you see particularly around E3 where there is loads of coverage of games that aren't even out yet. The press often get to play and see unfinished versions of the games months ahead of the actual release, which I think does change how they review it. If anyone does something like this then they will go into the review with some sort of opinion already there. I just think that the people who review something like that should know as little as possible before they play it.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Film writers and book critics routinely get early access to new releases, and that doesn't skew their objectivity.

Unless they're Empire. Ahem.

I don't mean getting things ahead of release (which is completely understandable since they have to get their reviews out on time). I mean that with film and books you don't tend to get big coverage in the months leading up to releases like games magazines do. You wouldn't see Sight and Sound (for example) going into detail covering trailers and getting exclusive looks at the film months before release like you do with games. The people who write the reviews for the broadsheets are usually the same. You get some reviews of the latest films and maybe an article.

C14N

I know I'm resurrecting my own thread here but recently, I've really noticed a huge shift in the state of game criticism lately. It seems the press has generally become a lot more critical of the massively hyped games in the last year or so. In 2014 and early 2015 have been a slew of games with big marketing pushes and a lot of pre-release buzz that still end up with much lower than expected review scores. The examples that come to mind would be The Evil Within, Destiny, Assassin's Creed 5, Evolve, Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel and most recently The Order 1886, none of which cracked an average score of 80 which, on gaming's longstanding 7-10 point scale would have once been considered a game to ignore. Once upon a time it seemed a sub-80 score was the kind of thing you'd expect a quick movie tie-in or something with too many bugs to get.

Even ones that do well now like Watch Dogs, Titanfall, Dragon Age Inquisition and Battlefield 4 are rarely ever breaking the 90-score Metacritic mark and many also seem to get large backlashes from fans. In fact, the only games to get over 90 on PS4 or Xbox One so far are re-releases of games from the previous gen like The Last of Us and GTA 5. The only original AAA games to break 90 at all in 2014 were Smash Bros Wii U, Bayonetta 2 and Dark Souls 2 and even then they max out at 92. If you include non-mobile indie games then that only expands to include Shovel Knight on 3DS and Kentucky Route Zero on PC.

It's hard to pinpoint a time when this started happening but I'd say it seemed to be at around late 2013 following the overwhelmingly positive GTA 5 reviews. 2013 in comparison had twice that number with 10: GTA 5 (97), Bioshock Infinite (94), The Last of Us (95), Mario 3D World (94), Rayman Legends, Fez, Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, Spelunky, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons and Dota 2 (2012 had 13, lest people think 2013 was just a particularly high-scoring year).

What was the cause of this sudden increase in criticism for games? Why have so many more reviewers started using the lower numbers on the scale? Not to mention things like the recent Eurogamer decision to remove scores entirely. I was kind of thinking that maybe they took a step back and realised that they probably were being a bit too nice too GTA 5 but then they went and did the same again on the re-release so that got me thinking that wasn't the reason.

I personally find this a very good swing, not just because I like that devs aren't getting so stoked about every game with a cool trailer, nice graphics and fully-functioning mechanics, but also because we might finally be moving away from the point where maybe 7/10 is considered a pretty good score to get and actually indicates a recommendation. Maybe we'll even start seeing more criticism based upon things like original mechanics and engaging story instead of what essentially amounted to product reviews to help make sure it works properly. Anyone else think the same?

pablomakaveli

Well with the amount of broken and unfinished games we've had over the last year or two i think gamers in general have become a lot quicker to call developers out on this bull**** regardless of the hype and are a lot more vocal about it. Naturally the reviewers are following the trend.

nesf

The rise of Twitch, the continuing gain in market share by Youtubers. A generation growing up expecting video not just written content. The whole thing is in flux at the moment, we're still seeing how the whole clickbait thing will pan out as well as things like native advertising. It's not restricted to games media either.

Grumpypants

The "younger gamer" who got caught up in the pre order/preview click bait that sites used to bank on have moved onto Youtube. Just look at the alarming number of attacks on Youtubers from sites and their own move to video content and podcasts in the last year to see just how worried they are about this shift.

The "older gamer" who just wants to buy a game and play it wants to read about what games are like to play. This is the last demographic interested in the written word.

Notice the number of sites now scrambling to appeal to this demographic by removing review scores, waiting for full retail release before releasing reviews, cutting down on previews coverage etc etc.

It has been happening in the background at sites but is now coming to the surface with the likes of Eurogamer dropping review scores and removing their site from meta critic, and the Escapists decision to remove the more vocal "political" writers and replace them with content that "focuses on the games". This is just the start more will follow.

There has also been an alarming number of sites closing down (or are on the verge of it) as the money dries up (Joystick, Gamespy, CVG), or had to at least endure a big reductions in staff.

Like everything in the industry it is ever changing and evolving, in five years time it will be as different as it was when you compare now to five years ago.

nesf

Grumpypants wrote: »

The "younger gamer" who got caught up in the pre order/preview click bait that sites used to bank on have moved onto Youtube or just grown up a bit. Just look at the alarming number of attacks on Youtubers from sites in the last year to see just how worried they are about the shift.

The "older gamer" who just wants to buy a game and play it, just wants to read about what games are like to play. This is a demographic sites were happy to ignore while they made their money elsewhere but now it is the only remaining marketable group interested in the written word. Notice the number of sites now scrambling to appeal to this demographic by removing review scores, waiting for full retail release before releasing reviews, cutting down on previews coverage etc etc.

It has been happening in the background at sites but is now coming to the surface with the likes of Eurogamer dropping review scores and removing their site from meta critic, and the Escapists decision to remove the more vocal "political" writers and replace them with content that "focuses on the games".

You can see it also with the likes of Polygon coming out and saying they were a progressive site and their reviews would contain progressive views and not just a focus on gameplay. Which I assume there's a market for (personally I don't want it in the reviews I read but the op-eds). There's also more sites pushing video content as an adjunct to their written reviews and the better sites do different things in both, exploiting the benefits of the different mediums.

pablomakaveli

Grumpypants wrote: »

There has also been an alarming number of sites closing down (or are on the verge of it) as the money dries up (Joystick, Gamespy, CVG), or had to at least endure a big reductions in staff.

Like everything in the industry it is ever changing and evolving, in five years time it will be as different as it was when you compare now to five years ago.

I think this raises the question of how relevant these sites and gaming journalism as a whole are right now?

It's a dying part of the industry in my opinion. The opinions of gaming journalists aren't as important as they were say 10 years ago. As a gamer i value the opinion of my fellow average gamer a lot more highly than those of a gaming journalist and with forums like this one and things like twitch and youtube it's a lot easier to share those opinions and experiences with each other.

Sites like Eurogamer are trying to claw back some credibility with gamers and while that is something to be applauded it's probably too late.

Links234

C14N wrote: »

I personally find this a very good swing, not just because I like that devs aren't getting so stoked about every game with a cool trailer, nice graphics and fully-functioning mechanics, but also because we might finally be moving away from the point where maybe 7/10 is considered a pretty good score to get and actually indicates a recommendation. Maybe we'll even start seeing more criticism based upon things like original mechanics and engaging story instead of what essentially amounted to product reviews to help make sure it works properly. Anyone else think the same?

I think there's people who just look at scores, who'll take a 9 or 10 as a given and ignore the bulk of a review. For those folks, 7/10 is never going to be considered a good score, why buy a game that's a 7 when you could get a 10?

johnny_ultimate

I'd be very concerned with a future where discussion is dominated with the views of the 'average gamer'. There'll always be writers who can articulate thoughts and analyses on a completely different level to your typical popular Twitch or YouTube streamer. I hasten to add that there are awful professionals and fantastic amateurs out there, but the fringe voices, the eccentrics, the academics, the specialists, the industry veterans and above all the fantastic writers who write the sort of intelligent, engaged, challenging and progressive writing that will always be needed. A diversity of critical voices is something that's vitally important for a medium still growing at the sort of exponential rate gaming is - not to mention that the audience for games is diversifying at an equally incredible and exciting rate too. As recent events have proven in no uncertain terms, there's no 'one size fits all' approach for the way we talk about games, and more and more niches are going to emerge even if / as the mega-sites like IGN become less relevant. In that environment, I'd argue a dichotomy like the 'old' and 'young' generations is too simplistic: there's simply too many people looking for very different things.

The democratisation of discussion and publishing has both been a wonderful and a terrible thing (there's a whole lot more of really, really crappy writing out there now that everybody can find an outlet to voice their opinions, but also some amazing stuff), so hopefully we'll settle into a comfortable balance where all the different voices out there have their space - whether that's in video or written form. Just as there's always going to be a need for professional film, literature, politics, sports, science etc... writers and commentators, there'll be a need for it in gaming too - certainly we need something more engaged than just glorified pub banter, even if the banter will always have its place too.

As for the current state, I definitely think there's a bit more caution, suspicion and apprehension out there in games writing after the aforementioned high profile disasters. There are definitely more and more publications out there not drinking the marketing Kool-Aid. Eurogamer definitely made a great call dumping review scores - hopefully means more people will engage with the words instead of a number.

As an aside, I have read that cursed word 'replayability' tossed around a lot in relation to The Order (which has more than enough actual problems to focus on, it sounds like!)

Agricola

Can anyone link to some good amateur game reviewers on youtube who are able to deliver a thoughtful and reasoned analysis of a game in the english language with the absolute minimum of shrieking, shouting and flashy quick cut editing?
Obviously when you look at the "Gaming" section of Youtube, the people with the biggest hits percolate to the top and they are always the ones catering for the young teen demographic. If that's the future of game journalism in the wake of professional publishing houses going down the swanny, then god help us all.

EazyD

Agricola wrote: »

Can anyone link to some good amateur game reviewers on youtube who are able to deliver a thoughtful and reasoned analysis of a game in the english language with the absolute minimum of shrieking, shouting and flashy quick cut editing?
Obviously when you look at the "Gaming" section of Youtube, the people with the biggest hits percolate to the top and they are always the ones catering for the young teen demographic. If that's the future of game journalism in the wake of professional publishing houses going down the swanny, then god help us all.

For PC gaming I watch the "Worth a Buy" channel.

nesf

Agricola wrote: »

Can anyone link to some good amateur game reviewers on youtube who are able to deliver a thoughtful and reasoned analysis of a game in the english language with the absolute minimum of shrieking, shouting and flashy quick cut editing?
Obviously when you look at the "Gaming" section of Youtube, the people with the biggest hits percolate to the top and they are always the ones catering for the young teen demographic. If that's the future of game journalism in the wake of professional publishing houses going down the swanny, then god help us all.

Better than reviews: it's usually best to find a Youtuber that plays games you like and enjoys them for similar reasons and to watch Let's Plays from them of games. You can judge from yourself from the video whether the game is interesting and you may or may not find use in the Youtuber's opinion. You can apply this to Twitch too certainly.

Who you should watch is a very, very personal thing and genre specific. There's definitely a lot out there that isn't aimed at the teen demographic but you might have to do some digging to find channels that suit you.

nesf

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'd be very concerned with a future where discussion is dominated with the views of the 'average gamer'. There'll always be writers who can articulate thoughts and analyses on a completely different level to your typical popular Twitch or YouTube streamer. I hasten to add that there are awful professionals and fantastic amateurs out there, but the fringe voices, the eccentrics, the academics, the specialists, the industry veterans and above all the fantastic writers who write the sort of intelligent, engaged, challenging and progressive writing that will always be needed. A diversity of critical voices is something that's vitally important for a medium still growing at the sort of exponential rate gaming is - not to mention that the audience for games is diversifying at an equally incredible and exciting rate too. As recent events have proven in no uncertain terms, there's no 'one size fits all' approach for the way we talk about games, and more and more niches are going to emerge even if / as the mega-sites like IGN become less relevant. In that environment, I'd argue a dichotomy like the 'old' and 'young' generations is too simplistic: there's simply too many people looking for very different things.

The democratisation of discussion and publishing has both been a wonderful and a terrible thing (there's a whole lot more of really, really crappy writing out there now that everybody can find an outlet to voice their opinions, but also some amazing stuff), so hopefully we'll settle into a comfortable balance where all the different voices out there have their space - whether that's in video or written form. Just as there's always going to be a need for professional film, literature, politics, sports, science etc... writers and commentators, there'll be a need for it in gaming too - certainly we need something more engaged than just glorified pub banter, even if the banter will always have its place too.

As for the current state, I definitely think there's a bit more caution, suspicion and apprehension out there in games writing after the aforementioned high profile disasters. There are definitely more and more publications out there not drinking the marketing Kool-Aid. Eurogamer definitely made a great call dumping review scores - hopefully means more people will engage with the words instead of a number.

As an aside, I have read that cursed word 'replayability' tossed around a lot in relation to The Order (which has more than enough actual problems to focus on, it sounds like!)

I think we'll see a shift from omni-sites like IGN towards more personality driven stuff like Rock Paper Shotgun. More people will be aware of who is writing the article, their likes and dislikes and such and will be going to sites specifically to read material by certain people they like. Kotaku seems to be heading in more of this direction of late. I think we'll also see more opinion based stuff and less preview/marketing blurb slightly rewritten stuff.

Chloris

You're right about personality. If I'm going to bother going to the trouble of checking gameplay footage and hearing feedback about games, I want to be entertained. The Escapist and Birgirpall are great YouTube channels, they'll provide hilarious reviews and you get a good overall sense of the quality of whatever game it is.

I think Watchdogs was the best example of a game I was really excited about. I thought it was going to be the behemoth of a game announced at E3, totally serious and rock solid on terms of glitches, bugs etc. Then I watched this...

Haha, I still bought it but that review always cracks me up.

mewso

Along these lines did anyone read John Walker's interview with Peter Molyneux? I thought it was unprofessional and embarrassing myself. It was some achievement getting me to feel sorry for Molyneux.

Retr0gamer

mewso wrote: »

Along these lines did anyone read John Walker's interview with Peter Molyneux? I thought it was unprofessional and embarrassing myself. It was some achievement getting me to feel sorry for Molyneux.

I thought it was a fantastic piece of actual journalism for a change. He really pushed Molyneux like a real interviewer should do and didn't let the interview turn into a PR piece. He also pushed when he was getting the 'politician' answers where he tried to avoid answering the question asked. In fairness to Molyneux though he could have ended that interview at any time but stuck it out and handled himself well, I agreed with a lot of what he was saying and it's true, all his games have suffered huge delays.