Blacklisting, Integrity in games journalism... At what cost?

orubiru

kearneybobs wrote: »

How do you think it would all play out if websites were honest about being blacklisted and what for. They can't blacklist everyone...can they? But being blacklisted shouldn't be something that they should fear or stop them from doing their job on interesting, relevant and topical news.

I think that instances of "blacklisting" would be pretty rare to be honest and I reckon a website would have to be either really bad, really dishonest or really annoying to find themselves blacklisted. Kotaku manage to tick all the boxes there.

It would not be in the interests of Bethesda or Ubisoft to go around blacklisting gaming websites as they will end up needing to pay for extra marketing or just take the hit with all those sales that they will miss.

Which is why I am sure they have good reasons for snubbing Kotaku. It's kind of pathetic to see Kotaku whining about it and "playing the victim" to be honest. No, you behaved badly and so you lost your privileges. Deal with it.

It's entertainment journalism and in general the role is to tell the public what's good or bad and tell the public about things that are coming soon.

I don't think things are much different than they ever were. Gamers want gaming magazines and websites to tell them what's good to play and what's coming up. Maybe throw in a few interesting articles. They are still pretty much just adverts for games. Mostly, everyone is happy with that so long as they are not being lied to.

What makes people unhappy is when the publishers offer favors to journalists in exchange for positive publicity.

What makes people unhappy is when the publishers react badly to a negative review and punish the journalists.

If a popular movie website got their hands on some nice Star Wars information but they knew that the studio would be furious if that info got out then they must surely know that to release the info will just annoy the studio and possibly impact their business down the line. I don't see what benefit the public gets from knowing details before the studio is ready to release those details.

What appears to have happened in this case is that Kotaku have annoyed the publishers to the point where the publishers have decided to just ignore Kotaku. Who can really blame them? Kotaku is garbage.

Shiminay

Do you even know what the word journalism means? Jebus... Talk about delusional.

johnny_ultimate

orubiru wrote:

It's entertainment journalism and in general the role is to tell the public what's good or bad and tell the public about things that are coming soon.

If that's all you want from gaming journalism and criticism, I'm sure there are plenty of sites that will cater for you (although worth observing that a game being 'good or bad' is an entirely subjective assessment).

But please: don't for a second suggest that's all everybody here wants from gaming journalism and criticism. Even mere 'entertainment journalism' has significant potential for robust critical thought, in depth reporting, cultural analysis and even the promotion of positive change - and that's why some of us frequent the very sites you have such problems with

Sonics2k

Oh bloody hell, let's try and leave bloody GG and bloody Zoe Quinn and all that bloody nonsense out of at least one discussion about gaming.

K.O.Kiki

Long time fighting game community member here.

#FûckKotaku

Ok bye

johnny_ultimate

Now I might be misreading the situation here and some extra clarification is probably needed, but I'm getting the vague sense that some posters don't like Kotaku?

Sonics2k

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Now I might be misreading the situation here and some extra clarification is probably needed, but I'm getting the vague sense that some posters don't like Kotaku?

I wouldn't say I dislike them, but I'd treat them as a gaming version of the Verge.

Sure they occasionally put out some good articles related to gaming, but way too much of their stuff has become clickbait titles with content ripped straight from Reddit or a topic which they've desperately tried to twist into a political crusade to gain even more clicks.

I'll browse Kotaku about once a week and read some of the better articles, but I guess I dislike the amount of "Us vs them" thats featured so prominently in gaming culture over the last two years.

To be brutally honest, all I really want from a gaming site is news related to games and gaming and some nice honest reviews.

BlitzKrieg

To be brutally honest, all I really want from a gaming site is news related to games and gaming and some nice honest reviews.

Always found that weird. They've had a feature implemented for years that would filter the content to just games only if you want. Yet thats oddly not enough. Despite being the Internet age we have not reached the point in amy media that you could go 7 days a week 24/7 on just games news I don't think we have achieved that with any media. Comic books or film sites step outside into irrelevance or off topic on a regular basis too.

Robert ninja

VG 24/7 has 250 undisclosed affiliate links

super_furry

Aren't VG 24/7 the people who previewed Uncharted 2 and said it was Uncharted 4? That's the only other time I've heard of them and they sound like a bunch of amateurs from top to bottom.

Sieghardt

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Now I might be misreading the situation here and some extra clarification is probably needed, but I'm getting the vague sense that some posters don't like Kotaku?

Well Jason Schreier did call me a pedophile for saying Dragons Crown wasnt a "lolicon" game. I was a fan of his until that since I share his love for many JRPGs like Suikoden and Trails in the Sky.

Robert ninja

https://archive.is/eI8xB

Why Some People Are Upset Over Who's Judging The Game Awards

Kotaku's answer: Too many penises.

Kotaku has voted in the past, as well, but turned down this year’s opportunity for reasons unrelated to this piece. (We were too busy.)

It's like they're trying to parody themselves or something.

As with all upcoming award shows covered by Games Journalists... we have to pay our respects (F) to Joel McHale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-rA5LzFc9I

Geoff is specifically ordered to do everything in his power to erase the memory of Joel McHale and his insubordinate lack of marketing

gizmo

Yup, just Kotaku...

https://twitter.com/totalbiscuit/status/666360435344547840

https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/666361062355279874

https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/666361192315752448

https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/666361484042231808

https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/666365002371235841

https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/666365031295098880

https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/666365719819501568

But yes please, let's make this about Kotaku again, that worked out so well for the thread the last time.

Robert ninja

If you read the article it mentions other people bringing it up. In fact, the article is about how others have brought it up... the title even suggest it. So excuse me... this is the first place I've heard talking about it (recieved the link on another board).

Full Marx

Are videogame reviews even worthwhile or relevant? I never bother with them.

gizmo

The issue has been doing the rounds for a couple of years now and is still pretty valid, especially when you look at panels with a make-up like those of the Game Awards.

Back in early 2014 a number of developers, including Mike Bithell, developer of Thomas Was Alone and Volume, talked about it quite a bit on Twitter. After the success of TWA he found himself being asked to attend quite a few panels and do talks on various indie-related subjects. After a while he found that there was a rather noticeable lack of females on said panels for no apparent reason, it's not like there aren't female developers and journalists out there after all. So his solution was simple, when asked to do one he'd enquire as to the make-up of the panel. If it was extremely unbalanced and there were still some positions to be filled, he'd suggest some suitable female speakers and if there weren't any places left he'd offer to give up his place for one of said suggestions.

As far as I can remember, the reception he got was quite positive and, in general, it wasn't a bad idea at all. Quotas may be bull**** but in an area where there's no shortage of suitable speakers and panellists, seeing such massively skewed numbers doesn't really make any sense.

johnny_ultimate

I'm baffled how anybody could find anything ludicrous, excessive or whatever about that article... Well beyond the fact that I've had to accept that anytime 'gender' and 'video games' come in close to proximity to each other there'll be all manner of hyperbole (from every side of the debate). Add 'Kotaku' to the mix and...

Here's the thing, worth repeating: some of us actually appreciate coverage of issues like this. If you don't, good for you, but I don't know why so much time is spent getting up in arms about it (like I think Breitbart is a journalistic cesspit, but have happily learned to simply ignore their stream of horse****). As somebody who is eager to see a more varied critical landscape, this story is at least of passing interest (although frankly I've put **** all weight in the Game Awards since their inception - matter of fact, you can add most award shows to that) and I'm happy it's being discussed reasonably. I'm not outraged, angry or anything by the situation: I merely believe it's a conversation worth having (as would the ethnic make-up of the voting panel, or whether it has a reasonable distribution of more indie skewed writers/developers). If you don't care about the gender dynamics of the gaming industry, you're entitled to that view. Some of us, you may have guessed, actually do.

Indeed, I'll highlight Stephen Totilo's comment the issue, which is just about the most down-to-earth response one could hope for. Responding on whether or not his publication would have also 'withdrawn' on the subject had they been participating in the first place:

That would have been my call, and no, we would not have. I think the issue raised here is interesting and worthy of discussion, but I don’t read the gender ratio of the judges as intentional exclusion that would compel me to protest the awards.

In my experience, the voting winds up being a collaboration among those of us at the outlet—male, female, whatever skin colors we have, whatever political or religious views we have, everyone pitching in. That’s because no single writer can play all the games worthy of discussion for all the categories for any gaming awards. I play a ****load of games, but it’s impossible to keep up with everything. Because of that, I don’t look at the names and faces on this game award list and think of those judges as the sole deciders of what’s going to win. I assume their staffs have input. But given that the staffs of many of those sites (and ours) are predominantly male, I think this is as good an opportunity as any to discuss the preponderance of men in positions of influence in gaming culture.

As Patrick noted, it’s a very complex issue, and I don’t think badly of anyone for disagreeing over particular points on the matter. You could argue that adding women doesn’t automatically make the selection of games more diverse. You could argue that adding a guy who focuses on much more obscure but excellent little indie games might make the selection more diverse. But when I walk into a gaming shop, particularly where I live in NYC, I see a more diverse crowd than I see when I’m at a press event or at GDC, and I think it’s a worthy goal for the press and the development scene to achieve even a decent fraction of that level of diversity.

I tend to not get that outraged by this stuff, which I know frustrates some people. But that doesn’t mean I don’t care or don’t think it’s worth discussing.

Robert ninja

These award shows are a joke from what I remember of them. Hours and hours of ads. Maybe the women are just smart enough to stay away.

Mr Bithell and those like him might be willing enough... but what about the rest of the panel, especially the ones who do for more than we know? Sorry sir please step down from the panel there's a person with a vagina who needs to take your place. Can't see that going down smoothly but who knows, maybe most of them don't give that much of a feck.

gizmo wrote: »

Quotas may be bull**** but in an area where there's no shortage of suitable speakers and panellists, seeing such massively skewed numbers doesn't really make any sense.

The sad thing is this seems like it can only be solved by quotas. Unless anyone has some bright ideas?

johnny_ultimate

Full Marx wrote: »

Are videogame reviews even worthwhile or relevant? I never bother with them.

I've said this in many threads, but: hell ****ing yes they're worthwhile.

Criticism is an essential part of any mature artform or entertainment. Great criticism feeds into our knowledge and understanding of a medium, whether that's picking apart what it is about a particular work that works/doesn't work or building the vocabulary we use to talk about them in the first place.

It ensures a varied landscape, where one perspective isn't allowed become dominant. Critics have an obligation to challenge consensus just as much as they have in forming it in the first place.

A good critic can act as curator, highlighting and celebrating the games that deserve attention in an increasingly crowded field.

And as we have seen in other mediums - particularly film, in the case of the French New Wave - criticism can ultimately evolve into practice, potentially transforming the medium in all manner of new and exciting directions.

Idealistic? Absolutely. But as far as I'm concerned criticism, of which reviews are always going to be a key part, is and will forever be a vital part of a healthy media landscape.

(Everyday players can and do serve these purposes too, of course, but even in the Let's Play age I still place an immense amount of value in an articulate, knowledgeable and enthusiastic critic - being perfectly honest, I place even more value in it)

Robert ninja

That's a nice speech and all johnny but the only thing reviews (the kind with scores and routine to them) have done to the industry from my perspective has sullied case art with quotes and 10/10s.

People just talking about games reveals a lot more than reviews, I've found. Either users conversing to each other on boards like this or videos and articles where someone will just try to explain what they've experienced with the game so far, pointing out improvements and failures but in an honest way and without feeling any pressure of having put on their review pants. They don't have to go through things that are deemed important to a review quota but instead focus on what the niche is or what they think is an important part of the series, genre etc. Example is how few critic reviews talk about the actual RPG aspects of Fallout 4

there's close to none

.

Just about the only 'reviews' I like to check out are small one-two liners about the technical performance of a game, yes/no it objectively delivered on something (like a feature) or perhaps a longer one but from a veteran or long time fan of the game/series/genre... something that critics seldom are.

johnny_ultimate

Robert ninja wrote: »

People just talking about games reveals a lot more than reviews, I've found.

Here's where we're destined to disagree (but sure we always disagree )

No doubt about it: forum discussions and general conversations do throw up plenty of worthwhile observations, thoughts and responses. I wouldn't be here if I thought they didn't. But - and apologies to the wonderful users of boards.ie gaming section - they rarely if ever throw up the sort of robust, intriguing critical analysis you get in a great review or feature (we could get lost in the semantics of what actually constitutes a review, but that's a rabbit hole to nowhere). YouTube videos and the like are worse again, really.

I fully agree that most game reviews are shallow and disposable, with very little in the way of substance. Most of them are just bland tick boxes (graphics, sound, gameplay, lasting appeal etc...). Dozens of generic websites are doing that, having carved their way into Metacritic representation. But when a strong writer takes a game and tackles the meaning of the narrative or mechanics, and applies some critical rigour to the damn thing, then that's the sort of thing that has real value to me.

Take, for example, this review of Undertale: https://killscreen.com/articles/undertales-not-peaceful-it-pretends/. I disagree with it a bit TBH (agreeing with a review is not a mandatory aspect of appreciating it!), and would generally be more favourable towards the game. But it's a fascinating, insightful personal response to the game, taking a deep dive into the game's ideology and themes and their (in)effectiveness. It goes beyond mere fact giving, and into the realm of what the game's design ultimately means and communicates. These sort of reviews are exceedingly rare when it comes to games, only a handful of publications working on that sort of writing. But in the same way I can open the new issue of Sight & Sound and get in-depth, complex responses to the latest releases; or the way book releases are usually accompanied by strong critical writing in the guise of a 'review' - it's what I'd love to see more of in game reviews. As far as I'm concerned, we're getting there. Slowly. But getting there.

Just about the only 'reviews' I like to check out are small one-two liners about the technical performance of a game, yes/no it objectively delivered on something (like a feature) or perhaps a longer one but from a veteran or long time fan of the game/series/genre... something that critics seldom are.

Again, can only beg to differ here. 'Objective' reviews hold little to no value or interest to me. Whether a game is worth buying or not is a simplistic question and largely uninteresting one IMO. Technical performance is a worthwhile but inherently dry subject best left to the sort of thing Digital Foundry do (well, apart from those circumstances when it fundamentally alters the game's effectiveness). Really couldn't care less if a reviewer is a fan of the game/series/genre, as long as their response is genuine, interesting and well-argued (and hell a fresh perspective often highlights completely new things a fan wouldn't get around to).

I've said it many times before, but most game reviews are more akin to the sort of reviews you'd find for new phones or washing machines - 'consumer guides' that are limited in their value or lasting appeal. The sort of criticism we're starting to see more of is the sort other mediums have happily embraced more prominently, that looks at games not as products but culture worthy of robust analysis. I repeat: we're getting there.

sheep?

Sorry Johnny, but that link to the Undertale review is going elsewhere.

johnny_ultimate

sheep? wrote: »

Sorry Johnny, but that link to the Undertale review is going elsewhere.

Ha, oops! Sorted now!

orubiru

Robert ninja wrote: »

These award shows are a joke from what I remember of them. Hours and hours of ads. Maybe the women are just smart enough to stay away.

Mr Bithell and those like him might be willing enough... but what about the rest of the panel, especially the ones who do for more than we know? Sorry sir please step down from the panel there's a person with a vagina who needs to take your place. Can't see that going down smoothly but who knows, maybe most of them don't give that much of a feck.

The sad thing is this seems like it can only be solved by quotas. Unless anyone has some bright ideas?

Yeah, it could be solved by some more honest and open conversation.

What does it mean to be "diverse" anyway? Let's say I were putting together a panel and I have 2 participants. A 30 year old white man who has lived and worked in Galway his whole life and a 30 year old white man who has lived in Australia, South Korea, Venezuela who now lives in Galway.

There is diversity there for sure. Hey, even if it were just 2 white dudes from Galway they would probably have very different life experiences.

Having a gender quota essentially removes individual identity from consideration and replaces it with a system where you are identified based on what's in your pants.

I becomes less about who you are and more about what you are.

If we accept that men and women are fundamentally different then of course we should have a 50-50 split in the panel (or a split that reflects the gaming demographic, 52-48 or whatever). However, that puts us in the situation where we have to acknowledge that there can be "games for men" and "games for women".

If games are for everyone then anyone can be a participant on the panel. So their gender should not matter at all.

If we view people as unique, individual, personalities who are informed by their individual life experiences then an all male panel can be every bit as diverse as a panel that is split based on biological or racial identifiers.

If someone begins to judge a game from the starting position of "As a woman..." or "As a man..." then they presume to speak for all women or all men. Or, at least, they are stating that their opinion is informed by their gender. This seems like an obvious flaw to me. If I see a straight white cis man up there talking about games I don't think "OK, he's representing me so I'd better pay special attention". I take the points based on merit.

Total Biscuit's quote "that's the whole point, you bring in lots of different perspectives or you get boring results" is just stating the obvious. So, how do you get from that obviously correct proposition to the conclusion that the best way to differentiate perspectives is by selecting people based on what's in their pants?

gizmo

Robert ninja wrote: »

The sad thing is this seems like it can only be solved by quotas. Unless anyone has some bright ideas?

Sure. Let's start with not equating "suitable female speaker" with "person with a vagina". To link that with what orubiru said after, no one here is saying that the only or even best way to differentiate between perspectives is by gender. It is simply an element of diversity and one which the people quoted so far seem to feel was ignored, either directly or indirectly, by both the organisers and publications involved when choosing thirty two different panellists.

Robert ninja

gizmo wrote: »

To link that with what orubiru said after, no one here is saying that the only or even best way to differentiate between perspectives is by gender. It is simply an element of diversity and one which the people quoted so far seem to feel was ignored, either directly or indirectly, by both the organisers and publications involved when choosing thirty two different panellists.

gizmo wrote: »

Sure. Let's start with not equating "suitable female speaker" with "person with a vagina".

But is that not the defining difference between a suitable speaker vs a suitable speaker of specific gender... it would come down to what they're packin' between their legs. Or we're taking about ____ gender likes ____ thing more so that adds diversity?

Has anyone got a link to the actual list of panelists?

Also, it's ironic that it's being insinuated I didn't want discussion about this... depsite the fact that I'm the one who posted it and there was not a shred of activity here about it until I did. In fact there's more discussion of discussion.

But in the end isn't this completely out our hands, anyway? It's not like this is a public service... these award shows are privately run are they not? It comes down to what the shareholders want.

gizmo

Robert ninja wrote: »

But is that not the defining difference between a suitable speaker vs a suitable speaker of specific gender... it would come down to what they're packin' between their legs. Or we're taking about ____ gender likes ____ thing more so that adds diversity?

In the case of a "suitable speaker" and a "suitable speaker of a specific gender" with the gender being the only difference then yes, it becomes the defining difference. That is different from simply replacing a suitable speaker with a woman. In an attempt to add diversity to a panel, one of these approaches would generally be deemed acceptable while the other would not.

Robert ninja wrote: »

Has anyone got a link to the actual list of panelists?

This is the final list. As the article said, it changed somewhat along the way.

Robert ninja wrote: »

Also, it's ironic that it's being insinuated I didn't want discussion about this... depsite the fact that I'm the one who posted it and there was not a shred of activity here about it until I did. In fact there's more discussion of discussion.

It's not ironic in the slightest. The manner in which you raised the issue is pretty heavily indicative that you were more concerned about Kotaku's coverage of the story rather then the story itself. In the actual context of the thread, is there anything specifically you have a problem with in the article?

Robert ninja wrote: »

But in the end isn't this completely out our hands, anyway? It's not like this is a public service... these award shows are privately run are they not? It comes down to what the shareholders want.

Not quite. The investors behind The Game Awards won't care in the slightest who the judges are. All they'll want is to ensure that whomever makes up the show won't in any way affect the quality of sponsors they get, the publishers who show exclusive content and/or make large scale reveals and the general viewing figures. A bit of level headed discussion pointing out that a bit of diversity in the judging panel wouldn't go astray is something I'm sure they'd be happy to take on board if it helped any of the above criteria.

K.O.Kiki

Robert ninja wrote: »

But is that not the defining difference between a suitable speaker vs a suitable speaker of specific gender... it would come down to what they're packin' between their legs. Or we're taking about ____ gender likes ____ thing more so that adds diversity?

Has anyone got a link to the actual list of panelists?

Also, it's ironic that it's being insinuated I didn't want discussion about this... depsite the fact that I'm the one who posted it and there was not a shred of activity here about it until I did. In fact there's more discussion of discussion.

But in the end isn't this completely out our hands, anyway? It's not like this is a public service... these award shows are privately run are they not? It comes down to what the shareholders want.

You're a durty gabergoober and some people will never be able to see you as anything else! :pac::pac::pac: