I did a quick search just now and couldn't find anything on this site about a piece of news which at the moment, is still fairly unknown, but which could have a HUGE effect on video games journalism.
It has been labelled #doritosgate.
Before i go on, i am aware that video games journalism and Starcraft 2 have a relationship (mainly through IGN and their massive support of the esports scene), but the whole point of this is that some things have to be said.
I am also aware that certain things should have been said and actions taken LONG ago (with the sacking of whoever it was who wrote the Kane and Lynch review).
Doritosgate has its roots in two articles published on the Eurogamer..
The first included a picture that has spread very quickly around social networking sites, of a prominent video games reviewer sitting next to a HALO advertisement board next to a table laden with doritos and mountain dew, the sponsors of the game.
The second is related to the fact that the first article had to be edited, after a legal complaint was made by Lauren Wainwright. She was singled out as a journalist who took part in a competition run by games publishers to win a PS3 by tweeting about their game.
The writer of the original article resigned from Eurogamer as a result of the editing of his column.
What effect has/will this have on video games journalism?
Well i have a feeling that there might be certain massive Starcraft supporting companies who are big enough to be able to just ignore it and brush it off.
I have only found out about this whole thing this morning, so any other sources of information on the scandal would be very welcome
Also i'm not sure whether this should be in blogs, but it is bound to lead to some very lively discussion about what is and is not acceptable behavior for critics.
It's been 2 months of criticism against "Gaming Journalism". But it's a dumb argument. Why?
Because there's no such thing as independent gaming journalism. Every single 'journalist' takes money or compensation. It happens on TL and it happens on Eurogamer and it happens on yoursitexyz.
If you expect honesty then expect to read through a half dozen user generated reviews and tbh, just pirate the damn game and see if its fun before buying. Reviewers are for the most part extensions of marketing departments. There is no such thing is scruples in video game 'journalism'.
(I'm not referring to eSports, only "review/hype/release" articles)
On November 13 2012 20:07 Probe1 wrote: It's been 2 months of criticism against "Gaming Journalism". But it's a dumb argument. Why?
Because there's no such thing as independent gaming journalism. Every single 'journalist' takes money or compensation. It happens on TL and it happens on Eurogamer and it happens on yoursitexyz.
If you expect honesty then expect to read through a half dozen user generated reviews and tbh, just pirate the damn game and see if its fun before buying. Reviewers are for the most part extensions of marketing departments. There is no such thing is scruples in video game 'journalism'.
(I'm not referring to eSports, only "review/hype/release" articles)
User generated reviews are usually overreactions and pirating a game is illegal, so some people do actually read 'reviews'.
Obivously you are cynical about this, but i don't see why video games journalism is something which could never exist. See the VG247 article, although i am yet to see the actual effect that this has had on the sites reviews.
It isn't cynicism. It's honesty. Video game journalism has no code of ethics. Again, your best bet is to read reviews written by users that don't have connections to the video game industry.
How can you even speak about journalism for these people? But that's always been the case. They're marketing & advertising companies. Video game journalism takes place on the very few independent platforms and community sites.
I'm sorry, but you have to be absolutely removed from any realm of reality if you think gaming-journalism has an ethical spine.
Every single site, and the "journalists" that run them, are bought and paid for all the way. If you think they can get away with giving a AAA title a negative review, you're not living in the same reality as us.
It's a disgrace that they even call themselves journalists, because they are simply marketeers. They are paid to promote games, not give them honest reviews.
If they don't play ball, their site doesn't get that sexy add money, and they don't get advance copies, so their reviews are late, so their viewership drops.
People like to bash Fox News, but they are the fucking divine pinacle of all journalistic integrity compared to the gaming-journalism industry.
Corrupt? I'm not sure you can speak of corruption when it literally permeates the entire industry from top to bottom. Business as usual is probably more accurate.
TotalBiscuit talked about that in great length in a recent TGS Podcast (i think 2 weeks ago, not sure). From what i remember, he basically said that it's impossible for any reviewer to not be biased. However, as a consumer you can look for reviewers to find one that you feel you can trust and that shares your gaming interest.
Yes, there are some very bad apples but usually people recognize it quickly and those reviewers lose credibility fast, even without making a "scandal" out of it, so their reviews end up ignored quickly.
Mass Effect 3 proved how biased reviews are OR they just made the review without finishing the game. Game itself was mediocre when compared to 1st or 2nd when you add in all the loops and cut dialogue options that made ME so good.
On November 13 2012 20:39 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Mass Effect 3 proved how biased reviews are OR they just made the review without finishing the game. Game itself was mediocre when compared to 1st or 2nd when you add in all the loops and cut dialogue options that made ME so good.
Yeah, this is old news.
Of course, its obvious that most reviews are biased. But the discussion is an important one to have, if there is going to be any chance of having non corrupt reviews.
Apparently no-one even seems to want that, and everyone has already given up on it anyway.
It's not like anyone didn't realize most, at least bigger, gaming websites etc are bought, hard. This isn't a problem, because only sheep blindly go by their scores and opinions. What you do is read up on the game, watch video reviews, and then read between the lines in reviews, and that gives you a decent idea of how the game works. Then, whether you like that or not, is up to you. Blindly trusting their scores and writing is a big no-no since even if they aren't bought, it's still subjective.
On November 13 2012 20:41 FortuneSyn wrote: I read the 3 links and I don't really understand. The only evidence of this happening is in that mountaindew/doritos picture?
No, everyone already knew that it was happening. That article and the lawsuit/editing of the article created a discussion in the industry.
I don't quite understand the nature and scope of the fallout. Who was outraged by this? Why? What arguments did they have to back up their indignation?
I read both the article and the editor's blog and I didn't find them objectionable. If anything I found it candid, and unfortunately based on the fallout, courageous. There's a giant elephant in the room, its name is "conflict of interest". It sounds as if everyone upset by that article have long since resigned to the fact that the elephant will always be there, even coming to embrace it. They sound incredibly jaded to be making an uproar over being reminded of something they threw away a long time ago in the name of compromise, it was necessary, simply a nature of the work they might say.
There are obvious cross-references to SC2 and ESPORTS here. ESPORTS journalism largely relies on personal connections in order to actually access information. Want to know if a new team is forming? Want to know who is being traded? To where? How about if a team is about to disband or an interview with a player or a league? Do you want to get press access to an event so you can cover it? As a journalist it's absolutely vital that you maintain relationships with the people that make all of that possible yet somehow you are still expected to ask uncomfortable questions, be critical, hold people accountable.
I wonder if there are things we can learn from other domains where such an intricate dance must be done. Something like the White House correspondents? They have to be critical of the president yet their access to him is systematized, how does it work? How about other niche interest industries like MMA or gymnastics? Do they have a system that works better?
In the end it does matter. It does matter that the reviews you read or the interviews you read actually have substance to them instead of being a mouth piece of the people pushing out a product. A product you consume. A product you have a choice in whether you want to consume or not. Because if you don't care, and you just take the mouth pieces' word for it that it tastes good, sooner or later you'll lose your sense of taste. And then you get a stomach ache from consuming junk. You. Don't. Deserve. Junk. But first you need to realize it matters.
Mass Effect 3 proved how biased reviews are OR they just made the review without finishing the game. Game itself was mediocre when compared to 1st or 2nd when you add in all the loops and cut dialogue options that made ME so good.
Yeah, this is old news.
Old news and relevant news are different things. You wouldn't post that in the "Nazi-Uprising in Present Day Germany" thread would you? Nazi groups have never gone away so, come on it's practically ancient news! Except it's relevant. So don't post rot.
On November 13 2012 20:50 dicedicerevolution wrote: I don't quite understand the nature and scope of the fallout. Who was outraged by this? Why? What arguments did they have to back up their indignation?
I read both the article and the editor's blog and I didn't find them objectionable. If anything I found it candid, and unfortunately based on the fallout, courageous. There's a giant elephant in the room, its name is "conflict of interest". It sounds as if everyone upset by that article have long since resigned to the fact that the elephant will always be there, even coming to embrace it. They sound incredibly jaded to be making an uproar over being reminded of something they threw away a long time ago in the name of compromise, it was necessary, simply a nature of the work they might say.
There are obvious cross-references to SC2 and ESPORTS here. ESPORTS journalism largely relies on personal connections in order to actually access information. Want to know if a new team is forming? Want to know who is being traded? To where? How about if a team is about to disband or an interview with a player or a league? Do you want to get press access to an event so you can cover it? As a journalist it's absolutely vital that you maintain relationships with the people that make all of that possible yet somehow you are still expected to ask uncomfortable questions, be critical, hold people accountable.
I wonder if there are things we can learn from other domains where such an intricate dance must be done. Something like the White House correspondents? They have to be critical of the president yet their access to him is systematized, how does it work? How about other niche interest industries like MMA or gymnastics? Do they have a system that works better?
In the end it does matter. It does matter that the reviews you read or the interviews you read actually have substance to them instead of being a mouth piece of the people pushing out a product. A product you consume. A product you have a choice in whether you want to consume or not. Because if you don't care, and you just take the mouth pieces' word for it that it tastes good, sooner or later you'll lose your sense of taste. And then you get a stomach ache from consuming junk. You. Don't. Deserve. Junk. But first you need to realize it matters.
As Jesse Cox says in theTGS Podcast, the outrage is caused by the fact the Lauren Wainwright threatened to sue Eurogamer, and the companies that she works for/reviews the products of forced Eurogamer to remove parts of the original article. Then reddit kicked in, and the shitstorm began.
I think the biggest issue behind gaming journalism is that a 5/10 means the game is the worst game of all time, when it SHOULD mean that it's a mediocre game (Something like mass effect 3) that doesn't do anything new or interesting, while having sub-par mechanics, graphics, story, etc. We should be at a point where we can objectively look at a release, and say "It does this, this and this wrong, and this this and this right, so it's 5/10 still fun but not timeless". But articles are usually "It does this, this and this right, and this is kinda wrong to some niche crowd, so 10/10 tour de force.".
A game HAS to get > 7.5/10 to be considered fun by most folks, which is a shame, because mediocre games can be fun too (anyone play Tiny Tank? Duke Nukem: Time to Kill?).Gaming journalism has been put into a hole, where publishers want perfect scores or they can threaten not letting your magazine/site run reviews on their games. Development studios want big scores to get their bonuses, and gaming journalists have to oblige, since they've already met the status quo where all the fans expect perfect scores for the latest big titles or they'll stop visiting their website and go somewhere else that reviews that game more favourably.
I say down with modern gaming journalism! Bring back the 5/10!
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/irnni.jpg)
