Gaming Journalism Hurts the Industry Again. Also, It's Wednesday.

[UD_Delt]

Oh I never even mentioned your $1000 part. I would never set a standard job rate. You gotta break down hours and roles and hourly rate and shit.

$1000 would never cut anything and even trying to do something like that will get you laughed right the fuck out of your idea. Nobody is going to believe a word out of the mouth of anyone who says they'll do a job within the corporate world for $1000. You'd never get a foot in the door.

Within the IT world most contracting companies won't even talk to you unless they know you're looking at least a $25,000 job. Not until you have a relation with a vendor would you start talking smaller stuff. Given this is probably something new you would start lower but fuck $1000.

And I agree with Schild. Offering solutions is going to step on toes. Designers and developers aren't going to appreciate taking direction from a hired gun.

If you were ever going to put a statement of work together I would expect the bottom line to be something like:

Tester: 40 hours x $85/hour
Technical Analyst: 20 hours x $125/hour
Project Lead: 15 hours x $185/hour.

That puts you right around $8500. I'd tweak it until it was an even $10,000

[cmlancas]

Here's a list of things I could think of that a "contracting" company could offer in no particular order.

1) Playtest
2) Analysts
   a) Code
   b) Writing in Game (Editing)
   c) Writing out of Game (Editing)
   d) Art
3) Reviews
   a) Overall Game
   b) Detailed Writing
   c) Detailed Content
   d) Detailed Code
   e) Detailed Art
   f) Box Art


I think I agree with Schlid about the suggestion part. There should be no reason why the company should be part of the solution other than what has been asked of it. If you want me to review your grammar, punctuation, and spelling, that's what I'll do. However, I won't tell you how to sound more professional because you haven't asked me or paid me to do that.

Edit: What the fuck is Detailed Cost? I think I meant code. Sorry.

[schild]

UD_Delt's description up there would be the goal of a company. More, the $1,000 mark was specifically for one thing. I agree completely that if it were some kind of Fun Task Force that $10,000 would be more in line.

See, I was frothy yesterday. I understood the business of it. But the point of what I wrote was to anger people, and it worked.

[Furiously]

I've seen the impact I have on posting on beta boards. The problem is that for every criticism you have of a game there are 10 people out there who think it's sliced bread. Of course they are morons.

Due to crappy development practices, and schedule adherence here is no time for most games for this sort of insight from a few people that know what good gameplay is. Raph wrote a book on fun, he should be able to go and charge $10K to do a observation/comment right? I'm not sure Raph's fun is my fun. (But he likes Who woulda thunk it, so he's still ok in my book). You need 30 people to look and say, "Fun/Not Fun." if you want to program by committee. I think you're better off coming up with a fun idea off the bat... (Baby Eating Eagle!).

[sinij]

Because they're all in the belief that their 20 year old design document based on gameplay rules from 30ish years ago is THE design document to rule them all.  They're all stuck in the rock paper scissors healer tank nuke d20 mindset.

What pisses me off is that UO was revolutionary is so many aspects, yet nobody built on it. Where the fuck is my class-less skill tress and per-use advancement? Where are my player-driven crafting economies? Why THE FUCK we STILL CLONING DIKU?!

[Trippy]

Because they're all in the belief that their 20 year old design document based on gameplay rules from 30ish years ago is THE design document to rule them all.  They're all stuck in the rock paper scissors healer tank nuke d20 mindset.

What pisses me off is that UO was revolutionary is so many aspects, yet nobody built on it. Where the fuck is my class-less skill tress and per-use advancement? Where are my player-driven crafting economies? Why THE FUCK we STILL CLONING DIKU?!

For the same reason why class and level-based RPG systems predominate in the PnP world and in the (combat) MUD world pre-MMORPGs and in MMORPGs now -- the masses prefer that style. Personally I feel your pain. RuneQuest (the original Chaosium version) is my favorite PnP game system but the masses have spoken with their wallets and their time so that's what we are stuck with.

[Typhon]

You need 30 people to look and say, "Fun/Not Fun." if you want to program by committee.

1) In the movie business this is called a screening (or focus group).  They don't pay people to screen the movies.  These people say whether they like the movie or not.  You need a large number to figure, on average, how people will feel about the movie
2) Gene Shallot is a pretty famous movie critic.  Gene has watched an assload of movies.  Presumably he knows a fair amount about movies.  Probably Gene knows way too much about movies and is paying attention to shit that just doesn't matter to me because anything he says about movies, I know the exact opposite is true... for me.  Also, Gene Shallot is also a dick, but this doesn't really have any bearing on the points I'm trying to make, I just like mentioning that Gene Shallot is a dick.
3) Art/Music/Book/Play fags have read a great deal about Art/Music/Books/Plays.  The vast majority of the time they say anything about Art/Music/Books/Plays they are focusing on some obscure circle-jerk-inside-self-flaggelating piece of minutia that no one else gives a fuck and their opinions are worthless to anyone who isn't a Art/Music/Book/Play fag (note: fag here has nothing to do with a homosexual person, just someone with way too much time and way to high of an opinion about how insightful they are).
4) If you only review games from companies that don't pay you for your opinion you have created a conflict of interest - e.g. you open yourself to being accused of holding companies ransom to pay you for your opinion or you will give them a bad review (regardless of your opinion).
5) It's easy in hindsight to say, the Sims is a tremendous franchise and you wouldn't touch it.  If a company paid you for your opinion up front, you'd have no concept about the franchise, and you be left with whether you thought the game was fun or not.

For all these reason, I think your idea is better off stillborn.  Other industries have already gone down this path, and it doesn't seem to make a damn bit of difference (actually, we frequently read how focus groups and screenings are "souless" and "art-crushing", so, maybe worse then "makes no difference".  Depends on whether your trying to make money, or art, I guess).

[schild]

Typhon, movies and other shit have no interaction.

It is very very very very very easy for me to go into an playing an action game and saying "Oh, have you heard of this, it's called Ninja Ga...no, you're not even there yet, try Blood Will Tell. That's a nice low bar."

Basically, I'm talking about real Shit here. Companies that have lost morale that can do things to at least save face. Oh, and MMOG companies. I don't know how any of them have morale in the face of Blizzard anyway.

[Kyper]

1. I am not that skilled all things considered, I had just played an MMOG and within 15 minutes, I could have made a laundry list of fucking problems.
2. Journalists, many of them, think this idea is bad. They are retarded. That angered me.
3. SOE had tried to do this, but because of #2.

This is a terribly easy job for anyone with a little dev experience and a lot of review experience. Stupid easy in fact. Ironically, since most games journalists are art fag moron blowhards, it's not exactly a very competitive field. I think a lot of the problem with this thread is that people assumed I was offering up easy to implement solutions.

You can be a journalist or you can be a paid consultant.  You cannot be both.  Once you're on a gaming company's payroll, your objectivity is compromised and will be questioned.  Did schild give that game a better review because the company paid him $1000 to look at another of their games?  Could there have been a deal made through a third-party?   You might answer "no", but your audience might not believe you.

As a television journalist, I assure you that this kind of thing is taken very seriously by most companies in the business of journalism and would be considered grounds for firing.  If you want to write game reviews for a privately-owned web site, that's a different matter, but you won't get much respect as a journalist if you're also acting as a paid consultant for gaming companies.

[schild]

Fuck the audience. You can be both.

You don't review any game you helped with.

Once again. Games sell themselves. Reviews can sell games sure, whatever, fine. But good games sell. I have an interest in good games more than telling you about the bad ones.

[Kyper]

I have an interest in good games more than telling you about the bad ones.

If your motivation is to find, play and/or create good games rather than to tell the truth about them, you're not a journalist to start with.

[schild]

I have an interest in good games more than telling you about the bad ones.

If your motivation is to find, play and/or create good games rather than to tell the truth about them, you're not a journalist to start with.

No, you just have a problem with me being able to seperate the two wants. That's to say, I can want to better the industry and tell the truth, they can be mutually exclusive, this just happens to be a problem with the industry. This isn't politics we're dealing with here. Most of the time, it's not Serious Business. You can easily be both. If you believe people can't be both, then you're part of the problem.

[Kyper]

If you believe people can't be both, then you're part of the problem.

I believe even the appearance of a conflict of interest is something to be avoided.  I also don't believe there is "small journalism" and "big journalism".  The principles are the same whether you're covering a presidential news conference or a Sunday tea.   There are certainly people and organizations who cross the line between telling the truth and pushing an agenda (shout out to the Fox News Channel), but that doesn't make it right or ethical.

[cmlancas]

You need 30 people to look and say, "Fun/Not Fun." if you want to program by committee.

3) Art/Music/Book/Play fags have read a great deal about Art/Music/Books/Plays.  The vast majority of the time they say anything about Art/Music/Books/Plays they are focusing on some obscure circle-jerk-inside-self-flaggelating piece of minutia that no one else gives a fuck and their opinions are worthless to anyone who isn't a Art/Music/Book/Play fag (note: fag here has nothing to do with a homosexual person, just someone with way too much time and way to high of an opinion about how insightful they are).

No. Especially not with books; you're a tool for saying this. This may have been the case in 1971 when Adrienne Rich wrote "When We Dead Awaken" and presented it at whichever conference it was, but not anymore. I can't stand to see completely misinformed douchebags tell me and my fellow colleagues that we don't listen to new opinions. It just isn't true. I'm a goddamn undergrad presenting at a conference with what in the gaming industry would be the equivalent of Raph. And our (those of us without MAs or PhDs) opinions are worthless? Fuck you. I know you said vast majority, but you're part of the misinformed majority that perpetuates the myth in our sphere.

[schild]

People who want to make a difference are willing to put aside ethics.

Sometimes you don't have a choice. Most of my beef comes with the actual comparison to journalism. I'm guilty of it also. But writing about games isn't journalism. It's just writing. It's putting words on paper with no actual relation to real journalism. In any given year, there's maybe 3-5 real stories in the gaming world. Exclusives given by companies are not one of them. Covering yet another conservative fuckwit complaining about violence in games is not one of them. Games Writing is not journalism. It should be a field that seeks to damn developers when they fuck up and praise them when they succeed. It should be a field where the writers have the most interest in the gaming community in seeing progress. Sitting around and waiting for a release to review is not journalism.

I'm sorry.

Every games "journalist" has been living a lie. New Games Journalism is nothing but art fags exercising their art muscle with creative writing. Bow, Nigger and A Rape in Cyberspace are not journalism or journalism with New Games attached to it. They are creative writing where a clever writer thought he latched onto something that would get some page hits. They aren't Necessary stories. I'm so sorry that rape and racism appear in the gaming world. With apologies to always_black, Julian Dibbel, and to an extent, Kieron Gillen. While the writing may be interesting, it's not journalism. It's not gonzo journalism. And it's not some other hybrid made-up journalism. It's just writing. It's the shit that appears in Reader's Digest. It's a harsh world.

The world isn't fair.

Get over it.

Being ethical does not directly correlate to writing honest reviews. Reviews should be injected with self, a triumph of emotion. Something that shows you have interest in the subject. Rants should be a reason to stay away. Reviews shouldn't be this half-assed advertisement that shows some college intern how to Do a Job That's Given to Them.

I'm not saying "let's blur the line." I'm saying, let's work together to make gaming better. Get rid of the line completely.

[driph]

Holy hell I'm so getting you into our beta. Seriously, send me a note and I'll make sure you get a Universe at War beta key, if you're interested.

You don't have to sign an NDA or anything, but I can't send you a thousand dollars, either.

[cmlancas]

People who want to make a difference are willing to put aside ethics.

Sometimes you don't have a choice. Most of my beef comes with the actual comparison to journalism. I'm guilty of it also. But writing about games isn't journalism. It's just writing. It's putting words on paper with no actual relation to real journalism. In any given year, there's maybe 3-5 real stories in the gaming world. Exclusives given by companies are not one of them. Covering yet another conservative fuckwit complaining about violence in games is not one of them. Games Writing is not journalism. It should be a field that seeks to damn developers when they fuck up and praise them when they succeed. It should be a field where the writers have the most interest in the gaming community in seeing progress. Sitting around and waiting for a release to review is not journalism.

I'm sorry.

Every games "journalist" has been living a lie. New Games Journalism is nothing but art fags exercising their art muscle with creative writing. Bow, Nigger and A Rape in Cyberspace are not journalism or journalism with New Games attached to it. They are creative writing where a clever writer thought he latched onto something that would get some page hits. They aren't Necessary stories. I'm so sorry that rape and racism appear in the gaming world. With apologies to always_black, Julian Dibbel, and to an extent, Kieron Gillen. While the writing may be interesting, it's not journalism. It's not gonzo journalism. And it's not some other hybrid made-up journalism. It's just writing. It's the shit that appears in Reader's Digest. It's a harsh world.

The world isn't fair.

Get over it.

Being ethical does not directly correlate to writing honest reviews. Reviews should be injected with self, a triumph of emotion. Something that shows you have interest in the subject. Rants should be a reason to stay away. Reviews shouldn't be this half-assed advertisement that shows some college intern how to Do a Job That's Given to Them.

I'm not saying "let's blur the line." I'm saying, let's work together to make gaming better. Get rid of the line completely.

To the first part of Schlid's post, he's right. I think the last journalistic writing I saw here was the VG coverage. It was gripping, amazing shit. Seriously. It's the reason I post here and even know what f13.net is. (I sound like such a brown-noser in this thread, sorry Schlid) He's completely spot on correct with everything he says. Opinion pieces are not journalism -- they are editorials. There's a reason why there is an Editorial Page in a newspaper.

End point: Completely correct. How many times have any of you all on this board ever wanted to write an authority figure, "Fuck you, this sucks complete ass and I can't believe you are making me do it"? Well, as far as 'gaming journalism ethics policy' (and that's a flimsy term to begin with), it's not really feasible. I think official forums are a great example of honesty stifling.

I do, however, disagree with your end statement. I think the line is so blurred at the moment that nobody has any idea what the line entails. I think there needs to be a definition and an explication of what the line is and what to do on either side. If you put out a shit product, expect to catch shit. If you put out a great product, expect people to delight in your success. I think this would define 'gaming journalism ethics policy' as something that isn't a joke.

[schild]

Cmlancas.

Of course the line is blurred. Maybe I wasn't clear - STOP BLURRING THE LINE. Maybe I left out the word "more." My bad. Not perfect in words, only mathematically perfect in awesome.

[cmlancas]

Cmlancas.

Of course the line is blurred. Maybe I wasn't clear - STOP BLURRING THE LINE. Maybe I left out the word "more." My bad. Not perfect in words, only mathematically perfect in awesome.

I can't help it, I can only work with what you give me ><

Did you go to the University of Awesome? I graduated, Class of '06

[Margalis]

Conflicts of interest are serious business. I'm not going to trust any opinion that comes from someone who was paid money to work on a game by that same company, or by a rival company with a rival product.

It was absolutely proper to disclose this move by Sony. Not only do companies now trade access for good press, but now they would trade *money* for good press. No. Just no.

If you want to improve games, either work on them or write informative reviews and articles.

Again I point you to the NGE. It is the exact illustration of the sort of quid pro quo (unintentional it may be) that happens.

[schild]

Again I point you to the NGE. It is the exact illustration of the sort of quid pro quo (unintentional it may be) that happens.

Hey. Writing reviews doesn't change anything.

They didn't ask me for what I'd improve. And I was in an idyllic environment. If anything, it was the opposite of what I'm talking about here.

It was absolutely proper to disclose this move by Sony. Not only do companies now trade access for good press, but now they would trade *money* for good press. No. Just no.

Not at ALL what they were doing.

Jesus. Is this an article that makes brick walls out of people that are otherwise balanced?

[UnSub]

Some people think that accepting money is automatically a bribe and somehow you can't accept money and be objective. If that is true, then everyone who accepts a wage (and especially everyone in the consulting industry) can't be trusted. After all, if McDonalds pays your food bills, you have to be a shill for McDonalds, don't you?

Of course not. Get it straight - if Sony got caught paying for reviews, or it was even hinted at that a journalist got $1000 for a review, things would get ugly very quickly. Flying and PR'ing a reviewer is one thing, but direct payments? Please. The journalist would be fired, the publication who printed the review would lose advertisers and the company behind the scheme would get publically crucified.

Schild is saying, "For $1000, I'll write you a professional, independent review before the game comes out". For that kind of money, he'd probably even throw in some Gamespot-esque medals up the top of it too. After that point, the dev studio can do what they want with that review (constrained by whatever contract Schild gets them to sign, of course).

In some ways, f13 already does something like this for free - it gets invites to various betas, perhaps a secret forum or something where players with a lot of MMO experience talk about the game where the developers can see it. The signal to noise ratio is probably pretty good here for a dev to get feedback about areas of concern. It doesn't predict a review score, of course, but if a MMO impresses (or fails to impress) something as jaded as the f13 crowd, that's not a bad thing for a dev to know.

It's not a bad idea. But as Schild said, it's a rant and not one he is apparently going to follow up with action.

[schild]

Whoa whoa. If people want to pay me, I'll fucking follow up!

The only reason I haven't started SOMETHING like this is the lack of funds. Though if I had the funds, I'd fund f13.

[UnSub]

You'd need proof of your skills first, or at least to get a company to provide you with a reference for other companies to hire you off the back of.

I was also going to suggest that f13 become more mercenary / organised about the betas it takes part in and the feedback it provides - if f13 because a recognised MMO beta testing machine, you could certainly charge money for such services.

Of course, such reviews / feedback would need to be more than "lol WoW 1.5" or "too many cockstabs".

But I also know a lot of people would hate the idea. Just spitballing.

[schild]

But I also know a lot of people would hate the idea. Just spitballing.

I've joked about this. Too much liability to have a legion of 200 people do something for me to get paid. Can't be done. It's not even a matter of hating it. It's an impossibility.

[Xerapis]

I have a sudden funny visual of a dev asking schild to please explain in detail a haemish comment.

[WindupAtheist]

Bow, Nigger and A Rape in Cyberspace

I've read the former at some point, and I looked up the latter out of curiosity.  What a complete load of excruciating drivel.  Then again it was an article about "cyberspace" from 1993, so what did I expect?

[UD_Delt]

Sorry Schild. I gotta agree with the masses that you could either be an independent consultant writing previews of reviews and getting paid for it. Or you can write the actual reviews and not be on the books of any games. You can't really do both.

Two reasons:

1. The companies you are working for are not going to be pleased if they have you on payroll and you then either write a negative review of one of their games (not the one you're working on) or write a good review of their competitor's similar game. Fair or not it's going to piss off executives and make them question your "loyalty".

2. The masses will never trust your reviews. Either you never mention you are on the payroll for anyone and if it leaks you are shady as hell. Or you are upfront about being on someone's payroll and everyone thinks your reviews are shady right off the bat.

It really has nothing to do with the fact that you COULD do both and you are mentally able to separate the two things. If the idiot masses you are catering to can't separate the issues than you're sunk.

[UD_Delt]

The only reason I haven't started SOMETHING like this is the lack of funds. Though if I had the funds, I'd fund f13.

Umm... huh?

Write a (professional) proposal and send it off to all the developers and designers you know to get it into the hands of someone who makes decisions (or at least controls a budget). If you get any bites toss in your resume, references, a sample of what you would produce and a short statement of work and you're set.

How much does that cost? Seems to me it's only time.

You don't need to incorporate or any of that BS until such time as it looks like the idea will actually fly. And even that doesn't really cost much money to set up a company unless you decided to hire someone to do it for you. But again it would only take time to research what you needed to do and do it yourself.

[Murgos]

Who writes the official game guides & hint books?  How does that fit into what you are trying to describe as objectivity?

I don't think objectivity is compromised by giving an honest review to a publisher before the game is released.  You are selling a review.  Who the customer happens to be is immaterial.  There is NO conflict of interest there, writing dishonest or inaccurate reviews won't sell your reviews to more publishers and won't sell your reviews to more gamers.

The value of your reviews from being marketed as the guy that sells reviews to publishers 'because he tells it how it really is.'  Is materially not the same a 'shill'.

[Hanzii]

I know a lot about games. I know a hell of a lot about games. I'd wager very few people know nearly as much about games as me. And I'd wager that most who know me would back me up on that – including game developers. But that's besides the point

They're self-obsessed swine?
Just a quick note: 99% of posters at QT3 are just random gamers that wandered in and started posting. There's a couple of handfulls of published freelance game writers and a couple of editors posting - so even if the thread you linked to had some sort of consensus and not just a bunch of people arguing the same points you bring up, then it wouldn't be what a majority of self-important game journalists think. I can't even recall any of them referring to their chosen profession as journalism.

And Roac is right. What you're offering isn't what SOE was asking.

[CharlieMopps]

I agree 100%
The industry is horrible right now. This is the same shit that happened to Atari in the 80's
Some really cool, very smart guys made some really cool games and it really took off...
Then the money men upstairs went "Holy crap! This is making tons of money! It's time to apply the same buisness model we used to make ballpoint pens to video games! YAY!!!"
A Couple years later and they are wondering where their customers went.
EQ2 should have CRUSHED WoW. It is unfathomable that the game did so poorly. The rulesets, the bad PR, the WEEK LONG server crash (yea, I remember that shit) The damned games been out for how many years? And the UI STILL SUCKS? WTF? Is their any fucking reascon that I need 40 spell/skill buttons on my screen at one time? I mean, seriously... WTF

[cmlancas]

I agree 100%
The industry is horrible right now. This is the same shit that happened to Atari in the 80's
Some really cool, very smart guys made some really cool games and it really took off...
Then the money men upstairs went "Holy crap! This is making tons of money! It's time to apply the same buisness model we used to make ballpoint pens to video games! YAY!!!"
A Couple years later and they are wondering where their customers went.
EQ2 should have CRUSHED WoW. It is unfathomable that the game did so poorly. The rulesets, the bad PR, the WEEK LONG server crash (yea, I remember that shit) The damned games been out for how many years? And the UI STILL SUCKS? WTF? Is their any fucking reascon that I need 40 spell/skill buttons on my screen at one time? I mean, seriously... WTF

What? What does this have to do with the original topic? I'm confused.

[CharlieMopps]

What? What does this have to do with the original topic? I'm confused.

My long-winded version of "The industry needs help"
If SOE had consultants at the beginning the game would be huge now.

[schild]

Well. It probably wouldn't not be huge. Blizzard and whatnot.

But the character models wouldn't have made it past the first mockup.