checker
1781
Oh, great, then we’re in complete agreement then, because I think it is 100% the press’s job to make developers do a better job! :)
Chris
Alan_Au
1783
So yes, games journalism, like other journalistic sub-domains, is largely driven by relationships. Some outlets have a reputation for printing rumors, and so people submit rumors to them, making it a self-perpetuating cycle. Other outlets have a set of go-to insiders, because those are the people with whom they have established a relationship. PR folks maintain a list of people to whom they send press kits and promotional goods.
As I see it, the challenge is in separating the personal relationship from the business relationship. Otherwise, you end up with things like the Elemental discussion here a few months back. To be fair, there was more at play in that incident (notably that the forums are publicly accessible), but the end result is that the relationship changed, and with it the access to information.
So what does this all mean for games journalism? I suppose it depends on professional standards; it’s one thing to decry a mediocre game and quite another to disparage developers, or worse, to violate personal trust by disclosing information that was shared in confidence.
In the end, games journalism stories are just another consumer product. Of course, much of it is available at no cost to the consumer, with the problem that you often don’t get what you don’t pay for.
hong
1784
… Godammit, I can’t stop watching.
Or: “New Tomb Raider pursues new aesthetic, game design.” = games journalism.
“New Tomb Raider a departure from series mechanics, also may demand serious hardware.” = games enthusiast press.
“New Tomb Raider reduces cup size, adds filth. Comparison pics after the jump.” = games blogs
Yeah, it’s not true. Possibly a US/UK thing? We did it all the time. People do get pissy, but it blows over as long as you’re being fair.
(i.e. Seeing something in early alpha is a completely different thing to seeing late Beta a few weeks before release. “That the AI is still twitchy in this late stage is a matter of some concern” crops up all the time. You can plot a graph of BENEFIT OF DOUBT vs TIME TO RELEASE.)
I mean, RPS has lost advertising from that*, but the ongoing relationships seemed fine**. Occasionally you lose advertising. C’est la vie.
Hmm. Thinking about it, it was the US end of the company who went mental over it. It could be a US/UK thing.
KG
*And then the reviews a couple of weeks later all said the same thing.
**Because most PRs know you’re right, but also know that you know that they have to get pissy at you, because that’s what their bosses pay them for.
If you do anything in a real preview (not a “few weeks shy of release” candidate), other than assume that the parts that don’t work will do what the developer is telling you their aiming at, they have every right to be pissy.
“Here is this thing that doesn’t work, because we’re still working on it, but this is where we are going” – you start complaining that it doesn’t work, why should they ever show you something again?
Editer
1789
There have been critical previews in US magazines for about 15 years, because I can date one of the first ones: X-Com Apocalypse got a very negative preview that was very suspect of its potential to be a good game when it was finished. (Written, if I remember correctly, by Sword of the Stars’ Martin Cirulis.) This was back around 1997, and the magazine caught a lot of flack from readers for daring to judge the game before it was finished. (Here’s one of the Usenet discussions.)
Certainly positive previews are more the norm. But that’s primarily because it’s the games with the potential to be good that have the reader interest and get the coverage.
Editer
1791
An experienced and development-knowledgeable game journalist can also tell when issues are the kinds of things that might be tweaked before release – frame rate problems, unit balance, texture issues, etc. – versus the kinds of things that are fare less likely to be changed, such as core design elements or complex control systems.
hong
1792
Now why isn’t Julian Assange doing something about this?
I’ve been wanting more hard hitting previews for a long time, definitely based on time to release. If it’s 1+ years, I just want to know about the game a bit. If it’s 2 months to release, I want to get a more review type preview.
Why don’t you simply wait until the game is released and read the reviews if you want a preview that is more like a review? I don’t see the point since any issues the preview mentions may be addressed in the release version, and the only way you will know is if you wait for actual reviews.
The game publishers have to love it that gamers love previews. It’s free marketing.
The last part is the point. Why have previews at all if they aren’t going to be more than bullshots and fluff? If you’re doing it for the publishers, great. If you’re doing it for us, the gamers, then maybe give us some actual useful information? Call me kooky and all.
JDSIDD
1796
I’ve found that listening to podcasts gives me a clearer impression than a written preview. Listening to a person tell me they just saw a game and they’re not so high on it carries more weight than an “unbiased” print preview. People say more of what they actually think when they’re just talking on a podcast. I know some of it gets cut if its too negative but you can still pick up a lot from their tone.
The previews are there because the readers want them. Believe me, I think the pages of previews in PC Gamer would be better spent on more reviews, but previews get readers.
I’m not sure what you would consider to be useful information? By the very act of selecting a game to preview, a publication is deeming it interesting. Beyond describing the game, what exactly do you want? You can’t review a game that isn’t finished. You might speculate that the intended features are very ambitious, but you can’t exactly say there’s no way they’ll work them all in.
And even if you did levy some criticism towards the game, then what? You say the preview build you played had problematic AI, had framerate issues, was missing some features that are still in development, etc., and how does that help you as a reader? Now you know that an unfinished game is still unfinished? What you read may have no bearing on the final version you’ll find for sale. Again, if you want something that’s more like a review, wait for actual reviews.
I don’t like previews that slobber all over a game. I don’t like previews wherein the writer says he is actually drooling over the idea of the game or about to get jizm all over his monitor. I don’t like previews that read like excited fanboys wrote them. You know how I deal with this? I don’t read previews anymore, with a rare exception or two. I got tired of having my expectations raised for games, sometimes to see them never even released.
What you really need out of the gaming press is good reviews. That will serve you better than any preview, hard-hitting or fanboy slobber.
Mark Asher types the truth. If this were Kotaku I would heart him.
Mark
So, your solution to previews is…don’t read them. Well that’s great. I’ve already chosen that path. Silly me, I thought we were talking about how to make previews better and worth reading. If this is just a discussion about how to avoid them, I agree completely with your assessment. Good thing I came to that same conclusion a decade ago.
Now, as to how to fix them. They need to be a bit more hard hitting. Less of an extended marketing gimmick and more facts and information. Again, as I posted above, it depends on the timing of the preview, but if it’s for a game near release, I’d sure love to read real opinions about the game, not yet another puff piece about the glorious graphics and/or the claims of the developers about the AI.
Previews don’t have to tear down a game, but along with the fluff, some real information like, “Though the game is close to release, the AI still got stuck on walls and spun in circles for 90% of the time.” If you feel the need, you can even couch that in “the developers said those things will be cleaned up at launch though”.
The question is, who does a preview serve. Especially, the second or third time the same site/mag is covering the same unreleased game. If they are supposed to be fluff pieces only, then quite calling them previews and start calling them advertisements. Obviously that won’t happen, but that’s really what they are. Heck, even in business software, we get better previews. I can tell you both what cool features are upcoming with IE9 and what worries their are about the browser as it stands as of the latest preview build. Why? Because people in business software actually give info and critique in their previews. So business professionals that are considering using the software will know what they could be getting themselves and their companies into.
Gaming? Well…we get pretty screenshots that may or may not even exist in the actual game. Bullshots. Most gaming previews are pretty much that.
