So gaming journalism. I’ve been thinking about the various approaches news organizations take in their coverage and if there’s any kind of unique approach to it left.
First there are sites that review absolutely every game released and keep their news updates mostly about games themselves and not about the industry for the most part like IGN or Gamespot. This is kind of the media portal site that sticks mostly to the magazine format. Personally I don’t go to these kinds of sites because of the scatter shot approach that, just like magazines, resulted in fairly shallow content. There are also accusations of payola resulting in advertisers dictating review scores and content (See the Gamespot scandal for Kane and Lynch).
Then are sites that are purely born of the internet like Giant Bomb or Rock Paper Shotgun (or IndieGames.com), both taking different approaches. RPS is a news site first and foremost, I don’t think I’ve seen a proper “review” in their feed since I started reading it. I like this style because they have a clear goal – inform the reader about the happenings in the world of PC gaming without trying to dictate quality. That doesn’t mean they don’t have opinions on games or that they don’t express those opinions in their articles, but they don’t push articles specifically saying “This game is good/bad.” Despite having a giant Battlefield 3 advertisement theme at the moment, this sort of precludes them from most of the things we’ve seen gone wrong in the IGN or Gamespot type sites where reviews have been allegedly bought.
On the other side of that coin is Giant Bomb who focus almost entirely on reviews and showing game content. Unlike either the IGN type sites or even RPS, Giant Bomb generally doesn’t focus on industry news outside of new game / console releases, but they do write candid stories and publish interviews occasionally. They also produce a large amount of original video content. The real meat of their content are their Quick Looks, their written reviews, endurance runs (basically Let’s Plays) and their event videos like Thursday Night Throwdown which they also live stream. The quick looks I feel are probably their best feature. First, it gives the viewer a chance to get to know the staff. Something that was a big feature in older games magazines was getting to know the staff and their tastes so you could navigate reviews with a frame of reference. I couldn’t tell you who writes for RPS, IndieGames or IGN at the moment, but I know just about everyone that creates video content for Giant Bomb. Second, these are mostly first impressions without an editorial filter. A thirty minute unedited look at a new game with real time commentary is much more valuable as a buying guide than a text review or even a short video review. The other advantage of Giant Bomb’s approach is their limited focus. They don’t review every game that comes out but still manage to get in videos and reviews for most major releases and a good amount of indie games and things that most people probably wouldn’t see on other sites (Trackmania). Lastly, they differ from many other sites by running on premium membership fees that allow users to access more video content and remove the sites generic (and fairly sparse) ads rather than giant advertising campaigns like many other sites have. This, along with the Wiki, Forums and Quest system make the site more of a community and makes it feel less like an issue of Game Informer and more like a show on NPR. The user funded model may not work for everyone, but it works well for Giant Bomb.
On the outer rim of that coin are sites like Kotaku which are more akin to the New York Post in their presentation and content. They post inflammatory articles, have little apparent editorial oversight, argue with their users and ban them freely, and generally fill the tabloid end of the spectrum. This kind of site is generally viewed negatively and produces little original content, instead reposting content in the traditional “blog” sense.
The third leg is the hardcore industry news sites like Gamasutra. This kind of site is mostly for those interested in the workings of the industry and the art and philosophy of game design. For the most part, the average user doesn’t really need or have a use for this kind of information, but it can be an entertaining and informative read for those wanting a bit more substance.
Lastly, there are the independents that stream on Justin.tv / Twitch.tv, create content for Youtube / Blip / etc. and generally don’t make an enormous profit from their work. This space is nebulous. There are some bigger names like LordKat that run a 24 hour live stream and focus on a more radio style schedule, hosting shows at specific times live and posting the recordings on his website. These sites are hard to peg because they all use different models for their content and may not focus specifically on games (in LordKat’s case he hosts shows on tech, anime, the military, dungeons and dragons, etc.) They also might struggle to find a consistent revenue stream. LordKat for example has used a tip jar on his site and more recently through Twitch.tv, premium memberships that, like Giant Bomb’s, give the user access to more content and less advertising. LordKat is a more successful example. Others do their streams and videos without any regularity as a hobby or fail to gain any traction in the already saturated market. There are also the eSports streams and websites which I personally have very little experience with, but seem to be rising in popularity (a Starcraft stream is always the top channel on Twitch).
We’re still in the young days of game journalists really taking advantage of the internet as their medium. I’ve thought about different approaches, but it’s hard to predict what users want and what will be the next big thing. I feel like Giant Bomb has really nailed what an internet based games site can be, but their focus leaves room for more content and leaves many games by the wayside – which isn’t a necessarily a bad thing when compared to IGN as I stated above. LordKat is a good example of the entrepreneur, but also focuses on a larger picture from more of a tech analysts view. But still, sites like Kotaku receive millions of hits while producing substandard content. What I’ve written so far isn’t an all inclusive list nor was it meant to be. I intentionally left off the token game reviews sections of major publications and things like the G4 channel. I also didn’t touch on GameTrailers.com (which falls somewhere between IGN, Giant Bomb and Youtube.) I don’t feel like I have a solid answer to the question at the moment, but it’s something to think about in the future, even though I’m not involved in the games industry or games journalism in any sense. These kinds of philosophical questions in the approach to media are important to discuss if we want to get out of the doldrums and away from the bad habits and corporate pressure that have sort of plagued games journalism in particular for the last decade.
