| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (11)

Posted: Jul 6th 2007 12:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Has Joystiq ever been offered a junket?

Posted: Jul 6th 2007 12:15PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
From the original post: "The question is, "Do these junkets influence the outcome of reviews?""

With all due respect, that is actually *not* the question. Any measurable impact on reviews is immaterial (although also impossible to isolate). It's the appearance of impropriety and the creation of inappropriate financial relationships with the very companies you are covering as a journalist.

And, this is just the tip of the iceberg. You'd be surprised by how many "name" game critics are hired to write pre-release "sample" reviews for a game publisher's internal use, or who write marketing materials for game companies on the side.

Posted: Jul 6th 2007 12:47PM soul4sale said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And this is why I don't read game mags. This is why I hammer online reviewers when they return from industry shows and display pic of their "shwag." This is why the gaming press is rarely taken seriously.

I would disagree that the writer of the WP article doesn't think these junkets affect coverage. I think he has very skillfully drawn the reader to conclude (using superfluous detail) that this is all a bunch of horsecrap. I think the quotes from the junket junkies when juxtaposed with the rest of the article exposes their self-delusion. Nobody likes to think of himself as an industry bitch.

Posted: Jul 6th 2007 1:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have little faith in gaming magazines that give Spider-Man 3 360 an 8.5 (*cough* Game Informer *cough*) but i'm not surprised.

Let's face it, publishers would stop paying for junkets unless it didn't have some influence in the gaming world otherwise they would just be paying a boatload of money so someone can rip on your next Metal of Honor.

Anybody that follows game reviews alone will miss the opportunity to play some really great games.

Posted: Jul 6th 2007 1:04PM chrisgrant said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
kennethrios: constantly. We either send a local writer, pay for the trip out of our own pocket, or don't go.

Posted: Jul 6th 2007 1:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wonder if the gaming press is more susceptible to the "perks" of junkets compared to other brands of journalism.

There are members of the gaming press who want to enter the industry rather than report about it. This can lead to a big conflict of interest as they try to network with developers or publishers to break into the industry.

Posted: Jul 6th 2007 2:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It means a lot to me as a reader that Joystiq doesn't let their writers go to paid junkets. I understand that I'm just one guy, and my opinion counts the same as millions of people who couldn't care less. But I just wanted to say thanks.

Posted: Jul 6th 2007 3:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"This is why the gaming press is rarely taken seriously."

Is it? Can you say the same for film, music, tech, food, booze, fashion writers as well? All of those industries use the junket and/or freebie model.

It seems like there's a much larger problem in video game journalism than writers taking trips to see a game (or even getting free copies of game for review)... poor writing, trading off journalistic skepticism for blatant fanboy-ism, the staid notion that video games are for kids and not a mass market entertainment option, and then the resulting lack of financial support for video game publications.. And the list goes on...

Posted: Jul 6th 2007 3:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Isn't Game Informer owned by GameStop? Isn't it Game Informer's job to hype the crap out of everything so that GameStop sells plenty of copies of games like Spider-man 3? Don't get me wrong, I dig a lot of the other articles, previews and screen shots that GI provides, but I just can't take their reviews seriously.

Posted: Jul 6th 2007 5:40PM chrisgrant said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thanks, Dirk. It definitely puts us at a competitive disadvantage. It's *great* to hear that some readers (even just one) actually appreciate that.

-c

Posted: Jul 7th 2007 1:02AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I was not specifically aware of this practice, but I was very aware that the video game reviews they have in my local newspaper are complete and utter trash. Gaming magazines are obviously a step above, but still I've been burned by many a horrible review. The internet is simply _the_ place to go for good game journalism.

Remember the youth of the medium. It seems like there are many in the print medium, at least I'm thinking of a few newspaper guys that make me want to vomit, who are journalists who used to cover something else (TV or film or some such entertainment medium). But one sunny day, their editors discovered video games, searched their staff, found Bob, a guy who seemed geeky and was known to "like video games," and so gave him a column.

Apart from the blatantly immoral reviewers (who are in all probability a very minor problem), the reason why these so-called game journalists are so swayed by these junkets is that they do not have a strong understanding or affection for the medium.

An example: can you imagine Gabe or Tycho of PA going to a junket, seeing a shitty game, and through "whatever" means being swayed to call it anything but shit?

However, take Gabe or Tycho, give them hookers and caviar, and send them to the latest ballet. Their review? "Best ballet ever."

And this bad journalism survives, even seems to flourish, because game journalists are writing for an audience that, speaking for the vast majority who buy games, has little experience or understanding of games. The article on "licensed titles" being a gold mine for THQ the other day comes to mind. These examples of games like Spiderman 3 outselling paragons like Psychonauts to such a ridiculous degree are not because of the diabolical machinations of the industry, that secret cabal of reviewers and developers. Or rather, that is simply a cause that is enabled by another: the youth of the medium. Game journalism will not shake out the wheat from the chaff, the greens from the purples, until it has a market that can recognize quality in games, and therefore, as a side effect, recognize those journalists who do not convey that quality accurately (for whatever reason) in their reviews.

Admittedly, the equivalent of Spiderman 3/ Psychonauts happens in music and film all the time. How many best-selling pop albums are total shit and will be completely forgotten, or only remembered as kitsch, a decade from now? However, over time, with the expansion of the medium and the education of its viewers, something else has arisen alongside all that is bad: an audience for good work. There is a space for truly good music or film, produced both within the mainstream industry structures and outside of it. So too has good journalism arisen to service that audience.

There is the problem. Forget the junkets. They are only notable insofar as they lead people to believe games are no more than amusing yet quickly stale toys, and so retard the develop of an audience for good games.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW