At GDC there was a panel of game critics fielding questions from developers and dealing with the writing side of the industry. It's quite interesting and excerpts are now up on Gamasutra. The discussion centered around things like; do you need to have a degree to have the job, the difference between a games journalist and games critic and how gaming blogs like Kotaku may be creating incendiary issues in order to draw views. The article's a fairly good read and, as someone in that line of work, I'd like to hear any thoughts you guys have. Personally, I don't have a degree in Journalism and I don't see that as an essential asset. In fact, I don't know a journalist in any sector who does have a degree (except one music journalist currently studying). My degrees are English Linguistics and Creative Writing - which obviously helps in this line of work to some extent, but does bring some raised eyebrows. So, I thought I'd open it up to you guys and see what many of you think about gaming scores, qualifications and the roles of the writer. That one in particular made me laugh - I have my own cynical thoughts about 1-Ups scoring change.
An interest, a passion, time management, being able to easilly get on with people and an ability to write extremely well seems to me to be the key factors. Whilst I wouldn't say Joe's degree taught him to write well, the fact he did a Creative Writing and English Lit degree (one combined degree, not two different ones as the sneaky swine made out in the OP), is indicative of the fact he could write well anyway. You should read some of his short stories, they vary from the bizzare to the downright creepy (remember the one about Nath killing everyone at school with a hand granade Joe?), but I will admit, they're very good. The skills needed I'd image many people possess, so the real key to getting into the industry is getting experience and knowing the right people. Get your name out, meet some people, have your work on display, and be vigilent. But hell what do I know, I'm in market research.
I agree. Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw definitely exhibits these characteristics - has anyone read his novel "Something"? It's all about Ninjas and Pirates, which is extremely entertaining, as are his reviews. All the reviewers on BT have a flair that you don't usually find on other sites/reviews either. It's something bordering on the positively loony, but then it brings extra to the reviews but also allows them to get their point across more concisely.
What shocked me most of all was the fact that Kotaku writers are paid per post, then given bonuses based on pageviews - which obviously encourages incendiary titles and daily mail style write-ups. Do any of you see an implicit difference between games critics and games journalists? How do these expectations apply to hardware writers like Tim and Bindi? That's more what I was interested in, not giving myself an ego massage (Penny Arcade do that for me )
The way I see it (and this is only an interpretation of titles), Critics write about/review specific games, journalists write about the industry as a whole. Both jobs, however, can be done by the same person. It definitely applies to Hardware writers, take Rich's "Misinterpreting the Enthusiast" Comment, as well as his specific hardware reviews. It's good to be able to take a step back and analyse the industry that you normally look at only on the product level. The revelation of kotaku's model is a bit of a disappointment really. I know you normally have to take their articles with a grain of salt because they are so Mail-esque, but I didn't think that that was caused by this. Hmmm.
I think that's a general Gawker type thing though. But it means that they have to write what interests us, not what interests them, so yes, you get more sensationalist posts, but you also find that they have no fear, look at the PSHome debacle, look at how they declared Phil Harrison was going to Atari first, they do odd things, they get the reward.
When I write a review, I have it very clear in my mind that this is my opinion. I'm not so egotistical to think that my reviews are going to change the world, but I do bear in mind that at least a couple of people might base their buying decision on my review. Being a critic isn't all about criticism - my job, as I see it, is to review a game and to present both the good points as well as the bad points. That way, if someone doesn't agree with my score, at least they should have enough information to make up their own minds. I hope that manages to come across in my reviews. I think all bit reviewers manage the neutrality aspect very well, and I think that's why they're respected in the industry. I don't think any reviewer or journalist should be paid on click through rates or anything similar. Having worked with sales & telesales teams in the past, I know that that kind of incentive only leads to people over-emphasising or "sexing up" information to make it appear more important than it is, and thus getting themselves more money.
The is a black and white difference between journalism and critics. Just as I see a difference between a Hardware review and a Game review. Journalism, to me, should be unbiased on factual subjects like industry news. And in the case of articals (like those in “Bits” and “Columns”) should contain both unbiased fact and educated expert opinion of the journalist. Expert being the key. Also, being able to wax lyrical on a give subject is fine, but being able to keep the reader hooked is the mark of a better journo. This is the same for both Hardware and Games. Critics are different. But I think only for Games. Give the newest piece of Hardware to 10 different reviewers and they can each benchmark it. Differing rigs and benchmarking software can be used but the end results quantifiable. You know that they have based the outcome on something you can physically replicate. Give the newest Game to 10 different reviewers and they can play it. Different rigs and formats may be used but the end results are from a personal experience. “Game experience may differ on-line”, well, game experience differs from person to person. In this case the person is an expert in the field, they should be able to point out good and bad, their opinion counts more as it should be able to be taken in context. But benchmarking personal experience is not possible – scores are only a well informed choice. ??
