Are They Mistakes, or Are They Mistaken?

GameDaily recently got some attention in certain circles for their recent feature on "7 Bad Mistakes that Good Game Journalists Make." I thought I'd widen that circle a bit by adding my own comments on GD's comments. I recommend reading the article first, but if you don't want to I've included the seven "mistakes" and a quote representative of the argument for each below.



1. Right Reviewer Wrong Game

"A brutal review based on the game's merits is one thing. Being summarily dismissed because of the game's topic is quite another."



Sadly, I see this problem as endemic to the video game journalism beast. Because of the sheer number and variety of games released and the amount of time required to play even the best one's fully, it's almost impossible to find a reviewer that is equally well versed in all genres of games. Without having access to anyone with such breadth, magazines are forced to employ a variety of reviewers with depth in a few specialized genres and distribute the relevant reviews to them accordingly. This becomes a problem when a game comes along that none of the reviewers is particularly well-equipped to speak about from experience, as is bound to happen to even the best-staffed publications.



2. The Preview Gloss

However, judging games by previews is like hooking up at last call. You go home at 2 with 10 and wake up at 10 with a 2.



I'm in almost total agreement here. I rarely read the previews anymore if there is other unread content in a publication simply because I know exactly how each of them will read. When every single preview is so glowing, simply reading the table of contents is enough to know which games the publication will be gushing about for months to come. Then again, making previews more scathing would likely lead to less press access when the next big name game comes around.



One possible solution: make previews more descriptive and less subjective. Talk about the game's, how far it is in development, get some quotes from the developer and tell the readers to expect a review when it comes out. The previews might be a little drier, but they'll be loads fairer.



3. The Email Interview

Lazy interviews are usually less informative than reprinted press releases.



I disagree that an e-mail interview is neccesarily more "lazy" than a phone interview. If the journalist does his research beforehand and carefully considers his questions in advance, an e-mail interview can be just as interesting as a phone interview. Allowing the interviewee to prepare their response can also lead to fewer unchecked facts being inadvertantly thrown about. Also, in my experience, e-mail is often the only option when journalist and interviewee schedules are simply incompatible. I do agree that follow-up questions are a good policy, though, even if they can't be immediate in e-mail interviews.



4. Yesterday's News

Since the days of Next Generation magazine, no magazine has affirmatively taken steps to establish itself as the industry's authoritative feature publication



If we ever see a magazine that handles news features as well as Next Generation, you can be sure I'll be a subscriber. Unfortunately, the Internet has made print magazines neglect news rather than develop it into something deeper than the same press release blrubs that were on the Internet weeks ago. This development would take a large investment of money and manpower, but I think the first publication willing to risk it will see good return on their investment.



5. Copy Cat Features

Deja vu is sometimes unsettling and almost always boring.



As far as game-related features go, this is almost to be expected. Certain games get so much grass roots hype that gamers simply clamor for all the information they can get, which forces magazines to cover them as much as they can. I agree, though, that features that aren't directly related to a specific game could use some spicing up. More creative, broad and in-depth looks at the artistic, business, and cultural sides of gaming could do wonders for expanding the appeal of these publications.



6. The "Look what we got!" Stories

More stories about random free stuff mean fewer stories focusing on deserving games.



Yeah, that's pretty much true, although so far most publications seem to have kept this kind of thing contained to one or two pages in the back. Then again, I think that if a magazine is going to call itself a video game magazine, it should completely eliminate everything that doesn't relate to video game in at least some indirect manner. Leave the article on anime, comics and "gear" to magazines that focus on these things or to multi-purpose magazines. If you're going to have a video game focus, stay focused on it.



7. Summary Strategies

With such limitations on space, the focus for magazine strategies has to be laser sharp or else it's worthless.



In its waning years, I remember Next Generation trying out a new section that brought game strategies direct from the developer. These articles provided gameplay tips but also some insight on the game design process. Unfortunately, they were still strategy guides, and therefore of limited interest to anyone who hadn't actually played the game. The same goes for less ambitious magazine strategies -- most of your readership probably hasn't played any given game and therefore much of your strategy space is as good as wasted on them.