On gaming journalism ethics (so not gamergate).
The recent gamergate dickery has at least made me consider the way games are reviewed in at least tabletop gaming. I do remember becoming a little despairing so many years ago reading computer magazines and seeing games being lauded as the greatest thing ever when they weren't necessarily quite that good. So do the (very) few gamergate enthusiasts ranting about ethics in journalism have a point? To a certain degree they do, but actually only because the industry is probably quite nice.
To offer my credentials, I've written plenty of tabletop games myself but also reviewed quite a few. Not as many as I'd like, but it gets tricky when you know more of the creators as friends - and I'll come back to that. I've done amateur reviews for websites and been part of a more professional team writing them for magazines. So I feel I have a pretty good grasp of the set up.
To be fair while I can't really talk about computer gaming, I think some of my experiences reviewing games for role-playing are close enough. Both industries share a subculture and a certain crossover. When I consider what I know of reviewing, yes indeed there is a bias in many ways, but not for the reasons the gamergate idiots would have you believe.
The truth is, it is very hard to write a bad review of something. Not because you are sleeping with the designer or because of an international conspiracy. Simply put, its hard to write a bad review if you aren't a dick. Let me explain.
In any small industry, it is very easy for the creators and consumers to meet and mix with each other. If you are one of the few professional reviewers it is even easier to hang out with the people who make the games. That makes it really hard to say horrible things about their work, and for a good reason. Firstly you might like them as a person, and while you should only judge the work it is likely you'll try and be critical in a more reasoned and polite way. This is also a good idea as you might meet them at a party. Charlie Brooker mentioned this as a problem when he started doing TV reviews. He started railing about various programmes but it is hard to maintain your bile when you discover the creator is actually a really nice person.
I don't see this as a problem. Many good reviewers write critical but polite reviews and maintain good relationships with the creators they review. The trick is to be articulate, incisive and reasonable in your response, which is what any good review is. Sure, there are those who like to write and read bad reviews to take something apart, and some are even funny. But those reviews are usually so full of hyperbole they fail to function as decent reviews. Better an ocean of positive but well written reviews than a 'balance' of comedy rants masquerading as reviews.
The other reason you see good reviews more often is that bad products don't inspire them. Most game reviews are done by amateurs who love games. Even if you work for a magazine, you are going to ask to review things you are predisposed to like. No one wants to read/play a game to completion that they don't like. Sometimes a game lets you down, but there will usually be something to recommend it. Especially as very, very few products are so awful there is nothing good to say about them. Once in a while something comes along that you loathe and despise. But most of the time you write a review because you really like something and want to tell people about it. This is especially true for the amateur (by which I mean unpaid rather than substandard) reviewers who actually make up most of the reviewers these days. This doesn't mean you are writing a bad review, but it does self-select positive reviews.
Finally of course, there is opinion. Reviews are only only really useful if you know the reviewer and understand what they like and how it relates to what you like. For every game someone loves, there is someone who loathes it. Just because the reviewer loved it and you hated it does not mean only one of you can be right, or that they wrote a bad or corrupt review. It is a reviewer's job to give you an insight into the product and an informed opinion about its worth. It is not their job to tear apart something you don't like or treat your favourite game like the second coming. Either is a waste of everyone's time.
So there you have it. No conspiracy, no favouritism, no bribes. Just a positive tilt due to people working on something they love with people they like. That is one thing I hope isn't going to change anytime soon.
To offer my credentials, I've written plenty of tabletop games myself but also reviewed quite a few. Not as many as I'd like, but it gets tricky when you know more of the creators as friends - and I'll come back to that. I've done amateur reviews for websites and been part of a more professional team writing them for magazines. So I feel I have a pretty good grasp of the set up.
To be fair while I can't really talk about computer gaming, I think some of my experiences reviewing games for role-playing are close enough. Both industries share a subculture and a certain crossover. When I consider what I know of reviewing, yes indeed there is a bias in many ways, but not for the reasons the gamergate idiots would have you believe.
The truth is, it is very hard to write a bad review of something. Not because you are sleeping with the designer or because of an international conspiracy. Simply put, its hard to write a bad review if you aren't a dick. Let me explain.
In any small industry, it is very easy for the creators and consumers to meet and mix with each other. If you are one of the few professional reviewers it is even easier to hang out with the people who make the games. That makes it really hard to say horrible things about their work, and for a good reason. Firstly you might like them as a person, and while you should only judge the work it is likely you'll try and be critical in a more reasoned and polite way. This is also a good idea as you might meet them at a party. Charlie Brooker mentioned this as a problem when he started doing TV reviews. He started railing about various programmes but it is hard to maintain your bile when you discover the creator is actually a really nice person.
I don't see this as a problem. Many good reviewers write critical but polite reviews and maintain good relationships with the creators they review. The trick is to be articulate, incisive and reasonable in your response, which is what any good review is. Sure, there are those who like to write and read bad reviews to take something apart, and some are even funny. But those reviews are usually so full of hyperbole they fail to function as decent reviews. Better an ocean of positive but well written reviews than a 'balance' of comedy rants masquerading as reviews.
The other reason you see good reviews more often is that bad products don't inspire them. Most game reviews are done by amateurs who love games. Even if you work for a magazine, you are going to ask to review things you are predisposed to like. No one wants to read/play a game to completion that they don't like. Sometimes a game lets you down, but there will usually be something to recommend it. Especially as very, very few products are so awful there is nothing good to say about them. Once in a while something comes along that you loathe and despise. But most of the time you write a review because you really like something and want to tell people about it. This is especially true for the amateur (by which I mean unpaid rather than substandard) reviewers who actually make up most of the reviewers these days. This doesn't mean you are writing a bad review, but it does self-select positive reviews.
Finally of course, there is opinion. Reviews are only only really useful if you know the reviewer and understand what they like and how it relates to what you like. For every game someone loves, there is someone who loathes it. Just because the reviewer loved it and you hated it does not mean only one of you can be right, or that they wrote a bad or corrupt review. It is a reviewer's job to give you an insight into the product and an informed opinion about its worth. It is not their job to tear apart something you don't like or treat your favourite game like the second coming. Either is a waste of everyone's time.
So there you have it. No conspiracy, no favouritism, no bribes. Just a positive tilt due to people working on something they love with people they like. That is one thing I hope isn't going to change anytime soon.