lonelypanda

It's indicative of the greater problem with game journalists: they have distanced themselves greatly through their elitist culture.

They are so deep in their circle jerk (which was primarily GameJournoPros purpose) that they grow out of touch with the public. I have a lot of respect for someone like Jim Sterling who is very, very popular (drove half of Dtoid's traffic while I was there) but is decidedly against being part of the private cooljournobros club.

Dug through my email last night and found one where a writer linked Russ Pits saying 9/10 people on GameJournoPros said they want industry jobs. Sterling said that's one of many reasons he'd never join. I laughed.

Reasonable? If they don't, they are hacks.

No Editor-in-Chief should let someone with financial or personal ties to a developer review their game, and if they have to for some ridiculous reason then all possible ties should be revealed on the page itself (not some staff page no one will look at, Polygon).

"But Roger Ebert!" -- but Roger Ebert also paid his own way for press trips and was never afraid to give negative reviews of friends' films (also, even he flat out shouldn't have reviewed them). Show me examples of negative reviews of friends' games from game critics.

Gaming journalism is hitting a lot more speedbumps than any other form of media journalism, but it's also a younger industry full of younger people (many are only now hitting their 30s and having families).

Gaming journalism is just a much stranger beast as well. No other media has as many events like games (PAX, constant press junkets, award shows), so it brings journalists closer together. This doesn't always result in good things, however. It's my personal view that outlets should be somewhat distanced and critical of one another. But in game journalism it's a huge no-no to publicly say anything against another publication. I bet outlets wanted to talk mess about Polygon's Bayonetta 2 review, but it would have been discouraged by superiors. This results in the public feeling they are colluding and in a way they are by not sharing their honest opinions publicly. I can say there was a lot of shit talking about other sites behind the scenes at sites I worked at -- in most cases, these should have been made public and open to discussion.

Do you think Pauline Kael would have pushed movie journalism forward had she not constantly battled other critics and publications? Journalism shouldn't be a cooperative business; it should be a competitive one. And, it is when it comes to reporting, but not so much elsewhere.

A reviewer can criticize Bayonetta 2 for its portrayal of its main character. A review can also criticize Borderlands The Prequel for its character that repeatedly mentions she's a lesbian without much relevancy or character depth, as if the writer wants a pat on the back for including a minority. Both are political views I've seen in game reviews. They are subjective views.

How these subjective views effect the Metacritic score that effects pay at companies is none of the critics' business. His or her business is writing true and from the heart.

You don't stare into the Metacritic abyss. It serves the system, you do not serve it as a critic.

No. I hope the journalists know this. I do worry they have been suspiciously silent about the articles concerning me because of this aspect.

I knew about the blacklist first hand, a year ago. I looked into legal action against Destructoid -- if only to clear my name about the fact I was never given an order to not post -- but it would have been long and costly.

Libel really isn't worth the trouble, especially for someone like me who was planning to leave game journalism anyway and wants to do constructive things in life (which don't usually occur in court).