Module 4: Writing About Games

Module 4:  Writing about games 

This week's module was about game journalism.  There are many games out there that we as gamers will see trailers or articles of in game magazines and think that a game looks really cool.  We know that new games are expensive, though, so we read reviews to try to figure out if the game is worth its money.  This is where we run into a problem:  the reviews in game magazines are written by game journalists, not gamers.

From this week's discussion forum, here are the relationships between game consumers, game publishers, game makers, and game journalists:

• Game makers make a game and give a build (sometimes beta, sometimes finished) to game publishers.
• Game publishers make a deal with game journalists, offering them early access to the game (as well as money) in exchange for non-critical reviews.
• Game journalists play the game with little regard to the series or its fans, and give a review based on experience and how it compares to "back of the box" claims.
• Consumers read the articles written by game journalists and decide whether or not to buy it based on the experience of the journalists.
• Feedback from the consumers can make it or break it for the game makers.
• Game publishers generally care more about a game's sales, not its perception. After all, they always have other franchises.
  • If sales are good, regardless of how the game was percieved, the publisher will pressure the game makers into making a sequel
  • If sales are bad, even if consumers gave overwhelmingly positive feedback, a publisher will often drop the series, leaving the game makers to find another publisher or drop the series entirely, effectively ending the series without sequels.
• Game makers care more about keeping their fans. 
  • If the game is bad, they will use the feedback to patch the current game, or ensure that the sequel improves on the flaws of the previous game. 
  • Sometimes, a game maker will cut their losses and end the series and start over, if the reputation of the game's intellectual property has been tarnished.
  • If the game is well percieved by fans, the game makers will want to keep their fans happy and release DLC and sequels.  The good game makers become indie developers or change publishers to not be pressured by a publisher to cancel their series.  If the fans want it, sales will increase with sequels and DLC packs.  Free DLC packs with few paid DLC packs are best for attracting fans and keeping current fans.
  
  The problem here is that the evaluation copy given to game journalists may end up having a completely different gameplay experience by the time of release.  Game journalists also cannot properly review the multiplayer portions of a game as the community for the game does not exist yet.
  
  Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 (known as Sonic '06) was one of the worst videogames in history and has ruined the blue hedgehog's reputation ever since.  The game was a mess, with several game-breaking bugs, glitches, and lag spikes.  However, Play Magazine, a UK game magazine, rated the game 8.5/10.  Game Rankings gave the game a 48.74% on the Xbox 360 and is still on the first page of worst Xbox 360 games.  Game Rankings is less  (Source:  http://sega.wikia.com/wiki/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_2006      At the bottom of the page under "reception")  The trouble is, because Play Magazine is a product of game journalism, Sega may have given them an earlier build that had less bugs than the final game.  Play magazine was too afraid to be critical, in fear of backlash from Sega.
  
  Today, game journalism is slowly dying.  Steam and other digital platforms are becoming the norm.  These platforms now offer the ability for gamers to write their own reviews, resulting in much better critical reviews from people that actually play games.  Most print game magazines in the US no longer exist.  People are going to be less likely to listen to game journalists and listen more to the critical reviews of other users due to the simple fact that lots of things change between a beta and a stable release.  Batman Arkham Knight for instance, got people's hopes up with trailers, articles in gaming magazines, etc.  What we got instead was one of the worst PC ports of all time, to the point where Rocksteady recalled the PC copy for several months due to it's poor performance.  Broken ports like this have shown that game journalists are more like game news reporters.  They don't really see the whole picture like gamers do.  They don't really experience the game, they only play it.