GameSpy wishes for the Fallout fans to die

[Krafter]

Great stuff, Fez. It's substance like that which keeps me here and away from IGN, Gamespot, ect. This thread has been a great read.

 

[deadairis]

Honestly, vitriol aside: what do you want from a preview?
It sounds like you want a refresh of previous reviews -- which, as you said, google does better -- or a review of the game -- which, as I've said and stand by, is dishonest at best.

What would you have wanted from the Madden preview? Because, despite your distaste for it, it actually is acceptable, by industry standards. I don't think I've contradicted the blog I linked to in any way -- please, show me where I have.

But it sounds like you wouldn't have been happy with anything but slashing into the preview stuff we saw. We didn't see enough to slash at it. Problems that got brought up or questioned about were either a) explained as something being fixed or b) not on the table for discussion.

So, what? We should just beat the devs until they answer? Or should we just rail on what we didn't like in last years game -- when discussing what we've found out about this year's game? Or this game instead of the other one like it? I understand screaming at the media because you wish they'd show some spine, but what you're actually asking for -- critical previews to the scale you're describing -- can only get done, realistically, by making stuff up.

Critical previews, no. To the scale that it seems like you want? Yes. There were issues with the Madden stuff I saw -- and you know, I mentioned them. Do you want a preview that says "Those damned dirty Madden devs are liars! Don't trust them!"? Fair enough. It's irresponsible reporting, and that's that, unless you can point to something they said and show where it isn't true. I honestly don't think that you can write a "preview" that's just a editorial rant. It has to actually discuss what you actually know, not what you think, or guess, or are angry about but can't substantiate.

Honestly, previews need to present the new information and -- I feel -- whatever expert analysis is available. The fifth DragonNarutoTenchu game in a month may not need much (or it might; Ubi's new Naruto game looks cool). If all you're writing the preview on is the slides EA provides, where do you expect "critical analysis?" I think pointing out that EA has promised the sky is plenty, honestly. It means that readers get
a) the same information I did, but also
b) the benefit of my experience of having caught plenty of EA previews before.
There wasn't anything else to point out to be critical of. They showed positive stuff and answers about negative stuff were positive. Would it be fun to say "But they're liars, so hahah, this game will probably suck!"? Maybe. But it wouldn't be responsible, and from my perspective it wouldn't be honest.


Honestly, you may not think so, but the majority opinion of my employers and audience is that I do my job fine. I don't need your advice on how to do it. I'd like your opinion on how my outlet -- GameSpy, currently -- can make content that actually matters to someone like you, who we've clearly lost. So, please. "Your incompetence at your job is your own problem. Other journalists and reporters mange to do their job in other fields without me holding their hands and drying their eyes, despite formidable barriers." No, not really the issue.

The issue I see is that fans of gaming in your general set -- I'll call them the "super-hardcore" -- are percieved as largely having given up on the gaming media, except as fun whipping boys. I think it's safe to say that the perception goes the other way as well. My job doesn't include re-enfranchising that group, but this seems like a good chance to make some inroads into figuring out how.

As for people not being able to find the review scale? It's right there on our site. It's right there on rotten tomatoes. Do people not understand that the scale is such and such?

Tough. They're willfully ignorant. Their choice.

As for review scores, I think your assumptions are just...well, sadly flawed. I've written for a lot of places. I know a lot of the community that generates the stuff you're talking about. We're not creating scores to placate publishers. The scale that's grown up is based on the American school system scale. That's it. There's no grand conspiracy; the guys at IGN aren't getting dollars for review points. I mean, it's a lovely thought, but it's just fantasy.

Do I wish the scale averaged differently? Doesn't really matter. The scale is internally consistent, so it still serves its purpose.

As for old scores? Well, much as it may irk me or you, but it seems like an awful lot of people think Madden is good, man. Consistently, worth buyingly, good. And for Daikatana, a game with no sequel for fans to punish by not buying, well -- it got #4 on GameSpy's most overrated games of all time as well.

So, what would you prefer from that preview? I'm really curious.
A rehash of the review of the last game?

Might be better than a rehash of the company's PR statement. Probably just as useful. Silly. The article you linked to already pointed out the flaws in it. Are you going to flip-flop on that now and say it is a bad article? There's no point to your previews when every one is gushing hype or points out nonsense such as how promising it is, despite the fact it has the stink of failure from all the games that came before it from that studio. He's clearly stating there is a fundamental problem with the previews as they are with these places. If you don't even understand that basic element of the article then why did you link to it?

These cutting insights you're hoping for from talking to the devs, or the PR people -- how do you suggest we get them. I'm welcome to suggestions. There's a reason PR people make lots of money, and that's because they control information.

Your incompetence at your job is your own problem. Other journalists and reporters mange to do their job in other fields without me holding their hands and drying their eyes, despite formidable barriers. The lack of any balance to the hype by even mentioning that the rest of the studio's games were were turds and so on is bad enough that you should realise it, especially after that article has pointed it out to you. How about more real opinions? More tips and info based on past experience, things like every other game they made was shit, would be damned useful to know. Saying "it has lots of promise" is useless and not informative or critical. It's as generic and meaningless as the "EXCLUSIVE!!!!!" on the cover of a magazine. I don't know if you and the others really get so giddy with excitement each and every time, but it'd be nice if it could be tempered somewhat.

I mean, what do you want? I was honest about what I saw; honest about its implications; honest about how far implications are from finished product. What should the preview have been? A rant against EA? Why bother talking about the game at all, huh? It sounds like you don't want a preview, just slams.

Strawman nonsense, no one mentioned a rant against EA. I already mentioned problems with it and so did he. The article you linked to criticised it, but you're not even going to admit or accept it now? Are you going to sulk and say "YOU JUST WANT SLAMS " because I agree with what you linked to? The omissions are where the dishonesty comes in. You can make almost anything sound good by omitting or glossing over the bad. The time and effort you spend on balancing it is where the tone of the preview or review comes.

No, I want a critic. You are not a critic or critical when you act in such a manner. You are a mouth for the PR agents and nothing more when you fail to use your knowledge and position properly. What's the point of you rehashing the PR statement and blurb? You may as well just link to the official website, but then Google does the job better if I'm looking for that and you wouldn't get any revenue that way. Reviews and previews should be critical of the product and mention concerns or flaws in what you've seen so far. Make some real dammed predictions from your knowledge, personal experience and opinions.

Why are gaming journalists such whipped dogs? I've never seen such weak reporters in any other industry. If you don't have anything to add to the press statement that goes with your preview then why bother at all? A preview and even the press release info can show problems ahead on the horizon, plenty of stinkers have been predicted by looking at what the developers and publishers are putting out before release. Previews don't have to look like you are hoping one day to get head-hunted as a PR agent.

"Very misleading, confusing and dishonest." (regarding 8 being average -- which, at gamespy, it isn't). Really? Is that because you didn't read the review scale?
Because we publish ours, right by our scores, with a link to the full explanation.

RottenTomatoes and other metacritic sites disagree with that sentiment. At Rotten Tomatoes they've made it clear that due to the blatant and over the top hype of gaming critics they need 80%+ for it to get a Fresh rating. It's a symptom of the rating inflation. Anything above 50% should be above average if people were honest, not 80%. Intuitively people will expect halfway to be average, but you and I know that the little lies and pushing up of scores is easy to live with when you can just blame the customer for being wilfully ignorant or saying "Too bad". This feat of gymnastics to fudge the data is their only way of trying to cope with the mainstream gaming industries flawed system. A system that you defend by saying "Too bad" and adding to with yet more hype and inflated scores to keep the publishers happy. This is to not only make the scores and reviews usable to the average Joe, but to try and make it more like all the rest of the industries which have a more honest and critical system in place. The fact they have to do that at all gives everyone a showing up.

Although most publishers rate games on a 1-10 scale, it is a rarity for a game to get a score below 6. Because game reviews are mostly positive (a very high majority fall in the 7-10 range), the cutoff for a Fresh Tomato is raised to 8/10. This higher cutoff actually produces a wider spread of Tomatometer scores that is equivalent to movies; otherwise, almost all games are recommended!

"Almost all games are recommended!" That is the impression that is given to the average reader. The ones who aren't huge nerds who simply find out for themselves because they know not to trust your misleading scores. If you don't see anything wrong with someone having to do that to make your scores actually mean something then there is something seriously wrong with you.

So what in your opinion is average at GameSpy then because I'd love to know? So 3/5 for the ultimate stink fest that was Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel seems reasonable? What about Daiktana, a legendary bad game, which got 74% and a lovely quote to go on the box "The graphics may be dated, but it's the most fun I've had in a single-player first person shooter since Half-Life." They must have loved that little quote and score to slap on the box. "MOST FUN I'VE HAD SINCE HALF LIFE!!!". I've played that game and when I read that I thought: What did you do to him since Half-Life? Lock him in a box full of rats? Poor bastard.

In both cases -- people not reading a review and getting burned, or people not bothering to click the "what does this review score mean" -- right or wrong, it's because those people are being willfully ignorant.

Or it's because your reviews are too positive in tone, giving the impression of a much better game while you gloss over problems and rarely go in depth into them. It isn't all the customers who are wrong, it's you. Other industries manage to do it properly and keep the customers right. They don't resort to going in a huff and blaming the customer with "Too bad" when scores and reviews are misleading. The customers aren't "willfully ignorant". They simply lack the time and devotion that extreme nerds like us poor fools have to spend on games. That doesn't make them a lesser person, not everyone can be an expert on everything, it only means they are more vulnerable to the dishonest. Try taking some responsibility with your job. Dust off those ethics and have some care for the readers rather than not giving a shit and saying "too bad FUCKA SUCKA" every time you fail.

Don't realize that Madden 08 might be related to Madden 07? Don't bother to check the review score, and join the hordes of Madden fans who buy it every year -- regardless?.

GameSpy has given the Madden games 80%+ scores for years now, which means it is great and you totally recommend it to the customers. What are you on about? Are your customers all a horde of mindless scum to you because they take what you say at face value rather than having to read between the lines? They should know better than to accept years worth of writing saying how AWESOME they all are? If you are hyping the hell out of a game and giving it top marks all over the place again and again then you should expect people to buy it as they are assuming that you are honest and upfront when you recommend a product. Breaking their trust and brushing it off with a "TOO BAD SUCKA; I GOT PAID" only shows someone up as a careless hack rather than the guardian that is meant to help them avoid the minefield of awful games out there.

People who see a review score and are mislead or confused when the scale is right there to understand, and conforms to the (right or wrong) widely-known standard?

The problem is that it isn't as "widely-known" as you might expect. While you are I know about the ridiculous scoring system that most (not all) so-called critics use to keep the gaming publishers happy, the average Joe tends not to be as savvy about these things and it is he who is most likely to need a good and critical review to make up for the knowledge he does not have, not the gaming nerds that make up the writers or fans "in the know". You or I know better than to trust your previews and reviews and to read between the lines, but poor old Joe believes in you and doesn't realise that you don't care about him and are happy to perpetuate the system of skewed reviews and hyped previews.

The huge gaming nerds who follow it on the net will know it's a stinker by following it in the same way as the nerds for any game or medium. Most people will assume that 4/5 means its almost certainly worth spending money on to see or reading if it was movies, shows or books. With games it is totally different from the accepted practice of all other industries and therefore bound to be misleading. Who in their right mind would spend money on Daikatana when they could spend it on any number of better games or products? Instead I'm told it's the most fun ever since Half-Life so I should totally spend my money on that instead of other games or anything else.

Perhaps if you made some attempt to change the obviously wrong "standard" (only a standard for shameless money-grubbing sources like IGN and so on, why follow that lead when you know yourself it is wrong?) of hype and inflated scores your industry wouldn't be considered so pathetic by other professionals. To scared to do your own thing?

You aren't the worst (and this rant isn't aimed directly at you but rather the fetid carcass of gaming journalism) IGN and co. have done as bad or worse in their time (such as what you pointed out earlier), but then it's like saying the rapist who didn't kill the kid afterwards isn't as bad. They're still all shitty. Shamelessly pouting your lip and saying "Too bad" when you fail your customers, dance to the PR and publishers tune and make no attempt at serious journalism is why gaming journalism is a joke and seen as generally dishonest or ridiculous by anyone in the know.

Wouldn't you rather have an industry that didn't use such dishonest methods of carefully omitting facts? GameSpy gave IGN a showing up with that preview as IGN didn't even mention the source at all, giving a very different impression. Don't you see anything wrong with the industry when that is what people in the know come to expect from the mainstream? It is probably the least professional and ethical branch of journalism. It's mostly rotten and it is a damned shame.

Like I said, don't take this personally. You're just the only one decent or daft enough to hang around and argue it out. :wink:

 

[deadairis]

You've got a very funny view of how journalists -- gaming or not -- work. I don't think I've argued against sourcing, or against fact-checking. But you seem to make my point for me: "EVERYONE is too stupid to do that."

Until you remedy this situation (not being omniscient), you ought to include quotes/references/sources.

So, hopefully, right next to each other, this will be clear: you're trying to convince me of something I don't have any argument for. Your posts start near what we're talking about...and just seem to drift further and further.

Let's reiterate:
Me: I don't think I've argued against sourcing, or against fact-checking.
You: Until you remedy this situation (not being omniscient), you ought to include quotes/references/sources.

Um.
Yeah, so, what's your point? Did you really build to this whole point to agree with me in the most roundabout way possible?

Well, no because your thesis statement is that the entire way news is disseminated and published is wrong and it should be done your way -- which sounds a lot like academic discussion, which works great if everyone involved is an expert.

Modern news systems have worked -- by which I mean, fostered services that the consumer felt worth their wages -- for so long because they manage to create information in a manageable way for people. I'm sorry you don't think it's right, but I still think that its centuries of managing to get the word out to a number of people that makes the effort worthwhile outweighs your estrangement from the system.

 

[AnalogKid]

Modern news systems have worked -- by which I mean, fostered services that the consumer felt worth their wages -- for so long because they manage to create information in a manageable way for people. I'm sorry you don't think it's right, but I still think that its centuries of managing to get the word out to a number of people that makes the effort worthwhile outweighs your estrangement from the system.

And here's where your thesis is fucked. The CONSUMERS DON'T PAY YOU. The developers do, through adds on your site. Mainstream gaming "reviews" are the equivalent of an infomercial, as long as it's flashy, interesting, and upbeat, enough people will take a look-see to keep the add revenue flowing. the system you describe, where consumers find value in your crap and pay for it, is SIMPLY NOT EXISTENT. Your shit-shovelling has to appease the developers more than serve the customers, something you've already admitted to many times on pages 3-7. I'll try to summarize the problem with your position, with exaggeration for clarity:

- My goal is to package and filter everything without providing direct references to the "raw" content
- I need to maintain developer relations so that I have content to attract "consumers" to my infomercials
- I can't ever say anything negative in a preview because it MIGHT change before release, and if bad news scares away customers, devs lose their jobs and I lose my contacts
- Fuck the consumers if they buy games based on over-hyped previews and reviews, they're only out $60 anyway
- There'll always be another fresh newb consumer to read my crap, but there's only a precious few publishers, and I'm writing to get PAID.
- Who pays me again? Oh yeah, THE PUBLISHERS

Your whole line of reasoning about "bad impressions will prevent consumers from reading the reviews, but good impressions will just encourage consumers to read the reviews and then magically be self-thinking and critical then" is just insincere horse shit. Either the readers will be mindwashed or they won't, by positive AND negative previews. I'll let you pick whichever you like, but you don't get it one way with hype and the other way with criticism.

The entire concept of "well, I will filter and only present the positive stuff" is EXACTLY what's wrong with gaming media. You've spent pages and pages explaining WHY you do it, but it's not your motivation that matters, it's the fact that you don't provide factually balanced "news" that matters.

 

[sheek]

]Actually, there is a choice four.
Get your comments right, and don't screw up what you've been told.
Write information, not misinformation.
The writer's purpose, in this sense, is not to misinform, but to deliver information correctly and artistically.

And that's what you did with the Oblivion preview? Best combat in any RPG - evar! Right?

Jesus Christ, Volourn is a better game reviewer than this guy...

 

[Mayday]

alt

 

[sheek]

Modern news systems have worked -- by which I mean, fostered services that the consumer felt worth their wages -- for so long because they manage to create information in a manageable way for people. I'm sorry you don't think it's right, but I still think that its centuries of managing to get the word out to a number of people that makes the effort worthwhile outweighs your estrangement from the system.

Except the Free Market often fails. You are a prime example. You give one of the worst RPG franchises in gaming history consistent 85%+ ratings and reccomend everybody buy them. Based on what? On your 'feelings'...

It's fun, it's got an amazingly engrossing story/setting, you have total freedom, it's totally next-gen radical...

All subjective opinions which an five year old could give.

I did not go to journalism school (did you?) can show exactly why Oblivion is one of the worst RPGs ever made. With facts and arguments and comparisons with other games showing that apart from 'graphics' TES4 is a step back in every way from RPGs made 10 years ago.

It has little to do with my personal preferences. There are objective things you can say about games and Oblivion is objectively a bad game and a worse RPG.

 

[Hazelnut]

I think this is the core of where we disagree: I think an outlet has a responsability to not publish errors. Even if the dev is right there to correct them, especially then -- because he's a biased party. An error gives him a chance to spin things further his way.
As for not wanting "style," but "substance," bad writing takes away from the substance. Recording film doesn't make what you make a movie; chopping out what you want to say doesn't make you a writer. The medium is the message, blah blah blah.
I think it's wonderful that you want previews, reviews, and news that requires you to perform expert analysis of each topic you read. But if you think that you can't trust someone who spends their entire life -- or a lot of free time -- performing that analysis before they present the information to you, how are you going to find the time to be well-informed enough to perform expert analysis on every single thing you read or view that's informative? I think your ideal of these "forcing the reader to dissect the article" style of presentation is charming...but it presumes that your only audience are experts. Which is, if not bad business, bad writing.
What you want, it sounds like, is a forum with industry access. I respect your lofty goals, and I think it's a neat idea, but do you really think an outlet that demands expert analysis of every piece that it puts up of its readers -- that is, an outlet that fails to provide one of the basic services an outlet can, that of expert analysis -- is a good idea?
Honestly, it sounds like what you're describing to me isn't a way to write previews/reviews/whatever so much as a type of public forum.

Two points I'd like to raise on this if I may.

Firstly, why does all this "expert analysis" boil down to writing which appears, to me and others, to be almost exclusively designed to increase reader anticipation and/or desire?
(I can't kinda understand giving the benefit of the doubt in previews and staying positive, as long as areas of concern are not ignored or glossed over and then the review is as harsh as is necessary and not just an extension of the positive spin from the preview. Not really the best way maybe, but I can understand it.)

Secondly, if all a reader is given is the output of this so called "expert analysis" then how can each individual reader make their own judgment about the potential of the game for their own personal tastes and preferences?

These points are in addition to the ones that Galsiah is making by the way. Oh, and I don't think you're fully understanding his argument. Please read with an open mind, these are honest and intelligent posters you're reading here. People who've been gamers since a very young age and love complex, thoughtful, well designed, intelligent games with a passion. They want game journalism to improve so that the quality of games will improve.

 

[galsiah]

Me: I don't think I've argued against sourcing, or against fact-checking.
You: Until you remedy this situation (not being omniscient), you ought to include quotes/references/sources.
Yeah, so, what's your point? Did you really build to this whole point to agree with me in the most roundabout way possible?

My point is that I want you to present the direct information (as much as will reasonably fit) with your conclusions about it. How hard is that to understand?
I don't want to have to trust you, or trust that you've never misunderstood something a developer told you. I don't want to fall victim every time you parse something in a less-than-informative manner.

In particular, this means including (somewhere) every developer statement relevant to your analysis. I don't want your assurance that you've tried really, really hard to be really, really professional with your fact checking. As far as possible I want to be able to know that from what I read.

Mostly this is about disambiguation and misinterpretation anyway - not about checking facts. I guess you probably do check your facts, and that you probably don't directly lie in previews - that's nice. What you don't do is put over the full and clear meaning of every developer assurance/statement you paraphrase (because you can't possibly without quoting them all).

Most of the time that'll be fine, but sometimes it won't be - and when it isn't, you won't know it.

Well, no because your thesis statement is that the entire way news is disseminated and published is wrong and it should be done your way -- which sounds a lot like academic discussion, which works great if everyone involved is an expert.

No. It's that the way most news is presented (there is good stuff out there) is targeted at getting sales/ratings by preferring style over content, speed over thought, what most people want to know now, over what they'll be glad to have known tomorrow, Paris Hilton over [insert something less pathetic here].

In short, most news is approached - whether consciously or otherwise - with the same goals as entertainment. It doesn't seek to inform, but rather to titillate. Again - if that's your goal, don't claim to be some wonderfully professional journalist: claim to be a pandering entertainer who happens to be writing something which could be confused with news.

Modern news systems have worked -- by which I mean, fostered services that the consumer felt worth their wages...

Yes - it's clear that that's what you mean. Note that this definition says precisely nothing about the actual purpose of the enterprise - beyond being value for money. If that's your only criterion for success, there's no incentive to produce quality news - you can scrap the news for chocolate, DVDs and pornography if that seems "worth their wages" (and don't accuse me of hyperbole until you've seen a copy of The Sun - complete with occasional free chocolate bar, DVD on the front, and naked woman on page 3).

If you want to be a professional purveyor of quality news (rather than entertainment), you can't simply provide value-for-money, or tell people what they want to hear. You actually need some concept of what is news - and what is worthwhile, informative news.

for so long because they manage to create information in a manageable way for people.

No - because they manage to make money. There's a difference.

I'm sorry you don't think it's right, but I still think that its centuries of managing to get the word out to a number of people

What word? That something happened to Paris Hilton? That Oblivion will be the best game ever? You get no points for getting "the word out" if that word is often irrelevant, dumbed down, unsupported, and targeted at ratings.

The way you write might make sense from a business perspective, but that doesn't make it professional journalism - it simply makes it "professional" (like chocolate manufacture, prostitution, circus performance...).

Do you want a preview that says "Those damned dirty Madden devs are liars! Don't trust them!"? Fair enough. It's irresponsible reporting, and that's that, unless you can point to something they said and show where it isn't true.

Can you seriously not think of some path between accepting every assurance you hear at face value, and coming out and saying "Those damned dirty Madden devs are liars!"? Seriously?

It's simplicity itself to praise their aspiration (where appropriate), yet question the likelihood of their fulfilling it.

For example:
In the preview build we saw [feature X] was a significant problem since [explanation]. We are told that this will be handled by [detail + relevant quote]. Though a worthy goal, frankly I'd be surprised if they pull it off. There's no doubting [developer Y]'s infectious enthusiasm to get the job done, but you have to look at the facts. Getting this right will be no easy task - many games, both in this series and elsewhere, have failed before. Neither was [developer Y] able to outline any clearly workable strategy.
We can only hope in this case that implementation matches aspiration. Our hopes are that we'll see something special on release, but for now we must remain sceptical.

How difficult is that?
The only problem I see with this approach is that it requires some awareness of the probable difficulty of fixing [feature X] - independent of what [developer Y] might hope/believe/tell you. Probably most game journalists don't have that awareness.
Do you? (honest question - I'm not expecting every game journalist to be an experienced developer)
If you don't, why not learn a bit more? That way you'll be able to question developer promises/assurances/aspirations by looking at the facts with a degree of expertise.

It might be harder for a game journalist to have detailed knowledge of game development than it is for a literary critic to know how to write literature. That doesn't make it any less useful. Naturally you couldn't hope to learn everything that it'd be helpful to know - but you could try, and get somewhere. If you're already trying, try harder. If you already think you know enough, then use that knowledge to tread a path between "[developer Y] told me this, and I believe him", and "[developer Y] is a nasty liar".

 

[Section8]

I'm not sure what you mean here, but anyone with an internet connection is "privy" to our rating scale -- http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/ratingsystem2/
Right under all of our scores is a link to that page, explaining our review scale and how it works.

How many people bother to click that link? How many people read the score in somebody's newspost somewhere? How many people get the rating from GameRankings, or even better - Metacritic - where the other media reviewed functions on a less biased scale - for instance, a 92% would get an album into the "Top Ten Albums of All Time" (from around 3000) - while a quick search for Games with scores greater than 92% gives me over a hundred results, from a pool of 1500 titles.

I'm not accusing you of keeping dark secrets, but what you're doing still seems pretty fucking disingenuous to me. It's like a newspaper posting slanderous remarks on their front page, and then apologising in a tiny corner of a later edition - "anyone who can read is "privy" to our apology."

The saddest thing of all, is that I don't think anyone's being intentionally disingenuous in this case. It's just that the very nature of games "journalism" discourages anyone with principles or integrity from coming aboard. You're not trying to be a lying asshole for profit, it's just that you don't care enough to notice that that's exactly what you are / have become.

That came out fairly scathing, so I should note that it's not personal, but you still don't escape being painted with the same brush as your colleagues. We definitely appreciate you taking time to have a discussion with us, and any insults from myself are directed at your profession rather than yourself.

It's a good list, but what you wrote isn't a preview; it's an editorial. "This is what I, the writer, hope for from Fallout 3. Will it be there? Won't it? Who knows, who cares, it's what I'm interested in seeing!"

Right then, let me highlight the factual info for you:

• It's a shame Bethesda <s>couldn't</s> didn't show us an example of how a neutral quest might work. Most games come up short in this respect, and it's certainly a difficult to balance an indifferent response against the clear rewards of being exclusively good or evil. Few, if any developers succeed at this, let's hope Bethesda write themselves onto the tragically short list of those who have.
• With items like the "Rock-it Launcher" and the "Suck-o-tron", Bethesda run the risk of side-stepping Fallout's dark, ironic humour in favour of Fallout 2s novelty gags. Obviously, these are a better choice when "showing off", compared with conventional weapons, but as all Fallout fans know, a huge arsenal of both conventional and unusual weapons are the backbone of Fallout's combat. As self-professed Fallout fans, let's hope Bethesda show their chops in later previews.
• The fight against the Behemoth, while a solid example of an action-packed "boss fight", raises concerns that vastly destructive weapons like the Fat Man" are forced upon the player, rather than rewarding their character's skill development. With at least another year before the game is finalised, we can hope to see much more variety of gameplay than this one narrative segment.
• While they look very impressive, the supermutants are stylistically bland. They look as though they could belong in just about any next-gen game, and don't have anything that screams "Fallout" about them. There's nothing wrong with Bethesda putting their own stamp on the game, and we'd be disappointed if they didn't, but with one of gaming's most notorious fanbases peering over their shoulder the whole time, they must strike a careful balance between what they bring to the table and what they loving preserve from the originals. Given that we've seen the tiniest fraction of a preview build of the game, any alarm bells would of course be very premature until we see much more.
• Etc.

There's a few issues:
a) it's a year+ from release. Be surprised they had anything to show, honestly.

Que? If the game were on an 18 month schedule, you'd have a point. But this is a game that has been in full development for close to 18 months, with at least a year of pre-production beforehand. I'd be surprised if they didn't have anything to show.

Plus the whole - "hay guys in 30 days we're going to be showing u a teaser, and then after that a bunch of info about the game" kind of gives away any surprise attack they might have been planning.

b) previews need to cover what the reader didn't get to see, but we did. There was plenty of content in the hands-on time our previewer got to fill four pages without getting into editoralizing.

I'll cop that. You don't have to editorialise on everything, but it's basically expected for your introductory summary and your conclusions. For instance:

Finally, Bethesda has not only premiered a teaser trailer that demonstrates that Fallout 3 still maintains the spirit and atmosphere of the Fallout franchise

Spiffy: Great-looking graphics and atmosphere; promising gameplay; looks like a good compromise between Fallout and Oblivion.
Iffy: It's more than a year away; we haven't had hands-on; we've only seen the beginning.

I like the way you went for the cute "the worst thing is we aren't playing it yet!" option. And since you clearly state "we've only seen the beginning" for anyone with an internet connection to be "privy" to, then surely that's license to express legitimate concerns as well as positive reflections.

Sure, lots of people might be reading every single preview and picking apart each detail to get a better picture, but we need to write on the assumption that some part of our audience is turning to solely us for their info. So, would I rather have a writer do a preview that spent his entire word count talking about where the game is, not where he hopes it goes? Certainly yes, this early in the game; and

That's fair enough, because as you may have noticed, many of us have gleaned a lot from the factual portions of the Fallout 3 previews we've seen. If only your reviews could similarly refrain from editorialising and simply present the game as it is.

c) the perfect place for stuff like what you're discussing is podcasts and editorials. Part of the reason we do our podcast is so we can insure that the core audience gets the key information, and if the hardcore want to listen in and get an uncensored (as we've found out) look at this sort of opinion-based detail, they can.

Are your podcasts and editorials likely to featuring a differing view from the "at a glance" editorial content in the preview?

Okay, all that noted, the closer you get to a game's release, the more flexability you have to really editorialize about it, because you're seeing something closer and closer to final code. Also, when you're doing a "blow out" -- a cover story, for example -- the expectation is for more of your own voice to show, since you should have seen enough to justify a cover.

Do you honestly believe that Bethesda are going to discard so much of the hard work that has gone into this preview? I'd be willing to stake a lot on those Super Mutant models being ticked off as "feature complete" or something close to it in a milestone somewhere. I can't see any sweeping changes to rectify the idiocy behind Megaton and (at least) the associated "evil quest". There's a lot to be concerned about from the perspective of a devout Fallout fan, and someone who obsesses over game design. Can it change? Yes. Will it? Unlikely.

And, then you have a couple of other inferences. If Bethesda are willing to "update" the Supermutant design to better fit the expectations of those who prefer "scary and tough" over "unique and interesting", where do their priorities lie, and what other changes are they willing to make? Why show off thoughtless replication of other games (Half-Life 2, Bookworm Adventures) when putting your best foot forward? What does that imply about your creative abilities? At what point does VATS sound like a good idea?

And all that leads to: you've got excellent points there about Fallout, no question. As far as seeing a neutral quest, more development in weapons or combat, or more screamingly iconic enemies...it's way too early. I'm hoping for about everything you mentioned there, but it's way too early to really expect it.

Obviously. But since we have seen an inane quest devoid of moral thought, a bunch of gimmicky weapons lifted from contemporary games, and "reinvention" of the most screamingly iconic enemies fallout has - at what point do you start assuming they "accidentally" showed off a bunch of stuff that doesn't bode well for the future instead of the good stuff they're yet to implement?

You know, a side note -- the "party line" is usually because most previews are based on the same build/slideshow/hands on. Part of being a responsible member of the media -- any media -- is not abusing the position, and honestly, part of that is keeping your facts and your opinions as clear as possible. Are previews as they stand now perfect? No way. Would a Fallout 3 preview that really dug in the way you want one to (from your list) at this point be an appropriate preview? No way -- it simply isn't a preview. It's a forward-looking critique; it's a review.

It's funny, though your own (Gamespy's) preview was probably the best of the lot in terms of putting facts ahead of opinion and hearsay, you guys have all reached the same conclusions - it captures Fallout's atmosphere to a tee; the gameplay sounds promising; it fixes a lot of Oblivions glaring flaws that we failed to notice in our reviews; the future looks bright; Fallout fans ought to be happy.

Then you take a look at the other side of the fence, and Fallout fans aren't happy, and have brought forward plenty of well-reasoned arguments to illustrate why. Strange that not one single fucking one of you guys invited to watch the preview shares any of our concerns, and in fact take a contrary stance.

But I'll probably steal from your list (with credit) on the next podcast, now that our Fallout embargo is up and we can talk about it, if you don't mind.

Heh, go for it. Just don't mention that I'm a Fallout fan, or that "credit" will magically become a "discredit".

 

[Bradylama]

1-2-3-4-5

Notice how 3 is in the middle? How does that make 3.5 the benchmark any sense?

Hell, you could just as easily go with a bad, poor, average, good, great system and it would have a similar affect. I dunno, though, 'cause when CGW stopped using numbered ratings people bitched about it becuase they don't actually read magazines for reviews.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I was looking for this and someone linked it recently so here we go...

Finally, Bethesda has not only premiered a teaser trailer that demonstrates that Fallout 3 still maintains the spirit and atmosphere of the Fallout franchise

Spiffy: Great-looking graphics and atmosphere; promising gameplay; looks like a good compromise between Fallout and Oblivion.
Iffy: It's more than a year away; we haven't had hands-on; we've only seen the beginning.

I like the way you went for the cute "the worst thing is we aren't playing it yet!" option. And since you clearly state "we've only seen the beginning" for anyone with an internet connection to be "privy" to, then surely that's license to express legitimate concerns as well as positive reflections.

No, no it's not.

But when the press is shown a Preview or told we can write about a Beta, there are still many rules in place. These rules include:

(1) Always be positive

(2) Remember this is an early build

(3) Element X Y Z will be fixed and changed upon release

(4) Disobey any of the above and you will be banned

Be nice if the reviewers outlined any conditions they were writing on, you know, in fairness and honesty.

Like that'll happen.

Oh and was our GameSpy friend here at the all expenses paid Fallout 3 junket?

 

[deadairis]

Modern news systems have worked -- by which I mean, fostered services that the consumer felt worth their wages -- for so long because they manage to create information in a manageable way for people. I'm sorry you don't think it's right, but I still think that its centuries of managing to get the word out to a number of people that makes the effort worthwhile outweighs your estrangement from the system.

And here's where your thesis is fucked. The CONSUMERS DON'T PAY YOU. The developers do, through adds on your site.

Actually, that's exactly why the consumers do pay me. Ad sales relies on traffic. Traffic relies on content.
That may not be the case at a certain grandiose scale, but as far as the website ad market goes, that's how it is.
If you don't read the site, we don't get traffic.
And, more importantly? There's a reason ad sales and edit are totally seperate groups. My job -- my stated task -- is to make GameSpy's content -- specifically console -- better. Period. How much money our ads makes means nothing to my employment.
So, sorry to debunk that theory, but my job revolves around the consumer and the content the team I'm a part of creates. Ad sales jobs revolve around getting ads.

 

[deadairis]

Thanks Hazelnut. Here's my thoughts:
"Firstly, why does all this "expert analysis" boil down to writing which appears, to me and others, to be almost exclusively designed to increase reader anticipation and/or desire?"
Because you have to say things you can prove if you're called on it. That's the short version of what I've been trying to say.
When something negative goes into one of my previews, its because I can point to what I saw in the demo, or the spreadsheet, or anything else, and beyond any doubt say "That's something I think will be an issue." If you say something negative that you can't prove, you'll hear from PR. And, in general, that's when you shrug and say "my mistake," because if you can't justify it you can't put it in.
And, honestly, it's a preview. Not a review. One is clearly a critical piece; one isn't, necessarily.

"Secondly, if all a reader is given is the output of this so called "expert analysis" then how can each individual reader make their own judgment about the potential of the game for their own personal tastes and preferences?"

Life is hard. There's not really a better answer than that. When someone else has to cover stuff -- "do the news" -- you're always looking at a risk of the information not coming across just so. There really is no way around that.
For what it's worth, I think the solution there is to find out which journalists share your tastes, or even consistently have the opposite of your tastes. I pretty much go do anything Ebert doesn't like. I wish I had a better answer, but if you just get the info "straight from the developer!" well, you're going to have an even worse filter between you and the 'data' -- PR. Developer bias. Desire for sales.
And, despite the beloved cry of "moneyhats," game sales and scores have nothing to do with my lifestyle or job security.


"These points are in addition to the ones that Galsiah is making by the way. Oh, and I don't think you're fully understanding his argument. Please read with an open mind, these are honest and intelligent posters you're reading here. People who've been gamers since a very young age and love complex, thoughtful, well designed, intelligent games with a passion. They want game journalism to improve so that the quality of games will improve."

I really am giving his argument an open mind; honestly, I'm interested in seeing what sort of stuff can be created that serves any purpose for a community that is really "hardcore" other than "punching bag." I'm certainly not getting paid to go out and be a forum-er.
But, as I posted, Galsiah's main claim seems to be that quotes and references should be used; they are as appropriate. I really don't know where he got the idea that the situation is otherwise. If he's displeased with the standard level of citation considered "okay" for news -- whether we think that's what game journalism is or not -- there's not too much I can say other than "I disagree." He sounds like he's describing academic dissertations, and honestly, those aren't a good way to dissemniate information past a closed circuit of experts.
How's that?

 

[deadairis]

Sorry, but it seems pretty clear that your issue is with all news media, across the board -- and well, I disagree with you. If the most, best profit would be to simply play Paris 24/7, that's what we'd see. And while that may not be too far from what we see, it is literally not the case. There's no arguement that can be made that there's no seperation between "news" and "entertainment", despite the fact that the news has been structured to be entertaining. Again, I'm sorry you don't agree, but really look at what you're describing:
"In particular, this means including (somewhere) every developer statement relevant to your analysis."
Do you really have no idea how much input goes into writing something as simple as a 400 word piece? What you're describing blows away even academic standards of citation. I think it's great that's what you want, but since no system in the world manages to meet your goal, I'm sorry, but maybe it's unreasonable, huh?

The problem with your idea below is that it's a paragraph with one sentance of informationa and four sentances of your editoralizing. What is the reader actually getting from that? Where are these "facts" you're mentioning -- you need to mention the games. You need to mention how they failed to impliment the feature.
And, frankly, where are these bad features that are jumping out at you? The Madden preview is a great example. We saw spreadsheets of what they want to include in the game and video clips of a dev kit version of the engine (which means it's no more part of the game than the clay sculpt ILM uses in pre-production). There weren't any things "wrong," and issues with previous games that weren't being addressed with the fixes listed wouldn't be discussed (and there weren't many anyways).

So where's your middle path? Make up some issue they didn't discuss, just to grip about it? I know that Oblivion got good press is a constant issue here, but go ahead and look at my (glowing) preview. There aren't any mistruths. There are hard calls with issues -- the shitty, muddy textures.
As for the judgement stuff -- I loved Oblivion. Yup, that colored my preview. But the information you need to make your own decision is in the preview. The combat is described -- you don't have to take my word for it. You can read what I experienced and make your own decision.
Which is why a preview that's a review doesn't work. In a review, you're being told about how the entire gameplay experience comes together, and that's inherintly subjective. In a preview, that core information of "what is in this game" has to be there.





"In the preview build we saw [feature X] was a significant problem since [explanation]. We are told that this will be handled by [detail + relevant quote]. Though a worthy goal, frankly I'd be surprised if they pull it off. There's no doubting [developer Y]'s infectious enthusiasm to get the job done, but you have to look at the facts. Getting this right will be no easy task - many games, both in this series and elsewhere, have failed before. Neither was [developer Y] able to outline any clearly workable strategy."

Me: I don't think I've argued against sourcing, or against fact-checking.
You: Until you remedy this situation (not being omniscient), you ought to include quotes/references/sources.
Yeah, so, what's your point? Did you really build to this whole point to agree with me in the most roundabout way possible?

My point is that I want you to present the direct information (as much as will reasonably fit) with your conclusions about it. How hard is that to understand?
I don't want to have to trust you, or trust that you've never misunderstood something a developer told you. I don't want to fall victim every time you parse something in a less-than-informative manner.

In particular, this means including (somewhere) every developer statement relevant to your analysis. I don't want your assurance that you've tried really, really hard to be really, really professional with your fact checking. As far as possible I want to be able to know that from what I read.

Mostly this is about disambiguation and misinterpretation anyway - not about checking facts. I guess you probably do check your facts, and that you probably don't directly lie in previews - that's nice. What you don't do is put over the full and clear meaning of every developer assurance/statement you paraphrase (because you can't possibly without quoting them all).

Most of the time that'll be fine, but sometimes it won't be - and when it isn't, you won't know it.

Well, no because your thesis statement is that the entire way news is disseminated and published is wrong and it should be done your way -- which sounds a lot like academic discussion, which works great if everyone involved is an expert.

No. It's that the way most news is presented (there is good stuff out there) is targeted at getting sales/ratings by preferring style over content, speed over thought, what most people want to know now, over what they'll be glad to have known tomorrow, Paris Hilton over [insert something less pathetic here].

In short, most news is approached - whether consciously or otherwise - with the same goals as entertainment. It doesn't seek to inform, but rather to titillate. Again - if that's your goal, don't claim to be some wonderfully professional journalist: claim to be a pandering entertainer who happens to be writing something which could be confused with news.

Modern news systems have worked -- by which I mean, fostered services that the consumer felt worth their wages...

Yes - it's clear that that's what you mean. Note that this definition says precisely nothing about the actual purpose of the enterprise - beyond being value for money. If that's your only criterion for success, there's no incentive to produce quality news - you can scrap the news for chocolate, DVDs and pornography if that seems "worth their wages" (and don't accuse me of hyperbole until you've seen a copy of The Sun - complete with occasional free chocolate bar, DVD on the front, and naked woman on page 3).

If you want to be a professional purveyor of quality news (rather than entertainment), you can't simply provide value-for-money, or tell people what they want to hear. You actually need some concept of what is news - and what is worthwhile, informative news.

for so long because they manage to create information in a manageable way for people.

No - because they manage to make money. There's a difference.

I'm sorry you don't think it's right, but I still think that its centuries of managing to get the word out to a number of people

What word? That something happened to Paris Hilton? That Oblivion will be the best game ever? You get no points for getting "the word out" if that word is often irrelevant, dumbed down, unsupported, and targeted at ratings.

The way you write might make sense from a business perspective, but that doesn't make it professional journalism - it simply makes it "professional" (like chocolate manufacture, prostitution, circus performance...).

Do you want a preview that says "Those damned dirty Madden devs are liars! Don't trust them!"? Fair enough. It's irresponsible reporting, and that's that, unless you can point to something they said and show where it isn't true.

Can you seriously not think of some path between accepting every assurance you hear at face value, and coming out and saying "Those damned dirty Madden devs are liars!"? Seriously?

It's simplicity itself to praise their aspiration (where appropriate), yet question the likelihood of their fulfilling it.

For example:
In the preview build we saw [feature X] was a significant problem since [explanation]. We are told that this will be handled by [detail + relevant quote]. Though a worthy goal, frankly I'd be surprised if they pull it off. There's no doubting [developer Y]'s infectious enthusiasm to get the job done, but you have to look at the facts. Getting this right will be no easy task - many games, both in this series and elsewhere, have failed before. Neither was [developer Y] able to outline any clearly workable strategy.
We can only hope in this case that implementation matches aspiration. Our hopes are that we'll see something special on release, but for now we must remain sceptical.

How difficult is that?
The only problem I see with this approach is that it requires some awareness of the probable difficulty of fixing [feature X] - independent of what [developer Y] might hope/believe/tell you. Probably most game journalists don't have that awareness.
Do you? (honest question - I'm not expecting every game journalist to be an experienced developer)
If you don't, why not learn a bit more? That way you'll be able to question developer promises/assurances/aspirations by looking at the facts with a degree of expertise.

It might be harder for a game journalist to have detailed knowledge of game development than it is for a literary critic to know how to write literature. That doesn't make it any less useful. Naturally you couldn't hope to learn everything that it'd be helpful to know - but you could try, and get somewhere. If you're already trying, try harder. If you already think you know enough, then use that knowledge to tread a path between "[developer Y] told me this, and I believe him", and "[developer Y] is a nasty liar".

 

[Vault Dweller]

Noted somewhere here that I've called VD's professionalism into question, which I can see.
Sorry, VD. Not my intention.

It's ok. Never claimed to be a professional journalist. I do what I like, the way I like. Seems to be working for me.

The point of the edit was to make it read like the two of you were having a friendly conversation? Why? If he's not worth your trust, if he's not worth your time to check this facts with, why should I listen to him?

I gave the readers a choice. I pointed out some issues and let the readers know what the developer thinks of them. Whether or not they decide to trust the developer is up to them.

Right, but here you're claiming he "didn't add anything to the preview", emphasis mine. That seems...nonsensical.

You know what I meant. If you want to win on technicality, be my guest.

The idea is I can't trust the person writing the preview -- either person?

No, the idea is to give options. Without the developer's responses, addressing the criticism, the preview would have been incomplete. In my humble, non-professional opinion, of course.

Why not have your credibility be based on getting everything laid out correctly without relying on the dev to point out things like "that's a placeholder"?

Because that's the developer *opinion*, not a fact. As I explained, the quote in question didn't seem out of place and fit the overall writing style. It's like writing an Oblivion preview and complaining about idiotic one-liners that NPCs throw at each other, and then listening to Bethesda "Oh, these are just placeholders" and removing them from the preview. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

I'm sorry, I didn't think anyone had argued for unbiased reporting...was that the goal?
In which case, I suppose we should give your preview a very hard look -- it seems pretty biased to me. I mean, there's an opinion there...
No, that's not the goal. At least, I don't think it should be. Honesty is. You've outed me -- I like Oblivion. I like it less than Morrowind, but I think Oblivion did some amazing things. And I wrote a preview based on what I saw.

It's not about having an opinion and liking Oblivion. It's about making unsupported, unexplained claims like "There's no question that this [Oblivion combat] is the best combat system the series has seen, and one of the best combat systems in any RPG."

I think Oblivion did some amazing things...

Like what?

And I wrote a preview based on what I saw.

You saw that it has "the best combat system in any RPG"? Do explain.

Btw, an unrelated question. Whom should I talk at GameSpy about some coverage?
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19462

 

[deadairis]

Well, the free market didn't work for you in the case of Oblivion.
That's not the failure of the free market. That's you not getting what you wanted.
As for the reviews and previews -- how many people here had made up their minds about Oblivion before they'd played it? It seems like most of you (well, who post) read what the game was like, hated the systems, and decided.
So, the system...worked. Got you, the consumer, the information you needed to make an informed choice.
For those of you who didn't, got it, and hated it? Well, you're in the minority. Sorry. You may even be right, no question. But there's a reason that a whole lot of people disagree with you, people who usually disagree with each other -- and it's not moneyhats, because this goes as far as the sales and reader reviews of Oblivion as well (beyond the utter lack of moneyhats).
And where did this idea that reviews are objective come from? What field has objective reviews? Reviews are opinions. That's just that.
I'd be interested in hearing your objective faults with Oblivion, though. I'm curious how many of them I explicitly noted in my review.

Modern news systems have worked -- by which I mean, fostered services that the consumer felt worth their wages -- for so long because they manage to create information in a manageable way for people. I'm sorry you don't think it's right, but I still think that its centuries of managing to get the word out to a number of people that makes the effort worthwhile outweighs your estrangement from the system.

Except the Free Market often fails. You are a prime example. You give one of the worst RPG franchises in gaming history consistent 85%+ ratings and reccomend everybody buy them. Based on what? On your 'feelings'...

It's fun, it's got an amazingly engrossing story/setting, you have total freedom, it's totally next-gen radical...

All subjective opinions which an five year old could give.

I did not go to journalism school (did you?) can show exactly why Oblivion is one of the worst RPGs ever made. With facts and arguments and comparisons with other games showing that apart from 'graphics' TES4 is a step back in every way from RPGs made 10 years ago.

It has little to do with my personal preferences. There are objective things you can say about games and Oblivion is objectively a bad game and a worse RPG.

 

[Claw]

You know what I meant. If you want to win on technicality, be my guest.

Now, don't give in so easily. Clearly, even though the snippets were originally written by the developer, you added them to the review.

 

[AnalogKid]

<snip> Ad sales relies on traffic. Traffic relies on content...If you don't read the site, we don't get traffic... My job -- my stated task -- is to make GameSpy's content -- specifically console -- better. ...So, sorry to debunk that theory, but my job revolves around the consumer and the content the team I'm a part of creates.

You didn't debunk shit, oh slimy one. You failed to quote the rest of my paragraph and then restated exactly what I said in the portions you left out. Again with the summary since you seem to have selective reading disorder:

- Add sales rely on traffic
- Traffic relies on content
- I create content
- Ergo, I create add sales

No where in the entire cycle does the consumer pay you. You're writing flashy entertainment puff pieces to attract traffic and get paid by the adds sold to publishers. If there were a consumer-reports-type site where the traffic paid to read the content, THEN you would have dubunked something and your original statement would have been valid. As it is, you just restated the same thing I did. Thanks, though.

It would also be something different if you generated traffic by being the "voice of the people", or even the "voice of yourself" (PA comes to mind as one example, VD another), rather than the mouthpiece of the hype machine, but you don't because you rely on dev access to make your content "better".

P.S. I know I'm being a lot more offensive and aggressive than most of the posters here, and, like them, it's not really personal. It's just that I don't think you're being AT ALL genuine here, so for now you're pretty much as contemptible as can be in my eyes.

 

[deadairis]

I'm not sure what you mean here, but anyone with an internet connection is "privy" to our rating scale -- http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/ratingsystem2/
Right under all of our scores is a link to that page, explaining our review scale and how it works.

How many people bother to click that link? How many people read the score in somebody's newspost somewhere? How many people get the rating from GameRankings, or even better - Metacritic - where the other media reviewed functions on a less biased scale - for instance, a 92% would get an album into the "Top Ten Albums of All Time" (from around 3000) - while a quick search for Games with scores greater than 92% gives me over a hundred results, from a pool of 1500 titles.
<snip>
That came out fairly scathing, so I should note that it's not personal, but you still don't escape being painted with the same brush as your colleagues. We definitely appreciate you taking time to have a discussion with us, and any insults from myself are directed at your profession rather than yourself.

I appreciate the "not-personal" note, but no worries. I'm happy for the feedback.
Here's a question: How could that link to our scale be more clear? It's in big letters: "what these scores mean." It's linked right under each score. It's the same system we've used for years. There's a summation of how we feel about the game right under the score.
I agree that the video game review scale is inflated towards the 7-10 range, but again, if everyone knows it -- if it's publically available knowledge -- then it serves its purpose. Do you really look at school grades and not understand them because a 50.5% isn't a "C"? I presume not. Good or bad, right or wrong, it's a commonly understood system.
People who don't know it -- say, are looking at metacritic to get a gift -- are still going to look at the ones at the top of the scale, not the 70s. Because they'll look at the 70s and think "eh, a C!" or "Hey, I could get a 94 instead!"
Is it perfect? Probably not. Does it work? Yeah. Well enough? It seems like consensus here is "no," but why not?

It's a good list, but what you wrote isn't a preview; it's an editorial. "This is what I, the writer, hope for from Fallout 3. Will it be there? Won't it? Who knows, who cares, it's what I'm interested in seeing!"

Right then, let me highlight the factual info for you:

• It's a shame Bethesda <s>couldn't</s> didn't show us an example of how a neutral quest might work. Most games come up short in this respect, and it's certainly a difficult to balance an indifferent response against the clear rewards of being exclusively good or evil. Few, if any developers succeed at this, let's hope Bethesda write themselves onto the tragically short list of those who have.
• With items like the "Rock-it Launcher" and the "Suck-o-tron", Bethesda run the risk of side-stepping Fallout's dark, ironic humour in favour of Fallout 2s novelty gags. Obviously, these are a better choice when "showing off", compared with conventional weapons, but as all Fallout fans know, a huge arsenal of both conventional and unusual weapons are the backbone of Fallout's combat. As self-professed Fallout fans, let's hope Bethesda show their chops in later previews.
• The fight against the Behemoth, while a solid example of an action-packed "boss fight", raises concerns that vastly destructive weapons like the Fat Man" are forced upon the player, rather than rewarding their character's skill development. With at least another year before the game is finalised, we can hope to see much more variety of gameplay than this one narrative segment.
• While they look very impressive, the supermutants are stylistically bland. They look as though they could belong in just about any next-gen game, and don't have anything that screams "Fallout" about them. There's nothing wrong with Bethesda putting their own stamp on the game, and we'd be disappointed if they didn't, but with one of gaming's most notorious fanbases peering over their shoulder the whole time, they must strike a careful balance between what they bring to the table and what they loving preserve from the originals. Given that we've seen the tiniest fraction of a preview build of the game, any alarm bells would of course be very premature until we see much more.
• Etc.

Honestly, it's still an editorial based an incredibly early hands-on.
"Given that we've seen the tiniest fraction of a preview build of the game, any alarm bells would of course be very premature until we see much more." Nicely put.

There's a few issues:
a) it's a year+ from release. Be surprised they had anything to show, honestly.

Que? If the game were on an 18 month schedule, you'd have a point. But this is a game that has been in full development for close to 18 months, with at least a year of pre-production beforehand. I'd be surprised if they didn't have anything to show.

Plus the whole - "hay guys in 30 days we're going to be showing u a teaser, and then after that a bunch of info about the game" kind of gives away any surprise attack they might have been planning.

Sorry, to be more clear, I wasn't actually like "Oh, my hair is now white!" surprised. More 'Wow, I'm surprised they opened themselves up to showing anything at this point, since it'll be barely more than a taste and they can't have a ton of stuff locked in.' It's not that they *physically* shouldn't have anything to show; it's that they are being very daring showing so much, so early. That may not be your experience with publishers and developers, but it sure is mine.

b) previews need to cover what the reader didn't get to see, but we did. There was plenty of content in the hands-on time our previewer got to fill four pages without getting into editoralizing.

I'll cop that. You don't have to editorialise on everything, but it's basically expected for your introductory summary and your conclusions. For instance:

Finally, Bethesda has not only premiered a teaser trailer that demonstrates that Fallout 3 still maintains the spirit and atmosphere of the Fallout franchise

Spiffy: Great-looking graphics and atmosphere; promising gameplay; looks like a good compromise between Fallout and Oblivion.
Iffy: It's more than a year away; we haven't had hands-on; we've only seen the beginning.

I like the way you went for the cute "the worst thing is we aren't playing it yet!" option. And since you clearly state "we've only seen the beginning" for anyone with an internet connection to be "privy" to, then surely that's license to express legitimate concerns as well as positive reflections.

The "we haven't played it yet," for what it's worth, is a polite way of saying "this could be anything." Without hands on, we don't know how it actually plays. How it survives being tweaked. If we can actually do what we've been told. I can see how that's unclear there, but it's an attempt to make clear that a) there's promise and b) that promise could be anywhere, since we're seeing the damn thing so early.
Although, note I didn't write that preview.

Sure, lots of people might be reading every single preview and picking apart each detail to get a better picture, but we need to write on the assumption that some part of our audience is turning to solely us for their info. So, would I rather have a writer do a preview that spent his entire word count talking about where the game is, not where he hopes it goes? Certainly yes, this early in the game; and

That's fair enough, because as you may have noticed, many of us have gleaned a lot from the factual portions of the Fallout 3 previews we've seen. If only your reviews could similarly refrain from editorialising and simply present the game as it is.

How do you get an objective review for a subjective thing? I gave Oblivion a (gasp!) 9 -- here, I'll make sure none of you have to hunt for it --http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3149203 .
And that's on 1up's "a 5 IS average" scale. I stand by it; you guys don't agree with it, but a review is fundamentally an opinion for anything other than technical fields. I think asking for a review with no editorialising is asking for nothing, honestly, but a feature list.

How is it not?

c) the perfect place for stuff like what you're discussing is podcasts and editorials. Part of the reason we do our podcast is so we can insure that the core audience gets the key information, and if the hardcore want to listen in and get an uncensored (as we've found out) look at this sort of opinion-based detail, they can.

Are your podcasts and editorials likely to featuring a differing view from the "at a glance" editorial content in the preview?

Depends on who's on them, and what they're talking about. You're likely to get a lot more information, for one thing, since you aren't reading a piece that has to meet certain ethical and due diligance standards (which we've talked about). In the podcast? Well, depends on the product. You're not going to hear anyone disagree with my Shadowrun review on the GameSpy Debriefings, because everyone on the show hates it. If it's World of Warcraft (or any Blizzard product) though, you will - Sterling (one of our core podcast hosts) just doesn't like those games.
So, depends on the week. At GameSpy, our edit columns are largely platform wide thoughts -- Sterling on Sony stuff, Gabe on MS stuff, and Bryn on Nintendo stuff. Those tend to talk about higher level stuff than just "this game X, that game Y," using games as examples. The podcast is more of the people on it talking about the week at large, so we tend to discuss what we're working on. You won't hear an editor give a game a 5 and then trashtalk it -- or he wouldn't have given it a 5 -- but you'll probably hear someone disagree with the 5 (those are usually tumultous).

Okay, all that noted, the closer you get to a game's release, the more flexability you have to really editorialize about it, because you're seeing something closer and closer to final code. Also, when you're doing a "blow out" -- a cover story, for example -- the expectation is for more of your own voice to show, since you should have seen enough to justify a cover.

Do you honestly believe that Bethesda are going to discard so much of the hard work that has gone into this preview? I'd be willing to stake a lot on those Super Mutant models being ticked off as "feature complete" or something close to it in a milestone somewhere. I can't see any sweeping changes to rectify the idiocy behind Megaton and (at least) the associated "evil quest". There's a lot to be concerned about from the perspective of a devout Fallout fan, and someone who obsesses over game design. Can it change? Yes. Will it? Unlikely.

And, then you have a couple of other inferences. If Bethesda are willing to "update" the Supermutant design to better fit the expectations of those who prefer "scary and tough" over "unique and interesting", where do their priorities lie, and what other changes are they willing to make? Why show off thoughtless replication of other games (Half-Life 2, Bookworm Adventures) when putting your best foot forward? What does that imply about your creative abilities? At what point does VATS sound like a good idea?

Since I haven't seen crap of the preview yet, I'm not sure? I'll get around to reading them soon. I promise.
But could we see a whooole lot change between now and release? Oh yes. The supermutant model? I don't know. Hell, Fasa totally redesigned Shadowrun after a badly received E3 showing. Can it change? Yes. Will it? This early, entirely likely.
And, we once again run into a weird dichotomy: there are the Fallout fans who want to see something similiar to the original games, even if that means compromises to make sure the game gets published, instead of never seeing the light of day. And there are the fans who don't accept that compromise. I don't know there's any way to rectify the situation, honestly, and I hope everyone here can see how hard a situation the publisher is in:
Put out a game that's identical enough to satisfy the hard core and fail to sell because there's not enough done to justify a sequel;
Change the game enough to have made "positive changes" but not enough to alienate the "real fans"; or
Put out a game that will appeal to the current market, a decent chunk of fans, but leave the ones who just will not accept some changes behind.
This isn't a Fallout specific issue; it's a sequel issue.
Homeworld is a great example -- Cataclysm was just too much changed for me, but it did well and kept a lot of the fans happy. I hated it. Homeworld 2 went too far in pandering to the market and misjudged what the market wanted, leaving Sierra with no one but the Homeworld sheep buying it.
As for Fallout 3...we'll see. I'll see the game at E3, most likely, and put some of what I've heard here to Bethesda and see what they think (and talk about it on the podcast). For what it's worth, I think

And all that leads to: you've got excellent points there about Fallout, no question. As far as seeing a neutral quest, more development in weapons or combat, or more screamingly iconic enemies...it's way too early. I'm hoping for about everything you mentioned there, but it's way too early to really expect it.

Obviously. But since we have seen an inane quest devoid of moral thought, a bunch of gimmicky weapons lifted from contemporary games, and "reinvention" of the most screamingly iconic enemies fallout has - at what point do you start assuming they "accidentally" showed off a bunch of stuff that doesn't bode well for the future instead of the good stuff they're yet to implement?

I don't think they accidentally showed anything. I honestly think, from what I've heard here, that they've got a build most Fallout fans will like. The quest, as described to me, doesn't sound all that terrible as a way to distinguish how you want to play, nice and early. That means the entire game now has a metric to build upon. Do I want something more complex than nuke or not nuke a town as options? Yeah. But do I want a choice to turn right to white knight or left to jerk right off the bat, even though I can't wipe out the town guard yet?
Yes.
Of course, I replayed both Fallouts to kill every non-random living thing I could, so...
And as for the super-mutants being the most iconic enemies of fallout, I'll take a crazed stance: humans are the most iconic enemies of Fallout. That sounds trite, but I mean it. Humans, doing human things, are what define Fallout. It's the difference between a madcap Unknown Armies game and a Kult game -- you might see the same level of weirdness and horror, but one of them is because of humans, and one because of monsters.

You know, a side note -- the "party line" is usually because most previews are based on the same build/slideshow/hands on. Part of being a responsible member of the media -- any media -- is not abusing the position, and honestly, part of that is keeping your facts and your opinions as clear as possible. Are previews as they stand now perfect? No way. Would a Fallout 3 preview that really dug in the way you want one to (from your list) at this point be an appropriate preview? No way -- it simply isn't a preview. It's a forward-looking critique; it's a review.

It's funny, though your own (Gamespy's) preview was probably the best of the lot in terms of putting facts ahead of opinion and hearsay, you guys have all reached the same conclusions - it captures Fallout's atmosphere to a tee; the gameplay sounds promising; it fixes a lot of Oblivions glaring flaws that we failed to notice in our reviews; the future looks bright; Fallout fans ought to be happy.

Then you take a look at the other side of the fence, and Fallout fans aren't happy, and have brought forward plenty of well-reasoned arguments to illustrate why. Strange that not one single fucking one of you guys invited to watch the preview shares any of our concerns, and in fact take a contrary stance.

The guy who wrote our preview has been doing this a Loooong time, and is reaaallly good at it. The thing is, who do you think got sent to write these previews? The guy who wrote our preview is a huge Fallout fan.
I'm a huge Elder Scrolls fan, and I wrote Oblivion previews that are reviled here. I don't think this is a core issue with how previews get done; I think it's a core issue with what the hardcore Fallout fans represented here want and what other people want.
Let's turn that around: Not a "single fucking one of you guys" shares any of the previewers conclusions -- even though you're discussing the same facts. So..."strange."

But I'll probably steal from your list (with credit) on the next podcast, now that our Fallout embargo is up and we can talk about it, if you don't mind.

Heh, go for it. Just don't mention that I'm a Fallout fan, or that "credit" will magically become a "discredit".

Fair enough. How about "from the Fallout community"?

 

[galsiah]

I think it's great that's what you want, but since no system in the world manages to meet your goal, I'm sorry, but maybe it's unreasonable, huh?

Again you go for the "Perfection is impossible, so don't even make an attempt in the right direction" argument. It sucked before and it sucks now.

In any case, I've stated fairly clearly a few times that I mean for you to include as many of the relevant quotes as is practical. In a printed magazine it'd be pretty easy to have a few pages of dense fine print with more detail - not amazingly presented, but there for those interested. In a web publication, I really don't see your excuse. If you have notes of all developer quotes, why not simply include any you consider relevant in a separate section? Because there isn't space?? Because you can't be bothered to type them??

...sentance ...sentances

Most professional journalists can probably spell "sentence". You might like to join their ranks.

What is the reader actually getting from that? Where are these "facts" you're mentioning -- you need to mention the games. You need to mention how they failed to impl[e]ment the feature.

What exactly do you think I put [feature X]...[explanation]...[detail + relevant quote] in? Punctuation?? Clearly I'm not going to mention the specific games in a generic example.
In any case, you've totally avoided my point, which is that you can point out facts, then question the likelihood of successful implementation. You can do this without calling anyone liars, or incompetent.

I'm also somewhat lost on what exactly your "expertise" provides the reader. If you can only present facts, without any analysis, your job could be done by practically anyone. The only room for expertise is in analysis - which it seems you're not doing.

There are hard calls with issues -- the shitty, muddy textures.

Wow - you really are pushing the boat out on insightful critique. Shitty, muddy textures - who else would have the expertise to point that out?

In a review, you're being told about how the entire gameplay experience comes together, and that's inherintly subjective.

Life is subjective - deal with it. Again you're applying the pathetic, weasel "This can't be done perfectly, so we'll make absolutely no attempt..." approach.

If you're not talking about the "entire gameplay experience" (or at least trying to shed light on it), you aren't previewing a game - you're previewing a load of technology and content.

In a preview, that core information of "what is in this game" has to be there.

Sure - but "what is in this game" shouldn't be limited to art assets, technology and isolated mechanics. Without making an attempt to tie it all together, you're not talking about a game at all.
Certainly you'd be making more educated (hopefully) guesses if you try to draw conclusions on how things will work together. You'd at least be talking about something worthwhile (though imperfectly - again, not a vice), rather than simply describing the bricks on a construction site.

If you do aim to understand/estimate how things might work together in the final release, an analysis of the entire preview build isn't a bad place to start - of course bearing in mind that it's an early build. If more previews took this approach, developers would have an incentive either to work hard on getting gameplay right early, or to wait until things were reasonable in that area before releasing preview builds.
Currently, you incentivize the developer's working hard early on eliminating problems you will critique (muddy textures, and the like - stuff that can, and should be left until later) - while giving them no reason to get overall balance and gameplay right early (stuff which has many unpredictable implications, and should be handled earlier if possible).

Any influence you do have on developer scheduling is in the wrong direction: fix muddy textures or face criticism; don't worry at all about balance - no-one will write about it.


EDIT:
Oh and your scoring system does suck. Having 70% as an average in a percentage system is one thing (I'd argue it's not good). Having 3.5 as an average in a 5 stars scale is just stupid. It gives you only three scores for anything above average. That's a needlessly imprecise system which does nothing to serve the readers' interests.
Of course you can say that the score is only an indication, and the precise information is in the review - but why have scores be needlessly imprecise? In this respect, it's as stupid as having a percentage system with an average of 97%. You get the same degree of expression - almost none.

 

[deadairis]

Noted somewhere here that I've called VD's professionalism into question, which I can see.
Sorry, VD. Not my intention.

[It's ok. Never claimed to be a professional journalist. I do what I like, the way I like. Seems to be working for me.

Cool.
I'm not going to go point by point here, because there's one highlight I think is a great crux of what I see as an issue with the preview:

Why not have your credibility be based on getting everything laid out correctly without relying on the dev to point out things like "that's a placeholder"?

Because that's the developer *opinion*, not a fact.

Really? So, a dev saying something is a placeholder isn't good enough? To stick to the analogy, if you saw a green screen when you got an early look at a set, you don't think being told "that's a green screen, it'll have something else in there for the film" is enough?
Because placeholders -- in art, balance, the script -- are all just as common and just as necessary, for similiar reasons.
Beyond that, it's not his opinion. He might be lying, but that still isn't an opinion. That either is or is not placeholder text. I know you seem irked by technicalities, but technicalities are where it's easy to slip. "You know what I meant. If you want to win on technicality, be my guest." Well I know you presumed that I knew what you meant. But I actually read what you wrote, and took you at your word. What you wrote wasn't what you meant -- but that's not my fault. It really isn't my fault that you presumed that despite what you wrote, I would know what you meant

So here's my core issue: it's not his opinion. That is, or is not, placeholder text. Claiming its opinion is like claiming that its my opinion that my keyboard is a keyboard or not. That's not opinion; it's a basic existential description. Now, he may know that that placeholder text will never go away and be lying by not mentioning it -- that's unethical and would be reallly unusual (since it's so easy to get caught), but what the heck. Maybe.
So, he's not trustworthy is really the only possible reason not to take him at his word. Maybe my keyboard is a keyboard, but you suspect I might be leaving off "broken" before the word keyboard. An acceptable preview needs to find out, and it needs to put the person in question on record. Instead of "this text was terrible." "Um, that's placeholder text", you have "The placeholder text was truly terrible -- but it's placeholder. Hopefully, they won't leave it in." Now, sure, you sound silly -- why would they leave placeholder text in? What are you accusing them of?
Well, lying. And if this person is so untrustworthy that you can't take their word as to whether something is placeholder or not, why should I waste my time reading what they have to say? And if you can't take the time to interogate them even a *little* -- "this text is terrible." "It's placeholder." "Reaaaly? I'm going to quoooote you..." "Umm..." -- why should I have to spend my time trying to decipher the preview?

Why don't you, in short, get alll the information together before you write the preview, and do a cohesive piece that lays out what I need to know -- instead of making me decide if I trust someone I've never met and have no means of communicating with?

That's why it's important to resolve the small, stupid things like placeholder text. That way, when a big question comes up ("Why does the super mutant look like that?") you, the reader, already know this person is asking questions, getting answers, and (as best a journalist can), holding the person answering to those answers. By publishing them.
An interview gives people a great chance to find out about a developer; a preview a great chance to find out about a game. This...I don't know, inpreview, doesn't really deliver on either. I can't trust the dev on anything he says about the game (since you, the previewer, don't even trust him about something as basic as placeholders) and I can't really learn anything about him (since you're not asking him questions, he's just responding to what you write [which, I know from talking to you isn't the case -- but that's clearly how it's edited]).

Now, as for Oblivion: I think I answered your actual questions in my review (which I linked to a post or two ago; 1up 360 oblivion review google). But there's one thing I want to really address, and it's the funny word once more: technicalities.
Here's what I wrote:
"the best combat system the series has seen, and one of the best combat systems in any RPG."
Here's what you quoted:
"the best combat system in any RPG"?
Between what I actually, technically wrote and what you quoted me! as writing, the game has gone from being previewed as the best combat the elder scrolls series game has seen and one of the best RPG combat systems to:
the best combat system in any RPG.
Tell me why technicalities and getting your own quotes, instead of just letting people throw them in, don't matter enough to be important in your writing?
As for my actual quote, I think what made Oblivion combat for me is that it didn't jar me out of the game. I could fight and cast magic (not possible in Morrowind), and the integration of stealth, magic, and melee into one package made for a few satisfying builds. In addition, it's version of the Elder Scrolls real-time combat managed to draw in a lot more "action" for people who wanted that while still being build and gear dependant enough that it wasn't truly an "action" game.

As for coverage, can you ping me privately? I would need to get some more details about what you're working on, and I'm sure that most of the people here know it already. I'm sure I could google it, but I just don't have the oomph. Sorry.

The point of the edit was to make it read like the two of you were having a friendly conversation? Why? If he's not worth your trust, if he's not worth your time to check this facts with, why should I listen to him?

I gave the readers a choice. I pointed out some issues and let the readers know what the developer thinks of them. Whether or not they decide to trust the developer is up to them.

Right, but here you're claiming he "didn't add anything to the preview", emphasis mine. That seems...nonsensical.

You know what I meant. If you want to win on technicality, be my guest.

The idea is I can't trust the person writing the preview -- either person?

No, the idea is to give options. Without the developer's responses, addressing the criticism, the preview would have been incomplete. In my humble, non-professional opinion, of course.

Why not have your credibility be based on getting everything laid out correctly without relying on the dev to point out things like "that's a placeholder"?

Because that's the developer *opinion*, not a fact. As I explained, the quote in question didn't seem out of place and fit the overall writing style. It's like writing an Oblivion preview and complaining about idiotic one-liners that NPCs throw at each other, and then listening to Bethesda "Oh, these are just placeholders" and removing them from the preview. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

I'm sorry, I didn't think anyone had argued for unbiased reporting...was that the goal?
In which case, I suppose we should give your preview a very hard look -- it seems pretty biased to me. I mean, there's an opinion there...
No, that's not the goal. At least, I don't think it should be. Honesty is. You've outed me -- I like Oblivion. I like it less than Morrowind, but I think Oblivion did some amazing things. And I wrote a preview based on what I saw.

It's not about having an opinion and liking Oblivion. It's about making unsupported, unexplained claims like "There's no question that this [Oblivion combat] is the best combat system the series has seen, and one of the best combat systems in any RPG."

I think Oblivion did some amazing things...

Like what?

And I wrote a preview based on what I saw.

You saw that it has "the best combat system in any RPG"? Do explain.

Btw, an unrelated question. Whom should I talk at GameSpy about some coverage?
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19462[/quote]

 

[Amasius]

Boy, I am formatting these like crap. Sorry guys.

You should do that with every post. Before you hit the reply button. You are (besides robur) the only professional writer here but many of your posts are a bloody mess. Please - format them appropriate and I will consider to read them.

 

[deadairis]

I think it's great that's what you want, but since no system in the world manages to meet your goal, I'm sorry, but maybe it's unreasonable, huh?

Again you go for the "Perfection is impossible, so don't even make an attempt in the right direction" argument. It sucked before and it sucks now.

And you again avoid the "hey, no one does things they way you're describing, think maybe you're the one who's wrong?" issue. As for not "taking steps" in the right direction, let's say again: there are citation standards for news and academia. Gaming journalism, in general, meets news standards. Don't think they're good enough? Let's address this again: How is it the whole world is wrong, and only you've seen the truth of it? Do you think maaaybe there are some issues you don't care about that matter in the real world?
For example, all my relevant notes? What about audio? What format? Where do we find the systems to include them? What about magazines? Are you going to find the money to hire an army of transcribers? Awesome, gimme that money. All my notes? Are you going to find someone to take reams of years worth of notes from god knows how many trips and demos and turn them into something cohesive -- and make sure to skip anything confidential?
Oh, you will? Awesome. Let's see, after you've done that impossible task, you have a ... library. And...wow, an academic level of citation for every single thing written.
Wow, how about we just keep citing our sources and sourcing our quotes, instead?

...sentance ...sentances

Most professional journalists can probably spell "sentence". You might like to join their ranks.

Really? You copy edit a lot of stuff for profesional journalists?
Beyond that, most professional journalists don't bother talking to forum dwellers either, because they do garbage like critique spelling when someone is taking their free time to chat with them.
Heck, Gal -- most people realize that infiinte sourceing isn't feasible. You might like to join their ranks.

What is the reader actually getting from that? Where are these "facts" you're mentioning -- you need to mention the games. You need to mention how they failed to impl[e]ment the feature.

What exactly do you think I put [feature X]...[explanation]...[detail + relevant quote] in? Punctuation?? Clearly I'm not going to mention the specific games in a generic example. In any case, you've totally avoided my point, which is that you can point out facts, then question the likelihood of successful implementation. You can do this without calling anyone liars, or incompetent.

No, you can do that without *directly* calling someone a liar or incompetent. What you're suggesting doing is implicitly calling them liars or incompetents -- which may fool little old ladies at used car stores, but is still a slimey tactic. And unless you have a magic way of showing that what a developer has claimed is *false*, then you're -- to be frank -- not just out of line, but you're lying.
I think you put your formula in because you don't know what sort of information people get to write previews from -- because you're not listening.

I'm also somewhat lost on what exactly your "expertise" provides the reader. If you can only present facts, without any analysis, your job could be done by practically anyone. The only room for expertise is in analysis - which it seems you're not doing.

Ah, if it can't be perfect, you're not interested, huh?
Expertise is, largely, the "magic way" of discussing what might not come together -- my Kane and Lynch preview as an example, again.

There are hard calls with issues -- the shitty, muddy textures.

Wow - you really are pushing the boat out on insightful critique. Shitty, muddy textures - who else would have the expertise to point that out?[/quote]
So, you want previews that are critical, but when one is, it isn't critical about what you want so there's no value?
What happened to the "Perfection is impossible, so don't even make an attempt in the right direction" arguement sucking, man?

In a review, you're being told about how the entire gameplay experience comes together, and that's inherintly subjective.

Life is subjective - deal with it. Again you're applying the pathetic, weasel "This can't be done perfectly, so we'll make absolutely no attempt..." approach.

Man, there it is again! I knew you had mentioned that. But, I really don't even know what you're talking about here, for what it's worth. Are you...unhappy that reviews are subjective? Agreeing with me? I honestly don't know what your point is.

If you're not talking about the "entire gameplay experience" (or at least trying to shed light on it), you aren't previewing a game - you're previewing a load of technology and content.

Yeah, actually, if you're talking about the "entire gameplay experience" of a game in a preview, you're talking about stuff you made up. Because most of the that entire gameplay experience doesn't exist yet. That's why it's a preview. You've found us out: gaming journalists often preview the content and technology of video games.
We also, secretly, sometimes review entire, finished games.
Don't tell anyone.

In a preview, that core information of "what is in this game" has to be there.

Sure - but "what is in this game" shouldn't be limited to art assets, technology and isolated mechanics. Without making an attempt to tie it all together, you're not talking about a game at all.
Certainly you'd be making more educated (hopefully) guesses if you try to draw conclusions on how things will work together. You'd at least be talking about something worthwhile (though imperfectly - again, not a vice), rather than simply describing the bricks on a construction site.

Which is largely what gets done. Not to your satisfaction? Sure. But your beginning arguement is that no media or news outlet in the world or its history is to your satisfaction, and you've shown that you're unimpressed with any efforts that seem to point towards coverage more like how you want it to be.
So...I guess, enjoy a lifetime of unhappiness with your coverage. Sorry, but it really seems like you have totally unrealistic expectations of how much work this "journalism" thing is, you claim to want to see at least some movement towards more critical eyes on previews but dismiss proof that that happens as useless, and your dipping into shots at my spelling errors.
Honestly, if I have to spellcheck stuff for you to read it, it's not worth my time. I get paid to write stuff that's spellchecked and carefully edited.

 

[deadairis]

Boy, I am formatting these like crap. Sorry guys.

You should do that with every post. Before you hit the reply button. You are (besides robur) the only professional writer here but many of your posts are a bloody mess. Please - format them appropriate and I will consider to read them.

Better with the last few?
A whole lot of these are getting done from my phone, but when I'm at an actual computer I'm trying to get all these /quotes in the right place out of courtesy and basic respect for readability.