Now for the final part in my three-part series on the problems holding the videogame industry back from the respect it deserves.  Next under the magnifying glass,  journalists.

Journalists:  Anyone who covers games professionally.

Not viewing themselves as real journalists:  This may seem a small concern that doesn’t apply to a lot of people, but it is the first step in being a roadblock on the path to games being legitimized on a massive scale.  Too many times I have heard on podcasts or read in articles about journalists who view themselves as “professional enthusiasts” and not real journalists.  I personally hate the term “professional enthusiast” because it is the same thing as a journalist, just a term made up to make it seem less real.  Any journalist of any medium is technically a professional enthusiast.  But the worst part is that when you stop viewing yourself as a journalist, you run the risk that you might stop acting like one.  The solution:  Man (or woman) up.  Accept you are a journalist and if you feel you’re not acting in a manner befitting a journalist, change the way you cover games to be more valuable to fans.  Just look at what John Davison has done with GamePro.  With its emphasis on features and developers with less focus on the white-washed PR preview cycle, GamePro has now become the most professional gaming journalism outlet on the planet.  Every outlet doesn’t need to do exactly what GamePro is doing, but they do need to find their own identity and get back to some good, basic journalism. 

Giving in to PR:  Despite the fact that PR is obviously a more worrisome part of the problem than journalists, giving in to such pressures only makes it worse.  Not only do you reaffirm to PR that they can get away with such pressures, you’re inaction is robbing the consumer of the quality coverage they deserve.  Worse still, on the occasions when one actually does stand up to PR, their bosses often allow PR to bully them into firing said person(again, see Australian journalist fired over Red Dead Redemption coverage).  There may be some justifications for relenting when writing previews, but you have to remember why you’re writing this in the first place.  It isn’t for PR, it’s for consumers.  By the time of a review there’s no excuse.  The solution:  It’s fine to tone down the harshness in a preview but don’t sugarcoat it completely.  Ryan Scott’s preview of Star Trek Online is an excellent example of preview integrity.  There should be no holds barred in reviews whatsoever.  People in charge of outlets should protect their employees from such PR pressure, or at least not fire them if PR asks them to.   I’ve always respected Dan Hsu, Jeff Green, and others for making a point to keep PR off of their employees as much as possible. 

Poor Writing:

            The other day I heard a person who shall remain unnamed describe Alpha Protocol’s graphics as “good for PS1, maybe.”  This quote write here exemplifies the problem I’m talking about, even though I did not find it in writing form.  When you look at Alpha Protocol, it certainly looks bad graphics-wise and not up to current standards.  However, looking at it side-by-side with actual PS1 games, anyone in their right mind could tell you which looks better graphically.  While I’m sure the statement was a deliberate exaggeration it brings to light the bad misuse of writing devices that game journalists frequently use.  Jeff Green lampooned this kind of writing in his infamous fake preview of The Cudgel of Xanthor where he purposefully used poor writing styles often relied on by games journalists.  The sad part was that people had become so used to such bad writing habits when reading online articles that some didn’t get the joke and mistook this parody for a preview of an actual game.  While there are certainly many outlets that display the same poor writing styles when covering movies and music, there is a core of quality based around several newspapers or sites that actually put out good writing, and videogames still don’t have some of that (Although I think GamePro and the new EGM are a good start).  The solution:  Re-read that article you just wrote.  Ask yourself: “Is this going to be valuable to consumers?  Does it avoid vague or heavily exaggerated comparisons and descriptions that don’t benefit anyone?  Does this describe the game effectively and isn’t just PR regurgitation or full of cheap, easy writing devices?”  If the answer is no to any of those questions then there is something wrong with that article.