Games Journalism isn't What it Used to Be

[DonFerrari]

haxxiy said:

Baddman said:
I think it's better gaming journalism was terrible if you ask me especially those magazines that straight up lied

Yeah. Chalk it to lack of proper channels of information... or whatever... but game coverage in the 80s and early 90s was terrible. Nowadays, the easy access to information does the opposite. Game journalists rush reviews out of the gate so they can get the clicks, and also dare not critisize games too harshly as not to lose their privileges.

Also, OP, a lot of sites have staff with differing opinions and don't follow a single editorial line. That's why GoW can get a 10 from a certain author and then be excluded from any "best of" list from another author. It's a bit jarring and amateurish, but, of course, it's not because a reviewer sometimes won't like a certain game as much as you do that it's bad journalism. As for the clickbaits and repeated content of a certain game or genre... well, this sort of content is there exactly because it's extensively consumed.

This varying review is one the biggest problems they have and is supported by people who want most if not all review grade being based on how much fun they had with that game.

When you do a technical evaluation you can use metrics and compare on a objectively manner. When you go for fun it becomes totally subjective and you can't compare scores, reviews or anything.