Hello VGChartz community!

It's been about a year since we last opened up applications for writing staff. With some departures and with our yearly GotY write-ups on the horizon, it's time for recruitment once again. 

This time around, we’re looking primarily for review writers, although people looking to post more general feature articles are also welcome to apply. If you love to play and analyze games and/or you have a lot of fun op-ed ideas bouncing around in your head, we hope you will submit an application. 

Benefits:

As a writer you'll have the opportunity to contribute to this site and community, gain a wider audience for your ramblings, broadcast your reviews on OpenCritic, have the potential to acquire review codes/copies ahead of launch, and also earn some money based on article traffic (please note that pay is modest; don’t go into it expecting to make a living).

Requirements:

A small checklist of things we’re looking for from prospective writers:

• You must be a member of VGChartz. If you don’t yet have an account please make one before applying.
• Good English is a must. We’re not looking for perfect English by any means, but you must at least have a good foundation; otherwise it will take too long to polish and edit your reviews.
• Being a critical reviewer is also a must. On OpenCritic we have one of the lowest average scores (6.4/10) and one of the lowest rates of game recommendations (38%) out of all outlets. That’s a reflection of our review methodology and the sort of people we’re looking to write reviews for us.
• Be receptive to constructive criticism. All game reviews are subject to a peer-review process.
• Active on Discord (or at least willing to be). We use Discord to communicate as a team, speeding up the editing process and making it possible to plan stuff - both for the writing team and for all staff.
• Own at least one ‘active’ video game platform (i.e. PS4, NS, XOne, or PC).

Procedure:

If you're interested in applying to become a writer, please send an email to me, Evan Norris, at enorris@vgchartz.com and Craig Snow at csnow@vgchartz.com. Use the subject line "VGChartz Writer Application" and please include the following:

• Your VGChartz username
• You Discord name & number
• A little bit about yourself
• Platforms you own (if you intend to purchase a PS5 or XSX near to launch please add these to your list)
• At least one scored review sample

The deadline to apply is 5pm ET on Friday, September 18. Good luck!

FAQs

Do I need to be published to apply?

No previous professional writing experience is required.

What should a sample review look like?

Try to stick with the typical formula: an intro, a body with the meat of your argument, and a conclusion. Within that, we really just want to see your style and command of language. There’s no minimum or maximum word count (Craig hates long reviews and I tend to look for more detail when editing reviews, so try to find a healthy balance).

How are reviews assigned?

Craig, our Editor-in-Chief, posts a thread with the marquee games in a given month. Writers then post the games they wish to play, in order of preference, identifying those titles they plan to buy and those they hope to secure via review codes/copies. Games are assigned based on this process. When two or more writers request the same game, the writer who was not approved gets priority for the next conflict.

Will I be getting review copies/codes?

Sometimes, yes. Writers source their own review copies/codes. Success rate varies and depends on a number of factors, including the size of the publisher (small publishers are more likely to hand out codes) and how many codes the PR rep has to hand out. 

How much time does a writer have to review a newly released game?

We have a rule that a review must be published no later than 30 days from launch in your region. We may make exceptions for longer games, like RPGs.

What is the team's review scoring scale?

Check out our scoring methodology here. 

Is VGChartz on any review aggregators?

We’re featured on OpenCritic, and our reviews and scores are listed on N4G. We’re not on MetaCritic.

What kind of features can I write?

Anything video game related. It could be a top 10 list, a retrospective, an interview, or an opinion piece about the state of the industry. Check out some examples here. As long as it’s not pure trolling and/or clickbait, let your imagination run wild.

If you have any more questions please ask below.

Hmmmmm... I like writing reviews and feel that I am well qualified... But I think the review scale used here is problematic. Probably best not to get into it too deeply here, but I think having the lowest average review scores is more of a bug than a feature. Is the site open to constructive criticism on this?

Yeah, it's weird to be proud of a low average on Opencritic just for the sake of it, or in the name of " being critical", as if people that gives higher scores can't be critical.

Just giving my honest opinion, it's all. I mean, for whoever wants to be a writer, it's part of the job hearing positive and negative feedback, isn't it?

Happy to hear your thoughts!

I will say that a lot of outlets start at 5 and go to 10, meaning a 7.5 is considered average. We feel strongly that the full scale should be used. A 5/10 for us isn't the bottom of the barrel; it's a mediocre game with an equal number of positives and negatives.

This isn't about steering writers toward an artificially low score; it's about exploring the full 10-point range and providing a more nuanced analysis for our readers.

Fun fact I got my very first ban for making fun of a review done by ssj12
I need fresh meat

I would have three objections to that.

First of all, readers are generally not going to view your scores in isolation. If the average score of a game is an 8 and VGChartz scored it a 7, then the readers impression will be that you liked it considerably less than the other outlets. As a mod, I've obviously seen situations where people get very upset when anticipated games, TLOU2 and Xenoblade Chronicles HD for instance, are upset with scores around a 7. You could fairly say that they're interpreting what that means incorrectly, but the end result is that the reviewer's intent and the reader's impression are not matching up. So, you can address that issue by either making sure every reader is educated to your particular scale, or by changing the scale to match reader expectations. I don't think the former option is practical, leaving the latter.

Moreover, I'd say that the whole scale doesn't have to be used. If the scale is relative, then that makes sense. If the scale is meant to be objective, then that doesn't necessarily make sense. 

What I mean is, that if a scale is meant to measure "goodness", and all games are pretty good, then I think it's fine for the average score to be a 7. Also, the system is going to naturally filter out bad games. Games are apparently selected either because people are interested in them and buy them, or because reviewers send codes. If reviewers are voluntarily spending their time and money on a game, then most likely, it's because they have pre-release information that makes them believe the game will be good. And, if reviewers send a copy of their own initiative, it's probably because they believe the game is good and will receive a positive review. Of course, this isn't always the case. Devs may be in denial, and first impressions can be wrong, but generally, games reviewed should be towards the higher end of the scale.

Most importantly though, I don't think the system is actually using the whole scale. Again, as a mod, I checked in on reviews because people can get a bit nasty when big games don't score what they think it should. In doing so, I noticed... a lot of games get a 7. I actually analyzed this about a month ago. Of the last 89 games reviewed (as of August) 39 of them scored a 7. That's nearly half of the games reviewed (43%) which is a pretty huge chunk. 

The reason for this is that the review scale artificially curves the score to a seven. There are ten potential values that can be given to a game. Three of those values in the system (8,9,10) are reserved for GOTY candidates. Obviously, very few games should be getting these scores. On the flip side 1,2,3, and 4 are all devoted to bad games, with the bottom three being reserved for games that are "atrocious", "irredeemably bad", and "not even worthy of a bargain bin purchase". So, a full 70% of the scale is reserved for games that are either among the very best or among the very worst the industry has to offer. That really doesn't make sense to me.

I would say that a lot, even most, games that get reviewed are going to be good but not goty worthy. Again, this is because the games that are reviewed are reviewed because a writer presumably expected it to be good or a publisher wanted it to be reviewed (presumably because they thought it had a decent chance at a good score). The only possible score for good but not GOTY games is a 7. And as we see, that's the score that a large plurality of games wind up getting.

This is an issue of resolution. A scale should be the most detailed where it is needed most. The scale can differentiate between crap games really well. For instance, we can tell from the scale that "A Cat Girl Without Salad" was shitty, but Down To Hell was REALLY shitty. That differentiation probably doesn't matter to anyone who didn't develop one of those games. On the other hand, the scale offers no way to differentiate between DBZ Kakarot, Resident Evil 7, Xenoblade Chronicles HD, The Last of Us 2, Shenmue 3, and Shinsekei: Into the Depths. People may actually be choosing between those games and want to know which is better, and the scale offers no way to differentiate between them. (Yes I know there are words too, but let's not pretend people care about the words nearly as much as the number).

As a last note, from August to last December, 39% of games received a 7, 3% get a 9, 13% an 8, 19% a 6, 11% a 5, 4% a 4, and 1% a 2, and 0% score a 10, 3, or 1. So, the numbers aren't really all being used. And, five kind of is the bottom of the barrel, because only 5% of games scored below that. 

So, yeah, that's why I think the system is flawed. And honestly it wouldn't be that tough to fix it. Changing the definition of 8 from "viable GOTY candidate" (btw there were last I checked 18 viable GOTY candidates including the Switch port of DMC3, Twin Breaker, a brick breaking game, and Clubhouse games) to "very good" would give a way to differentiate between good games and very good games, while also bringing the system more into line with reader expectations. Adding in half stars would also help. As a result there would be 4 potential values that a good game could receive, rather than just one. This also solves the problem of half the scale being useless (which it still is under the current system) by essentially doubling the top half of the scale, and essentially turning 5-10 into a ten point scale, which is how most sites do it. 

I didn't mean this to be an off topic rant, but I like reviewing games and may be interested in doing so in the future. The problem is that out of all the games I've played this year pretty much all of them would be good games that weren't quite GOTY candidates, so I'd basically be handing out 7s to every game. And, I don't think that would be an effective way for me to actually convey my opinions of games to people, so I feel like this scale isn't really workable.

I never mentioned that I had a problem with the system per se(even if I do think this site has alot of problematic reviews, such as the XC DE review, but that's a completely different topic), but rather the phrase and the mentality that same phrase alludes to: That because you guys are more "strict", you give out fairer scores and/or are more critical of the games because of said scores, which is wrong by it's own definition. Just because someone gives less points to a game dosen't mean that they are actually being more critical of that work. It could also mean that they are just a prick, or don't like that genre( just an example, not aiming at anyone). At the same time, people who usually give high scores to games dosen't mean they are trying to please a certain audience. It could simply mean that the games they usually review always falls into a category they REALLY like.

I just meant that, since people already went into defence mode the moment some users had an issue with the wording of the OP, is that I don't have a problem with this site review guidelines( at least in regards to the topic we are discussing right now), but rather the wording of that sentence makes you guys appear " high and mighty", since the OP was so proud of the lower aggregate score of VGC on Opencritic. After some problematic(my opinion) reviews here on VGC, that ended being my conclusion.

Ire? It's not ire Machina, not really an attack.

It's more of an observation. Just felt that sentence was written poorly and felt out of place, that's all. I bear no ill will against anyone here.

Then that's half of the problem solved. I'd say then that changing what an "8" on the scale means would be the other half. Having that much of the scale devoted to GOTY contenders doesn't really make sense considering how few there should be... Especially considering that this doesn't seem to be the way the scale is being used. I mean... I like DMC3 and Clubhouse games as much as the next guy, but do you guys really foresee either one being named GOTY?