Video game "journalism" isn't journalism as much as it is an extension of video game developers' and publishers' marketing and PR teams. So much of the industry is focused on selling a product rather than analyzing its merit as an entry in a legitimate medium or uncovering new information that the community needs to know.

We have super popular blogs like Kotaku which update dozens of times a day regarding minute gameplay announcements. Publishers feed them tidbits of information and they filter it into an easy to digest pulp that they then force down our throats. It can be great if you're starved for information on an upcoming game, but I think the hype that this industry runs on often ruins the gaming experience by overwhelming us with information we don't need.

Yah. I think that alot of the pieces of game reviews I read are the same old same old. If you read one review on a popular site then chances are someone on another site will pretty much say the same things about the game. I find that once someone one pin points a certain bullet point about a game then EVERYONE will talk aobut that one bullet point, and then yadda-yadda-yadda about therest of the game. Here is a crappy example: Halo. Man I love me some Halo. But you didn't hear a whole lot about the campaign {which I love} But you hear about the multiplay a damn lot. To the point that it's MLG standard. But the multiplayer is the star of the game, even though there is so much more to it. End crappy example. So yah I tend to look for review sites that step outta the norm {Bitmob}, but man it's hard to find a decient review that hasn't been done before. So I usally stick to the reviewer. The person that gives me the best info about games and is a joy to read. That is another bullet point I'd like to point out, If you enjoy reading articals about games and what not, look at the author, chances are you just might like alot of things that that person has writen. I'll compair this to (coming outta left field here} the "Hey Ash, Whatcha Playin'?" videos. I got hooked from watching just one{stemming from gametrails.com}. But I digress. I also would encourage people to look at all facets of media and entertainment that the reviewer writer has been involved with. For instance, once I started reading EGM I followed alot of It's editors and contributers because I liked what they wrote and enjoyed what they do. Once EMG was bought out or sold or discontinued, I still followed the writers and contriubuters because I liked their work. They kept me informed and I knew I could trust their opinion. So as my closing comments and attempt to get this comment back on track, there is alot of medicore reviews and regurgitated articals about games, but there are diamonds in the rough. And if you look at them in differnet lights and angles, they shine in different ways.

As someone who tried to start their own site, I can say how hard it is to resist the temptation to just rewrite, link and then post the news of the day.

If you don't you have missed out on a story, if you do you are not truly being honest to your readers about your involvement in the piece- that really all you did was find it and then regurgitate it back to them with different words and a dash of commentary.

The sad thing is just how necessary this is for many sites to have a constant stream of new content... I mean, I can't think of many gaming sites, big and small, that do not do this in some way.

In a way I think this is more forgivable for small sites, who have little resources and, in my case, were simply trying to get used to a news grind and find some kind of interesting voice to use for pieces of that nature.

I find places like Kotaku to use this in a way that is a bit more of a gray area. Kotaku can get a site a good bit of hits, but how many people are just reading Kotaku's summary and not even bothering to click on the link of the original poster? Is Kotaku a parasite, or are they a legitimate source of information?

Those are hard questions for me to answer, since I often read Kotaku for expediency.

But by doing this am I really damaging the state of games journalism?

Another thing I found while making my own site is truly how many pieces are just press releases that have been rewritten. Just get yourself a Gamespress.com account and you will see how often 'stories' you read come from this site.

Still, these posts often disperse interesting information, and if a sites readers are being informed and a product if getting more recognition, is any real damage being done?

I find it a bit hard to gripe too much about the state of games journalism, but I think that is because I got out of the game. I spent way too many late nights trying to post stories from all forms of entertainment, and eventually you get away from your original goal- to write about your opinions and feelings- and turn into a parrot doing your best to take a new slant on a subject that is already well worn.

I think a huge part of the problem right now is just how many people there are out there trying to be journalists, while the places I considered to be the 'real' games press have taken a pretty big beating. EGM closing down was a huge sign to me that the games press might never be the same. Since then my opinion of the 'press' side of games reporting has taken a huge hit, while my opinion of the commentary side of games reporting has taken a huge upswing.

A site like Bitmob is great, because it places a much firmer view on what the community thinks, not on simply what is the news of the moment. This is a ton more interesting to me. I want to know people's opinions on an issue, not just hear the same tiny scrap of information regurgitated for the umpteenth time.

I might have a low enough opinion of games journalism as a field that I have decided to not pursue it as a career, but I have a much higher opinion of it as well because I know that Bitmob.com is always here when I do have something game related that I feel is worth writing a piece over.

I personally think that some of the abstraction of this issue is based on what exactly we consider to be journalism. Simply reporting the news isn't necessarily journalism - it takes no skill to take a press release from your inbox and post it to a website.

At this point, I think a website like Joystiq has really brought an identity to their style of reporting the news that I'd feel quite comfortable labeling a lot of the great folks over there as journalists. Instead of just presenting the news as it is, they often try to start a conversation and offer context.

If anyone is as big a fan of Jason Calacanis as I am, you'd know that Jason talks pretty often about the value of curation on the internet. In the early stages of the internet, content was clearly the focus - starting from square one, every piece of content had inherent value.

Now, we're left with piles and piles of content, leaving true journalists as the curators. Am I really interested in the simple acquisition of some company by another? Or rather, do I want to hear about the bigger company's history of acquisitions, how they implemented some of the talent they acquire, how their value increases among their peers after the growth, etc. These are metrics that exist all over the internet, but the key to lending them value is combining them to produce a cogent conclusion.

By contributing to this curation in any way, I think a reporter or editor can truly become a journalist. There are two things people on the internet want - something new, or something presented in a different or better way. Innovation and execution... a journalist is capable of both.

I have a small site that I run my podcast from and up until a month ago, I resisted the copy/pasting style of news out in gaming news but for me to see any more traffic to the site, I have no choice. It is an unnecessary evil and I hate doing it. I try to only post news stories that do not have 3-5 links to the original story and stick to the ones that my listeners/visitors would like to see.

If I had more time or got paid to do the news/reporting, I would most certainly do a little legwork in finding out more details if at all possible or relevant. All the big sites HAVE people that get paid and do this for a living yet they fall privy to the copy/paste world of gaming journalism.

I think it has come down to the "first post" syndrome to get the hits that most people are worried about. I would love to see more articles that are researched and well thought out with a mix of PR news since we will never get away from that style. Instead of copying the other guys post and linking to it, write your own opinion on the story. It's much more enjoyable than reading the same paragraph on every major site.

I think game journalism is too much controlled by the press. It's not that the press tells them what to score a game (like that incident a few years back), but that journalists can't do much to cover a game when game companies control everything on how much of games are revealed.

It's not like film journalism, where reporters go to studios and sets to check on what's going on and asking stars, game reporters can't/don't do that. Everything that comes out of them came out indirectly from a game company.

Until we have people breaking into developer studios and checking things out, they are just writing stuff about things we could see by ourselves.

Most the gaming news on the internet is paraphrased and re-blogged. Just look at the top stories on n4g.com there is no originality. That why I am a big Bitmob (I may bias here) and Gamasutra reader.

The first problem is a lot of games journalists haven't even looked at an AP Style Guide before, let alone own one. They aren't writers first, they are gamers first, and that's a worrisome line.

The other issue is it's nothing but journalists. People that can report the news and give you information, but there are few people with such an insight that actual games analysis and criticism is left to the dogs. It's like how "critics" are panning Darksiders for being too "derivative" and ripping from games like Zelda while so many other successful rips go with praise (Shadow Complex, while great, has had no criticism like Darksiders).

The people that are reviewing games really shouldn't be. There's no one like, say, Roger Ebert to be reviewing games that not only has a knowledge of the industry and its workings, but an analytical mind that can say "this works and this doesn't". It's all just a bunch of people that love games that ONLY know what they like and don't like, not what is good or bad design regardless of your personal feelings (otherwise GTA would be given a Hell of a lot more harsh criticism that it deserves).

I just want to know if other lifestyle/enthusiast press industries have such constant drama about their own legitimacy. Do the guys at Car & Driver wake up every day with existential crises like this? Sports writers? Tattoo mags?

Apart from that, I consider most game journalists to be average people in a position of access. I used to look up to them as if they were better at evaluating games and better at writing about them, and were better authorities in general. I think we can all safely say that's not always the case.

Do you think that online game journalism offers far more repetition of news than reporting of news?

That depends on how many websites the newsreader frequents. Someone who hits all the major gaming news sites will likely find stories repeated over and over. On the other hand, someone who relies on a single site will only see the stories once.

What I find most unappealing about the repetition of news stories is how blatantly most websites do it. Nearly every news blip I see nowadays has a link to another site (always in parentheses or square brackets) where the re-poster originally found the story. Is this really necessary? Is it a bastardized form of citation? I may never know. If your story is so un-original (or so lacking new content) that you feel guilty without accrediting the site you stole it from, then something is wrong.

Are you happy with the types of news coverage you read? What do you feel is missing?

Can't complain right now. I don't actively seek out gaming news, so anything I do read is new and, by that nature, interesting.

What do you feel online game news does well? Do too many pieces read like rewritten press releases?

Honestly, I enjoy the subjective commentary many writers deliver alongside the information. I'm enough of a critical thinker to discern between fact and opinion. Granted, it's easier to understand a news piece when receiving the "straight facts" only, but the commentary offers another layer of thought. By reading someone else's thoughts on the matter, I can reinforce my own beliefs, or perhaps learn another person's perspective on the subject.

Do you want more investigative work? Do you want a more professional level of editing in your news reports?

Professional editing is an obvious plus. Investigative work is interesting too, but I feel the game industry is somewhat constrictive for journalists attempting this. So much of the game industry is based on doled-out secrets, timed information, and PR management that it seems hard for a true-blue journalist to dig up the underlying secrets.

@Jeremy Lamont Yes, writers and editors in every field care a great deal about the state of their industry. Credibility and trust are a journalist's stock, and if we don't have that, we're worthless.

As a sportswriter and editor, we cared, with every story, about the facts, if we were presenting it properly, if we didn't miss anything, if it was spelled and punctuated correctly, if it was structured well, and if the art went with the story. We even have a number of professional organizations where we discuss the craft and trade. I've benefited from a couple of these conferences and still use a handout from the 2006 Associated Press Sports Editors conference on top editing to help people improve.

To me, there seems to be this pervasive idea in the gaming media, that THEY are video games. That video games would be nothing without them, and that gamers wouldn't know what to do without them. A lot of times this shows in articles explaining how to make a franchise better, or how this game system can do things RIGHT in the future.

This all really shows up in there writing, or lack there of. The gaming media, quite frankly, is a group of over glorified bloggers that are working on sites that a large corporation now owns. The writing from these outlets tends to be over opinionated, which is not necessarily a bad thing, without looking at both sides of the equation, which can be a very bad thing.

They are a group of people that get mad when people disagree with them, mostly complaining how their readership complains on message boards, but turns around and gets mad when a gaming company doesn't do what they want them to do.

I really think this is an important time for the gaming media. If it wants to be credible, then things need to change, otherwise I don't know that it will be around.

At times, gaming press seems like one part Consumer Reports and one part crystal ball. On the net, it seems to particularly focus on rumors and wild speculation – presumably because there just isn’t enough information coming out, from press releases and opportunities to play games hands-on, to support 24 hour news.

There are a lot of stories I see tweeted that I generally avoid, as I assume that the site is just pumping them out for a few extra clicks.

However, I do enjoy sites like Bitmob because they offer more stories that focus on personal experiences with games – whether they are stories about a particular individual’s experience with a game or more analytical pieces about videogame trends.

I think the biggest problem is that there's so much damn noise out there. People are churning out quality game coverage on a daily basis, but how to find them in the sea of rehashed press releases. The aggregation sites don't help -- they just amplify the noise.

If you're lucky, you occasionally find a site or or a person whose work blows you away, and you can follow them -- look to people like Patrick Klepek at G4 for investigative work, for example, or to sites like Gamasutra for more in-depth, business-side analysis. And here on Bitmob you can find all sorts of interesting and unique content.

So I'm hopeful. But I absolutely agree with Jon Cole: We need more and better curating so the quality stuff bubble to the top.

I don't mind the content of game coverage for the most part. I do think most of it is repetitive, rehashed, etc, but it takes so little time to skip past all the garbage and get to the good stuff it doesn't bother me. It seems like contemporary game journalism is the logical offspring of the nature of the internet and the subject it reports on. However, that is a subject for an entire blog post (which I hope to write), if not a book.

What does bother me is the tone of a lot of articles I see on the internet. Snarky, snippy, "I'm so jaded" writing is so hack and cliche. I expect it to be in the comments below the article, not in the article itself. In my mind it shows a lack of professionalism, and even worse, a lack of imagination. The most embarrassing is when writers try to pass snide off as funny. Editors (and readers) should be iron-fisted when trying to cut down the amount of snark that comes out of online news outlets.

As I was typing I just realized what the snarky writers remind me of: High School age kids who have low self-esteem. Desperately hating on everything around them to seem cool, not realizing how stupid they sound.

Awww, there now I’ve gone and done it.

Game journalism, unlike alot of other forms of journalism, really is a huge extension of the community its based on. Its been part of the gamer life style since the first issues of Nintendo Power (remember when that was a cool read) and EGM.

I guess I'm just not sure how well any enthusiast-press culture can extricate itself from the marketing teat. Ultimately you're informing an audience of fans about a product they like. There's really only one source of information, and the press is just a middleman.

@Jason Wilson I wonder less about the execution of journalism (whether the writing is "good" or the facts are straight... presumably everyone is on board desiring that) and more about the concept of press serving PRIMARILY as product marketing/PR. I think it's the nature of the relationship of dev -> pub -> press -> consumer.

So that's what compels me about this topic. (I wrote in to the Bitmob Mailbag for the first episode, but I don't think it ever got addressed.) I just don't know what more an enthusiast press outlet could do beyond what publishers allow. Maybe snoop through sales figures for trends, or do interviews. In that respect, I think we get pretty much what we can from our press folks. There's just not a lot of wiggle-room for business that is being squeezed out from either side of the equation by publishers (controlling the message) AND consumers (with increasing ability to broadcast/interface).

Thus my earlier comment about press people being simply "in a position of access". That's what they do.

That said, I will add that I think Kotaku's Stephen Totilo is the most lateral-thinking press person in the business, and best qualifies in my mind as a "journalist". He does more with that limited economy of information than anyone else I can think of. Like a Native American using the entire buffalo. Or something.

@Jeremy

So if information is a represented by the buffalo, what do the balls of the buffalo represent in information?