@GoldenElementXL said:
Having a piece of paper doesn't make someone in this industry good. Doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers etc should all have degrees. Being a good gaming journalist, like any journalist, requires much more than a piece of paper. It requires talent and a firm grasp on the industry they are writing on. The problem with IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku etc is that all of the Vets are gone. The best writers on Gamespot are all gone. The biggest personalities at IGN all left to start their own thing because they it was obvious how popular they were, and they would be more successful and have more freedom on their own. The reason why the Giant Bombcast is so popular and that staff is held in such a high regard is because they are seasoned veterans in the video game world.
Does it really matter that Jeff Gertsmann doesn't have a 4 year degree? No, because he is a strong personality in the industry and he knows the ins and outs of the gaming industry and the gaming journalism industry as well. Does Mike Mahardy? No. But he might in the future is Gamespot kept some vets to help bring up the younger staff. Jeff didn't start out reviewing the big titles. He was mentored by season writers in the industry and worked his way up. Instead the ENTIRE Gamespot and IGN staffs of today are full of young, cheap writers. Mike Mahardy, the reviewer of Halo 5, was an Intern at Game Informer 2 years ago....... Until a year ago he worked for the Daily Orange, where he "Edited stories for style, copy and structure. Assigned stories on campus and in the surrounding areas. Coordinated with editor and co-asst. editor to establish a voice and style fitting a newspaper with a circulation of 6,000 copies and a readership of 20,000." And until June of this year he was a freelance writer for IGN, Polygon, Tech Radar etc. 4 months after that he is reviewing the highest profile exclusive of Microsoft's holiday lineup. So who is he to be reviewing such a high profile game and why do I care what he thinks about it? Would this fly in any other industry? Would CNN or Fox News have an employee of 4 months covering the Republican Debates? Would ESPN or the NFL have someone with a year of actual job experience cover the MLB playoffs, NBA Eastern Conference Finals or the Super Bowl? This is my problem with what Gamespot has been doing. They are giving high profile reviews and coverage to nobodies. So why should I care about these reviews?
And don't take this as a knock on any of the staff here or at any other site. I'm sure Mike Mahardy is a great guy and he will do many great things in his career. I'm just using him as an example to prove my point. My issue is that a person that may not have a great grasp on gaming, the industry or the people in it is contributing to the MetaCritic score of a game made by hundreds of people. These Metacritic scores determine bonuses, pay raises or even job terminations. Why should someone who has been writing for Gamespot for 4 months have the right to give Halo 5 a score? And my problem isn't necessarily with the number. Jeff at Giant Bomb gave Halo 5 a 4/5 which is equal to an 8 out of 10. But I know for a fact Jeff knows Halo, I know that he is competent with shooters, I know what he looks for and what he expects from a game. Keep giving Mike the Zelda Triforce Heroes or the Gears Remasters to review until we know he's a competent reviewer and can handle the holiday bangers. At least put him through an E3 as a Gamespot employee first for crying out loud.
Gerstsmann the journalist is a questionable label at best. What has he ever done? He's entertaining on a mic, he's fun for a podcast, but the most journalism he has ever done is what? right a review. As far as investigative stuff, he's never done anything like that. Your degree at least means you have some writing chops, and in a field where you do a lot of writing, yeah I want a good writer. I'd much rather read something from a Cara Ellison for instance than what Jeff G is writing.
And again just because Jeff has insight, doesn't necessarily make his taste or his opinions more valid in a critique. Jeff likes Call of Duty for starters, fields change, and Jeff's position was that he was coming in with no education of any kind in journalism. Mahardy is, and thus he can speed up that process a lot quicker. The problem you have is the fallacy that someone of authority holds more weight, it's a logic failure sunshine. It ignores that the younger crowd can't bring a different perspective, it ignores the younger person might actually be more critical or get why something works, where as the older one might be more rigid.
And more to it, that's on the fucking devs. You are a consumer, you shouldn't giving a single **** why bonuses are tied to Metacritic, if they really wanted to hammer it home they should have actually delivered on a game that people responded to in that fashion. Otherwise homeboy was playing on the lobby, shared his details with the series, that's what podcasts/the lobby is for if you really want to learn the stuff.
Your opinion is just as much a part of the problem. Because you're refusing to let a different opinion even exist, especially under a half baked idea like "well he's too young" as if that means anything. There is no science to reviewing a game, you play it, you analyze it, you put words to paper. And there are a shit load of people with less insight than Jeff, that can better articulate their criticism than Jeff of a game.
Log in to comment