I have to say, exposés like this are exactly why you’re one of my favorite authors on Substack.
It took me right back to the days of reading gaming magazines, when I was eager to buy for the next month's issue to flip to reviews of games I’d waited months (sometimes years) to play, or discovering hidden gems I hadn’t heard of.
Now that we have this kind of insider view… well, it does cast a bit of a shadow on those memories, but still, I’m hopeful. With more transparency and honest writing like this, I think we’re heading toward a better perspective on games journalism.
Boy, I have a lot of thoughts on this. Great article, btw. I feel you touched on several issues around modern reviews.
I'll just stick to one point. The dual realities of game reviews are that a) first to press gets the most attention and b) the biggest audience concentrations are around big games.
In both regards, I think the YouTube reviewers are crushing it. They get things out fast because they can give "as is" reviews, even live commentary streams, and they can have pre-invested audiences that will help make a game big. Also, I notice the bigger ones simply buy the game, which sidesteps all of the PR complications.
I cannot help but feel this could become the more dominant type of game review.
Aiming for the next piece to discuss these issues with creators! I’m sure there’s problems there too.
And I want to ask about their impartiality and commercial arrangements. It’s a point raised by a lot of journos, but I want to hear the other side of the story.
I look forward to reading it! The elephant in the room here is audiences. We are impatient for reviews and we’re the ones putting pressure on publications to get reviews out fast and even, lately, to dogpile on bad games. I also wonder what the impact is of Steam reviews. User reviews are much more of a force today than in the past.
I do feel like the art of the review has been lost to the aggregate number. The idea that a film has a rotten tomato score of 90% isn't helpful when the reviews that are aggregated are "positive" in the sense of they're above a threshold. It's the same reason I didn't watch nor trust the hype for "Thunderbolts".
I've found luck following reviewers instead of outlets, something I wish more people would do. Reviews should be personal and driven by taste, not metrics.
I think that’s a fair assessment. With reviews, there’s always been an element of it being the Individuals take over the outlets — even at big publications.
When there’s a game out that I’m keen on I often read a few takes, rather than judge on one. And now that I’m reviewing too, I try to avoid reading about games I’m playing as to not influence my prose.
It’s all subjective and murky. But with this series I’m trying to capture the stuff that is tangible: how reviews work, how the strings are pulled and does it influence the outcome?
I have to say, exposés like this are exactly why you’re one of my favorite authors on Substack.
It took me right back to the days of reading gaming magazines, when I was eager to buy for the next month's issue to flip to reviews of games I’d waited months (sometimes years) to play, or discovering hidden gems I hadn’t heard of.
Now that we have this kind of insider view… well, it does cast a bit of a shadow on those memories, but still, I’m hopeful. With more transparency and honest writing like this, I think we’re heading toward a better perspective on games journalism.
Keep up the great work!
Boy, I have a lot of thoughts on this. Great article, btw. I feel you touched on several issues around modern reviews.
I'll just stick to one point. The dual realities of game reviews are that a) first to press gets the most attention and b) the biggest audience concentrations are around big games.
In both regards, I think the YouTube reviewers are crushing it. They get things out fast because they can give "as is" reviews, even live commentary streams, and they can have pre-invested audiences that will help make a game big. Also, I notice the bigger ones simply buy the game, which sidesteps all of the PR complications.
I cannot help but feel this could become the more dominant type of game review.
Aiming for the next piece to discuss these issues with creators! I’m sure there’s problems there too.
And I want to ask about their impartiality and commercial arrangements. It’s a point raised by a lot of journos, but I want to hear the other side of the story.
Here’s hoping some will agree to talk to me!
I look forward to reading it! The elephant in the room here is audiences. We are impatient for reviews and we’re the ones putting pressure on publications to get reviews out fast and even, lately, to dogpile on bad games. I also wonder what the impact is of Steam reviews. User reviews are much more of a force today than in the past.
And that’s a question for the industry one towards the end of the year! Great minds!
I do feel like the art of the review has been lost to the aggregate number. The idea that a film has a rotten tomato score of 90% isn't helpful when the reviews that are aggregated are "positive" in the sense of they're above a threshold. It's the same reason I didn't watch nor trust the hype for "Thunderbolts".
I've found luck following reviewers instead of outlets, something I wish more people would do. Reviews should be personal and driven by taste, not metrics.
I think that’s a fair assessment. With reviews, there’s always been an element of it being the Individuals take over the outlets — even at big publications.
When there’s a game out that I’m keen on I often read a few takes, rather than judge on one. And now that I’m reviewing too, I try to avoid reading about games I’m playing as to not influence my prose.
It’s all subjective and murky. But with this series I’m trying to capture the stuff that is tangible: how reviews work, how the strings are pulled and does it influence the outcome?