We all know anybody can become a gaming journalist with a computer and money for a website. But is this really the problem. Look at the film world. They have random movie fan sites appearing left, right and centre but why do these sites get less focused and the profession, qualified sites gets attention.
The main difference is qualification and experience. Some may say that experience is a form of qualification but this is fundamental reason why gaming journalism is not regarded so highly. Reading reviews from the film critic industry it is easy to see that a random guy hasn't worked his/her way up. These people have worked to get a journalism degree from respectable universities. The higher the university rating the more respected the degree is and the chance of getting internship’s from respected publications goes up. This system seems to work well. Reviews are not just opinions. They are criticising the films, the look at how the public will like a film and go with that direction. For example you know that a 4 star from The Week is more than a good film. They seem to avoid there own personal clouded opinion and look at good effects in the film and how the story plays/doesn't play out that well
Should the industry look at gaming journalism and give them the critical spot light for once. So what are the criteria to get into game journalism? On the Eurogamer website (just an example and does no way reflect on their writing abilities) there is a video of how they became gaming journalist. On senior writer who said he was employed because he knew the founder of Eurogamer. He then learnt on the job (didn't start writing). This brings up an interesting point. Is it easy for new respected websites to start up like this without experienced staff in the film world. No. Is non qualified writes able to get into the film critic world. No. So why does this happen in the gaming world. Is it websites are too easily respected. The best of an unqualified bunch. They may have the experience but experience is nothing without qualified training. Eurogamer is less so but magazines like Edge which have an awful history of reviewing games and are able to write and publish not only rubbish but are respected).
It is not only the websites fault. Metacritic has a play in this. Their average review score is so respected it is the first thing quoted. The fact that the gaming websites are rarely reviewed on quality. Should Metacritic have a qualification quota to combat the growing poor articles? Rotten tomatoes have the best and has a list of criteria based on views counts and approved critic societies only make it onto the website (check is out it will surprise you). A recent blog on N4G highlighted a method of review sites and having a quality control on N4G. Could N4G be the first step in the right direction?
You may see this as a rant but it is more of a concern. Does gaming journalists need a journalism qualification? The answer is no. They seem to want work experience and you learn how to right on the job. This is the fundamental reason why gaming journalist will never been seen as real journalism and there needs to be a sake up. Lets hope, as this form of "journalism" becomes more mainstream, the degree qualification (among) others is more sought after to increase quality in the industry as a whole.
You never know the argument "Its a review of X game and his own opinion and doesn't represent what other feel" might change. We could get some proper analytical reviews if the journalism world is shaken up
Microsoft announced its financial results for Q3 of fiscal year 2026, including an update on its gaming Xbox business and more.
Not looking good. Hopefully Asha Sharma is able to turn Phil’s disaster around.
To me it's still quite remarkable how they can cash-in 5.3bn in revenue in a single quarter, since their hardware is basically dead.
The stock mark is what makes Microsoft remarkable, They have convinced every institutional and retail investor to just keep piling money into them. Like many big tech giants they are just a big growing pyramid scheme. As long as people keep dropping money into ETF's that cover the market Microsoft will always be liquid. At the same time it is completely stifling innovation and competition. People need to start being more discreet in how they invest their money as it's killing the system.
Riiiiight because people will just flock back to them for one or two games per year.
15+ years of bad performance is what they call irreparable in business. It is time for them to sell off the assets and get out of entertainment.
These declines are on the back of extra revenue received from releasing games like Forza horizon 5 on PlayStation. So I’m being sarcastic here when I said they should go back to exclusives. Killing off a revenue stream from Ps5 sales will only make things worse
The charity event will be streamed live from Gamescom in August.
Thanks to the slip-up of an artist working on the title, we now have more evidence that a new Injustice game is in the works.
"...like Edge which have an awful history of reviewing games and are able to write and publish not only rubbish but are respected."
Edge is respected not only for their writing quality, but for their extensive use of the 1-10 review scale. Granted people are going to moan over X exclusive not getting an 8 or 9 from them, but I personally have constantly seen at least 3 pages for the more hyped games they have reviewed. I think n4g needs to lay off the site that ranks among the highest in regards to credibility, albeit dishing out disagreeable scores.
Perhaps it should, but the author of this barely literate piece is hardly in a position to judge.
I think more gamers just have to use common sense.
If there is a site or magazine whose views I consistently disagree with, I just stop reading their crap.
Gamers put far too much emphasis on metacritic review scores completely disregarding the fact that a review score is ONE persons opinion.
The only time I ever let review scores change my opinion of a game is if it is unanimously panned. There are countless games that have received 9's and 10's across the board that I've personally thought to be garbage.
The fact that there is so many sites that use flamebait articles and headlines to get hits is a bit of a problem. But again, if you don't like what they have to say, just don't read it and pray that others are sensible enough to do the same.
"Gamers put far too much emphasis on metacritic review scores completely disregarding the fact that a review score is ONE persons opinion."
True, but the point of metacritic is too take all those opinions and get an overall consensus. This will then give the average number of what people think of a game.
the only problem is comparing games to films, in that they cant be reviewed in the same manor is not realistic. they are 2 completely different forms of media and films are much easier to give non biased reviews.
the best thing that could happen to gaming is get rid of the scoring system wether its the 10 system the % system or whatever form sites use and instead bring a first impressions articles talking about what they have experienced from their play through and who they would recomend the game to.
this would bring about much more respected opinions and the whole metacritic problem.