goddamit, every time I see a dragon/reptile chalice I think the guy also has dragon dildos

Nobodies thinking they can claim fame easily, just by giving their opinion on videogames.
Most of them are horrible journalists/writers, so they stoop to the lowest of lows - vidya.

You just posted it.

it has no purpose

nobody fact checks

ever

there are a million fucking articles where the headline is 'COMPANY ANNOUNCES GAME?!??!??!' but there's a note at the bottom saying 'UPDATE: it turns out that internet forum was the same as all the other internet forums and that everything about this article is bullshit but hey thanks for the hits and admoney, see you tomorrow'

it's pathetic

File: 1345121220081.jpg-(35 KB, 620x465, 1325363850911.jpg)

take a wild guess

>>151340569
he does

Its more beneficial to the journalist to give good reviews for the big boys of the industry, so those big boys can continue giving them free shit as long as their video games look good in the public eye.

I don't really know

The reviews are not written to give an honest representation of the game but instead to predict the popularity of the game.

Paid reviews, score scales that mean jack shit, no research whatsoever and a present feeling of self importance.

Lets just say that if gaming "journalist" tried to get a job at real newspaper/website the best they'd get is taking photos of celebrities in malls.

Just take a look at Gamespot's more recent articles that cover EA games, they're practically the EA defense force.

Also they're on the forefront of calling gamers "entitled" when they're not happy about a product.

Game "journalists" aren't even close to real journalists, and what they do isn't Goddamn journalism.

There's also the fact that they tend to rely on vidya companies for their ad revenue/review copies/interviews/what-have-you, which basically forces them to be those companies' bitches if they want their continued support. Not exactly conducive to unbiased journalism, that.

It's about as shitty as any news article regarding the subject it's about, unless said article is just a generic news article about "X MAN DIED DUE TO Y"

It's just shitty pandering to the demographic its aimed at, just like democratic or republican articles.

They're all considered jokes to the people who don't side with the demographic it's targeted at.

Reviewers say whatever it takes to make them money, whether it be "paid reviews" or building/keeping a fanbase.

It's just a bunch of guys sitting at their computers, copy-pasting from press releases, forums and blogs. There's no skill; anyone could do what they do.
The main problem is that real journalists do actual investigative journalism. They don't rely on mother fucking corporations to email them PR bullshit to post on their website.

Corporate overlords.

Wait a second OP,

Are you trying to tell me journalism is good?
>read the daily mail today
>it said people who don't use Facebook are suspicious
>don't employ these people
>don't date these people
>they are possibly a risk to our country

Journalism is a joke.

its the opposite of real journalism, where the media controls the product

with gaming, the main source of reprots comes from the companies themselves with early peaks at thier games or other info that only they might hold

if the journalisnt dont censor the real facts or pander to the companies, theyll pull thier support and gut the revenue

>>151341332

Science Journalism is okay.
Movie Critics are opinionated and wrong, but still stick to a reasonable standard.
Music reviews are mostly honest unless you're the posterboy of Kerrang.

Video Games journalism is balls.

File: 1345121888252.jpg-(51 KB, 319x319, 1335241994847.jpg)

>tfw I haven't read or referenced a single review in the past 10 years


I wonder if it can be legitimately argued that the failure of game journalism can be directly tied to the mediocrity of games in recent memory (Soft to no substantive criticism allows devs to shovel the same miserable shit year after year)

File: 1345121922463.jpg-(25 KB, 333x347, Duck.jpg)

The majority of game journalists lack any kind of actual writing skill or in depth analysis, or try to fake one or the other, or both, poorly.

However, this lack of talent doesn't stop most of them from considering themselves the holy grail of their own industry. I'd like to think of myself as a humble person, but even I get high and mighty on the subject of whether video games are good are bad.

Not to mention most reviews read like advertisements rather than actual reflections on content and presentation.

In short, video game journalism tends to be unprofessional, uninsightful, egotistical, and can't even necessarily tell you whether you'll actually like the game they're talking about or not.

they're either neckbeards that try to create an internet persona for attention like the OP or they are people with English degrees who play video games that would be unemployed if they didn't give scores of 8+ for their early review copies.

also, there is almost zero real journalism. they do adverts in the form of sneak peeks and interviews and they are critics.

>http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/dokapon-kingdom

>http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii

First look at the critic score, then look at the User Score

This is how I judge games.

>>151341342

>The main problem is that real journalists do actual investigative journalism.

This. It would be fantastic if real journalist tried to get dirt on EA and told about it.

File: 1345122100575.jpg-(16 KB, 300x347, whore.jpg)

They can't honestly critique shitty games from huge publishers, or they will get left behind by those that do. Publishers will deny them exclusive content to write about, early views, interviews, various invitations, ad placements etc.

Essentially, they become blacklisted, so it's important for games journos to have several dicks in their mouths. This is what they actually mean by 'paid reviews'. The occassional 'honest' review is done towards games and companies they don't give a fuck about.

Rockpapershotgun is a good site.

The only good site.

>>151341994
>Dokapon kingdom
>Less than a solid 9
What could you possibly give this game outside of "IT DOESN'T HAVE CRYSIS GRAFFIX DESPITE HAVING SO MANY FUCKING ENEMY, WEAPON, AND SPECIAL EFFECT MODELS IT'S INSANE!"?

Two problems:

The industry prioritizes fun.
The men who comprise the industry nnd journalism prioritize money.

File: 1345122268585.jpg-(287 KB, 1680x1050, I-think-Rock-Paper-Shotgu(...).jpg)

>>151342042

journalism, whether its gaming or not, is shit. Now its about speed, and making money. You see something on twitter, better show an article together with some twitter quotes and try to get some ad money because you are slightly faster.

No fact checking, and it is the user that allows this shit. They hear a rumour, look for a site that has the article. If they are wrong, well people dont hold it against them. But if it's true the journalist that decided to put effort in it and not ride a wave of shady tweets are late.

Sensationalist news stories. That's the one thing we have concrete evidence of them doing.

>>151341767
>Movie Critics

Movie critics are the worst. A film review is many times worse than a video game review.

>>151342017
like that
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-05-23-activision-vs-vince-zampella-and-jason-west-inside-the-
game-industry-trial-of-the-decade

The main problem is that people care about gaming journalism and don't try games out on their own to formulate an opinion.

>>151342017
I want real journalism in the way of interviews that aren't just designed to hype a game and allow devs to market. How about hard hitting questions, criticisms and debate that forces those interviewed to defend themselves.

Because it's a fucking young medium.

File: 1345122507779.jpg-(29 KB, 237x226, ross kemp sees some shit.jpg)

Gaming "journalism" is much like the lowest form of tabloid. Horribly written articles with incorrect statements and only written to broadcast the writer's retarded opinion.

When I read the news, all I want is the cold, hard facts. Let me form my own opinion because I could not give one single fuck about yours.

>>151341648
>reading the daily mail

There's your problem, you might as well be reading the onion.

Journalists in general are nothing but whores.

That's the main problem.

I think there's a shift happening now in vidya journalism and attitudes/expectations towards it.

I know Gamespot responded to this change. One of their lead writers was a guest on some other podcast and he talked about how their latest site overhaul was done in response to the changing types of content they were publishing. It's less about carefully planned PR, game announcements, formulaic X/10 reviews and more about having an individual voice.

Because of the way modern websites facilitate conversation (comments, forums etc.) gamers are becoming more interested in their favourite writer's opinion or clever editorials that take a more in depth look in to things like the themes of a game, it's development process, the impact it has on gamers etc.

It's that individual voice that's becoming important. Twitter is great for this - you follow that one writer you like, eg. Erik Kain or Evan Lahti, and you get to hear their specific voice. Their opinions begin to matter more than another reviewer to you.

Another approach is Giant Bombs entertainment factor, specifically their quick looks. Not a structured review, but a nice way to see how a game plays and form your own opinion, while being entertained at the same time.

I'm happy in the direction gaming journalism is heading. But fuck sites like Kotaku who solely report on drama

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-05-04-free-radical-vs-the-monsters

You know what I notice is a ridiculously common trait of reviewers?

They always want to use the "Repetitive" card when it's a not-so-popular game, but if it's popular, no matter how ridiculously repetitive it actually is they will never mention it. Games like Blackops II will now be praised as an innovative masterpiece because you can now use the new loadout system, but games like Castle Age will be considered "repetitive clickfests" because of the ADD reviewers who think every game needs to be exactly like CoD.

>>151342390
This is because games are overpriced and people can't afford to.

>>151342469
"science journalists" are older than gaming journalists and are just as retarded when it comes to making shit up.

http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/

>>151340569
He probably has

>>151342620
Pirate a game if its for PC
Watch a Let's Play video if its for console

But don't fucking listen to a shitty journalist. Don't listen to /v/ either.

File: 1345122698550.jpg-(156 KB, 700x700, 1344849559828.jpg)

A combination of lack of integrity and professionalism.

If you're not getting paid off to suck the next AAA game's cock in a magazine, you're getting into petty arguments in Twitter with issues that don't relate in any way to your shitty little ad-supported blog.

>>151342017
The publisher/journalist relationship is pretty unique to videogames. It's very important to maintain a good relationship for both parties, it's mutually beneficial.

Of course it is time to start moving away from that, especially with the rise of Kickstarter and growth of indie games. This weeks Gamers With Jobs podcast had a discussion about how difficult it can be for journalists to get direct access to the developers for an honest talk. Definitely worth a listen if you're interested in the topic.

when was the last time you saw a game journalist do actual journalistic work?

and i'm not talking about "MY RESPONSE TO ME3 ENDING" bullshit. i mean actual insightful or investigative work that wasn't just rambling about the same flavor of the week rumor that's posted across every gawker site.

they're all neck deep in publishers' pockets and serve no purpose aside from trying to sell you the games that will net them the biggest ad bonus.

File: 1345122806953.jpg-(31 KB, 400x300, 43589237490.jpg)

>Implying all journalism isn't a joke these days.

You know it's the truth. These days, if the information is going out to a large group of people, then they're going to do whatever they can to make more money.

It's the same reason why documentaries aren't seen on TV anymore. You have to rely on local sources for helpful information these days.

Conflict of interests, usually.

>>151341864
You're reading (or more likely watching) the wrong type of reviews. The points you make are valid, but it seems to be a recent phenomenon, brought on by the ease of publishing on the internet.

A lot of good stuff is still out there and it typically comes from the people who previously (in some cases still do) wrote for the old gaming magazines.

Though the publisher/journalist relationship of old is still a big problem.

>>151342934
funny how you mention that. When the olympics where on TV every other channel was showing those things because all the mouthbreathing ad-herd was busy watching those.

>>151342934
>It's the same reason why documentaries that aren't Rednecks doing redneck things, Hunting ghost UFO bigfoot and HITLER'S DIABOLICAL PLANS aren't seen on TV anymore.

On a related note, which site is best for plain vidya-related news? Not the quality of reviews or commentaries and shit, but simple factual (as much as possible) news?

File: 1345123000806.jpg-(471 KB, 785x1000, whore'scareerpath.jpg)

i could name a few things

>>151343175
she will never come back to us ;_;
>you will never see more anno videos from her

File: 1345123077028.jpg-(23 KB, 500x313, 1345072694560.jpg)

>>151343103

I read Big Black Cock news daily, and trying to browse during the Olympics was a nightmare. I really don't give a fuck about it, but the frontpage was devoted at least half to it.

>>151343141
well, websites like IGN and Gamespot are sucking publishers their balls so hard they get any news directly from them first.

>>151342861
Geoff Keighley Final Hours were token attempts. I'd have liked to see that sort of effort put into reporting, and not just features.

I personally wish we could get members of /v/ together to review games that they have an actual interest in and give solid reviews. I understand that this board is a gigantic hate-base band of faggots under most circumstances, but when it comes to something members of /v/ genuinely enjoy, I can see more honesty towards the negatives amid the positive outlook on things. I'd put it on a 30-point system, where there are 10 factors (Gameplay, Longevity, Replay Value, Graphics, Aesthetics, Storyline, Characters, Music, Sound Effects, and Additional Content) and rate each factor in 3 levels (Unacceptable, Acceptable, and Exceptional) and see how clearly we can review a game. I'm tired of shit like "Graphics" covering the entire visual appeal of a game when it's far deeper than that most of the time.

>>151342934
>>151343132
BBC Four doccy woccys are god tier. It's probably only possible due to the TV License though. The survival of a show doesn't come down to viewers or ratings.

>>151343141
>>>/v/

>>151343227

>she
>her

Get a load of this closet case

>>151343364

>expecting /v/ to be anything close to level-headed, professional and objective

Your system sounds neat but I would not ever trust this shithole to get it right.

>>151343141
Get it from the source

http://gamespress.com/

>>151343227
I want to see her anus video, if you know what I mean...

>>151343364
This.

Gather your Party is kinda cool

File: 1345123375442.png-(20 KB, 249x249, logosmall2[1].png)

>>151343364
No score system, but check out Gather Your Party. That started here with similar goals.

>>151343480
I'm certain if it were up to a group of /v/irgins rather than just singular faggots, it'd be easy to keep things tame and professional. Chiefly if it were a dedicated group who were in contact with each other. Most of /v/ act like faggots because it's a pop-in, pop-out crowd of assholes you don't know, however if it were a proper group where people were left to their own domains, it would be far, FAR simpler to have things work out the way they needed.

Pandering to series fanboys and accepting money for scores.

>>151343364
why does everything has to have a number. A number is for people that dont care about reading shit. The number is really token, the important part is the quality of the experience a game gives you.

Nobody plays games they enjoy. People are assigned games in general to review, so we have FPS-loving dudebros reviewing RPGs, etc.

I'm reading a review because I want the opinion of someone with similar tastes, not a general view from someone who may enjoy the genre. If someone doesn't like a game, they'll play only an hour or two, and then claim it's shit, while giving easy games they can beat in a short time a good review since their job literally consists of playing games all day.

>>151343674
It's not really numerical in the sense that it's LOL 1-10 BASED ON RETARDED REASONS, it's just "Is it an apalling piece of shit, passable, or a godly work of art?" in multiple categories. I wouldn't make huge emphasis on the FINAL REVIEW SCOAR XD, but rather make the synthesis of the different elements make for the importance of it. A game like Dokapon Kingdom is fantastic without having glorious grapics. A game like TW2 is fantastic without having a silly story or multiplayer. A game like MW3 is the same shit as before, despite having graphics and solid gameplay. It'd be something to note.

I used to read power unlimited ( a dutch magazine ) until I turned 18 and got my 4chan license which opened my eyes forever.

File: 1345123619500.jpg-(40 KB, 250x250, 234958423780.jpg)

>>151343364
It's a nice thought, but you know that would end up worse than the /V/GA's

I still don't know why I visit the board after that incident.

Gaming journalism is just another form of advertising

>>151343471
the only one in the closet is you.

She is a girl. she talks like a girl, she looks like a girl

>>151343674
I have an idea for a website/web service that I've been tossing around but not sure if there's any desire for this sort of thing:

Users rate a videogame in terms of dosh. How much they think it should be priced at. It would take an average score from all voters. It could track the games price over time (initially just Steam for simplicity's sake) and feature them on the front page when a game reaches it's community voted price.

It could be used as a Rotten Tomatoes style rating and placed on other websites too.

But inb4 $1 everywhere. I suppose that could be prevented with some simple tricks though.

File: 1345123806678.jpg-(70 KB, 612x816, 1338725347536.jpg)

>>151343794

>that guy on IGN "reviewing" Atelier Meruru

That's some grade A bullshit.

>>151343865
The same happened to me. I always bought them quite often, but stopped after a while because I needed my money for something else. I recently found them and it hilarious how big scrubs they are. You can read how much they love video games but they arent really knowledgable.

I remember when they reviewed ME1, with a little side box.

"when EA bought bioware many fans were mad. But I dont see why so many people hate EA, and I think they can get along fine. ME is a good example of this. It's a great game even with EA involved."
I wish he was right though

>>151343794

It isn't as fun as it sounds. You have to jot down mental notes on what you liked and disliked while doing a lot of menial bureaucrat bullshit you expect at the office. The equivilant of your parents to come and do something completely mundane in the middle of nowhere.

That said OP, are you still mad Game Journalism hates your Japanese games now?

Growing up I'd read PC Gamer (1996-2004), and there was a lot of analytical work put into it. Very rarely did games get above a 75% out of a 100. It had to have merits.

Now most games are always rated 21/10 would swallow again -and we all know damn well they aren't that good, but doe the audience? Is any type of review bad just because the readers tolerate the bullshit?

With everybody able to hear everybody's opinions as well as everybody being able to tell everybody their opinions in the age of the internet, professional gaming journalism had to choose between two options as their focus to remain relevant:
1. Let the internet amateurs keep their opinions and present in-depth, professional and, above all, objective assessments of games and the industry based on clearly-defined and comparable criteria, ideally recommending games based on a "if you like [type of games], this game is/isn't for you" approach.
2. Try to one-up the internet amateurs by using the fact you are an established industry with resources to get exclusive preview content, exclusive interviews and exclusive content sooner than the "normal guy". This, however, requires you to suck up to the gaming industry to keep them feeding you said exclusivity, thus compromising your neutrality and integrity.
We all know what they chose.
(I know option 1 wouldn't have worked out any better, as they'd still depend on the goodwill of the gaming industry for advertisement deals, but the decline would have been much slower / less glaring).

File: 1345124310142.jpg-(101 KB, 940x639, gamestar.jpg)

Journalism used to be credible and awesome

>>151344557
>PC Gamer
>Not CGW
Just kidding you're a bro
Even the Gamespot was difficult to please once upon a time.

>>151344492
That;s pretty much what I was getting at. Any game that is short and simple will hold good standings to them since they literally just sit there for eight hours a day and play vidya.

>>151343364

http://newgameplus.nikuai.net/

before internet became popular: game developers rely on magazines to get their game marketed

now: magazines rely on games to give them ad revenues, while developers can market anywhere

File: 1345124463907.jpg-(248 KB, 929x800, jl.jpg)

>>151344749
>Jörg Langer

video game reviews have been adverts since the dawn of time

come on son

>>151344963
Not true, kiddo. Not true.

Once PC Accelerator died I pretty much gave up on all game reviewers.

It goes like this OP:

1- Guy who like videogames and is good at doing it gives his opinion on vidya with a blog, etc
2- Guy get attention and so much "hits"
3- Companies aproach guy and offer him dosh for a little more "attention" to their games
4- Guy like dosh, start doing his shit and no one notices
5- Blatantly start being so biased
6- He is too big now so casuals are the big income of dosh

Rinse and repead

Main problem? hard to choose but probably paid reviews.

giving unjust credit to bad games just because they got bribed just drives the industry to a crash.

bad games get sales, which encourages more bad games. good games get overlooked, which causes poor sales performance and decreases the chance of more good games.

I really don't give a shit about vidya journalism.

If I want to know what games to download/buy I check the /v/ recommended games wiki.

>>151345192
It's like you only watch video reviews made by people like Yahtzee.

And since Russ Pitts left The Escapist isn't doing that shit anymore. In fact they don't seem to be doing much of anything. Shame, their weekly magazine style articles were actually good.

File: 1345124842417.jpg-(65 KB, 431x700, 4513150.jpg)

>>151344072
it would be nice if there were an established "blue book for video games" that fucking gamestop would abide by for trade ins and used shit

that may screw collectors though, either way nifty idea

>>151340513

It´s not "considered" a joke, it is a joke.

The problem is that it is effectively a first party advertising platform. The views and opinions of the writers are paid for and supported by the industry they are supposed to keep honest. The developers have the magazines and websites in their pockets as a result, and can intimidate and pressure them into adjusting reviews and scores, increasing hype in previews, etc. by witholding advertising and "exclusive" stories that will sell magazines.

>>151345396
I dont ever watch reviews, its just, my oppinion man.

>>151344749
>Das Fühl wenn GameStar spätestens seit dem Abschied on Gunnar Lott unlesbar geworden ist.

File: 1345125408692.jpg-(44 KB, 552x472, 1341093585036.jpg)

You guys are retarded.

A game should be rated on a 1-5 scale, with the actual GAME (gameplay is a useless word) being the bulk of the review. Aesthetics (visual design, technical graphics, writing) may add or remove an extra point if they are exceptionally good or bad.

Games should almost exclusively be reviewed by experts of that particular genre. Someone who has played the fuck out of a lot of WRPGs should review WRPGs, comparing the subject game to others in the genre.

>>151343364
This is far too much and gives each category equal footing when GAME is the only important part of reviewing a game.

The problem is not only that gaming "journalists" are paid to lie to you, but that they don't know what they are talking about. By and large, /v/ also doesn't know what it's talking about.

Alright now, prove me wrong.

>>151344749
new gamestar is an absolute disaster. It's so pseudo-sceptical it hurts.

>lol I laik the combat system in DA2, it's fast and fun and more hack'n'slash
>In Dragon's Dogma you win most fights by button mashing. It's time that RPGs stop being so hack'n'slash

I don't even go to gaming websites anymore. Anything gaming related I learn from /v/. If I want an opinion on a game, I ask here. It's the same as the rest of 4chan. There's one thing when a single person on this website say somethings is good but when several people here say something is good, chances are, that's because it's good. Same thing with saying something is shit. The best part is, the one common rule of thumb I see around here is 'try it for yourself'.

>>151346121
>comparing the subject game to others in the genre

that's a horrible idea. They can give some tips for alternative games but they should never start comparing them except if it's an obvious clone of another game. Games like Red Seeds Profile wouldn't stand a chance if you were trying to compare it to sandbox or horror games.

The problem with "gaming" journalism is not that different from the cancer that is killing "real" journalism: It's a lot easier and sometimes more personally rewarding to just repeat whatever PR your sources feed you than to spend your own time and money (nowadays the company won't even comp your expenses) on investigative reporting.

There are a handful of journalists left who can afford to spend the time and effort building up inside contacts who feed them important news (i.e. David Simon), or build up enough trust with their main sources to have them cough up something embarrassing in a moment of weakness (i.e. Michael Hastings). But it's much easier to just report fluff pieces from the people you are allegedly digging dirt on, butter up your sources, and eventually you might even get tickets to their premiere or their special function. If you're funny and photogenic enough, you might even get a spot on TV and a bigger paycheck!

I see it as less of a problem with vidya gaems, as we're still just reporting on a consumer product. Unless someone can spend time to find evidence that the CEO of EA strangles hookers for fun and that his board has been covering it up, there's not much to report on. So instead we get the journalism equivalent of "FIRST!!!111!" where everyone tries to get an "exclusive" review or report, because that brings eyeballs in as opposed to investigative reporting which takes long and may not come up with anything useful.

>>151346379
fun activity for you if you have a lot of money and time on your hands

go into your vidya store and buy any game that looks interesting. Now play it and compare your experience with it to what gaming journalists have written about the game. It's so much fun laughing your ass off when you realize that most of them haven't even played through the game. Gaming is much more enjoyable if you occacionally get some tips from /v/ and play games without letting yourself get influenced by gaming journalism.

>>151346418
Excuse me? Games in the same genre are, for the most part, evolutions of the same game. Every FPS is an evolution of Wolfenstein 3D, every JRPG is an evolution of Dragon Quest, every WRPG is an evolution of DnD.
There are exceptions, of course, and you have to use your own good judgement when critiquing those games.

If a game cannot stand up to others in its genre, then it is shit. If it has nothing remarkable to offer in the face of better games, it is mediocre.

I think the anons already enumerated the main reasons, but on the off chance that some have not been mentioned:

* There is no journalistic integrity and no standard of quality. Not only do gaming... "journalists" not check facts, they take bribes - both personally and through their employers - from publishers.

* The quality of the writing is atrocious. I know they think that they are all serious and in the big boys' league with those awkwardly constructed sentences, those bombastic words like "compelling", "cinematic", "immersive" and "fun", and their long-winded articles, but in reality, both the content and the grammar are incredibly formulaic. So formulaic, in fact, that I could shit out an entire article about "VIDYA GAEM", photoshop it onto the gamespot website, pass it around as genuine and have people believe me.

* Writing about games is not a serious endeavour. It's fine to give an opinion, but the idea writing professionally about games is simply laughable.

* The business is filled to the brim with fat faggots like Jim Sterling and Moviebob, who have all been raped as children and are now riding that big social justice dick to get back at da white mayn.

>>151346640
Gaming journalism is all bullshit. I'm not about to go around say "LOL /V/ IS BEST PLACE EVERm IF YOU'RE NOT LIKE US YER WRONG".

It's just that word of mouth is far more reliable. This place is so eager to criticize and has such high standards that you get solid opinions here that you can use as a legitmate reference. Just gotta wade through the bullshit to see that 4chan delivers 9aka Lurk more)

My main issue with gaming news is this:

1. No site has an easy to read format where I can quickly find the news and reviews I want to read.

2. News stories are copy pasted all over the internet, sometimes through sister sites, sometimes because they're just fucking lazy. It's all about driving hits, not providing quality news.

3. Searches never turn up what you are looking for. You quickly face an overload of irrelevant news from months or even gears ago.

4. Game company PR is the gatekeeper of most news. They only tell you what they want to tell you, and gladly blacklist anyone who doesn't play ball.