Samira wrote:
I guess I'm still not seeing where "journalism" enters into any of this.
Would I prefer full disclosure when reading a game review? Sure. If I don't see any statement of affiliation or lack thereof, I'm going to assume that the review is a puff piece. If I can't find another review of the same game, that just reinforces that impression.
The entire concept of "journalism" has changed drastically in the Internet age. When the New York Times can't keep its reporters on the leash, how much control does a web site really have? (Assuming the web site isn't the sponsor of the game being reviewed, of course.)
If you're willing to live with the current state of affairs and just adjust how you take things to account for the lack of integrity in a set of journalists, then that's fine. I demand better from the media I consume. I shouldn't have to, but I do and will continue to do so. And I'm not the only one.
I don't want people to be free to tell game reviewers to push an agenda of any kind. They have the power to control what games get made by controlling what people hear about games when that power should lie in the hands of consumers who exercise it by choosing to play games that interest them. Games journalists exist to serve those who play games, not the other way around. It's about damn time they remember that.
And maybe, if we're lucky, seeing what we can do in our hobby could have a ripple effect across other media empires. I'm not holding my breath, but it would be nice.