Maybe gaming journalism was never good. I think that to be likely.

But I do understand what you mean. I think it could still be revived. There are actually youtubers who do good work though even they could stand for some improvement. Youtube as a format outcompetes traditional formats so that is an issue but there still is a want for text articles.

I don't know. If I wanted to revive game journalism I would probably just make a website and do some game journalism. If it's good people will read it.

It's pretty hard to compete with the better Youtube reviewers. I'd agree with >>136958 in that traditional games journalism was never particularly good. Sure, it was exciting to get news and takes from mags back in the day, but the reviews were generally minimum effort affairs. They were dealing with editorial deadlines and weren't necessarily reviewing games they particularly cared about. To be fair I think some of those issues still exist with current launch-window reviews, but the sheer amount of video reviews and streams available nowadays make it much easier to gauge one's interest in a game than a single mag sub or a website a la 2000s IGN or Gamespot. It's also just really hard for a general publication to compete quality-wise with some Youtuber who focuses on a specific genre or niche and is willing to put together an hour plus long reviews for games about which they're actually knowledgeable.

There might be some value in summarizing and aggregating youtube reviews. Because it's faster to read an article than watch videos.

>>136962
May as well just summarise and aggregate all views. That's something that I think would be better. I guess there are sites that do that but it could still be done in a better way.

On that note, I think that a home for data and analysis of various kinds would be useful. Like if you could quickly look at a game and see it's player numbers, budget, the money it made and reception it got all in one place. And you could put various other bits of data on the site as well like console sales or player statistics by nation or gender or age or whatever.

we need to bring back ethics in gaming journalism for it to come back

Fuck game journalism, what are you a massive retard or something.

I loved reading Nintendo Power and stuff like Gamepro or Game Informer as a kid/teen. The thing with Nintendo Power is that it was a massive marketing magazine for Nintendo games/consoles, but it was still enjoyable. I don't remember if it even reviewed anything, or just had guides and previews.
The other stuff, yeah it was more "neutral" and viewed a bunch of stuff and was informative. I'd never think of calling it journalism, but I guess it was. It's weird that "gaming journalism" is a term, as it seemed much more relaxed in the past. That's probably what needs to come back and why people prefer youtubers over most websites these days, it's too sterile and safe to keep various companies and interest groups happy.

Anyway, I think the way to do it is by doing niche stuff or specific categories or genres. Quite a few old RPG sites still exist, like rpgamer and rpgcodex. Something like gematsu is really valuable to people that prefer Japanese games, which should really be everyone by this point. In fact gematsu is pretty much the perfect example of a modern "gaming journalism" website that has stayed in its lane and still focuses on video game news and not cultural opinion pieces. There is still sadly a huge gap in how internet websites used to work when people were more free to be themselves and be awkward dorks making jokes intended for a specific audience. The only ones I'm aware of where people are less sterile are unfortunately culture warriors themselves so it sucks.

I'm also not sure if you can get anyone under 30 to start reading instead of watching videos, though. There's an entire industry where people make a living (sometimes becoming millionaires) by simply reading articles or papers other people have produced to an audience too unwilling to read or browse websites themselves.

>>136971
>There's an entire industry where people make a living (sometimes becoming millionaires) by simply reading articles or papers other people have produced to an audience too unwilling to read or browse websites themselves.
(think ive said this on kissu before...) my former coworker listened to those videos while eating at his desk with both hands occupied holding his sandwicchy so he couldnt scroll. so thats one target audience

No, because everyone already knows the industry is corrupt by design and can't be trusted as an impartial third-party, so it's both cheaper and more effective for companies to astroturf with "influencers" who all convince their audience that they're the exception to the rule. And if you just want news, everyone has access to the source delivery so having it all aggregated a month later doesn't serve much purpose. Even the guides aspect was obsoleted by wikis.

>>136959
>an hour plus long reviews
Might as well just play the thing if you're investing that much time into it.

>>136971
Audiobooks have been a thing for longer than actual books.