Today IGDA Toronto held a special discussion event, one that allowed game developers to get inside the heads of the people who review the games they make.  The subject: Game Journalism for Game Developers.

The forum featured a panel of top Canadian game/technology journalists and editors.  We had Marc Saltzman, freelance journalist and author; Andrew Moore-Crispin, editor of Total Gamer and Hub magazines; Saleem Khan, news and technology editor of Metro (Toronto Edition); Jason MacIsaac, freelancer, editor, and teacher of Game Journalism at the International Academy of Design & Technology; and Kris Abel, who is a journalist, editor, and weekly technology/gaming speaker on Canada AM. The moderator of the event was IGDA Toronto chapter president Josh Druckman.

The speakers opened the forum by making some general comments and expressing their feelings on the subject of Game Journalism. The panelists all expressed enthusiasm for their work and the industry, but felt some maturing was still in order. The consensus was that Game Journalism could use some more of the discipline and ethics seen in the older and more established fields of reporting and reviewing.

Josh Druckman then introduced the first topic: game review criteria. The panelists each had slightly different methods of reviewing games, but some common themes became apparent.  They were always reviewing games for their audience, and the big question they usually sought to answer was "Is this game worth your money?" An important question, given the average price of game software in Canada.

Next, talk turned to general likes and dislikes. All of the journalists loved their jobs and its duties, from talking to the developers, to playing new games. They had a few gripes, such as the occasional PR or Marketing person who doesn't return phone calls, or respond to emails before deadlines.  Reviewing awful games also came up, as well as the fact that journalists have to keep playing them in order to make sure that they really are awful.  Finally, how about the nightmare of playing 20 similar titles in a row, trying to keep them straight, and finding fresh things to say about them?

Another topic covered was how game developers could get the most out of their coverage. Again, the subject of returning calls and emails came up, as well as the idea of being proactive and approaching editors and journalists. For the small Canadian developer, Jason MacIsaac recommended that you exploit the fact that you're Canadian, although Saleem Khan joked that this does not mean you should pack your game with moose.

Recently The Hollywood Reporter ran a story on how Warner Brothers was toying with the idea of paying their game developers based on reviewer scores. The journalists were dubious of this policy, saying that there were better ways of assuring quality games, and that this could potentially increase the danger of corruption. It's conceivable that shifty companies might pay for positive reviews, and unscrupulous journalists might decide to play ball.

Speaking of corruption, this was the final topic, prompted in part by the so-called "Driv3rGate" scandal, in which it has been alleged that exclusive early access to Driv3r was given to several UK magazines in exchange for glowing reviews. The journalists said that credibility is an absolutely precious commodity, and should not be sold or sacrificed for anything or anyone. If they lose credibility, their audiences will no longer trust them. Andrew Moore-Crispin observed that game reviewers themselves get reviewed--by the reading public. That helps keep them honest--readers can spot an obviously influenced review, and won't tolerate payola.

After a quick Q&A session with the audience, we ended the night at the Elephant & Castle with a couple cold ones. It was an informative night with lots of great ideas exchanged.