The Troubling Gaming Journalist Recruitment Practices… Is this an out-of-season April Fools joke?
Hey, we all love video games, and as a result, most game lovers want to work where they love - the video games industry! But, unfortunately- that’s exactly the problem. The rush to produce content has seemingly overtaken the need for any quality whatsoever. Thorough analysis, and genuine engagement with the games themselves is all but gone from the old guard. CBR, an outlet in comic book and nerd culture coverage, recently posted a job opening for a “Gaming Critic” that underscores a more than distressing ‘trend’.
The position demands that the critic writes a minimum of three game reviews per week, with each review being at least 1,400 words long. This requirement is not just unrealistic; it's completely detrimental to the integrity of gaming journalism (yes, it explains a lot). Anyone familiar with video games knows that even the shortest quality indie games require substantial time to play through sufficiently to deliver a review that goes beyond surface-level observations. The idea that a writer could thoroughly play and review three games in such a short span is far-fetched …at best.
What's more likely is that these reviews will barely scratch the surface, resulting in content that lacks depth and ultimately fails to truly engage with the game's content, mechanics, or narrative.
This approach to content creation in gaming journalism isn't just a bad practice; it's symptomatic of a much larger problem. It suggests a model where quantity trumps quality …and where clicks and views are more valued than informative, well-considered content. This kinda strategy drives short-term traffic, but it undermines trust and respect in the long run. On top of that, it promotes envy towards YouTubers and burnout among writers having to churn out reviews at breakneck speed, often without the necessary time to properly digest and analyze the games they're reviewing.
The reliance on this rapid content generation feeds into a cycle that devalues human input and creativity, paving the way for an increased reliance on automated technologies like AI to produce content. This further disconnects the writers from their audience, as the personal touch that defines much of what makes gaming reviews relatable and valuable begins to fade. Maybe that’s for the best tho. The cream will rise to the top, and those searching for information on a specific game don’t need these outlets anymore. This hiring practice only speeds up the inevitable demise…
The implications of this are already pretty evident, with the rise of gaming YouTubers and streamers who devote more time to each game they are passionate about, creating content that is far more personal and genuine. We’re able to build communities and engage with audiences in ways that deeply impersonal and rushed content just can’t. It's no wonder then that many gamers are turning away from traditional gaming journalism and towards content creators for insights and even more important- entertainment.
This shift is not just about a preference for video over text; it's more about seeking content that respects the games and the gaming experience overall. Traditional ‘gaming journalism’ is be moving further away from this, with models like CBR's latest embarrassing job offering leading the charge towards a less engaged, more superficial future. Even some established ‘journalists’ have taken issue with this posting.
The current state of gaming journalism, exemplified by CBR's recruitment strategy proves a field in decline, one increasingly disconnected from the core of what gaming is about. A death spiral, if you will. As traditional outlets struggle to adapt to the changing landscape, they risk continuing losing not just their audience, but their relevance in a culture that values authenticity and thoroughness over the rapid churn of content.
This is just getting ridiculous though.
~Smash