Ted Li

Dr. Christopher Kamrath

PWR 1 Investigating the News Research Based Argument
10 June 2013
Game Over: Press Start to Continue
The Revitalization of Video Game Journalism

The end of Nintendo Power: foreshadowing for the gaming press.

December 2012 marked the end of one of the largest video game subscription magazines:
Nintendo Power (Mallory). Only one month earlier, PlayStation Magazine suffered a similar
fate, and even earlier, the Official Xbox Magazine switched to a primarily online medium and
cut their pricing (Conditt; Official Xbox Magazine). It is no mystery that these once popular
print magazines were slowly dying away. Yet, twenty five years ago, magazines like these ruled
the market for gaming news. For the typical gamer, these subscription magazines served as a
gaming database. Filled with colorful snapshots of upcoming games, reviews of the most popular
consoles, and walkthroughs for the most difficult levels, these magazines were goldmines of
information for readers in the 1990s up until the past few years. Professional gaming journalists
seemed like they had the perfect jobs they played video games, got free trips to test the hottest
new gadgets, wrote about their experiences, and got paid. However, with the advent of the
internet, the livelihood of the gaming press began to crumble; peoples perspectives changed,
and with it, went peoples opinions of the gaming journalists. As readers became exposed to

masses of new opinions on the internet, they began to notice the faults in the professional gaming
press: review scores seemed inflated and the reviews themselves seemed biased.
But similar to investigative journalism, video game journalists still play a vital role in the
dissemination of news they are the primary sources. Without dedicated gaming journalists,
who will be there to gather the information for the online bloggers, the discussion forums, or the
aggregation sites? And at the same time, are these online replacements for professional
journalism even effective? Ultimately, there is clearly an issue with the direction video game
journalism is headed: a discrepancy between what is desired by readers and what is produced by
journalists. The source of this problem lies in the relationship between the gaming PR and the
journalists and the consequences are far reaching: gaming journalists have lost their jobs, the
reputations of review companies have plummeted, and citizen journalism has seen unprecedented
growth. However, the gaming PR has no incentive to change their approach amidst all of this
confusion, they are still making profits and have maintained their reputations. Thus, this situation
calls for an approach that targets both professional and citizen journalists. Professional gaming
journalists have to establish journalistic norms and be accountable for their writing. If they
continue to write only what is expected of them by game developers, their readership will only
drop readers are already skeptical of professional reviews, and the only way to regain those
readers is by reestablishing themselves as credible and truly interested writers. At the same time,
citizen journalists have to continue in their growth, building up their reputations and fanbases,
and contributing to the discussion of video games. While some may see professional and citizen
journalism as competitors, the histories of tech and political journalism show otherwise; the
reality is that only by working together, can they save gaming journalism.

Justifying the complaints: a closer look at supposed biases.

For anyone who keeps up with video game journalism and reviews, it is no secret that the
vast majority of readers believe that professional reviews, ratings, and guides are not up to par; it
makes sense how can an audience expect a few journalists to produce as much useful
information as an entire community of gamers? As such, professional journalists have shifted
away from walkthroughs and guides and instead focused on reviews of games before they are
released to the public something that the typical blogger cannot compete with. In this position,
the main goal of the reviewers would be to give an accurate estimate of a games quality so
readers can make educated decisions in which games they buy. Yet even without competition,
professional continue to lose readers: the reason being that there is a culture of casual
corruption [that] has become ingrained in the games media and consequently, readers do not
trust the gaming journalists (Fahey). This section will quantitatively show that this corruption is
real and manifests itself most clearly in the form of inflated ratings and biased reviews but only
in heavily anticipated games. In order to evaluate if this exists, professional journalists and
typical readers review scores will be compared on MetaCritic, an aggregator of game critiques.
To clarify, these anticipated games usually have similar characteristics: they are produced
by large companies such as Nintendo, Activision, or Entertainment Arts, they are sequels to very
popular games, and they are extremely publicized before release. Take for example Call of Duty:
Modern Warfare 3. Not only is this game produced by Activision, the largest third party game
developer in the U.S., but the game is the eighth installment in the already popular Call of Duty
series (Jenkins). In terms of advertising, Activision went as far as to partner with Jeep to make a
special Modern Warfare 3 Jeep based on the Wrangler Rubicon (Lienert). Without even reading

the professional reviews, it seems evident that this game received high praise; unsurprisingly,
this was the case; with an average score of 88/100 on MetaCritic, with a total of 81 total
professional reviews most of which were made before the game was released to be public
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 pulls one of the highest ratings for a game. However, a quick
look at the user score tells a completely different story: an average score of 3.3/10 as voted on by
4467 users. Some may argue that this is not a fair representation of the reviewers, that a few must
have reported a more accurate score, but by looking at the breakdown of professional critiques,
this argument falls apart. Out of the 81 reviewers, 79 offered positive reviews, 2 offered mixed
reviews, and not a single person offered a negative review a score of less than 50 (Call of
Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Review). Upon further investigation, DmC: Devil May Cry and Mass
Effect 3 show similar trends, with scores of 86/100 compared to 4.8/10, and 93/100 compared to
5.5/10, respectively. Both games were produced by large companies, Capcom and Entertainment
Arts, and both were parts of popular series (DmC: Devil May Cry Review; Mass Effect 3
Review). However, a counterargument to all of these trends is that the user score might not
reflect the opinions of the average gamer only of the people who vote and is thus not as
relevant. But realistically, to these professional gaming journalists, the people who frequent
MetaCritic and give their votes comprise a majority of their audience; the people who vote are
the people who care about the topic, and therefore, they are people who should be considered
when comparing scores.
To show that this trend is one sided that reviewers only inflate the scores of popular
games and that these cases are not isolated, a set of games from Nintendo Power were analyzed
in a similar manner. Nintendo Power Issue 195 contains a list of many games released in the past
year, from Winter 2004 to the end of Fall 2005. From this list, all of the games released on the

Nintendo DS were compared: the scores that Nintendo determined versus the user scores on
MetaCritic. To establish a threshold, only scores with a difference of 1.5/10 or greater were
considered significant. Of the 29 games that were rated on Nintendo Power, six of them had
significantly different scores. Three games were rated at least 1.5/10 higher by Nintendo
Meteos (9.0 versus 7.5), Spiderman 2 (6.5 versus 4.8), and Sprung (7.5 versus 4.8) (Meteos
Review; Spiderman 2 Review; Sprung Review). All three of these games follow the same
patterns of Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3. Meteos was developed by Nintendo, the company
that writes produced the magazine; Spiderman 2 was produced by Activision and is part of the
huge Spiderman movie and game franchise; and Sprung was produced by Ubisoft, the third
largest game developer in the world (Nintendo Power 86-87). When looking at the other three
games, Mr. Driller: Drill Springs, Robots, and Zoo Keeper, the ones that Nintendo underrated
compared to the user generated score, the opposite trend occurs. Mr. Driller (7.0 versus 8.9) was
produced by Namco, a company that has fallen out of dominance after the mid-1980s; Zoo
Keeper (4.5 versus 7.5) was made by Ignition entertainment, a small company; and Robots (4.5
versus 6.7) was developed by VU games, a company unknown in the field of console games in
fact, Robots was so unanticipated that only three professional reviews were even conducted
(Mr. Driller: Drill Spirits Review; Zoo Keeper Review; Robots Review; Nintendo
Power 86-87). All of these cases only strengthen the argument that professional video game
reviewers inflate the scores of anticipated games; and while a majority of the games are similarly
rated between professionals and everyone else, these occasional cases are still a concern
especially with really popular games. Ultimately, these huge skews beg the question, how could
so many reviewers be so wrong?

Identifying the problem: the relationship between PR and journalists.

Now that it is established that there exists a problem in video game journalism a
discrepancy between what is expected and what is delivered, it is important to address this
exigence and correct it. However, there is still no consensus on what is actually the root of these
problems; at the current time, the blame is split between three major groups of people: the
magazine and review companies, the public relations members of gaming companies, and the
writers themselves. This section will take a look at each of these three claims in order to show
that there is a common thread in these three groups: the gaming PR.
One of the most well-known gaming controversies, known as Gerstmann-gate, provides
an argument for the magazine and review companies being the center of this issue. The entire
situation revolves around a single review by Jeff Gerstmann of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, which
was published on [Link], a premier online gaming guides and reviews site. As Totilo
concisely describes it, beloved GameSpot critic Jeff Gerstmann pans a game, advertiser of said
game is pissed, Gerstmann is fired. GameSpots integrity, at the time, was in tatters (The
Contemptible Games Journalist). However, this was not the extent of the changes that were
made; in fact, this is only the conclusion of a series of questionable actions done by GameSpot.
In his original article, Gerstmann gives the game a 6.0/10 rating still significantly better than
the user score of 4.1/10 determined by over five thousand votes yet the developers were not
satisfied ("Kane & Lynch: Dead Men Review"). Throughout the article, he refers to the game as
ugly and its non-player characters clunky, going so far as to say that the game doesnt come
together as well as it probably should have, and calling the character dialogue just lame
(original copy of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men Review). This harsh review immediately grabbed

the attention of IO Interactive the developers of Kane & Lynch, who at the time were heavily
advertising on GameSpots website. Soon enough, the article was completely overhauled; much
of the content remained similar, but the tone of the piece changed. Kane & Lynch was no longer
a game with a story and characters [that] go nowhere, but instead was a game with potential if
one could look past some of the story flaws (original copy of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men
Review; Kane & Lynch: Dead Men Review). These changes did not go unnoticed by the
public; people immediately began pointing fingers, mostly at GameSpot, ruining their reputation.
But what incentive would GameSpot have to change the review trying to make a poorly
received game look beeter to an audience that openenly dislikes the game makes little sense.
Rather, it seems as if GameSpot made the changes to appease IO Interactive to maintain an
amicable and profitable relationship with the developers (Was GameSpots Top Reviewer
Fired). However, this leads to another player in this situation: the PR who contacted GameSpot.
The reason Gerstmann-gate is so often used to discuss the gaming press is not only to
show the possible implications of speaking out or giving a poor review for a game, but also to
lead into a larger multi-part controversy, Doritos-gate, which shines light on the PR, rather than
the review companies. This incident consists of two smaller controversies: an interview with
Geoff Keighley and a Twitter-based promotional contest held by PR.
By taking a closer look at the interview with Geoff Kheighley, it is evident that the PR
plays a large role in the problems with the gaming press today. In his interview, he is situated on
a chair between a large Mountain Dew/Halo 4 poster and a table of Doritos and Mountain Dew
all with Halo 4 advertisements on them. Later on, he even goes on to spend a significant portion
of his interview elaborating on the Halo 4 promotional offer with Mountain Dew and Doritos.
However, this was not the purpose of his interview; rather, its main focus was supposed to be on

how to break into the gaming industry as a journalist (Keighley). The awkward and forced
inclusion of Halo 4 advertisements added no content to the video; as John Walker described the
situation, the [interview] sums up games [journalists] in one nice picture. They are tools to sell
us things (The Contemptible Games Journalist). Yet, it is unlikely that Keighley requested
that the Halo 4 segment was added to the interview or that he asked that Halo 4, Mountain Dew,
and Doritos advertisements would surround him. Instead, it seems like the details of the
interview were set up by the Halo 4 PR, much like the details of Gerstmanns GameSpot article
were predetermined by the Kane & Lynch PR.
A similar pattern emerges in the Twitter-based promotional contest; during the Games
Media Awards, essentially The Oscars for video games, there was a competition tweet about
our game [Tomb Raiders] and win a PS3 (original copy of Lost Humanity 18). Upon
examination, it was found that many gaming journalists entered this competition Lauren
Wainwright being one of them. She entered with a tweet ending with: #obsessed @tombraider,
(Wainwright). After seeing these tweets, the public questioned the integrity of Lauren and the
other entrants; they were suspicious of [these] journalists apparent love for Tomb
Raiderswhether [theyre] in the pocket of the Tomb Raider PR team (original copy of Lost
Humanity 18). Yet even though most people blamed Lauren for her lack of foresight, Florence
takes another perspective. He believes that Wainwright only behaved how shes been
conditioned to behave by her fellow writers and by her PR friends, (Walker) and that the PR is
at fault again. And while Wainwright denies ever entering the raffle for a PS3, the intention of
the Tomb Raiders PR is clear to garner popularity through the outlet of video game journalists.
Even outside of these events, the PR has a firm hold over the gaming press, typically
through gifts of limited-edition memorabilia or trips to exclusive game reviews. One reporter

was even given an offer to learn to drive a Porche in anticipation of Need For Speed (The
Contemptible Games Journalist). However, these gifts are not the only things shoved upon the
writers; they are constantly fed information about what to write in their next review so much
that Florence argues that we are at a point where most games coverage is almost
indistinguishable from PR (The Contemptible Games Journalist). And as the previous rating
discrepancies have shown, readers do not agree with these reviews, yet the writers cannot do
anything about it without risking their jobs once again, the PR is in control.
Overall, these examples highlight the questionable relationship between the PR and
journalists they show how intertwined the two are as well as the consequences. This in turn
projects the journalists in a bad light, even if it is not entirely their fault, and in order to revitalize
video game journalism, something has to be done about this.

Journalism Ethics: from the perspective of journalists.

It important to realize that these controversies are rare and while many reviews seem
extremely biased, many times this is because the dissenting journalists refuse to write what they
believe to be untrue. While this isnt the best approach, it is a start. For example, Chris Morris
makes it clear that he doesnt let any gaming outletpay for [his] travel or room, sometimes
even pay[ing] out of pocket (Zenke). Others, such as Brandon Sheffield go to the extent of
retranslate[ing] a close approximation of the speakers own words when interviewing Japanese
speakers he is cognizant that PR or translators can often cut out choice bits of information in
the interest of shifting a discussion in a certain direction (Zenke). Thus, it is clear that the

intentions of many journalists are in the right place all that is left to do is to determine exactly
how to achieve this goal.

Accountability and objectivity: a review of a journalists job.

To achieve this goal, the job of a journalist has to be defined, or rather, redefined. One
word that is often tossed around by journalists is objectivity. Traditionally, objectivity has been a
focal point of professional journalism the press has an obligation to inform the public of news
in an unbiased way, and objectivity seems to fir that criteria. In an interview, Frank Cifaldi
explains the job of a games journalist as someone who is able to acquire fats, compile them and
then present them to the reader in a clear, objective role (Zenke). However, Cifaldi makes the
same mistake as most other writers: he does not define objectivity. Many journalists see it in a
positive light giving an unbiased perspective of the news so that the readers can make their
own decisions. However, as journalism has grown, this word has begun to describe an
increasingly more dangerous phenomenon. With the rapid growth of population and demand for
media, objectivity has become the go-to for large companies. It became efficient for the
Associated Press to distribute only the bare facts, and in turn, it became efficient perhaps
expident for reporters to distance themselves from the sense and substance of what they
reported (Glasser 14). However, this has turned the art of story-telling into the technique of
report writing (Glasser 15). The quality of journal articles is no longer dependent on the skill of
the journalists, and the quality of the writing has become less associated with who wrote it.
Consequently, writers are becoming less accountable for their writing they are morally

disengaged writers who are held to a standard of objectivity and as such, only act as messengers
now.
This shift in writing style has two major consequences for video game journalism. The
first is centered on the publics perspective as video game reviewers, journalists are expected
by their readers to review games, which in turn necessitates an opinion or stance on games. After
all, the readers are there to hear about someones honest opinion of a game; writing as a distant
yet informed observer does not fulfill this role. Not only does this cause a lack of discussion, but
this also causes professional reviews to become stagnant unappealing to readers. This adds to
the discrepancy between what readers expect and what gaming journalists produce, worsening
the situation. The second concern that arises from this shift in objectivity is grounded in the
journalists perspectives of their own jobs. The new standard of objectivity has made writers
unattached from their own writing. Thus, in order to fix these issues, it will be most effective to
change the focus of writing away from objectivity and towards accountability. Writhers need to
feel free to voice their opinions, which will in turn cause readers to shift back to reading their
reviews. Needless to say, there will be backlash from the PR and jobs may be lost, as evidenced
by Gerstmann-gate, but as a result, the gaming press will be able to reclaim their audience. As
for earning a living, the internet has opened up many new options; writers can start their own
websites run on donations and ad revenue or write for new startup blogs or websites, such as
Kotaku or Polygon. If this shift is widespread, eventually the PR will have to accept this change
in writing and they will be the ones adopting to video game journalism.

The ecosystem of journalism: comparison to tech and political journalism.

With all of these concurrent changes and advances in video game journalism, the topic as
a whole seems so volatile nobody can definitively predict exactly where the gaming press will
be in ten years or how to fix the issues of today. However, in order to better understand where it
is headed, it is helpful to think of these changes from a different perspective: to see journalism as
an ecosystem, rather than an assembly line. For the past twenty years, video game journalism
functioned similarly to most other forms of journalism; journalists went out to find information,
passed it onto the magazines, and the information was shared with the public. With the internet,
though, the industry has evolved into a budding ecosystem which has established itself as citizen
journalism. It is composed of information gatherers, sharers, interpreters, and checkers anyone
can participate in the discussion and offer meaningful input. And if we think about video game
journalism in this light, many doors open up (Johnson).
Two forms of journalism have already gone through this transition into the digital world:
technological journalism and political journalism. And the change that these two forms of
journalism went through can be explained through one idea: information. When these two forms
of journalism were first created, they suffered from the same problem a lack of information and
a poor method of disseminating the information they had. There was an imbalance of
information; with only one source, such as Nintendo Power, there was no need to produce the
best possible media, there was no incentive to offer better reviews or improve coverage;
Nintendo Power had a natural monopoly over information. When the internet arrived, however,
this imbalance was rectified. Everyone had access to the same information within seconds and
literally anyone could have his or her voice heard by others. Even more, these companies that
were once monopolies now had to return to their days of creating quality content they had
competition. The ecosystem of video game journalism transformed from a barren desert to a

thriving rainforest (Johnson). To make a comparison to technological journalism, by almost

every important standard, the state ofnews has vastly improvedthere is more volume,
diversity, timeliness, and depth (Johnson).
With this change, two obstacles make themselves clear: there is a panic that [magazines]
are going to disappear as businesses. And theres a panic that crucial information is going to
disappear with them (Johnson). Regarding the first issue, I argue that regardless of what
happens, magazines will be around and operating as businesses the only thing that will change
is exactly how they operate. Citizen journalism has shown growth in the form of blogs and
discussion forums, which have become more popular, and that is okay. As long as they continue
to generate meaningful discussion and serve a role in informing the public, the role filled by
magazines will not disappear. And while the business model may change, there will still be
businesses operating behind the scenes, whether they are nonprofit or for-profit. As for the
disappearance of information, an analogy to war reporters and investigative journalists can be
made. Some ask if bloggers [will] get out of their pajamas and head up the Baghdad bureau? [If
they will] do the kind of relentless shoe-leather detective work that made Woodward and
Bernstein household names (Johnson). But everyone also has to realize that journalists and
editors are going to lose their jobs (Johnson), and while this may seem bad, it also allows
journalists to focus their resources on what is really needed information. In the end, the
situation really is not as bleak as it is made out to be; journalism has shown time and again that it
will endure, first in technology, then in politics, and soon in video games. The only difference is
how the public sees and uses the technology and how citizen journalism will pick up on what is
lost.

The uprising of citizen journalism: promising yet dependent.

With the sudden growth of citizen journalism, so much of what defines video game
journalism is at stake. Traditionally, the gaming press was limited defined only by a few
organizations that had information from game developers. However, with the internet, everyone
has the capability to get information and to share information, whether it is through the form of a
blog or comment in a discussion forum. In order to learn more about citizen journalism and its
potential, I spoke with Robert Scarduzio, a professional Super Smash Bros. Melee player, better
known by his tag, Scar.
Like most other citizen journalists, Robert was once only a consumer of video game
journalism. But since its creation, he has constantly posted on Smashboards, an online discussion
forum for Super Smash Bros. On the site, he writes guides, collects game data, and contributes to
discussions regarding the intricacies of the game. And the numbers show that these seemingly
small acts of citizen journalism are actually significant; for example, a single guide written for a
character has garnered over 44 thousand views and almost 400 comments, while a data collection
regarding the same character has gotten almost 30 thousand views (Captain Falcons
Complete; RESUMED: Captain Falcon FAQ). These numbers are reflections of a single post
and most importantly, these numbers are larger than many of those for professional journalists.
This brings up a question: why?
The major reason is that as a citizen journalist with little to no income, there is no need
to follow all of the professional guidelines (Interview with Robert Scarduzio). Unlike
professional journalists, they are not limited by contracts or fear of losing a job for example,
Scarduzio has a full time job, so [he] can say whatever without monetary repercussions

(Interview with Robert Scarduzio). This leads back to the idea of accountability; citizen
journalists are more accountable for their journalism. Since they can openly voice their own
opinions, readers are more likely to grow attached to them and as such, citizen journalists
actually see growing audiences, unlike professional journalists.
Another major difference is that the target audience for people who write for [companies
such as] Nintendo Power is too large (Interview with Robert Scarduzio). This makes it too
difficult for the professional journalists to effectively cover everything. On the other hand,
citizen journalists such as Scarduzio not only have more experience as professional gamers, but
also have more focus, since he only [has] to write about Smash, a game [he enjoys] learning and
writing about (Interview with Robert Scarduzio). Once again, the idea is tied back to the writing
of the article. The differences between citizen journalists and professional journalists is not just
how they write or what is expected of them it also includes why they write.
Looking at all of these differences, it is evident that citizen journalists and professional
journalists are headed in two different paths, though they both serve the same role: the collection
and dissemination of news. And even though it seems that citizen journalists are in a much better
situation, professional journalists are still needed. They are where [citizen journalists] get all of
[their] information and they are more reliable (Interview with Robert Scarduzio). Without
payment as an incentive, citizen journalists are not bound to their reporting like professional
journalists if something goes wrong, citizen journalists are simply not as reliable. Thus, along
the lines of Johnsons ecosystem analogy, both citizen journalists and professional journalists
must work together in order to help video game journalism grow. While citizen journalists have
the potential to do more with their writing, professionals are still needed to serve as the
foundation for the gaming press.

Looking towards the future: the revitalization of video game journalism.

Overall, it is evident that there is a problem with the current state of video game
journalism. The relationship between PR and journalists has evolved in such a way that they are
too close to one another. Consequently, the PR has too much of an influence over journalists, and
unless new journalistic standards can be established, journalists will continue in their current
trajectory losing credibility with each controversy, regardless of their participation in it. In
addition, the Internet has shown itself to be a very powerful tool, spurring the growth of citizen
journalism; therefore, it should be embraced and guided such that it helps, rather than detracts,
from the gaming press. And ultimately, based on how technological and political journalism
have turned out, gaming journalism will exist in the future it might just take a new form. With
the technology and experience we have today, it would be foolish to squander all of the potential
that video game journalism can become. As Steven Johnson puts it, instead of worrying about
the fall of gaming journalism, we should focus on how promising the new ecosystem is to
help [it] live up to that promise (Johnson).

Worked Cited
"Archive; The DS Delivers." Nintendo Power. Sep 2005: 86-87. Print.
"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Review." metacritic. metacritic, 08 Nov 2011. Web. 31 May
2013.
Conditt, Jessica. "PlayStation: The Official Magazine shut down, final issue this holiday."
Joystiq. 06 Nov 2012: n. page. Web. 7 Jun. 2013.
"DmC: Devil May Cry Review." metacritic. metacritic, 15 Jan 2013. Web. 31 May 2013.
Fahey, Rob. "The Games Media Must Renew the Trust of its Audience." GamesIndustry
International. 02 Nov 2012: n. page. Web. 8 Jun. 2013.
Florence, Robert. "Lost Humanity 18: A Table of Doritos." [Link]. 24 Oct. 2012: n.
page. Web. 4 May. 2013.
Florence, Robert. "Lost Humanity 18: A Table of Doritos." [Link]. 24 Oct. 2012: n.
page. Web. 4 May. 2013. Original deleted and reposted on: Ikuu, . "Games Journalism!
Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos." NeoGAF.
NeoGAF, 25 Oct. 2012. Web. 4 May. 2013.
Gerstmann, Jeff. "Kane & Lynch: Dead Men Review." GameSpot. GameSpot, 13 Nov 2007.
Web. 31 May 2013.
Gerstmann, Jeff. "Kane & Lynch: Dead Men Review." GameSpot. GameSpot, 13 Nov 2007.
Web. 31 May 2013. Original deleted and reposted on: Orland, Kyle. Comparison shows
significant edits to Gestmanns Kane & Lynch review. Joystiq, Joystiq. 06 Dec. 2007.
Web.
Glasser, Theodore. "Objectivity Precludes Responsibility." Quill. (1984): 13-16.

Jenkins, David. "Activision Beats EA as Top Third Party Publisher in U.S.." Gamasutra. 27 Jul
2007: n. page. Web. 8 Jun. 2013.
Keighley, Geoff. Interview by Toney Hulse. "Geoff Keighley Interview (Shifted
Archives)." Shifted2u. 16 Oct 2012. YouTube. Oct . Web. 1 Jun 2013.
Linert, Paul. 2012 Jeep Wrangler Call of Duty: MW3 Special Edition Debuts. InsideLine. 02
Nov 2012. Web 8 Jun. 2013.
Mallory, Jordan. "Nintendo Power coming to an end." joystiq. 21 Aug 2012: n. page. Web. 7 Jun.
2013.
"Mass Effect 3 Review." metacritic. metacritic, 06 Mar 2012. Web. 31 May 2013.
Meteos Review. metacritic. metacritic, 28 Jun 2005. Web. 8 Jun 2013.
Mr. Driller: Drill Spirits Review. metacritic. metacritic, 30 Nov 2004. Web. 8 Jun 2013.
"Official Xbox Magazine." [Link]. Microsoft. Web. 7 Jun 2013.
Orland, Kyle. Comparison shows significant edits to Gestmanns Kane & Lynch review.
Joystiq, Joystiq. 06 Dec. 2007. Web.
Robots Review. metacritic. metacritic, 24 Feb 2005. Web. 7 Jun 2013.
Scarduzio, Robert. Captain Falcons Complete Moveset, Frame Data, and Moonwalking
Guide. 23 Feb. 2009. Smashboards.
Scarduzio, Robert. Personal Interview. 01 Jun 2013.
Scarduzio, Robert. RESUMED: Captain Falcon FAQ and Training Guide. 25 Mar. 2009.
Smashboards.
Spider-Man 2 Review. metacritic. metacritic, 16 Nov 2004. Web. 7 Jun 2013.
Sprung Review metacritic. metacritic, 8 Dec 2004. Web. 7 Jun 2013.

Totilo, Stephen. "[Updated] The Days Big Story -- Was GameSpot's Top Reviewer Fired
Because He Slammed 'Kane & Lynch'?." MTV Geek. MTV, 30 Nov. 2007. Web. 4 May.
2013.
Totilo, Stephen. "The Contemptible Games Journalist: Why So Many People Dont Trust The
Gaming Press (And Why Theyre Sometimes Wrong)." Kotaku. Kotaku, 05 Nov. 2012.
Web. 4 May. 2013.
Walker, John. "Guest Post: Robert Florence On The Eurogamer Incident." John Walker's
Electronic House. John Walker, 26 Oct. 2012. Web. 4 May. 2013.
Wainwright, Lauren (atheistium). Lara header, two TR pix in the gallery and a very subtle TR
background. #obsessed @tombraider [Link]/VOWDSavZ Tweet.
Zenke, Michael. "Game Journalists on Game Journalism." Escapist. (2006): n. page. Web. 31
May. 2013.
Zoo Keeper Review. metacritic. metacritic, 18 Jan 2005. Web. 7 Jun 2013.