kennedy.jpg's Editor-in-Chief Sam Kennedy has posted two extremely lengthy weblog posts regarding 'the state of game journalism' (part 1, part 2), which are well worth perusing for a little more intelligent commentary on the increased 'OMG GAME JOURNOS SUCK' barrage of late.

An interesting point from Kennedy's first post: "I find our industry's reluctance to actually help push journalism forward a mighty shame. I can't tell you the number of times I've worked on potentially incredible stories that just fell apart because of the uncooperativeness from a publisher." This seems to be due to the pragmatism of PR people in only granting interviews relative to current projects, or the general reticence of Japanese developers to talk in detail about their creative process, at least in the examples given, but it's nonetheless an intriguing angle.

In the second post, which talks of the perennial review bugbear, another contentious point is raised: "Oh, and to answer the age old question of whether game reviewers actually play through every game before reviewing it: We try our damnest to -- and I'd say we finish nearly all of them." When do games get a raw deal in terms of reviews, though? Is it really when someone didn't play through all 80 hours of it, or is it just when the reviewer doesn't understand the genre or context of the title? Opinions welcome.