Slashdot Mirror
On Videogame Journalism
Michael_Blessed writes "The most incisive critique of games journalism currently out there. I would say that as I participated, but there's some real illuminating stuff in there. And it's all true - I should know, being a games 'journalist' myself." It's a whole long series - read all 11 parts.
No.
This is Slashdot, most people have trouble reading more than the headline.
Journalism is "[t]he style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation."
"The most incisive critique of games journalism currently out there. I would say that as I participated, but there's some real illuminating stuff in there. And it's all true - I should know, being a games 'journalist' myself."
Well then, this is my critique of a game journalist: Always preview before submitting. Sentence structure is important.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
You're a shame to Anonymous Cowards everywhere!
old man murray, while probably not being so much of a video game journal itself, was much more of a meta-video game journal, in pointing out the whoring practices of most of the press out there as well as everything that is wrong in the video game software industry. their benchmark "time to crate" (the time it takes from when you start a first person shooter to when you see the first crate or barrel) is still a good indicator of at what point the developers ran out of ideas.
sadly, these days it is just an archive of old articles. still pretty funny, though. you gotta love a site so dedicated to taunting john romero.
To paraphrase Frank Zappa:
.
Game journalism is people who cant write, interviewing people who cant talk, for an audience that cant read.
(He was talking about rock journalism but I think it applies here)
There's no "game journalism" as I see it. Just text ads. I'm more likely to cruise various posting forums to see what the peanut gallery thinks about a game I'm interested in than to read a "professional review" from
And even then I tend to disagree with what's said most of the time. In fact, I think Metal Gear Solid, Halo, GTA3 and other popular titles are boring, yet I played Jak and Daxter for 8 hours solid until I'd 100% finished it. It entertained me, Halo didnt.
So my answer? They're fucking games, just go play what you like and have fun and quit worrying about what other people think, only candy asses do that.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Hell, even that Denis Dyack character. Even games that do not strive for art have a cultural influence. Even BMXXX makes us think.
Eh, I don't think that video games make us think all that much (sure, there are those that do, RPG, puzzle games, etc), but the vast majority of games are there for blind entertainment.
Very little actual thinking goes into any of it (especially after playing it several times).
Take any racing game, first person shooter, or even any random new board game... None of them are full of all that much thought. You sort of do them over and over again and don't even need to have your eyes open.
I was playing a 1960's boardgame that my gf bought off EBay (nostalgia I guess, her mother had it in their house when my gf was little). "Careers" has WORDS all over the board. Directions right there on the board. You actually have to READ the directions to learn how to play.
I was shocked. Now we are filled with games that require no thought (how many people bought GTA3 to actually PLAY the game?) I don't know anyone that came over to my place to play GTA3 that wasn't interested in using the weapons cheat and shooting the shit out of everything in sight.
This guy is a gamer (has 600 titles). Of course he's pissed off about what media reports. Slashdotters used to be (and sometimes still are) pissed off about how Linux was portrayed.
This article was too much.
Your insight is profund and awe-inspiring.
Fuck George Dubya.
Fvck terrorism, global epidemics, war, senseless murder, and the economy. I'm gonna report on... video games!!
crowd cheers
I guess it's better than reporting on Kobe Bryant.
If the writing is anything like the first few paragraphs then no thanks. Look at me I write about video games and use big words, but I should really be writing about music because that's my true love. But I'm an asshat who can't write well about it so I'll just write about video games instead. I'm so important I have something to say blah blah blah
This is a sig, there are many like it, but this is mine.
It's almost as funny as journalism about sports, or journalism about porn, or journalism about journalism.
Journalism means analysing things that are interesting and important. Games - sorry - are mental masturbation, neither interesting nor important.
Now, journalism about the games industry, that is possible. Journalism about developing games, or about how the freakish death of twelve games writers in similar toaster-joystick-bathroom accidents. OK.
But journalism about games? Gimme a break, it's almost as irrelevant as journalism about Slashdot.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
All that said, I offer my unasked-for opinion of "games journalism" on the Web: for the most part, it sucks. There are some really good sites that actually try to partake in real journalism, but there are far more sites that are just fanboy URLs to get free review copies from the games publishers.
I use to love IGN back before they just started hiring anyone who could type. The GameCube channel was particularly good (Peer Schneider and Matt Cassmassina really knew their stuff). But now, IGN is so bloated that the good parts (Cube) are dragged down by the bad parts (DVD, Gear, other non-game channels).
Now I only visit GameSpot, and that's just because of the clever writing style.
Woe is me, the hapless gamer...
... Of what he's referring to, then I say thank god for the status quo. I barely made it through the first page and only managed to read a couple of paragraphs of the next. After reading the "intro", I still didn't have a clue as to what his point was. Is he saying that todays game reviewers are not "passionate" enough about the industry/segment/genre of which they are reviewing. He may have a bit of a point. I'm a big sports/racing sim fan, and I am usually disapointed in the reviews, esp of the racing sims, as many are done by those who aren't into the genre, and more importantly, the racing that the "game" is simulating. If that's his point, then I think it could have been said much more succinctly. I hope he isn't mistaking verbosity and useless flowery prose for interesting content, for they are not the same. One thing that makes me think he is (other than the article itself), is his reference to music reviews. Inevitably a great many of the music reviews you read are written by those who perhaps spend a bit TOO MUCH time and have a bit TOO MUCH "passion" for the thing that they review. Their reviews then become an unreadable, uninteresting, and most damning, unuseful bit of self agrandizing "techno speak" (as this post seems to be heading towards, so I'll finish up now).
/.'ers would appreciate it.
Anyway, if anyone took the time to read the whole schabang and wants to paraphrase in one paragraph, I think most
I know I dont.
Regarding game reviews:
Objectivity has got to go, for one thing. Anyone who says that the personal experience of interacting with a game can be discussed objectively - well they're just flat out wrong to even try. Experience colors everything we write, being humans and all. What we have to do is weigh our desire to share our opinion, the one we're sure is right, against the fact that no two persons will experience something in the same way.
WHAT!?! I don't care if this guy thinks games are evolving into an artform. That's almost meaningless in a game review. I buy a game for entertainment, and could care less if the creators think they are the next Piccaso.
Objectivity is essential in a game review. I want to know if a game crashes, if the AI is a pushover, if the interface is garbage, etc. While there's some subjectivity in those things, a crash is still a crash.
Sure, you need to subjective material in a game review. However, calling for the complete loss of objectivity in a review is just plain idiotic!
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Great set of articles. I've only recently come to looking at InsertCredit and Video-Fenky for insight into the Japan gaming world from an American prospective, but they've already both become a daily routine for me.
These articles (especially Tim Rogers longer one) really do bring to light an aspect of gaming journalism that I've recently started searching for. I get four game magazines and have a subscription to a website's "premium" service as well. They all seem to say the same things in regards to reviewing games, but then the scores usually vary quite a bit. I'm not saying that all scores should be uniform, but quite the opposite, the writer's personal experience of the game should become a more integral part of the review.
This is something that I've found in InsertCredit's different features and have really enjoyed their viewpoints and style. This is something that I would like to see implemented more in the journalism regarding the industry. This shouldn't be in place of some standard technical, "objective" reviews, which still have their place, but sort of an aside for those of us looking for something more.
Please -- no more lectures on journalism. And stop confusing nostalgia for games from your formative years with Socratic ideals of gamehood.
I don't want this to just be a flame, so here's some constructive criticism:
Damn. I guess that was a flame after all.
really
wtf do you mean "no?" rtfa or die motherfucker! michael hath commanded thee!
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
even though, I as many of you, find the site eye-clawing.. he does have a point about it. I used to surf about trying to find the "worst" game reviews because they were too funny.. (i.e. PC Gamers review of ExtremePaintball3D, the lowest rating ever given to a game, or a review of RailroadMaster 3d from a site that is no longer around.) .. but that was because the reviews in that format, fit the game.. But it seemed the "good" reviews were lacking.
If someone could come out with a new format for rating games, something fresh and not hammered into the ground (pro/con lists) it might actually help the industry.
Just some ideas.
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
Furthermore, it reads like an inside joke and in my opinion is much more likely to alienate journalists than give them a reason to think.
I tried, but didn't gain anything from the article but a distaste for the author. Maybe it's just me.
Chapter 1 - Get Ready (A Prologue)
by brandon sheffield
You might call me a moderate fan of videogames. I'm really not being facetious either. I'm about half player, half collector. I should hope that this comes across less in what I write than in what I choose to write about. It's just that there are things I'm more a fan of.
Here's an example: I enjoy having opinions about things. This is probably the greatest impetus behind unpaid writings of any sort - the desire to share your opinions about things you are interested in.
I have a lot more opinions about pornography than I do about games. This is probably because I quantifiably like pornography more than I do games. My collection of vinyl, latex, rubber dicks and 8-inch cocks outweighs my 600+ console software collection by nearly four multiples. So why aren't you reading "Insert Cock" right now? The reason is, like many things, rather unnerving.
Too much has been written about music for me to have a really meaningful opinion. I cannot just whip something out of the air that will give you a greater appreciation for, let's say Hella, or the Minibosses. Well, I could probably, but someone else would always do it better, or be better suited to do it.
So here I am, with my paltry 600 game collection, only half of which I've played much, and only a third of that half have I beaten - here I am telling you what I think about videogames? Just what gives me the gall to do something like that? What could I have to say that would be meaningful to you?
Tells you something about how immature our industry of game journalism is then, doesn't it?
Yes, I feel - surmounting the inherent self deprecation that all thoughtful human beings hold dear - that I have something to say about videogames that hasn't been said before, at least not in just the way that I say it. Those metaphorically under/oversigned to this article feel the same or similarly.
He or she who denies that videogames are trying for something different these days is not listening. And I hope to the high heavens that they've taken up some profession outside of the gaming industry. Games are striving to legitimate themselves as art, under the direction of 'names' like kojima, naka and Tetsuya Mizuguchi. Hell, even that Denis Dyack character. Even games that do not strive for art have a cultural influence. Even BMXXX makes us think.
Game journalism is not keeping up. Games have a profound influence on youth culture. Pokemon is as deep as you need to get to realize it. Whether these games cause violence or an alarming propensity for sharing is another issue. What's certain is that children, adults, moms and senators think about videogames.
Major news outlets have picked up on this, and are starting to do legitimate coverage of gaming trends. This is on the web exclusively, mind. Print newsstand journalism is still utter rot.
But this says, if nothing else, that we game journalists are way the god-spitting-hell behind.
Objectivity has got to go, for one thing. Anyone who says that the personal experience of interacting with a game can be discussed objectively - well they're just flat out wrong to even try. Experience colors everything we write, being humans and all. What we have to do is weigh our desire to share our opinion, the one we're sure is right, against the fact that no two persons will experience something in the same way.
* * *
The internet, this magical opinion database, was created as an alternative in many ways. Game journalism on the internet is...kind of an alternative to print journalism. We get the news faster, that's for sure. But is our writing significantly different? I submit that by and large, we're merely imitating the established trends set out for us by the Game Informers of the world. That's not bad, if that's what you want.
But you, friends, should want something more from the writings you read and the readings you write. Doesn't it sound reasonable that game journ
Recall the
Liar
Thanks,
W00t
shlock website advertised on schlock website
by schlock author, approved by schmuck editors
Most people who haven't read the story will probably see your comment as flamebait, but as someone who tried to read the article I wish I could mod your comment "+10 bang on".
:puke:
As an example of this guy's excellence in journalism, let me quote you some text he wrote regarding the topic of "Role Playing":
This is not to say that people, individually, are not intelligent. They are, for the most part. I don't know that I've met many who are truly apathetic, either. It's just that we're all abused.
We're all hurt children. We don't know who to believe, so we grasp for the most comforting, available parents we've got. We are raised not to believe in our own judgement, and to defer to Nabisco. To Tom Brokaw. To the Government. To Science. To God. To the experts.
Life is above us. We don't know any better.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
My biggest problem with game journalism is when these rags go on to say that a certain game is the next best thing since sliced bread. We all recall Daikatana, don't we, yeah, that was supposed to be the greatest thing ever, and when it came out eighty-five years later, it wasn't even a half-way decent game for the time they had started it at.
My criticism about game journalism is the same that I have about other entertainment journalism, 90% of it is whoring out to get to talk to famous people, get into cool places, and get free stuff. Seriously, any game can be someone's game of the year, does that mean that it's any good, no. I just want to see people say, this is what game X is. The controls work like this, and the feel of the game is like this... Don't hype it to me, don't say that Casino Tycoon is the best videogame ever, because if it sucks (and it did) then you just look like a slut. Yes, have passion for what you're writing about, but try to remember that people aren't reading this to hear you pimp something out, or to slash through your malodorous prose. They're reading your rag so that they can figure out what they might want to sink $60 into for the month.
that or the article is just really not that exciting
What kind of lame crap is this? I managed to get through three "chapters" before spewing. After three chapters:
1) I have no clue what they're talking about
2) I want to punch them in the face
3) I wonder what this has to do with video games
Save your time, don't read this crap.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
now that website has all 3 year old articles, but it has up-to-date ads. And it gets mentioned on slashdot, so I guess some 20,000 people have a look at it. Question, who is getting the revenue from the ads?
It takes
11 parts
because of all the
space between the
one line
paragraphs.
I can't say when that 'started', but it's not new by any means.
It's very width-spread in arcades. Most games has a demonstration screen/animation that explains what the buttons does. Even if there are only three of them.
Of course, it shouldn't go too far. I'm personally in favour of a selectable tutorial/intro whatnot, since for 99% of the games I play, I get the hang of it within the first minute anyway.
However, if you are concentrating on the 'mandatory and non-skippable' part, I would say it started to become frequent enough for me to notice sometime around mid 90s. As far as I know, Half-Life was the 'spark' within FPS games.
I put it in the same category as intros that keeps autostarting even if you've played the game before.
Small white text, black background, dark purple links.
Do they expect anyone to read through eleven long pages of this when a single half-page is enough to give anyone serious eyestrain?
Those who live in glass houses...
The most incisive critique of games journalism currently out there.
This is only a subject and no verb. The sentece says nothing. Sorry, but I cannot take anyone seriously when their writing gets in the way of the message, whatever the message is.
What I managed to get out of the first two pages (which wasen't easy, this guy apparently hasen't heard about paragraphs) was that there is a need for more+better video game Journalism. But I really have to question this, I don't know about others but when new games come out all I'm really interested in are the technical details; Look? Cost? Run? Let me figure out if it's fun. But then again the same thing could be said about about movie reviews couldn't they? I'm not interested in someone else's opinion on their level of enjoyment gleaned from a title or how this game might or might not impact society or how it might alter our culture. To be honest I find that most reviews are fairly pointless.
He then talks about the current situation of game Journalism, which basically boils down to reviews (and not so much comment). To me, reviewers have no choice but to compare their own (jaded?) experience towards game reviews and will lean harder on games that might well be fun for you and me.
I guess it will always boil down to what my personal preferences are, not what some "journalist" thinks.
I'd also like to point out that the author of this feature tries to validate himself as an authority on gaming by telling us how many games he has in comparison to his pissing-contest-winning music collection. How does this make the reader respect the opinion of the author exactly?
crazy dynamite monkey
"Write about a game set in the 80s as though you were writing it from the 80s. Do this without being trite, and you're on the track."
You know, I'd REALLY like to read his review on Sim Ant.
So that's where Jon Katz disappeared to.
Fellow slashdot readers: PLEASE don't burn your retina's by reading more than the first five paragraphs... I think I've gone blind!
Freedom Fries?
Be aware that I have the power of a log analyzer,
...
Was that a math joke? (I like math jokes!)
Anyone know a good math joke? Ahh, Friday afternoons
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
The New York Times and other mass media corps might have thier issues (and there is no doubt that all journalism has gone south in recent years), but I'll take them over web news any day.
What the articles are about is not about gaming journalism. Oh, they talk about games and writing and things that "real journalists" take for granted, like "fact checking" and "verifying information with sources" and the like.
What the articles are about is an awakening. Some people will say "What's the big deal - they're only games, why all the interest in how games are discussed?"
It's because I believe games are starting to reach a certain cusp. It's barely there, and underneath the rush to make the next Murder Death Killer and Massive Movie Franchise Game Version and Hey Kids, Here's a Bright Light - there are stirrings of something different happening.
Some games are getting shorter, like "Silent Hill 3", and some developers are starting to use words like "mood", "emotion", "art". We have people like an interview with series producer, Keisuke Kikuchi for Fatal Frame 2 have this moment in an interview:
Why are game developers talking about beauty? Everybody knows that games are just for teenage kids and immature grownups who just want to get their kicks and watch big breasted girls bouncing about!
The articles at insertcredit.com are talking about a new need that is going unfilled - the need to have games thought about, talked about, researched about, and written about in an intelligent way. Still funny at times, not at others, but they're talking about a desire to have games written about with the same care and attention as a movie, a painting, as an NPR show talking music CDs and the trends and how one piece of music gets its inspiration from something else.
Games are becoming art. Oh, not yet - I'd say we're still 20 years away before the industry settles down. Like movies, there will always be the big budget big explosion big breasted girl games that appeal to a lot of people. But there will be more games like "Ico" that are just beautiful and haunting. Or games that that will do for interactive entertainment what "Saving Private Ryan" or "Momento" or "Gone with the Wind" has done in movies, or "War of the Worlds" for radio.
We're still on the cusp of this idea. But I think insertcredit's articles today are a part of that idea that were moving from "games are just fun!" to "games should be taken a little more seriously and a little more professionaly."
Eh - or I could be totally missing the point. But that's just my opinion on the matter.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Had another idea:
They should make a game out of game reviews. Something like you have to go around and find pieces of the text with clues from other pieces of text so you actually have to read it.
You're rewarded could be boobs.
The number of "Flamebait" and "Offtopic" replies to this story should clearly show how the public at large - even game players - have a hard time really accepting that game journalism is an important part of the media stream. Personal experience has definitely shown this to be the case, despite the explosive rise of the video game industry (which is rumored to overtake the movie industry in yearly profits). You can't slight people for this; the game journalism scene has a long way to go still.
This causes me to think: If the public doesn't take game journalism seriously, how seriously do you think the journalists themselves can take it? Having spent the last five years working as a game reviewer and editor, I find the biggest problem I have with the reporters who work under me is that they themselves don't totally believe the work is "legit". As a result, game reporters don't believe in the worth of their own professionalism and, therefore, most of my hardest struggles in these past five years has been to raise the bar so that people do, in fact, take us as seriously as any other news outlet.
The good news is that it is, in fact, getting better...
www.macgamer.com
I clicked thru all the pages. Here is my journalistic report on "gaming journalism" in ELEVEN steps.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
It's an amazing piece of Stream of Conciousness. If you didn't make it to Chapter 3, he/she/they (not clear on that part) attempt to criticize writing styles. Or even better, complaining about other writers being "just a boring son of a bitch" or "You fill up your review with unsuccessful attempts at humor".
How did this make the front page? And what's "incisive" about it? The definition is "Penetrating, clear, and sharp". I didn't read far enough to judge if it was penetrating, but it was neither clear nor sharp.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
my mistake entirely
Well, it would be hard to sum up the articles of various different people that wrote the 11 articles, but the basic theme is similar:
Gaming journalism is very stale across the board (stale screens that everyone has, the egg-shell approach with previews that could endanger ad monies) and could use a more literary approach at points.
Also, on the topic gaming reviews, the articles all seem to be tired of the idea of rating a game objectively, when the very action of playing a game is very subjective. I see this as less of a replacement of standard number rating reviews (which still have a valid use), but as sort of an alternate source similar to a video game New Yorker, as Tim Rogers said in his article.
That's a very condensed summary of a general theme of the articles.
What's next, recursive acronyms???
Oh, wait...
Um, yeah, preview is a good thing...
The first sentence should probably read:
It would be hard to summarize the basic theme of 11 articles written by diffrent people, but there is a general theme that links them all.
My bad.
I used to subscribe to EGM. I used to like it a lot. I enjoyed the layouts, I enjoyed all of the cool import news, I enjoyed the psycho mail of the month, I enjoyed the little cartoon drawings of the review crew (especially Sushi-X). Every month I looked forward to getting a magazine thick with gaming goodness.
And then almost suddenly it began sucking big time. I don't know what it was? The original publisher was bought out and something about it changed. The noticeable thing is that the issues seemed to become smaller, but not all that much changed.
Maybe it simply was because you could soon find information quicker and faster on the web (although at the time it hadn't reached the crazy levels it is today). Maybe I just grew out of listening to the huge amounts of hype and slanted reviews.
I'm not sure what it was really, but EGM wasn't cool to me anymore. Now I can't look at much gaming journalism, online or in print, without being disgusted by it and thinking how full of BS all the writers are.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Two sentences. I think that about does it.
The high incidence of flamebait here is because the writing in this IC article is pretentious, self-aggrandizing and drawn-out. They're taking gaming journalism in a new direction, all right -- but it's a pretty insufferable one.
There must be some secret here... Maybe if I hit up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-B-A-start when I enter the site I enter into some kind of "Negative World" where all the articles make sense and have something to say, rather than rambling on with no point.
...when it's got critics like classical music and literature.
Honestly, I used to be annoyed about the fact that literature critics would constantly run circles around 'Ulysses' and have not half a word for 'Snow Crash'.
Now I've come to notice that I don't want the forms of art I like to be handled by 'professional critics'. Be it the art I do myself or the art I enjoy. Critics suck. Especially when applauded by people who think they are essential to art. And those applauding suck even more. Both of them aren't essential either to making or enjoying art. And they never will be.
Trust a guy who was/is a professional artist, enjoys art and also enjoys analyzing art. Allthough I'd rather shoot myself than do that for a living.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Wow...you just blew my mind man. As if there weren't enough pseudo-intellectual pop culture crap already, you just took it up a notch.
So, ok, the guy in this article says that games journalism needs to be more thoughtful. Ok, whatever. Sure. That's a good idea.
What I think is the most significant problem with games journalism, though, the guy seems to have completely missed -- people who review games almost universally give a game a good rating when they have a preview copy of it.
This makes games reviews completely irrelevant.
It derives from ego, and their ability to say that they have a spiffy new game before anyone else. When they say this in a preview/review, they can't follow it up with "...but the game has pretty major problems with it" because then their coolness for having the game early is negated.
I don't know how I've wasted on games which weren't worth my time & money, simply because all the reviews I've read rave about how great it is, simply because there's a big buzz about the game and they got a copy first.
What I'd like is for game journalists to review their best ratings for games that are real pearls, like Deus Ex, Quake, or Daggerfall, and not waste America's money with their faux critical reviews.
-Bill
EXAMPLE ONE:
Ninja Assault's very premise is bullshit - everybody knows real ninjas don't use guns. Real ninjas run around on city streets in broad daylight making dogs explode with their swords.
EXAMPLE TWO:
Ninja Assault's graphics are nastier than the streak mark in Fran's Underoos.
Quick... wguess hich one is the "funny" one and which one is the "stupid" one?
(I got it wrong)
Game journalism is people who cant write, interviewing people who cant talk, for an audience that cant read.
So go to people who can draw, instead.
I don't play video games much (well, ok, less than 4 hours a day), but these two have a wicked sense of humor.
Games are ever becoming a more powerful cultural weapon. The idea began when discussing Blessed Magazine's ideas about alternative game journalism. Why not introduce genre into game journalism? Can you imagine I-novel game journalism? Gonzo journalism? It doesn't exist in 95% of game writing on the internet. But you deserve it, because you care about games.
Life is above us. We've even lower standards. You can call it art, if you like. "Art" is merely what happens when the listener starts to apply that entertainment to his own life.
It's the same as with anything in life.
When we review, we review games as product. Videogames are objects. Journalism is meant to inspire free thought. I've a question to ask. It seems this pisses some people off. Online gaming media, at that. The idea behind art is to allow people more flexibility in their thought. The study of art is the study of life. People are intelligent. People care. They've just been abused, and neglected by the media bombardment of our post-modern world. Ask questions. The goal for game journalism should be to point readers toward the truths that matter in life.
I might owe my entire career in video game journalism to Paul Magliulo. This small-time operation died out when I started to write video game reviews for the sixth-grade newspaper.
By the time I reached eighth grade, Arnie Katz had pretty much succeeded at fostering a video game fanzine culture and, reading Fandom Central in the then-new Electronic Games magazine, I thought, you know, I could do this. Arnie reviewed it in Electronic Games. Okay, I'm joking around - video game journalism is not really crap. I find varying degrees of merit in dozens of video game-related websites and print magazines. 1. You call Shigeru Miyamoto anything other than Shigeru Miyamoto. Details are sparse at the moment, but if other games in the ______ series are any indication, this game will feature ______.
I've read some Wind Waker reviews in which the game is referred to as Zelda 9 or, for extra pretentiousness, Zelda IX. What the hell game is that?
Transitioning between gameplay and graphics is not - unless you're a bad video game reviewer, in which case you just write "For a game with such good graphics, the gameplay is lacking."
People reading your writing might be doing it to glean information on a game that they're thinking about buying. Well, you're not going to if...
Some people are correct to think this, and some people are dead wrong. See if they laugh. Let's say you're writing a review of a piece of shit game - a veritable humor goldmine if ever there was one:
So consider, then, Kohler's Hierarchy of Video Game Reviewing Skills, from bottom to top:
/ TEACH! \
/ ORIGINAL STYLE \
/ BASIC WRITING SKILLS \
I visit gaming sites primarily to be enraged.
There is value, when disparate individuals share experiences. I don't need any Maxim-esque man talk, I'm there to talk games when I visit these sites - they don't need to make gaming seem cool because it already is cool.
What needs changing about game journalism? Pick up an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, Game Informer, PSM, GMR, GamePro, Official Xbox Magazine, Videogame Underground, Official PlayStation Magazine, or GameNOW (or, if you prefer, visit IGN.com, Gamers.com, Gamespot, Gaming Age, or any of a thousand fansites and you won't find gaming journalism anywhere.
Roughly, there are three categories: hard journalism, academically-oriented criticism, and consumer-oriented reviews.
"All game writing is based on the same template. What makes that not journalism?"
At this point, even Auto-Summarize was bored.
Solitary games on a computer, with cards, with a pin ball machine, or with your dick is just another version of masterbation - a fun and harmless way to pass the time (pastime).
Writing about it is just sad. Taking it seriously as anything other than fun for the user or money making for a supplier is delusional.
I used to read GIA a long time ago, but they're gone -- are there any good game sites out there? I'm mostly interested in quality reviews, rather than breathless previews. Writers who know the its/it's distinction would be great.
just because a lot of people have said things like 'this guy can't write'...
notice how every page is written by different people.
hot foreign sheep.
We're going to turn this team around 360 degrees.
- Jason Kidd
A good review consits of insightful analysis of the right details. The gamesite articles (reviews especially) tend to laboriously plow through all the minutia, no matter if it's all been covered already in previews.
Real journalism requires selectivity. The best reviews I know are on The Onion. Even when I don't agree, I find they always manage to convey a complete picture of what-is-it, what-is-its-significance, and (very briefly) is-it-good, all in a single loosely structured extended paragraph. They get in some good laughs too, especially with the stinkers.
Since print media is a non-interactive experience, and the author will be writing for many readers, the answer to the question is more than yes or no. However, it is still possible to describe a subjective experience in a way that will inform me what my experience is likely to be.
The author of this article appears to think that game criticism should be deeper; it should tie together ideas from all over the cultural spectrum the way that movie, music, or literature reviews can...
The only problem with this idea is that this is not yet how video games are developed. Movies have been around for almost 100 years, and have been gone through many periods of experimentation and cycles of influence. Literature and music have been around for thousands of years, and are universal, and touch almost every person in every culture, from world leaders to the poorest peasants.
The reason video game criticism is not yet up to par with the criticism for the other media is that video games are not as advanced as these other forms of expression. 15 years ago, the idea of reading into the cultural implications of first generation Nintendo games would have been laughable (challenge: write a serious Ebert-style critique of Space Invaders).
Video games are primarily pop-culture at this point, made by large production houses for the purpose of making money. When indie games start reaching the relative level of influence of indie music, cinema, and literature, when the mainstream of video game culture is informed by the cutting-edge lunatic/geniuses of 10-20 years past, then the level of critcism will rise to match the artistic quality of the games.
Until then, just tell me how good the graphics and sound are, how much fun it is, and if its worth my $50 and time,
Wtf ??? and more:
And that's just from the first page. Has there ever been a bigger bag of long-winded self-aggrandizing tripe than has been produced by these guys ? Not since Jon Katz, I'd wager. If we ever needed proof the editors here don't read the articles posted to... THIS IS IT !!!
Nicely re-edited there. (Note, this text above is not the original next)
Something which most people seem to miss, is this important fact:
There are 11 chapters because there are 11 writers!
If you don't like the author of the first chapter, don't let that prevent you from reading what the others say. The 'quality' of the articles varies greatly.
If nothing else, read chapter 7 by Jane Pinckard. I found that one to be relatively different than the rest, and actually easily readable.
page 1 says:
"Pokemon is as deep as you need to get to realize it."
Agreed. What's reading? *goes back to playing Warcraft 3*
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure." -- William Saroyan
I think an author attempting to legitimate himself would use legitimated grammer.
Journalism, in my mind, is the art of reporting the facts of a story.
Writing an opinion of a game is more akin to editorials.
The Video Game Ombudsman does what this article did on a regular basis, with more structure, in the form of a (we)blog. Plus, Kyle has heard of the word "ombudsman" before, so that gives him a little more cred.
Websites like GameCritics, Joystick101, and GameGirlAdvance have gotten notable mentions from industry and academic heavyweights, such as the venerable Henry Jenkins.
I encourage smarter game/gamedev/gamebiz/gameculture/gameacademia journalism, but to say this is new and unique is an insult to those that have come before.
I know you were joking, but I want my Karma, so I'm going to reiterate your post in a serious tone.
blah..blah..blah..something about journalism... Took more then 3 minutes to read, I have to get back to playing Doom and watching MTV.
If it didn't start out with 6 pages of "blah blah blah, journalism sucks, people suck, society sucks, blah blah blah, rise above social norms, do your own thing, blah blah blah".
A little to self-righteous and meandering for me.
randal
Ahem. Journalists have editors. This 'journalist' needs one really, really badly. I'm sure there are some good parts of this diatribe, but don't waste your time until its 2 parts, not frickin' 11.
YOU FAIL BOTH!
Journalists with degrees from prestigious schools, writing about issues and events that have implications beyond how many Zokar-Blaster rounds one has left in his Zokar-Blaster, get paid little enough. You would not believe how little. These are people who can spell and use proper grammar, typing at 100 wpm whilst talking to both an editor and some bloke on the phone who says he has an Earth-shaking lead for your next investigative piece. I can't even conceive of the depths to which one's self esteem and savings account balance would have to fall before s/he would consider doing "serious" reviews of video games. But then, I never could fathom sports writers, either.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
it's not just you.
How did this end up on the front page? I was clawing my eyes out in the middle of the second article.
these guys can't write.
Oh no, this article did more damage to my brain than goatsex on a monday morning before coffee.
Please, all the gods, spare us from this kind of thing in the future. I promise I will make regular sacrifices, only the best chickens, and the expensive vodka.
Truly, that was a pretentious and stomach-churning piece of self-pretentious drivel written by someone who sounds like he has just figured out why the wax crayons break when you lean on them too hard.
Oh... my.... god.... I can't believe just reading words could be so painful. Anyhow, I've had a stiff drink, and I'll now be heading down to the PTS unit for some counselling, and possibly a nice masssage by that new girl. Lucy, her name, apparently, is.
Sweet Jesus. I pray for the future of our godawful-but-better-than-rocks-and-sticks civilisation that the writer of that crap-junket gets hit by a flying garbage disposal unit and is permanently buried under ten tons of rotting herring fillets. Nothing less would cure the pain I'm currently suffering.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I tried to read the article -- I truly did -- but I couldn't make it past the first half-page of seemingly-pointless babble before my eyes started glazing over.
Anyone more patient that I am care to tell me what his major point was?
_Next Generation_ was a video game print magazine with insightful, intelligent, forward looking articles. The game reviews weren't really special, but it was the sort of magazine that could and did sit down and interview Joe Liebermann for 8 pages on the evils of video games.
It died, because 13 year old video game players don't want to read that stuff, they want to read Gamefan gushing about SUPAR L33T FLARE FX or 'SOCOM Cheats Revealed!'
The articles referred to here
are just horrible, horrible verbal
masturbation using excessive links
as lube. He makes some definite
points but they are almost completely
overwhelmed by style over substance.
Which, after reading the articles, is
what he seems to be advocating, more
interested in stylistic experiments than
improved content. I'm not sure if this is
really an improvement over
current game journalism even as
stunted as it is.
I'm sorry is this annoying? Yes it is!
The article is right in many points, but there are a few I'd like to criticize:
1. "When we review, we review games as product. As a channel for discussion, we've become a weird mix of free PR and advertising, and the latest issue of consumer reports. Videogames are objects. The people behind them are their manufacturers, both in a literal and a figurative sense.
Our major challenge is to make the leap from understanding videogames as things to viewing them as ideas."
Sorry, guys, but games ceased to be ideas in the mid 1990s, when managers took over game design. Right now, the question is not anymore "How do I make a great game?", but more like "What game features would appeal to the largest audience?" Games you see today are the distillation of market research, and not an inventive mind that comes with a new idea. Thus, game journalists are fully justified to view games as consumer products and not as unique works of art.
2. "You lazily separate your reviews into huge sections with bold, generic headings."
I must confess I'm one of the people who do so. And you know why? Because I'm writing in order to help people make up the minds whether to buy a game or not, and not to receive a Nobel Prize for literature. The average reader knows which feature is crucial to him, and can jump very fast to the proper section. In addition, this consistency allows the reader to compare games. Reviews that are very funny, insightful or artistic may be interesting to read, but they'll never tell the reader whether to buy the game or not.
3. "You can write a thousand-word feature without saying anything original or unique."
I'm writing between 2000 and 2500 words reviews, without saying anything original or unique. And guess what: the number of thank-you letters from both satisfied customers and occassionally the game designers (it's not often that I praise a game, after all) far outweigh the number of flames I'm getting. In fact, I have yet to get an e-mail where someone complains that part of my review was not understandable or that I forgot to mention a key feature. Once again, it's about consistency and the ability to articulate the key facts to the reader.
Just take a look at the long article. I must admit that it has some artistic value. In fact, at several points, it played with my emotions; a sign that the article is really well wrtitten. There is only one problem: 99% of readers will never finish it, and even those who do will never fully understand it unless they are game joyrnalists and take notes along with reading. Sorry, but I don't want to end up writing for scientific journals dealing with games. I want to write reviews that are understandable to people who read them while eating their BigMac. I just don't feel arrogant enough to think that unless you have a PhD you don't deserve to read my reviews.
When I wrote an article about game journalists, I wrote it from the perspective of a developer and as a fan. In retrospect, it's slightly eerie that I chose ethics as the number one problem in journalism before the New York Times scandals. In some respects, these people are right in that game journalists just don't have any professionalism to them. (I just saved you eleven parts of reading just now.) The larger issue is separating the money from the writing.
You start to fix this by educating your writers and hiring those with professional experience outside of gaming or with a journalism degree. Make sure that your publication has an ethics statement and follows it. Educate your readers by pulling back the curtain and exposing the marketing machine of publishers. Have a long term plan for development and not be the "flava site of the month". Good writing starts with your own site.
It's written by eleven different people. Not all of them male.
Fashion journalism leaped to mind as well but I think it applies to several genres
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I thought not. Your perspective is as unbalanced as you claim FOX's to be.
The rest of what he wrote is bunk, but he's right. Objectivity is this wonderful impossible bullshit that nobody ever really achieves. You're reviewing something, so you're giving an opinion -- be forthright about your biases. Give me that over false objectivity any day of the week (and twice on Sundays).
Have a look at Gametab.
The best review site on the net, they summarise lots of other reviews and give games an aggregate score. Sort of like Rotten Tomatoes does for movies.
That way you only have to look at a single number to decide if a game is worth checking out.
You can always spot web 'journalists' compared to real ones. Why use one word when 500 will do spread over 81 parts?
You're not looking in the right place then. There are only two places I trust pretty much, "by default" to get an opinion of a game, Netjak.com (we don't get games for free most of the time.), where I write, and Games Domain, which I found because whenever I trashed a game on netjak, they were listed right next to my review on Gamerankings.com, because they had slammed it equally hard or harder.
Easiest way to find out what a game's like...that the two extremes on Gamerakings. Find the most well-written high marks review, and the most well-written low marks review. Compare them and get an average idea of how you feel about the game.
Are the things the low marks reviewer panned important to you? Are the high points the raving guy mentioned important to you? Does it sound like this game either just was or wasn't the reviewer's cup of tea? This should be good enough to comprise a general opinion of the game for you. Try and give it a rental if you can, or use it to bolster the opinion you've already formed about it.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
The linked-to page is missing a closing tag, and so does not render in certain old browsers.
Everything I've read from these guys, EVERYTHING is utter self-important, ultra-arrogant crap. The article he wrote about buying all those copies of FF6 to see what the names were? 95% "Hey, look at me, I lived in Japan." 5% on the actual professed subject of the article.
These guys MUST be friends of the folks here who post the stories, because they just apparently post them carte-blanche.
This article, and all its 11 parts sucked though. Even Tycho from PA didn't have anything decent to say, and he knew it. His contributed article was shorter than his average newpost for his front page.
Look at the great folks we got contributing here. GameGirlAdvance...who tried to convice us that all the really dope shit at E3 was in Kentia Hall, and the pictures of the booths they showed...WERE FROM THE MAIN FUCKING HALLS.
Someone from The Gaming Lack of Intelligence Agency. Insteresting posts of game commercials and stuff from Japan...aside from that..crap...and on top of that, Andrew Westahl is a raving fan-boy dick...in real life, too. I've got tons of game industry friends that say they swore the guy was stalking them.
Chris Kohler...whose "incisive comments" amounted to:
Spell correctly, use good grammar, don't be a fan-boy, make sure your facts are correct, don't be boring, don't be stupid, and don't be boring again.
Zow! Those guys are sure going to feel the burn from that one! This isn't incisive...it's common sense. Anyone who falls victim to any of his 8 points and is getting paid should have been fired. It doesn't help to raise standards of an industry when all you demand is that they are above the bottom of the barrel.
On top of that, retard Tim stuck his introduction to the piece as his Chapter 6 of his 11 part fiasco, instead of making it the introduction. But what does that matter, since all he had to say about it was more about himself, and how his site was named Site of the Month by Edge magazine.
Learn how to capitalize, and lose the pseudo-avant-garde shit, Tim. While you're at it, tone down the fucking bold, biatch.
So to sum up the scorecard:
IGN: Paid off, and can't write.
Gamespot: Wants you to pay them to be paid off.
Gamespoy: Paid, but can write.
insert credit: Doesn't actually write about the game industry, because they think writing about themselves is far more important. Oh, and they can't write worth shit.
I take my hat off toyou sir.
truly champagne comedy !
...and Computer Graft^H^H^H^H^Games Magazine...
That's all folks!
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
I find it amusing, and somewhat sad, that people look for parallels between video games and movies more often than parallels between video games and other games. What about game magazines like GAMES magazine or Counter magazine? Doesn't anyone think there is something to be learned from them?
While most of these "new media" (it's not so NEW anymore) theorists make me puke. The only thing worse than a "new media" theorist, is a wannabe "new media" theorist.
I find Chris Crawford to be an exception. Maybe it's because he's actually designed games and he was good at it. If Mr. Crawford writes an 11 part series I might read it.
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
Does a single one of you bichmonkeys realize that this article is actually written by eleven different people? I'd read through more comments than the ones I'm seeing if I wasn't convinced the you people are mostly idiotic motherfuckers.
The Linux penguin is ashamed of you all. Then again, that fuckiing cartoon bastard is probably illiterate, too.
I say that with utmost admiration, of course.
Is an honest report on its playability, complexity, graphic detail, hardware requirements, and whether or not it is worth playing. I don't care about, nor do I want, a cultural critique or indepth analysis of its "deeper meaning". Give me a break.
Two things and two things only:
1. Be HONEST. Don't kiss game company ass.
2. Give me the meat about the game. I want to know whether it is worth my money and time.
Nothing else matters in a game review. Leave the "cultural analysis" and other crap to non-game review articles. Such analyses have a place ELSEWHERE.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Any of you guys play Postal 2? A reference to Old Man Murray is on every computer monitor in the game.