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.
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!!!!
... 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
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.
While I'm not anti-cursing (in most cases), I don't particularly find the frequent use of curse words (especially in "journalism") professional.
Buy the President
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
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
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.
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,