Slashdot Mirror
Mass Media Coverage Of Gaming Discussed
Thanks to Adrenaline Vault for their editorial discussing the increased coverage of computer gaming in the mainstream press, and the "major distortions" that have subsequently evolved. Among the charges leveled are that "...the mass media generally assumes all good players are teenagers and oldsters are klutzes... In reality, those who play computer games - and are adept at them - are getting on in years." The writer also suggests that "...critics in the mass media... almost always equate visual excellence with photorealism", before ending on the hypothesis that: "If you can't spot any difference between pieces by dedicated game reviewers and mass media entertainment writers, then those of us who fall in the first category are doing something very wrong."
That article was some seriously glorious self-love right there. As it turns out, the mainstream press has been reviewing stuff as long as their has been stuff to review. So why would games be any different?
The author supposes that the mainstream press portrays games negatively because of a few eggs, that while not bad per se, are controversial at least. Well, thats not really true. The mainstream press tells the story of those games because they are controversial. This is called "a story", and this sells issues. If we don't want people covering games such as GTA and Postal, don't buy (hence ceasing production of) these games. Those games are part of the large picture and the media tends to report the extreme of all things, note here that games are not special in this way, so why would games be any different. Sounds to me like this issue is as matured as any in the mainstream. As for the Touched by an Angel point (which seems to be the only specific account provided), the writer of that show is allowed any view of the issue he wants. As soon as real people stop dying over Counter-Strike and Everquest, I'll rid myself of the notion that just maybe games can have an effect on people.
The writer of the article questions the ability of the press to be able to comprehend games due to limited exposure. Oh please, touch yourself some more. Yes, a non-games specific writer would not be expected to play games as much as a full-time games writer, but is this bad? In the MAINSTREAM press one would hope the writer most closely matches the audience, ie mainstream. The author then plays terminology nazi, which is always convincing and never sour-grapes sounding. Noone cares if one uses video games or computer games except term nazis and noone cares what they think anyway. If I am reading Maxim for my video game reviews, I would want the writer to think like someone who gets their game reviews from Maxim thinks. Think is a good thing.
As for the young vs old gamer thing. Yes, kids play games more (always will) and they have more time to practice the current game and are better at it because of this. A stupid, grasping point to make in the first place.
I really like this one:
In other words, we need to reflect a higher standard than the mainstream press.
HA! No article published on the internet will ever be of the same quality as real press. If it was, the writer would be employed by the legitimate press and not some fan(boy)-site.
As for the point of necessary skill as a gamer? Nonsense. Despite some opinion to the contrary, if a game isn't fun within the first hour, on the first level, when will it be fun? Someone reading the mainstream press will want that first level to be fun and will want to know if it is or isnt.
This is just another self-important article by the needy gaming press. It is needy and attention hungry by nature and this article is just one exhibition of that fact.