Slashdot Mirror
Death to the Fanboy Press
Kotaku has yet more commentary on the gaming press, where Brian Crecente complains about the childish nature of gaming magazine coverage. This commentary is based on an IGDA commentary piece by Matthew Sakey about the sad state of adult-oriented gaming press. From the article: "What about the magazine did I like the least? Maybe it was the jet lag, but I answered truthfully: 'Sometimes I think your magazine acts too childish. I could do without the stuffed animals and Godzilla jokes and Nerf gun battle pictorials. I'd rather see more in-depth coverage of gaming trends and the ideas that games produce, and less obsession with technology. If we want games treated as a hobby that's as much for adults as children, then we should act more adult. Fun, but grown-up.' This answer pleased them not, and in retrospect it occurs to me that had I shown a bit more tact - for which I am admittedly not famous - I might have gotten the job."
The magazines are too unreadable due to very poor graphic design. They are overwrought to the point where they make "Wired" look like "The New York Times" [registration required]. Too much white/orange/dark-green/etc on black ink.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I can't believe you lost the chance to work somewhere with nerf gun fights.
I have yet to work somewhere where there weren't nerf gun fights. Hell, even at IBM we had nerf gun fights. They get old. If you don't love what you're doing for a living, shooting people with foam rubber isn't going to make your job not suck.
I got some bad news:
Print magazines are a business. They try to make money. How do they do it?
Well, one way is to sell to people who actually buy magazines. Who buys these things? Come on, when was the last time anybody actually bought a video game mag? Okay, here's a theory for you: video game press is like porn. Most people, given a choice, would rather participate in the acts depicted than read about them. So what are the barriers to playing video games and what demographics do they entail?
A) Arbitrary limits on time. This affects kids above all. Parents limit video game exposure. Sure, some of you will say, so do spouses/significant others/jealous dogs, but reading about video games pisses them off just as much.
B) Situations where playing video games is not appropriate. Teenagers have school, where the magazine format excels, discretely lining the inside of that boring-ass history book. Adults have workplaces; in the working class case, the magazine might still make sense -- though then one would be better served by bringing something everyone can enjoy, such as pornography. For many office types, vid web sites are not yet off limits.
C) Where cash is short, web access controlled, and the magazine can be a handy guide to what to expect -- again, the younger crowd excels here.
The other revenue source is of course advertising. Remember, automotive magazines don't shy away from tarnishing their journalistic integrity; many music mags don't either. So why should it surprise anyone that the bulk of video game magazines are basically shills for big companies? That's their business model! So it ain't called EA Weekly; that doesn't mean they don't make a living by pandering to Electronic Arts.
Now, on to the rest of it. I don't care about anybody else's "experience" with the game; give me your evaluation. I don't want some masturbatory prose and long narrative about how the dystopic vision of GTA:SA validated a life spent in the parents' basement, cold, with the body never feeling the heat of a woman. I'd like to hear the "Take" on the game; that can include commentary on the structure, the vision, or whatever. But I don't wanna see an egotistic ass hijack the prose.
Sure, there's a lot to talk about with video games, from the market, to how ideas are realized, to loading them full of Frankfurt School Marxism and making the players fritter away their only real chance to overthrow the oppressive system exposed by the game. So why beat up on perfectly legitimate bits of drivel?
By the way, the word "impactor" offends me on so many levels, it's making me question my sexual orientation.
And all of this is not to defend all reviewers. I'm sure there are many that focus excessively or primarily on the technological feats achieved in the games. Impressive, and often necessary, as they may be, you're right that there are other aspects of the games that help determine whether it's actually worth playing.
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
If we want games treated as a hobby that's as much for adults as children, then we should act more adult. Fun, but grown-up.
./ conversation where we talk about women and video games, and you'll see plenty of immature posts talking about how the women should shut up, there really isn't a problem, and the incorrect assumption that the big buff, musclebound male-stereotype superhero appeals to the fantasy of the women gamers (wrong!). I keep talking about treatment of women, because that is one of my main measuresments for male maturity.
Well, that is largely because the majority of the male gaming population acts like 13-year-old boys--
You've know who they are: lusting after Lara Croft's boobs, gawking at the booth-babes, treating women like shit, spending most of their time inside playing video games munching on chips instead of getting exercise and meeting people. Look back at any
And these people probably spend the most money on video games.
But there is a substantial mature, adult gaming population out there. But chances are they are pretty busy with their lives, careers, kids, and don't spend nearly as much money on games, and don't always have time to read gaming magazines.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
I now officially duck to avoid the hurled flames.
However, since we're talking about readability - try Official Xbox Magazine - just pick one up and look at it. It's my only subcription mag since Next Generation went away. I believe at least one OXM editor was from NG (Francesca?). And the quality of the writing is way above average in the gaming press. Almost all of the content is in grammatical English and they're not afraid to say a game is awful in no uncertain terms.
It probably has to do with the fact that Xboxen are marketed at a higher aged demographic (I'm 34 today, f'rinstance).
I use websites to check for the big points, sure. IGN can tell me if a game will make my computer crash or if it's got so much slowdown that it's going to make my GBA burst into flames.
The major websites tend to reflect this occasionally childish view, though, and the print magazines can't help me to find a game that I'm interested in if it's a new release or if it's months old and I don't have that issue anymore.
Talking to my friends does work. I know what their tastes are and whether or not I'll like the game if they do. Hell, I don't even need to talk to my real life friends. Asking people that I've met through message boards can work wonders too. I'd trust the userbase of Cheap Ass Gamer more often than I would XPlay or GamePro.
I wonder why more people don't think of doing it my way instead? Reviews aren't everything, despite what fanboys say. :)
Goo goo g'joob.
But why do people compare movies and games in the first place? They are vastly different experiences that are attempting to do different things. Games should not be like movies and movies should not be like games; a point which is handily proven by the abysmal quality of most attempts at crossing over...