Literate Gaming Analysis

aderack writes "The first issue of The Gamer's Quarter, a magazine that tries to take a more literary approach to videogames than do current publications, has been released in .pdf format. Included are fourteen lengthy articles, each with a unique perspective; one piece looks at the cultural meaning of Katamari Damacy, while another piece speaks of the writer's gradual acceptance of death as a learning tool."

Comments

What the hell?

[ajutla]

I can't decide whether or not you're serious, but I'll respond as though you are.

I can authoritatively say that no one at The Gamer's Quarter is a "wannabe-intellectual weenie." We're just a bunch of people who love videogames, and love to write about them. We're not out to be "journalists," as nothing in TGQ is traditional journalism. None of our articles are reviews, and nobody is pretending that they would be useful things to read if you want to make a purchasing decision.

Our writing is for a different purpose--not a "higher" purpose, not a "totally new purpose that's going to fucking rock your world," but a purpose all the same. Rather than writing dry, purely informative and objective articles about games, we try to give things a more personal, introspective spin. Yeah, if you want, you can look at a game, sitting down with it and saying, okay, it looks nice, and it sounds nice, but the control is shit and it's all over in six hours; 7.3/10. But...what is that accomplishing? In analyzing the game that way, have you learned anything deeper about the game, or even about yourself?

The idea is, we try to establish a personal context, and to analyze games more in terms of their themes, their tone. How do they make us feel? Is it important that they make us feel that way? What more can we get from them? You can say that they're "just videogames," but...what the hell does that even mean? Are books "just books?" Is the sky "just the sky?" Is life "just life," something that doesn't need to be examined?

People, you know, some of them care about games, and what they mean. I know I do. And it's not just videogames--you analyze everything you come into contact with, on a sensitive, personal level. When you read a good book, it's not something cut-and-dried, something that was assigned a numerical score by a reviewer for a huge media conglomorate. It's something you felt; something you understood.

The point is: the same thing applies not just to videogames, but to all things in life. The Gamer's Quarter just focuses on the videogame part.

And, you know, it looks like you don't want to think about this sort of thing. It looks, to me, like you're spouting off vitriol about how we're just freaks patterning ourselves on gonzo journalism having secret conventions and plotting to destroy your hobby. Trust me. We're not out to get you. No one, very likely, is out to get you. Relax.

There is no movement to speak of. When you talk about us being "frauds," what the--pardon--flying fuck are you talking about? No one is defrauding anyone. We think videogames deserve sensitive, critical analysis, for reasons I've already laid out. So, you know, we're trying to provide that. Maybe some of our writing is shit, and we need to work on that. Okay, fine. Maybe our magazine didn't catch your fancy. That's fine, too. People want different things, in life. If you think this is all "bullshit," that's cool. Don't read it.

But why the defensiveness? Why the vitriol? Why do you feel you have an obligation to stop this "nonsense?"

I mean, honestly.

That's not very sensible.

Re:What the hell?

[bVork]

While I hope to be less confrontational than the grandparent poster, I rather agree with his statements. But instead of simply opposing myself to this 'nonsense', I think it makes more sense for me to tell you exactly what I think is wrong and how I think you could improve.

It is very true that gaming journalism needs to evolve. Or rather, re-evolve. If you've ever read the older magazines, such as ZZap!64 or Your Sinclair, it is painfully clear that gaming journalism has gone downhill. Why? I don't know.

My two examples aren't particularly different than modern magazines. The demographics haven't changed very much. In fact, the average gamer in this day and age is probably older than the average gamer of 1985. It isn't because they were PC magazines. Look at PC Gamer for proof; proof that PC magazines are no more mature in tone than their console brethren.

But I don't know the answers to that. What I do know is that gaming journalism needs to be more mature and intelligent in tone.

But I don't think you guys are the solution. At least, not the complete solution. What are you? In your final paragraph, you claim that you are analysts. Analysts of the way a game makes you feel. This is the whole point of a game in the first place. To make you feel. Elation at victory, satisfaction at solving a puzzle, or pure emotion during a cinematic moment.

Incidentally, did you notice that emotional moments usually occur in pre-scripted events? Something to think about. I can think of a few RPGs and adventure games where you have a direct choice on events and thus feel greater emotion at their outcomes, but those are few and far between. But I digress...

Anyway, gaming reviewers have been analysts of the personal impact of games because that is the whole point we play them. A crew that has the right idea, I think, is Way Of The Rodent. Check out their reviews. They're awfully similar to your articles, yet stunningly different.

So what is the solution? Perhaps a combination of traditional gaming journalism (which has its basis in movie and music magazines) and this 'new games journalism' (which really feels closer to literary criticism than anything). Now that I think about it, the two styles are almost a before-and-after. Traditional gaming journalism, as flawed as it may be right now, attempts to answer the question "Why should I play a given game?" New gaming journalism is a gamer's (not journalist's or reviewer's... there seems to be a distinction) response to this question, phrased as "I played this given game and this is what I felt." You only concentrate on one aspect of that, so you will never be the whole solution. But perhaps you're a partial solution.

One of my major dislikes of current 'new gaming journalism' is that the majority of the writers seem to be Japanophiles, including you. Why have you ignored Western RPGs? A comparison of something like Planescape: Torment to Chrono Trigger would have been very benificial to your article. You talk about Splinter Cell's limitations, yet ignore the even more limiting constraints of Metal Gear Solid. Not being able to move in first-person comes to mind. You ignore many of the fantastic western games that truly allow the gamer to play the game any way he sees fit. Instead of only discussing the limitations of games such as GTA, you should have also taken a look at a game such as Fallout, which truly lets you play it any way you wish.

You really should get a non-Japanophile on staff. Someone who plays western-style games and understands the distinct philosophies that surround them. You guys certainly understand Japanese games, much more than I do at the very least, but your opinions on western games seem very shallow and dismissive.

Perhaps combining your current form with more traditional gaming journalism and reviewing would also improve your magazine. Like I mentioned in one of my earlier paragraphs, it would really provide the full sp