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

After reading 3 articles and skimming the rest.

[Goosey]

I am impressed. This is definently quality reading, although it does reak of a stench of self importance. It feels like they are trying to use big words for the sake of using big words, however if you can get around that (I did) it is actually very well written and insightful. Very insightful, and leaps and bounds beyond the standard magazine/gamesite review. While I certainly wouldn't recommend reading it to decide if you want to purchase a game (in fact it is written in a way that in order to appreciate it you should have already played the game in question), I would definently recommend it for anyone looking for a deeper more intellectual look then games are often given.

if ever you should RTFA, it is this time

[bersl2]

I don't think I've seen that much intelligent discussion about video games in one place ever before.

The articles are all well-written (saw a typo here and there, though), with insightful content relating personal experiences, gaming epiphanies, reviews of interesting games with novel ideas. It is a thoroughly enjoyable read, and I would without a doubt subscribe to this magazine were it distributed as such.

a pox on all of you lit majors!

[violently_ill]

you guys are morons if you think this is intelligent discussion. it's just a bunch of hyperemotional lit majors writing in the most convoluted, self-important, cluttered, and cliched style imaginable. for christ's sake, it takes one of the authors most of a page to explain to readers why they don't truly understand the life-affirming, mind-expanding revalation from God that is Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater, before launching into a description of what the DVD case looks like. truly, that is some penetrating and insightful writing...FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!

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

Re:What the hell?

[bVork]

You ignored the major difference between western rpgs and jrpgs. Freedom. In the majority of JRPGs (with a few exceptions, such as Legend of Mana or the World of Ruin section in Final Fantasy 3), the player is forced on a very linear path and must visit every location in a specific order and has zero influence on the storyline that unfolds. Many western rpgs don't ignore their pen-and-paper origins, and allow the player to affect the storyline. A friend of mine taking the game design course at USC called it the difference between 'interacting in the story' and 'interacting with the story'.

You want a list of important western RPGs?

Fallout - one of the best examples of this kind of gameplay. You can basically be anything you want to be. Good, evil, violent, pacifist... and there are no sections where you are forced to do something against the nature you have decided upon. Heck, you can even talk your way out of the final battle!

Planescape: Torment - the other example of this. Planescape one-ups Fallout in terms of storyline, however. The game is less focussed on how you behave during gameplay and more how you behave during dialogues, of which there are an absolute ton. Though it is AD&D-based, it has significant differences than other games of that kind, like Baldur's Gate. The most important is the alignment system... you start off as neutral and your alignment changes according to your actions and dialogue choices.

Wizardry 1, 6-8 - these take almost the opposite path of Planescape. Dialogues are few and far between in the early Wizardry games, and its all about the dungeon-crawling gameplay. Wizardry 1 was the primary influence on Phantasy Star. And for you Japanophiles out there, Wizardry is one of the most popular RPG series in Japan. Every single Wizardry game was released in Japan, and indeed re-released more often than they have been in the west!

Though the earlier games are focussed entirely on gameplay, Wizardry 6 to 8 have an equal focus on storyline. There are multiple endings to each of those games, and multiple beginnings to Wizardry 7 and 8 because you can import your party.

Ultima Underworld - its sort of an RPG, so I'm including it. It has many statistics and very deep dialogue options. It is also one of the first first-person games, and one of the greatest. Deus Ex, Arx Fatalis, and the System Shock series all descend from this game.

Ultima 4-7 - nice that you included Ultima 4, but you ignored the other excellent games in the series, each of which brought something new to the table.

Ultima 4, of course, has incredible gameplay that causes you to become a good person as you learn the Virtues. With one of the best dialogue systems I've ever seen, tons of non-linear gameplay, and a plot that remains unique to this day, it is perhaps the most important RPG ever made.

Ultima 5 uses an engine similar to Ultima 4, but adds npc schedules. Something most JRPGs haven't figured out yet. With a day/night cycle, shopkeepers go to bed, guards sleep (which is important if you want to take an important item from the castle), and it gets difficult to see outside.

Ultima 6 removed the tile-based system and overworld map to create an entirely seamless world, something that most JRPGs still lack. Combine that with a storyline that puts an incredible wrinkle in the typical stop-the-invaders plot, and you have yet another excellent rpg.

And then there's Ultima 7, one of the first true virtual worlds. Harvest wheat, pound it into grain, mix with water and bake bread. Or forge a sword. Or rob the mint (though the lack of money in the mint hints that Britannia's economy is about to collapse). Very nearly every object in Ultima 7 could be interacted with, an incredible feat. And JRPGs are still doing the typical check-the-dresser-for-a-health-potion 'interactivity'!

Those are just the games off the top of my head, too. I didn't even mention Wasteland, Lords of Midnight, Dungeons of Daggorath

Re:What the hell?

[Pluvius]

You forgot Might & Magic. Just pointing it out because forgetting Might & Magic in a discussion of Western RPGs is like forgetting Jose Carreras in a discussion of great tenors: He might be "the third guy" but it's still bad form to leave him out.

Rob

Re:What the hell?

[Alkaiser]

Ultima 7 was groundbreaking, but crap. Over a summer of 3 months, 3 friends and I couldn't ever stomach that game long enough to finish it, I'm sorry.

If you're assuming that "JRPGs are still doing the typical check-the-dresser-for-a-health-potion 'interactivity'!" you haven't played one in the last 5 years. Try picking up Dark Cloud 2 to see how different things have gotten.

I like Ultima 6 better than 4. 6's story gives it classic status in my book, 4 is on the cusp. 5 just seemed like an update to 4 for me.

Dungeon Master made me physically ill. Could have been digital crack, but if it makes me vomit, I'm not enjoying it.

Planescape, from what I understood was supposed to be awesome. Whatever. I haven't played it so I can't say it's super badass or anything.

My point was that the Western RPG at this point is so limited in scope that comparing "Western RPG to Japanese RPG" is fairly useless, as not many people are going to know what the heck Western RPG represents.

When I write reviews, I compare them to those standards all the time. Is the story lacking or linear? Then I dock points. Does the game have you go on a wild journey but force you down a path that is neither desirable or logical? Dock points.

The ideas that you say embody the Western RPG are all fine and good...it's just that the term isn't one that is necesarily attached to the ideas becasue it's frankly archaic right now. On top of that, I just don't see the need to fracture the RPG or any other genre for that matter into locales. An RPG is an RPG. If it's lacking in story it's lacking in story, not just "typical Japanese".

Re:Death is a really crappy learning tool

[Atrax]

No, actually it's how successive generations of genetic combination and mutation filtered by natural selection made you

Gaming needs this.

[bitkari]

The writing may appear a little whimsical, but this sort of 'magazine' writing is important for the world of gaming.

It is nice to have an alternative to the sort of games writing that will only tell us if a game is totally awesome or not, and if the grafixx are 10/10.

Personally I find this sort of game editorial of value, and indeed cool 2 tha maxxxxx! 93%!!OMG.

Pretty good, actually

[Wraithfighter]

I was expecting it to be a bit overzealous, but after reading the MGS, PoP, and Sonic articles, I'm rather impressed.

Sure, I have some specific complaints regarding what they were saying (the PoP author never mentioned the Dahaka), and I was a bit overwhelmed by the massive amount of knowledge that they possessed (especially the Sonic Article. Major fanboy of the originals), but the idea is exactly what is needed.

It treats video games as something of an art form, which is something that I think is sorely needed. I like the lack of focus on the visuals when compared to the gameplay. In the entire MGS article, he mentioned the graphics only once, to say that they were a bit sluggish when compared to the first two games, because of the massive environments. He spent the other ten pages talking about the gameplay.

Definitely looking forward to the next issue.

More overanalysis.

[fondue]

The back page blurb suggests that at some level they 'get it'. Unfortunately the content seems to be the same old overblown, obvious fanzine crap.

I'm trying to remember if I've ever read anything interesting that contained a question along the lines of "But what do we mean by 'X'?"

Literate? Are you sure?

[raardvark]

"How good the prince moves is the most notable presentation of the Prince of Persia series."

Hey, they do write very good!

As an academic doing work on video games...

[Snowspinner]

This isn't bad, for an non-peer reviwed fan journal. But if "literate thought about video games" is something any of you are seriously interested in, you need to join the conversations that already exist in academia. You need to read the ludology/narratology debate - Janet Murray, Espen Aarseth, and the like. You need to read other theory too - Lacan, Zizek, some Marxist theory - other stuff that will let your thought about video games fit in with literate thought in general. And you need to do more than run a fanzine - your work needs to be read by independent people who have no ego invested in the project.

Which is not to say that you guys don't have a good start. You're noticing the right things in video games. Your writing style is clunky at times, but that's certainly no crime in academia. But right now, you've got a bunch of cool observations about video games that you haven't learned how to connect into academic thought yet. For that, you need to read the guys who are already doing this.

(And you do all know about gamestudies.org, right?)