Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NYT On New Games Journalism

Posted by Zonk on from the surreality dept.

The New York Times has a quick blurb up discussing some New Game Journalism pieces. While I think a look from a major newspaper at the actual writing style would have been interesting, it is more a simple linking story than anything else. From the article: "Over the last year, however, a handful of gaming writers have been bringing a more personal touch to their work, using a narrative, experiential approach that acknowledges the effect of the game on the player. Their young genre even has a name: New Games Journalism, after the New Journalism of the 1960's and 70's."

35 comments

  1. A first post that isnt stupid by OAB_X · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I dont know whats wrong with the "old" style. I buy games based on reviews from magazines based on the "old" style. It works, thats why I use it. A writeup discuussing the games pros/cons, features, basic story, etc. then a score out of 100 based on the reviewers overall opinion.

    0-30% awful, avoid like the plague
    40-50% terrible games, some redeeming features
    50-60% average, has significant flaws
    60-70% you may enjoy these, but there are better choices
    70-80% very good
    80-90% excellent
    90-100% editors choice (no game should ever be given 100%)

    Whats wrong with that? Its informative, entertainig and it works.

    1. Re:A first post that isnt stupid by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it's subjective. If you can write in an article what the game is about, without subjecting your own needs and desires onto the game, I can read your article and apply *my* needs and desires onto your article and determine whether I want to play the game.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:A first post that isnt stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the existence of a different method of reviewing a game threaten the old method in any way?

      Now you're just creating something to complain about.

    3. Re:A first post that isnt stupid by FidelCatsro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The main problem with the % system was that it made no sense.
      Smany times did i see games where one would get 85% and another 84% or 86% and what the hell was the 1% , or a game that was called truely average get a score of 75% .
      so alot of magazines moved to an out of 10 system which still had alot of problems as really scores of 2 , 3 , 4 or even 5 made no difrence .
      Fair enough some review systems using this had some rules but often it was truely arbitrary.

      So nowadays most places have settled on No score just opinion or a 5 star system.
      Whilst i really dont respect gamespy reviews($$ etc) the score system makes alot more sense to me 5 is amazing dont miss it ,4 is a great game worth buying ,3 is average and enjoyable buy this if you like the genre , 2 is below average and may hold some fun for a fan of the genre of a fanatic(aka a star * game to star * fan), and 1 is tripe ,Now that makes sense .
      However it needs to be coupled with a good review and good writting.

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    4. Re:A first post that isnt stupid by OAB_X · · Score: 2, Informative

      It all depends on the reviewer, but ever game review that I have read that did not have any kind of rating at the end left me wondering whether the game was good or bad, I can hardly ever tell. Granted, the places that I saw them were not very high quality, but it leaves a lot to be desired in what I can tell. A 5-star system to me always makes me think "how can a game be perfect?" After all, a 5/5 is a perfect score. I know its not SUPPOSED to seem like that, and they really mean its fantastic, but its something that rubs the wrong way with me. I read a copy of a friends CGW, and the rating system was just not detiailed enough. They had expanded the 5/5 to basically a 10/10 with "half stars"

      I read PC Gamer (US edition, the UK one was mentioned in the article i believe) which has the % system. Any game that has a 90% is great, 80% is great too, and 70% is for fans. Anything less is usually not worth buying. PCG started as a UK magazine imitating a US magazine, and the US version is a US magazine imitating a UK magazine imitating a US magazine (in the 100th anniversary issue they explained this).

      While a game can be given a 3/5, a 7/10 it still says "above average, fans of genre". The % system allows people to say "71%" which is above average, but not by much, or "79%" or "almost excellent, but not quite." I am biased about this, I like the % system better, I like the extra detail it can provide. Perhaps with a mentality shift I can learn to live with the 5/5 or 10/10 system, but I still like the 100/100 one better.

    5. Re:A first post that isnt stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, do you have any clue what NGJ is about? It is incredibly more subjective than the "old" review method. So much so that it's virtually useless if you want to find out about the game. It is more stories about the authors that just happen to involve the game in some way.

    6. Re:A first post that isnt stupid by lurker4hire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point isn't that new games journalism isn't subjective, because as you point out it is even more subjective than the traditional style, the point is that it accepts that game reviews are inherently subjective and isn't trying to dress it up with some fancy pseudo-scientific rating system.

      The theory is that by describing the intensely personal feelings and experiences that are given by the game you give a better sense of what the 'actual' experience of playing the game is like.

      I don't know if I buy it, but I know for a fact I don't buy the traditional reviews. Every time I've been duped into spending $50-80 on a crappy title it's because I thought to give a game a try based on mainstream reviews... I've basically written off ever buying any game at release, prefering to wait a week or two post release to scrape the msg boards for honest opinions.

      l4h

    7. Re:A first post that isnt stupid by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd prefer a system which uses a deviation from 0 to rate a game:

      0 means "par", i.e. the game is good enough to warrant a purchase.
      +1 means "great", the game really stands head and shoulders above the rest.
      +2 applies only to games that are so great people will talk about them for years to come (think Zelda, Soul Calibur, GTA3, etc).
      -1 is a game that's bad, at least bad enough so you wouldn't want to buy it. Some call that "mediocre" but these days you don't realy want to shell out 50 bucks (or more, depending on where you live) for a mediocre game.
      -2 equals ValuSoft. The game is so awful it will be remembered for years to come. Games like E.T. and really most of Something Awful's game reviews.

      To translate today's ratings to that, 75-89% are 0, 90% and above is +1, GOTY is +2, 30-75% is -1 and less than 30% -2.

      I wouldn't rate games any finer because there's always subjectivity involved. Pretending you can rate a game down to 1% accuracy is stupid and with such broad ratings you can both tell people whether a game is worth their money and fend off criticism that you underrated or overrated a game by half a star or something like that.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:A first post that isnt stupid by crashfrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whats wrong with that? Its informative, entertainig and it works.

      Nothing's wrong with it. If the only reason you read about video games is to find out which ones to buy, then the "old" style is more than adequate for your needs.

      But clearly some people are interested in video games, and in discussing them, beyond in a consumer capacity. I certainly am. Much as the same way people apply techniques of criticism to books and movies in their capacity as works of art and not as items to be purchased. This "New" journalism is simply the application of the same techniques in textual criticism that have been around for decades.

      I welcome this trend, and I hope it catches on. I'm still going to crack open GamerRag or whatever when I'm not sure if I want to buy a game, but I'm also very interested in other people's interpretations of games that I've enjoyed myself.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    9. Re:A first post that isnt stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemme guess. . . . You're a statistician.

    10. Re:A first post that isnt stupid by Peteroo · · Score: 2

      Well, you might want to read some of these "new gaming journalism" pieces. None of the ones I've seen are reviews. They are essays about the experience--the idea to convey the range of thoughts and feelings that games can provoke. Peter

    11. Re:A first post that isnt stupid by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Blah, if you write: Gameplay 95% in a game review I have no idea WTF you are talking about. If you write a page long discourse on what the gameplay was like, even if you write it with a subjective emphasis on what you liked about it, I can make up my own mind.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    12. Re:A first post that isnt stupid by rpillala · · Score: 1

      Games can be art, and art changes you. Some articles in the "New Games Journalism" style do a better job of conveying this than others. There's room in the gaming press for both buyer's guides and reviews. Look at reviews of literature or performing arts or movies. They aren't all buyer's guides. As the art form is more and more evident in games, I think some people will naturally wish to write about the game itself, not the commerce. I agree that reviews in the "New" style can't replace buying guide writeups.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  2. About their title by aztektum · · Score: 2, Funny
    Overall I find it to be somewhat cliched and derivative of earlier titles. It tries to stand out as something unique, and it even does things a little different than what's come before, but it doesn't really focus on those differences to carve out it's own niche.

    I give it a 2 out of 5

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  3. How's this 'new'? by chman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can go back to the beginnings of computer games to find kids on the playground talking about their favourite games - the boss they defeated last night, or the level they unlocked after a marathon session. Just because the internet affords every able-fingered person the opportunity to pour their inane ponderings into the public domain doesn't make this a new form of journalism. I'm not going to base a purchasing decision on some guy recounting last night's fan-boy wet dream of his favourite game onto his blog. I am, however, willing to wade through the knee-deep excrement ponds that are forums, and attempt to gauge the overall opinion of a game and any major problems that it was released with. Beyond that, the only way I can decide if a game is right for me is by getting hold of a good demo, and that's where the internet becomes useful - as a delivery system of actual game content, rather than pointless opinion.

    --
    This comment was formatted for readability, but I forgot the line break tags
    1. Re:How's this 'new'? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Blah, unless you actually know what to look for in a game you often don't know how good it actually is.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  4. Mreh. by earthbound+kid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I read "Kneel Nigger," back when Slashdot covered it last year. I thought it was OK, but not very well written. I like the theory of New Gaming Journalism, but I think its writers need to spend a little more time polishing their craft before its ready for prime time.

    Gaming is definitely different from other medias. Its not like a book or a movie that remains the same for everyone. It's more like architecture, where everyone is interacting with the same structure, but in different ways and at their own pace.

    It would be nice if there were more to gaming journalism than the old: Graphics X/10 Story Y/10 Gaming Z/10 Overall ([X+Y+Z]/3)/10. That style is definitely limited in what it can relate.

    Still, a first person narrative is also limited in how much it can relate. Or do you wish all the stories about the death of the pope read, "I looked down at my computer screen. 'The pope is dead.' I thought back to all the other times I had reported about the pope over the years, but I knew today would be different. Today, I would be reporting his death." :p

    I think the real need is for gaming journalists to find a way to do more than just tell us about the story and the graphics. What we most want to know about is how the game plays, and play is a much more complex thing to describe than just the story and graphics. Lots of luck to anyone who wants to try.

    1. Re:Mreh. by Frodo+Crockett · · Score: 1

      I read "Kneel Nigger," back when Slashdot covered it last year. I thought it was OK, but not very well written. I like the theory of New Gaming Journalism, but I think its writers need to spend a little more time polishing their craft before its ready for prime time.

      It's "Bow Nigger", not "Kneel Nigger". Besides, "Bow Nigger" is much more versatile. It could be an example of new games journalism, but it could also be my level 85 Bowadin.

      --
      "The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
    2. Re:Mreh. by OAB_X · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Graphics X/10 Story Y/10 Gaming Z/10 Overall ([X+Y+Z]/3)/10

      I dont like the cumulative score system, I find that it places too much emphisis on things like "graphics" and "sound" and not enough on things like "fun". I dont play games to be a tech demo for surround sound or graphics and zero gameplay (granted, the "gaming" part is supposed to ballance this out, but not always). If another game based on the Infinity engine came out (it wont but this is beside the point), then the graphics would suck, but the gameplay could be fantastic and deservinc of a 90%+, but if the graphics are weighted too heavily, then it could drop it down to an 85, when it deserves more.

    3. Re:Mreh. by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      My bad yo. But it has been a year since I read it. I did read the NYTimes article today (before the slashdot write up, actually). But they can't even write the word nigger anyway, so their version of the title didn't stick in my brain.

    4. Re:Mreh. by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      I dont like the cumulative score system, I find that it places too much emphisis on things like "graphics" and "sound" and not enough on things like "fun". I dont play games to be a tech demo for surround sound or graphics and zero gameplay (granted, the "gaming" part is supposed to ballance this out, but not always).
      That's more like a problem with giving credit for being better than the other competition in one aspect. A much better system would be to collect a list of known flaws in video games - such as sterile textures (e.g. you can notice identical tiling), and to remove points from a base rating based on how many flaws appear. Not all flaws have equal weight - for example, an incomplete or missing documentation could be more serious than these sterile textures.

      The only way to test such a system is to get enough flaws to make the best classics look extremely bad. By then, you've got something you can use as a rating system.
    5. Re:Mreh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will someone please call the NY Times and let them know the P.C. age ended when BJ Clinton left office?

  5. My favourite "alternative" review... by ReKleSS · · Score: 1

    Here. (Yes, it's IGN, but it's not really a serious review.)
    -ReK

    --
    md5sum -c reality.md5
    reality: FAILED
    md5sum: WARNING: 1 of 1 computed checksum did NOT match
    1. Re:My favourite "alternative" review... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "(Yes, it's IGN, but it's not really a serious review.)"

      Was this disclaimer really necessary?

  6. rip. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    I've always been afraid that the second Hunter S Thompson died a hoard of untalented rats would start calling their illiterate mental vomit "new journalism." Obviously, my fears were justified. Gonzo journalism is dead. Step away. Leave it alone.

    On a side note, I was lucky enough to hangout with Hunter a number times (last time was about 5 months ago) - every time I saw him, he was on the anti-young-gonzo-journalist warpath. It ended up taking up most of his spare time.
    So, I guess it wasn't just me being prejudice.

    PS: before anyone says this style of journalism is nothing like gonzo journalism, please use a dictionary (look up 'gonzo') and then read a few books on the subject. It is a total rip-off.
    rob.

  7. New York Times by NMerriam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Am I the only person bothered by the inability of the New York Times -- the "Paper of Record" -- to accurately report the name of a written piece on which they are reporting?

    I could consider it merely being (overly) sensitive if they quoted it as "Bow, N*gg*r", as is a common practice for "bad" words. You would at least know what word they were referring to.

    But to completely leave out the second word of a two-word title, and say only "a racial epithet" is not only journalistic cowardice, it is downright unhelpful. If I didn't already know the title of the article referred to, I could think of a dozen "racial epithet"s, and there is no context with which to guess which is correct.

    All of which completely ignores the fact that the title is *supposed* to be inflammatory.

    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    1. Re:New York Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I noticed that. They also didn't link to the article directly, as the URL contains the word as well. How are people supposed to find the article, then?

      Obviously, the word ran afoul of the paper's style guidelines.

      On one hand, I see their point. "Nigger" is a hot-button word and the Times copy editors may not have seen the point in risking wounded feelings over a word that this brief article wasn't quoting. (See below.)

      Then again, it's not as though Times hasn't used it before. I got 271 hits when I checked the Times' archive--the most recent on March 20--though none of the articles were recent enough (i.e. freely accessible) to see it used in context.

      However, most seem to be arts pieces, so I'm guessing the word on those occasions was quoted from books, articles or other works ... which, as mentioned, the NGJ blurb didn't do.

      Just a hypothesis, y'understand.

  8. Why are people linking NGJ with reviews by bllius69 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    They are not one and the same. The piece alluded to in the NYT has nothing to do with whether the game is worth buying or not. It is exposition of an event that takes place during a duel between two people on a Jedi Knight server.

    Personally, I think we need more pieces like this that explore games beyond the obligatory eye candy descriptions. Who cares whether a new game will be taking advantage of shader 3.0? I've given up reading print gaming mags as they are merely mouthpieces for the companies that advertise between their covers. Almost none of them explore games beyond the preview-review cycle, which is part of what NGJ is trying to do.

    1. Re:Why are people linking NGJ with reviews by John+Gaming+Target · · Score: 1

      People tie NGJ to reviews because many of NGJ's biggest proponents are always talking about how it can "replace" the traditional review structure.

      Which is crap.

      If you read the NGJ Manifesto, he never mentions replacing reviews, just broadening the horizons of game writing.

      That's a noble goal, one I try to do in my writing, even though I'm a hack. But the pretentious followers of NGJ are also the ones that scream the loudest about how "it's better and smarter and did I mention better?"

      The two can co-exist and when people realize that, game journalism (notice the lack of New) will be in a better place.

    2. Re:Why are people linking NGJ with reviews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's only the 'opponents' that think it's trying to replace the traditional review structure.

      Like you say, anyone who has actually read the original piece knows it's nothing of the sort.

  9. UH OH... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    LOOKS LIKE IT'S A BONA FIDE MOVEMENT NOW!

    Next thing you know, they will be moving into our neighborhoods. How do you feel about the possibility of one of "them" marrying your daughter?

    1. Re:UH OH... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was funny, but the poster you are parodying does not capitalise his 'i's that often.

  10. MODS ON CRACK by Frodo+Crockett · · Score: 1

    Offtopic? The parent poster was talking about the content of the article! RTFA, dumbass.

    *ahem*

    But to completely leave out the second word of a two-word title, and say only "a racial epithet" is not only journalistic cowardice, it is downright unhelpful. If I didn't already know the title of the article referred to, I could think of a dozen "racial epithet"s, and there is no context with which to guess which is correct.

    I totally agree with you. What happens if a reader wants to read the piece themselves? And offensive or not, it's only a word.

    --
    "The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network