Slashdot Mirror
NYT On New Games Journalism
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."
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.
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.