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."

Comments

A first post that isnt stupid

[OAB_X]

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.

Re:A first post that isnt stupid

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:A first post that isnt stupid

[FidelCatsro]

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.

Re:A first post that isnt stupid

[lurker4hire]

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

Re:A first post that isnt stupid

[crashfrog]

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.

How's this 'new'?

[chman]

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.

Why are people linking NGJ with reviews

[bllius69]

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.