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 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.
I give it a 2 out of 5
No sig for you!!
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
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.
:p
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."
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.
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.
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.
"(Yes, it's IGN, but it's not really a serious review.)"
Was this disclaimer really necessary?