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."

7 of 35 comments (clear)

  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 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
    3. 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

  2. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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.