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."
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.
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
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.