This may turn a little manifesto, but forgive me. It's a juvenile form, but such posturing can occasionally serve a purpose. And sometimes, as Kate Bush's Cloudbusting is currently informing me, just saying it could even make it happen.
I return from Delfter Krug and an evening with comrades. After the traditional lusting after barmaids and discussing the various challenges facing the geek nation, we turn to one of the conversations that I, as a devotee of the gaming press, prayed that was happening somewhere in the universe at any particularly moment.
It was, simply, Games Journalism: Where now?
The money men are worried - and have been worried forever - about the encroaching nature of the internet on mags. They've got a point. Games magazines are, primarily, buying guides, offering either information about forthcoming games or definitive reviews of said shiny consumer items. What to get excited about and what to put money down on, basically. Web coverage does both, and usually quicker.
Secondly, they operate as a shit filter. You buy a mag so you don't have to spend all your life doing the necessary research to find everything out youself: A digest of what's knowing in gaming. While keeping track of what's actually worthwhile with forthcoming stuff is a little trickier , sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic handily gather every web review in existence together and average the score. Assuming equality of judgements - which is a big assumption, but outside of the current piece's mandate - this is perhaps the finest shit filter ever invented. Anything genuinely good will be picked up. Abstractly, anyway.
So why buy mags?
Mag's offline abilities and toilet-based browsability are one thing, clearly. The second traditional reason is that they're mostly - and there's exceptions, clearly - hugely better written. If you want a little entertainment with your information, mags are where to turn.
Ironically enough, you'd be hard pressed to find a money man who actually believes this point. While none have quite dared say it to my face yet, an increasing number are opining in smoky boardrooms that the quality of writers simply doesn't affect a games magazine sales so they might as well turn to recruiting armies of kids who don't know better straight from college, burning them out in a year, and then getting another set. There's been companies who have worked on this assumption ever since the dawn of videogame journalism, and it's an attitude that appears to be spreading.
The reason why the money-men's line has been gaining credence is that things are pretty tight in publishing. Sales of this generation of magazines have been nowhere near what they'd expecting. The biggest selling British games mag circa this period in the games console cycle was 450,000 or so. The current best-selling title has managed 200,000. This doesn't look good on spreadsheets, so they're tightening their belts and looking for places loose a few pounds. Creating a culture where Editorial is basically disposable is one, certainly.
However, it's in these periods of a magazine's industry's life that comes the chance for radical change. When things are bad, it's a war between money-men who want to keep profits by reducing costs and the editorial who want to keep profits by being *better*. The idea of "being better" is somewhat alien to the money-people, who've pretty much forgotten any idea of what creative impulses actually are - or, more relevantly, the ability to have faith in anyone else's.
So, to choose a parallel, at the turn of the millennium the money men came to prominence in the music mags, and pretty much destroyed them all. In a similar situation in the seventies, the music's press slump was reversed by discovering a new underground to write about and new writers to express their love of in increasingly imaginative ways. Ideally, since I selfishly enjoy writing about games while still wanting to be able to meet my gaze in the bathroom
Slashdot Mirror
THE NEW GAMES JOURNALISM
This may turn a little manifesto, but forgive me. It's a juvenile form, but such posturing can occasionally serve a purpose. And sometimes, as Kate Bush's Cloudbusting is currently informing me, just saying it could even make it happen.
I return from Delfter Krug and an evening with comrades. After the traditional lusting after barmaids and discussing the various challenges facing the geek nation, we turn to one of the conversations that I, as a devotee of the gaming press, prayed that was happening somewhere in the universe at any particularly moment.
It was, simply, Games Journalism: Where now?
The money men are worried - and have been worried forever - about the encroaching nature of the internet on mags. They've got a point. Games magazines are, primarily, buying guides, offering either information about forthcoming games or definitive reviews of said shiny consumer items. What to get excited about and what to put money down on, basically. Web coverage does both, and usually quicker.
Secondly, they operate as a shit filter. You buy a mag so you don't have to spend all your life doing the necessary research to find everything out youself: A digest of what's knowing in gaming. While keeping track of what's actually worthwhile with forthcoming stuff is a little trickier , sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic handily gather every web review in existence together and average the score. Assuming equality of judgements - which is a big assumption, but outside of the current piece's mandate - this is perhaps the finest shit filter ever invented. Anything genuinely good will be picked up. Abstractly, anyway.
So why buy mags?
Mag's offline abilities and toilet-based browsability are one thing, clearly. The second traditional reason is that they're mostly - and there's exceptions, clearly - hugely better written. If you want a little entertainment with your information, mags are where to turn.
Ironically enough, you'd be hard pressed to find a money man who actually believes this point. While none have quite dared say it to my face yet, an increasing number are opining in smoky boardrooms that the quality of writers simply doesn't affect a games magazine sales so they might as well turn to recruiting armies of kids who don't know better straight from college, burning them out in a year, and then getting another set. There's been companies who have worked on this assumption ever since the dawn of videogame journalism, and it's an attitude that appears to be spreading.
The reason why the money-men's line has been gaining credence is that things are pretty tight in publishing. Sales of this generation of magazines have been nowhere near what they'd expecting. The biggest selling British games mag circa this period in the games console cycle was 450,000 or so. The current best-selling title has managed 200,000. This doesn't look good on spreadsheets, so they're tightening their belts and looking for places loose a few pounds. Creating a culture where Editorial is basically disposable is one, certainly.
However, it's in these periods of a magazine's industry's life that comes the chance for radical change. When things are bad, it's a war between money-men who want to keep profits by reducing costs and the editorial who want to keep profits by being *better*. The idea of "being better" is somewhat alien to the money-people, who've pretty much forgotten any idea of what creative impulses actually are - or, more relevantly, the ability to have faith in anyone else's.
So, to choose a parallel, at the turn of the millennium the money men came to prominence in the music mags, and pretty much destroyed them all. In a similar situation in the seventies, the music's press slump was reversed by discovering a new underground to write about and new writers to express their love of in increasingly imaginative ways. Ideally, since I selfishly enjoy writing about games while still wanting to be able to meet my gaze in the bathroom