The Problem with Games Journalism: Part One
This piece will be the first part of what was originally going to be one article, but I’ve been inspired by some recent gaming-blog debate and simply had to get this written down. In case you’re wondering which debate I’m talking about, The Guardian’s Keith Stuart posted a blog entry about reviewers “not really understanding innovation” last week which sparked considerable debate amongst the SERIOUS GAMES JOURNALIST NETWORK OF PRETENSION, even prompting commentary from the Granddaddy of games-journalists-taking-themselves-too-seriously, N’Gai Croal. Croal essentially disagrees with Stuart’s blog entry, in a long counter-argument peppered with words I haven’t used since my dissertation.
For the record, I think Keith Stuart’s blog post was an interesting one, but not because I agree or disagree (I actually disagree, but getting involved in that one would make this whole article a piece of hypocrisy). I found it interesting because this debate has highlighted what I think is one of the main problems with games journalism – games journalists take themselves far too seriously. Allow me to describe what I think makes up your typical pretentious games journo:
This typical games journalist has always expressed a fondness for putting pen to paper. They were probably pretty good at English in school and maybe studied it further when they finished. They also grew up in the nineties and played an awful lot of videogames, therefore having quite an extensive knowledge on the subject. They eventually go to university, not really sure about what to do with their lives, maybe they do a language-based degree, maybe they do something not many other people do like Psychology… They finish Uni and they still don’t know what the hell to do, but they remember what they loved when they were younger. They always wanted to be a writer.
“But what can I write about?” they’ll ponder, “I can’t just go ahead and write a novel because nobody will take me seriously, and there’s not a chance of getting a job as a proper journalist because I don’t have the training.” “All of my writing is meandering bollocks about underground boxing clubs (most definitely not inspired by Chuck Palahniuk) and Hobbits and Elves and stuff”. “I know, I’ll write about games for the time being and hopefully someone will spot my talents and hire me to write the next Tarantino screenplay, or Skins Series 3.”
Of course, I could be completely off the mark with the above nonsense, but it would go a good way to explain why games journalists take themselves so seriously, which is actually my main point to which I’ll return, using this article as a reference point. This Kotaku feature – written by the same Leigh Alexander who, up there in the opening paragraph, is taking herself far too seriously and contributing to the problem – basically talks about how your average gamer doesn’t read reviews and even if they did, he or she wouldn’t have a fucking Scooby Doo what they were about because they’re all so pretentious and full of unnecessarily complicated words.
Do you see the problem yet? There’s an army of writers, not journalists writing games journalism, and they’ve got such a huge chip on their shoulders about the throwaway, not-so-serious world of video games that they’re creating their own forum of faux-intellectual debate and pretension. They’re reading far too much into this whole gaming thing, excluding everyone but the equally pretentious, and they’re digging their own graves. We already have clear evidence that the average gamer, which is surely a huge percentage of a games journalist’s potential audience, doesn’t read games journalism. But games journalists continue to write this rubbish to give their profession a sort of false justification, even though they know this damning evidence exists. Why aren’t they trying to cater for the average gamer? Have they ever considered that we’ll all get paid a whole lot more if we let the average gamers in? Does the tabloid press fill its pages with big words because the writers worry people don’t take their profession seriously? No, because they get paid plenty of money and you’d be a fool not to take them seriously.
There’s a real danger that N’Gai and his gang will break away and inadvertently form a circle-jerking group of wannabe-Wordsworths whilst Rupert Murdoch swoops in with a team of journalists who know they are journalists, creating a games magazine equivalent of The Sun and supplying the masses with what they want to know: What a game is like to play and if it’s worth buying or not.
By Jonny Robson
Read something else:
126 Comments to The Problem with Games Journalism: Part One
Leave a comment
Filter Posts
Recent Features
- Stuart Campbell: Now Playing Scotland Yard
- Powerup Forever Review (Xbox 360)
- GTI Club+ Review (PS3)
- Lots of Tracks
- Gran Turismo 5: Prologue Video Review (PS3)
- Tomb Raider: Underworld Review (PS3, Xbox 360, PC)
- What have people been looking for this week?
- Football Director DS Review (Nintendo DS)
- Sonic Unleashed Review (Xbox 360, PS3)
- Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix Review (Xbox 360, PS3)
Archives
- April 2009 (1)
- January 2009 (2)
- December 2008 (18)
- November 2008 (130)
- October 2008 (86)
- September 2008 (6)
Damn right. Who needs wannabe writers that declare what people should read about videogames and engage in pointless naval-gazing, adding nothing to the conversation, instead of constantly telling consumers what to consume? I want some real journalism. The kind that declares that I should buy a game despite them “not particularly liking it.” That’s journalistic integrity right there.
While I do think, in some instances, that the writers mentioned might be overreaching at times. I still find most of their writing to be a compelling read. I can’t fathom why somebody (you) would write a holier than thou article about others when your greatest argument is that they are using big words. It reminds me of the new republican way of thinking that promotes ignorance and stupidity as something to be proud of.
Also, did you just say Rupert Murdock was going to hire actual journalists? That’s exciting to think that he may actually do that. If you can be sure of it, I’d call it breaking news.
Wow that was quite snappy. I like it.
I have to agree that games journalist tend to try to find that redeeming factor that somehow make their trade relevant. I see that they tend to do this in two ways: considering reading game reviews is a niche, as Leigh suggest in the article you reference, games journalist are always trying to make their form of enthusiast journalism on par with that of, say, movies journalism. They also occasionally create these debates , as with the understanding innovation debate, about the semantics and the importance of their writing that somehow elevate their writing to something above just game reviews making it more a high level intellectual discussion. In doing so, they do tend to take themselves too seriously at times.
But then again I’m reminded of the power these game journalist hold. The single number, grade, or mark that these journalist assign to games I’m sure give the Marketing and PR divisions headaches when the number assigned is not particularly favorable. We’ve even heard anecdotes of compensation bonuses being based on aggregate scores posted on Metacritc. I’m also reminded of the problem that the only way to “break in” to the games industry as somebody that is not a tester or code monkey is to become a games journalist for a few years and eventual make the hop. I’ve seen this time and time again with people such as Greg Kasavin, Luke Smith, Brian Intihar etc. This was a problem I was particularly annoyed with when coming straight out of college and trying to find a job in the industry.
So do they take themselves seriously at times? Yes they do; but whether we like it or not they, and their writing and trade, still hold significant weight in the industry.
It goes back to that whole “delusions of grandeur” thing. Gamers, generally, are intelligent people. We spent a generous portion of our formative years engaged in a single player activity, i.e., fomenting introversion. Then most of us (at least the “old schoolers”) hit college right as social gaming was being born, so we aligned our introversion into the internet which is, as we all know, the ultimate captive audience. Smart people, one-sided discussion, delusions of grandeur (Aragorn didn’t save the world, little Frodo did), and we’re all out there tooting our own horn, so to speak.
It doesn’t matter that we’ve alienated the average gamer, if we convince him or her that we’re so much more educated and intelligent than they are, we can try to force our bloated opinions down their throats. Little Big Planet is a perfect example, it is a great game; journalists, critics, “game writers”, and old schoolers all love it. It’s not an instant bajillion-selling hit like Halo 3, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, GTAIV, or Madden because the average PS3 gamer spent $500 to be dazzled by mature and awesome graphics, not to piddle around on a (gorgeous) platformer. Despite our raving [lunatic] reviews, our opinion doesn’t mean a hoot. Our love of World of Goo doesn’t hold a candle to Wii Fit’s fad-appeal.
Now I’m rambling. I don’t know a solution to this, game reviews are, by human nature, going to eventually bias themselves into a corner. You can’t immerse yourself into gaming and NOT inevitably form opinions, wax nostalgic about a favorite title, and eventually overfocus on minor glitches, graphical hiccups, and gaming faux pas that the average doofus just doesn’t care about.
Insightful and amusing - nice work.
Great article - Snappy gamer is officially bookmarked!
The first and last paragraphs are key here. Yes, we (consumers and journalists) understand innovation. However we also know it’s completely irrelevent.
The reason being if a game is not fun, then it can be as innovative as you like and we won’t care. Mirror’s Edge being my example, it’s a superb idea from a development team I’ve liked since they were writing Pinball games on the Amiga. Trouble is, for me, I just can’t play it. It just doesn’t work for me.
Innovation is a selling point, but ultimately if you’re not enjoying the game it doesn’t matter even a little bit.
I consider myself an average gamer and back in the 90’s I used to read mags regularly. Then around 2000 I stopped reading them regularly and started to buy the odd one when there was a particular game I wanted to know about.
For me this is because I stopped trusting the reviews, it wasn’t necessarily because of the writing style it was more because they were just plain wrong(in my opinion). I started to believe that games journos were getting caught up in the hype surrounding games, then I realised (rightly or wrongly) that it was just plain corruption. So I stopped reading them.
Nowdays I read more about games than I ever did before, thank god for the internet. I know what writers I trust, I like to hear about little games that I may never have stumbled across before and I like to read what the smaller sites have to say on the bigger games.
Anyway I have completely gone away from my point, which is that nowdays I like a bit of opinion in games reviews, mainly because I read so many reviews that I can make a relatively good decision based on a few trusted sources.
And lastley ever since I have found blogs by Games Journos I have noticed what a buch of navel gazers you all are… you definately all need to lighten up a bit…. oh and keep up the good work !
Isn’t there room for both approaches though? I mean, for games writing AND game journalism (by your definitions)? Why does it always have to be one or the other?
For games that I’m yet to play, and need to make a decision on whether to make a purchase or not, I prefer the kind of game journalism you describe that goes into a bullet style rundown or what’s fun and interesting and worthwhile in a title.
But for games that I’ve already played I like the writing to have a bit more ambition: to celebrate and investigate the common things that the writer and I felt and experienced while playing. I like to read about why something’s fun or interesting and what that means in wider terms for gaming, not just what it means for my bank balance.
There’s good and bad execution to both approaches but arguing that it always has to be one or the other is ridiculous.
Sure, there’s definitely room for both Simon. Obviously people enjoy this sort of thing because there are a lot of people doing it and plenty of people reading it. However, I think we’ve put the cart before the horse and gone into in-depth analysis before we’ve got the “bullet style rundown or what’s fun and interesting and worthwhile in a title” right.
I don’t see any great reason why there can’t both be reviews and criticism, which are really two distinct entities that both videogame writers and readers seem to constantly confuse. But the sort of anti-intellectualism espoused here seems to be sort of counter productive to me and the kind of thing that makes people outside the space consider it as a cultural backwater and not a serious pursuit that also can be engaging and fun. That’s too bad, I think.
Let’s be honest: the average gamer you’re hailing doesn’t want to read. Your way of thinking has lead to many organs created for the common man which totally don’t sell (or get clicked on). In the same way as music and films mags are aimed at specialists, it’s inevitable the games writing will be too. (The average gamer? Totally happy reading a 50-100 word review in a mainstream newspaper. Exactly the same they are with films and music.) That you’re denying there’s many middle lines between hyper-pseud-word-wank and man-on-the-streetism is one of the top reasons you’re full of shit.
You’re simplifying a complicated situation just so you can play your angry-internet-man card. Let’s take Leigh, who you condemn for a navel-gazing piece. Leigh’s primarily a news journalist, writing without ego for Gamasutra. Elsewhere, she’s done buyers guide reviews. She’s done more critique approach. She’s done columns. How does that fit in with your simple dichotomy between Wordsworths and thugs?
(And Christ - even you admit that Leigh makes your point better than you do. Does that tell you something?)
Me? I’m a big fan of the idea that specialist gaming continues its demographic splits, so different sorts of people looking for different sorts of writing go to different sorts of places. Even sorts of writing I personally despise. *Especially* sorts of writing I personally despise.
Gaming is big. Your thinking is small. Grow up.
KG
I’m not denying that there’s a middle ground, Kieron. I’m complaining that the middle ground isn’t big enough. Too much of games “journalism” is taken up with this self indulgent shit.
And damn right gaming is big, but it could be bigger if we didn’t exclude people by talking bollocks all of the time.
If anything, my thinking is the polar opposite of small. I want to include as many people as possible, giving them genuinely good gaming advice. It seems you would rather discuss games on a level that most people don’t even understand, high-fiving and back-slapping your peers.
For the record, I think you’re a great games journalist, when you’re writing great reviews. But I knew this would get your back up because I describe you in the article.
Why do I have the sneaking suspicion you’re next going to tell me that you are this grand bastion of humble, down to Earth thinking that is the TRUE way to assess video games.
Ha.
I’m definitely not saying that.
This attitude rather frightens me. I’m always disturbed when someone complains that someone else is being too intelligent. The lazy response is to assume the author is cross because it went over their heads, but I don’t think that’s appropriate. I think these sorts of outbursts are more likely linked to someone hating others thinking more carefully than they do.
When someone like N’Gai writes smart, interesting commentary on a subject that I might have only given a cursory thought to, I can choose how to respond. I can feel threatened by his article, implying that I’ve been stupid or lazy when I played the game, and voice this by shouting that he’s taking it all far too seriously, and why doesn’t he just get a life and play the game like everyone else, eh? Or I can say, “Oh, N’Gai went into that far more deeply than I ever would. How funny that two people can see the same thing so differently.”
I’m increasingly confused by people’s determination to opt for the first response.
The response to this is the argument that deeper thinking has no place in regular, buyer’s guide reviews. However, I think this is something of an enormous fallacy. None of the articles linked to are on buyer’s guide sites. Just where, exactly, are these reviews that support the case? I can think of a couple of the more pretentious pieces on Eurogamer (but none that don’t effectively review the game within the guff), and that’s it.
When I pick up a gaming magazine, from NGamer to PC Gamer, or Official Xbox Magazine to Gamesmaster, I don’t see any of these reviews that people are raging about. I don’t see them on IGN or Gamespot. If this is an argument about Edge, then good heavens, you’ve got a one magazine exception.
Complaining that smart people are writing smart things about a subject that you don’t choose to take seriously, on sites that have no responsibility to inform the common purchaser, is incredibly revealing. And disappointing.
How unexpected - Gillen defending his meal ticket: “I can talk shit about video games”.
*gets popcorn*
J Walker:
You’re right, the sites I’ve referred to don’t have a responsibility to the common purchaser, and I admit it’s a flaw in my argument. But this sort of thing is creeping into the stuff consumers do actually read.
I wish I had a meal. I’m starving.
KG
Someone’s looking for blog traffic.
If writing “intellectually” about games is a worthless pursuit, then wouldn’t the time you spent writing about how writing “intellectually” about games be some kind of time wasting paradox?
I did consider that, actually. Then I posted it anyway.
Could you point out where it is happening, though?
You say,
“I’m complaining that the middle ground isn’t big enough. Too much of games “journalism” is taken up with this self indulgent shit.”
Which implies you believe it is more than simply creeping in, but something very present.
I’m really not sure it is. I’m certain you’ll be able to link to the odd piece here and there, likely Whitehead’s superb Braid review, or Kieron’s bonkers and fantastic Darwinia review on EG. And I suspect that there’s a magazine review that annoyed someone once. But I think it would be very hard to argue these are anything but rare exceptions. It seems to me that the vast, vast majority of written-for-consumer reviews, probably more than 99% of them, are entirely as you would wish they would be: ‘plain’ English. (Obviously I’m not arguing the majority are written well, but that’s really not relevant to this discussion).
It seems to me the desired “middle ground” is completely enormous, with the deeper, more intelligent pieces existing separately. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
So, we’re all pretending The Escapist doesn’t even exist, are we?
I agree with that, John. The “average” gamer probably doesn’t read reviews at all, so the “average” review, without intellectual pretension, is fairly useless. Just give us a number, a summary of the highs and lows, and whether we should purchase it or not. Then the all of us college grads with nothing better to do can read the criticism to get a more in-depth view of a game.
The middle-ground is overwhelmingly enormous.
LOL @ YOU for getting so upset with people who take themselves too seriously. That was a good one.
The fact that most of the negative comments here are from the pretentious assholes doesnt suprise me.
The fact that most of the useful negative comments here are from the pretentious assholes doesn’t surprise me.
I can’t even see this argument any more, because people have put up so many straw men in the way.
Call me shallow, but I can somehow roll from the blow of someone caled Felch having a crack at me. Shit! Someone who calls themselves “Felch” thinks I’m a dick. Oh noes! etc.
KG
You know what spooks me about your piece, Jonny? You use phrases like “the masses” and “average gamers”, and exhort the press to “cater” to them, and I don’t think you’re being ironic.
We get the culture we deserve. In your formulation that means we should all look to the lowest common denominator for guidance, and take our inspiration from the tabloid rack at the supermarket check-out. Is that who you want to be writing for? Is that what you want to read?
I think we have to take the good with the bad. I don’t like pretension any more than you do, I suspect, and I’ll grant that there’s a fair amount of it when it comes to writing about games. However, that’s to be expected when you have people thinking deeply and critically about the games they’re playing. Sometimes the product will be wordy drivel, but SOMETIMES it will a piece that knocks me for a loop.
That’s what I’m reading for. Kieron Gillen’s “Bioshock: A Defence” made me look at Bioshock in a totally new light. Michael Abbot’s “Hail Freedonia” post in reaction to the “Rain Slick Precipice” demo was an absolutely wonderful and thought-provoking piece on humor, satire, and art.
So what if nine out of ten people barely care about “Bioshock”, much less its subtext? Why should I, as a reader, care? I’m just glad a piece like that is out there for someone like me. If I have to put up with pretension along the way to finding it, so be it. Besides, it’s very easy to just stop reading something once it goes over my head.
And from the writer’s perspective, I would argue that most people want to take some satisfaction from their work. If you can make a living navel-gazing and comparing “GTA IV” to the latest Don DeLillo novel, and that makes you happy, then go for it. Doesn’t hurt me any, and it doesn’t hurt you.
For a lot of people, writing for “the masses” that you champion just doesn’t sound very appealing. It’d be a lifetime of not saying what you want to say, which is reality for too many of us as it is.
Sure, I’ll absolutely cop to taking myself too seriously sometimes.
But surely, the irony of leaning on a link to my own article about the uselessness of pretentious, niche writing in order to illustrate your point is not lost on you?
I think you might have buried your real message here a little bit in your eagerness to call people out, but if I read you correctly, you see the imperative in broadening the relevance of the work we do in general. It’s an excellent aim, and one I wholeheartedly support — and despite the fact that serving the audience that expects a certain type of editorial from me makes it challenging for me to move beyond my niches, in fact a great deal of my work has focused on the importance of that very same imperative.
…Which, if you’re going to write about me, is something you probably could have easily learned before putting the word “journalist” in quotes. (In addition to the fact that yeah, as Gillen said, I make my living as a trade reporter)
And, hey, I’m a reasonable gal — I’ll agree with “self-indulgent,” too. It’s a failing of many writers, actually, and while it can manifest as the over-weighting of one’s own opinion, it can also evidence itself as righteous, self-masturbatory snark. Neither are particularly classy.
Personally I thought Whitehead’s Braid review was pretentious bollox but I wasn’t offended by it, in fact I found it quite funny.
The problem I am seeing is that Game journos seem to argue about what should be written, but surely it is for the public to decide.
I stopped reading edge many many years ago when I realised that I didn’t like 90% of it. I have been reading eurogamer solidly for a few years and telling all my mates to do so because I like most of the reviews. Same with sites like this one and rock paper shotgun.
At the end of the day there is plenty to choose from, so if we don’t like something we wont read it. Even “average” gamers who get their reviews from the papers will only accept one or 2 dud reviews before looking elsewhere.
I wasn’t trying to call people out, Leigh, and I wasn’t trying to offend any of the people I linked to. It just so happens that the recent debate over the Guardian piece was a very convenient reference point for what I was trying to say.
“And from the writer’s perspective, I would argue that most people want to take some satisfaction from their work. If you can make a living navel-gazing and comparing “GTA IV” to the latest Don DeLillo novel, and that makes you happy, then go for it. Doesn’t hurt me any, and it doesn’t hurt you.”
Are we supposed to just sit back and not have an opinion if something isn’t directly hurting us? That would be pretty boring. And besides, there was none of this “Doesn’t hurt me, doesn’t hurt you” malarky when people were arguing about innovation last week, was there?
Jamie: I think you’re pretty spot-on there.
If we’re going to take the “each to their own” argument, then fair enough. But my problem with the pretentious stuff is that potentially talented journalists are acting like writers. And they’re getting kudos from their peers which inspires other games journalists to dip into that sort of thing (like Dan Whiteheads Braid review to use an obvious example, although personally I didn’t really mind that one…)
Hell, I don’t know. I’m a little annoyed/worried about the pretentious stuff possibly taking over proper journalism.
And Kieron - I am definitely not RAM Raider…
I’m often equally concerned that the lowest-common-denominator approach will continue to constrain gaming to the purview of juveniles and geeks.
But then, with an audience that grows ever more diverse by the minute, I remember that it takes all kinds, and there’s really no peril in any one approach “taking over” the others.
“Are we supposed to just sit back and not have an opinion if something isn’t directly hurting us? That would be pretty boring. And besides, there was none of this “Doesn’t hurt me, doesn’t hurt you” malarky when people were arguing about innovation last week, was there?”
I wasn’t saying that you shouldn’t have an opinion. I was disagreeing with your position that a particular type of games writing is a problem. Also, I was expressing my opinion that it’s rather silly to tell writers what they should write, and to complain at them for making different choices than you would have.
As to last week’s argument about innovation, I’d say the situation was slightly different. People were worrying that gaming was being hurt by a system that unduly punished innovative games and rewarded repetition, which could definitely hurt all of us gamers if it creates disincentives for developers and publishers to take risks.
We face too much homogenization and repetition as it is, so it’s worth asking some tough questions when something like “Mirror’s Edge” gets punished while something like “COD: World at War” is rewarded.
Your respect and willingness to respond to comments is commendable, but this piece is not.
If you’re going to publicly criticize someone online, have definite suggestions. This piece doesn’t have any, and would have benefitted had you pointed to what you think would work or does work.
Without, it simply becomes a dressed-up piece of emoting, with the emote being “I don’t like it”.
And then you baldly call them pretentious! Even if the claim were true that that is all they are, you didn’t cover it very well.
And I’ll chip in another one for Leigh: did you even bother to look at the entirety of the stuff she writes? Or anyone?
Did you see, for example, this?
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21131
Leigh: I’m not in any way arguing for lowest-common-denominator games journalism. Which is what I meant with the Rupert Murdoch bit. I’m not arguing for a complete dumbing-down, just tone down the over-analysis and get basic games journalism right before trying to go all Hunter S Thompson on it.
Rob: ‘it’s worth asking some tough questions when something like “Mirror’s Edge” gets punished while something like “COD: World at War” is rewarded.’
Yeah, but that’s more a problem with the praise of World at War than the lack of praise for Mirror’s Edge.
Michael: I think the problem here is that people are offended by what I’ve said when I genuinely wasn’t trying to offend them. I have read some of Leigh’s other stuff and a lot of it is exactly the sort of stuff I like to read.
I used the articles I linked to as examples. I wasn’t using the actual writers as examples.
It’s funny to watch this guy flip-flopping between sucking up to KG and JW and making spiteful digs in retaliation to their pulling apart of his miserable anti-intellectual whining. Reminds me of a certain ‘crusading’ anonymous blog.
“People were worrying that gaming was being hurt by a system that unduly punished innovative games and rewarded repetition, which could definitely hurt all of us gamers if it creates disincentives for developers and publishers to take risks.”
“If it”?
Future tense?
Did we get beamed back to 1980 when I wasn’t looking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APxdzVjf_fY
Robin: It’s okay, you can call me Jonny.
Can you please point me to the spiteful digs?
J Walker and KG are two writers I respect very much, and it’s a strange situation for me to argue with them. My apologies if I seem a little confused.
“amongst the SERIOUS GAMES JOURNALIST NETWORK OF PRETENSION, even prompting commentary from the Granddaddy of games-journalists-taking-themselves-too-seriously, N’Gai Croal.”
“This Kotaku feature – written by the same Leigh Alexander who, up there in the opening paragraph, is taking herself far too seriously and contributing to the problem”
“There’s a real danger that N’Gai and his gang will break away and inadvertently form a circle-jerking group of wannabe-Wordsworths”
No spiteful digs here. Move along.
He said I was sucking up to the people I had digs at, which is rubbish.
Come on, Travis.
You weren’t using the actual writers as examples?
This, all right here, all your actual words, aren’t spiteful digs, aren’t shots at actual writers?
You needed to think more on this before you read it, because it looks like you’re confused.
“SERIOUS GAMES JOURNALIST NETWORK OF PRETENSION”
“taking herself far too seriously and contributing to the problem”
“Do you see the problem yet? There’s an army of writers, not journalists writing games journalism, and they’ve got such a huge chip on their shoulders about the throwaway, not-so-serious world of video games that they’re creating their own forum of faux-intellectual debate and pretension.”
“There’s a real danger that N’Gai and his gang will break away and inadvertently form a circle-jerking group of wannabe-Wordsworths whilst Rupert Murdoch swoops in with a team of journalists who know they are journalists, creating a games magazine equivalent of The Sun and supplying the masses with what they want to know: What a game is like to play and if it’s worth buying or not.”
Also, “get basic games journalism right”? Again, how would you do that?
If this looks like a clusterfuck to you, write another post, and be clearer about it, because again: emoting.
Trust me, I know: my blog is crappy because it’s more based on emotion than facts or persuasiveness, but at least I’m not calling out others in public.
I actually sort of feel for the author of this post. Like I said, I think you had a valid point going in, but you might have gotten muddied by your own frustrations.
I remember when the Wii first became popular, and the sort of soccer Moms that my “rebellious” youth was taught to hate started getting their hands all over “my” things, I had an irrationally hostile reaction. I felt really displaced, as if someone unlike me was trying to muck with something that was “mine.”
Of course, I eventually grew up a bit as I came to see that the addition of voices other than the ones I was used to doesn’t threaten or displace mine. I wonder if the more traditional sort of games writer — you know, the one who wants the certainty, simplicity and clarity of presentation without analysis — feels threatened by the continued emergence of stuff that wants to elevate the discourse on the high end higher than this particular sort needs it to be.
If author here is feeling like his “place” in something dear to him might be marginalized, then both his vitriol — and his confusion at these responses here — are wholly understandable.
I’m sorry! So the spiteful digs on Leigh Alexander and N’Gai Croal are intended, but the general, diffuse spiteful dig about people who write about games only apply to the people you aren’t sucking up to?
Again with the calling out others stuff. Honestly, emoting or not, am I supposed to keep my mouth zipped and write something without any sources to keep everyone happy? It’s for exactly this reason PR companies have such a tight grip on the games industry. Nobody has any testicles.
The problem isn’t testicles. The problem is that having big balls requires an intelligent argument or you’re just the drunk guy at the bar picking fights.
Travis: I’m sorry if you’re offended mate. I’ve just read the subheader of your blog and now I understand.
I’m not picking fights, either. I have an opinion and I’ve aired it.
Hey, Travis - you sound like a real penis. Just thought you should know.
Don’t worry, I’m really not terribly offended, just enjoying the debate. Kudos for stirring something up to occupy my time today! Tuesday’s are usually miserably boring.
I laughed out loud. PR has the press’s nuts in a pinch because nobody points out that some writers take themselves seriously?
The truth is totally out there now, though:
“This typical games journalist has always expressed a fondness for putting pen to paper.
In other news, it is now assumed that biologists are fond of life.
Thank you Rev. Campbell. I’ll take that as a cue to stop commenting.
Shawn: Seriously? I’m sure Rev Stu said something about Straw Men earlier…
Okay, so we say you’re digging at them, then you say you’re not, then we prove it, then you say “what’s wrong with digging?”
You keep changing your mind. How’s that for testicles?
(That is harsh; I don’t necessarily think [or care] that you “don’t have balls”, my point is again that you are confused and have an inconsistent and confusing message, which is the worst thing a writer can be.)
Look, you just got dissed by Shawn fucking Elliott, man. There are basically two things you can do at this point:
1. Learn.
2. Be stubborn and stay the same.
Considering what people who actually know what they’re talking about are saying (and getting paid to write about, no less), I’d recommend number one.
I actually had a nasty cheese grating accident as a young man and don’t have any testicles.
And, I wasn’t actually “digging” the people I was accused of sucking up to, which is where the confusion came in.
Shawn Elliot? The guy who just quoted me out of context and, like, totally blew me away? He also took something I said that was, admittedly, a bit obvious and MADE A SARCASTIC COMMENT?!
Learn what exactly? That the people I seem to have offended have come to defend themselves? That people who write for a living, are actively vocal in the games blogging community and take great pride in their work have responded negatively to this article? Colour me surprised.
“I think the problem here is that people are offended by what I’ve said when I genuinely wasn’t trying to offend them.”
“And, I wasn’t actually “digging” the people I was accused of sucking up to, which is where the confusion came in.”
“[Quotes I already used]”
Offend, dig, whatever–it’s the same to me. Are they not to you?
And you don’t know who Shawn Elliott is! Well, whatever, no skin off anyone’s back there, I suppose. Seems like you’ve made up your mind on your interpretation of what has happened here, so I’ll stop the comments.
So what you’re saying is the answer to the problem is more people that just write shit in their spare time? No need for professionals? If you’ve got a weblog being published from your parent’s basement you are a JOURNALIST.
“There’s a real danger that N’Gai and his gang will break away and inadvertently form a circle-jerking group of wannabe-Wordsworths whilst Rupert Murdoch swoops in with a team of journalists who know they are journalists, creating a games magazine equivalent of The Sun and supplying the masses with what they want to know: What a game is like to play and if it’s worth buying or not.”
Yeah! True journalism is creating 70 word sentences that constitute a forum rant, and this post is something I truly agree with. How can you disagree with someone who states that journos are people who “are good at English” eh?
Seriously, though. This high-brow, holier than though bullshit that so many egotistical know-it-alls espouse is infuriating. It gets under the skin of more than just journalists, who won’t take such laughable writing seriously, and the so called “average gamer” who wants nothing to do with unprofessional public slander.
And great writing isn’t a result of fat stacks of cash–educated writers who know what they’re talking about are able to articulate themselves more efficiently and more intelligently than the blithering gibberish of incomplete sentences such as “They eventually go to university, not really sure about what to do with their lives, maybe they do a language-based degree, maybe they do something not many other people do like Psychology…”
If you’re going to try and berate someone using your journalistic prowess, refine it. It’s like a D-grade high-school student trying to tell a physicist he’s a moron. The irony is hilarious to everyone but you.
People posting long, spiteful insults against the author of this piece do somewhat undermine their point. And by “somewhat” I of course mean “entirely”.
Mitch, I’ve just had a look at your blog and you’re really in no position to be lecturing anyone on “journalistic prowess”. Still, thanks for blogging about your dreams. That was fascinating.
Apparently Shawn Elliott is someone who used to write for 1UP, in case Michael Walbridge’s comment gave off the impression that anyone was supposed to give a shit.
“If you’re going to try and berate someone using your journalistic prowess, refine it. It’s like a D-grade high-school student trying to tell a physicist he’s a moron.”
I wouldn’t go that far. Okay, it’s an awkward sentence fair enough.
Robin: yeah, I forgot I had traversed the ocean.
[...] Apparently they are all a lot of pretentious bastards. I love crazy. An actual argument that said journalists above use words that are too big (omg, [...]
(Shawn Elliot being unknown to the mass of UK people here actually is a good case for people underestimating how big writing on games is. Elliott is about as star-writer as US games writing has produced*, with a ridiculously large and celebratory fanbase who talk about him a lot… but he’s still unknown to a lot of people who follow gaming discourse. Games journalism is big.)
KG
*Though seems to have made the breakthrough to that status via his Podcast.**
**And is now of at the artists previously known as Irrational.
The two paragraphs dedicated to generalizing the roots of “game journalists” — which are, coincidentally, the roots of any gamers who enjoyed writing enough to make it a career whether they went into games journalism or not — defeated any point you may have with your article.
Instead of actually analyzing whatever problem you see with the industry or, more specifically, games journalism you attempt to shoehorn every writer into this really bitter and cynical viewpoint of how a writer may have gotten into writing about games. This isn’t a piece that comes anywhere near touching the headline you gave for your article so much as it’s a piece that attempts to condemn writers who choose to intelligently write about video games.
Recently, I’m finally seeing writers that care about a more critical analysis of video games that, for years, has been completely absent from the industry. Metacritic can aggregate dozens upon dozens of Consumer Reports articles the go into the details of a game and whether or not it’s a “good” game or a smart buy or some such prose, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a need or desire for articles that critically analyze other aspects of the game regardless of whether or not it’s a good game or a bad game, whether it’s worth someone’s sixty dollar or not. Maybe you don’t like that kind of analysis but that’s a point which is irrelevant to the existence of the analytical writing about games.
When I want to go see a movie I’ll look at the amount of positive/negative reviews that something like Rotten Tomatoes has accumulated from various movie critics and news outlets. It’s a good indicator of whether a movie is worth my time and money or not. When I get back from the movie I have no need to read an article about whether or not a movie is worth my time, though, as I’ve already seen it. When I get back from that movie I want to read discussions about what the movie did right and what the events of a movie may signify. I don’t see why video games shouldn’t have the same sort of diversity.
I read a silly, half-serious post and responded with snark. I wasn’t sure whether or not you wanted serious replies. If so, you should consider:
* clarifying whether your beef is with a few bloggers or the idea that videogames deserve high-minded discussion.
* creating a convincing case that these writers are pretentious posers. Are their ideas trash? Are they attempting to dress up idiocy in intimidating language? Is their prose unnecessarily complex? Is it everyday dumpy writing? It’s cool that you’ve arrived at a theory of their motivations, but build some better evidence.
*reconsidering the blown-up banner. Your presentation tells people that this is a smear piece before they’ve begun reading.
@Rev — My personal blog GREATLY differs from anywhere I write professionally. Thanks for trying, though. I think there’s a disconnect between my personal blog posts that talk about terrible anime, growing up, and things I think are neat and this site. The author posts on a website which is clearly meant to attract the attention of gamers looking for reviews, news, etc. while I’m posting on my blog for anyone silly enough to waste their time reading it.
Ironically, I don’t promote myself as some be-all end-all God of Typing On A Keyboard like the author of this hilarious “article,” so there’s no need for me to stop the lecturing I didn’t begin. I am nitpicking, since it seems to be all the author and yourself are capable of. I’m perfectly able to articulate myself, but I don’t do it in a public comments section since I’m not trying to look like God’s gift to journalism.
Hell, you can’t even call what I do “journalism.” Writing reviews and features for mags and websites isn’t really journalism, but neither is this. He’s asserting himself as a better journalist than Croal, which, if you compare the quality of their content, is objectively false.
I hate this stuff. So-called journalists calling out other so-called journalists as being nothing more than a chump with a keyboard is idiocy — you’re wasting time cannibalizing an industry you obviously think you’re the king of instead of improving it.
Why?
“Heh, N’Gai and his gang…” Wow, that’s one gang I would not be afraid of walking down the street. I don’t read an awful lot of games journalism- I’m more interested in reviews, facts and figures- so I can’t comment on whether many of these games journalists are up their own asses about the importance of what they write.
I would just like to comment on the assumption that if someone’s writing about games in a certain tone, using big words and whatnot, that they failed at some greater pursuit.
Maybe, just maybe, they like video games and they are intelligent as their words would have you believe?
I think that the word pretentious is used often times as a putdown. Sometimes it feels like people use the word in the same way they call someone a fag, or whatnot.
I’d have more explanation, or anecdotal evidence, of what an average gamer looks like, please. I think there’s room to write on why folks that happen to write about games (my preferred title) would write something like: “Ladies and gentlemen, there is a world in which people do not know that Kotaku exists. And for the record, the GameStop employee, while he seemed perfectly knowledgeable about the titles in his store, doesn’t know what GameSpot, IGN ,Edge or anything else of their ilk are, either.”
…but I think trying to make the distinction between writers being bad and journalists being good is a poor choice when there’s an audience for game editorial along a wide spectrum.
Shawn: I suspect he doesn’t much care to do any of those things you mentioned.
As to the piece in general, if you don’t want to read “pretentious” writing about games, don’t. Read Game Informer and stop bothering people who do. Being intelligent isn’t pretentious. Having discussions about the deeper aspects of gaming isn’t pretentious. Calling people pretentious without any real justification is however, fairly dickish.
I don’t know if this is a joke, or not, but I’m struck by a number of things.
First and foremost is the fact that the author of this article is chastising certain video game journalists for being pretentious, when this article is dripping with the stuff.
Second, is the fact that the author of this article is seemingly suggesting that video game journalism should be reduced to low brow, snappy one liners, as opposed to a mature, intellectual pursuit of the medium.
Lastly, he is insulting every single game journalist (and the profession itself) out there that actually has a respectable fiber in them, suggesting that they are not only not capable enough of pursuing a respectable career (last I checked, N’Gai Croal was an editor of Newsweek, not hiding behind a blog with a “snappy name”) but that game journalism isn’t a respectable career and should be populated with cheeky High School graduates.
Praise be to Evan Lahti, speaker of sense.
Andrew: I did NOT say that games journalism isn’t a respectable career. Absolutely not. What I did (try) to say is that some games journalists have a chip on their shoulder because THEY think that games journalism isn’t a respectable career, and therefore they have to make it seem more respectable by “taking it too seriously”. I admit, my article is flawed, but I still stand by what I tried to say. Perhaps I should give it a follow up or something.
Can all of the offended games journalists answer me this: Do you honestly see yourself as a games journalist for the rest of your career, or are you using this as a springboard into other writing careers?
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, by the way.
I’m also not “hiding behind a blog”. My name is clearly displayed at the bottom of the article.
Re: “Do you honestly see yourself as a games journalist for the rest of your career, or are you using this as a springboard into other writing careers?”
There’s material for a meaningful blog. Why not approach the story properly — hit up R. Fiore from The Comics Journal or a hip hop critic while you’re at it.
Being that it’s your article, the onus of responsibility to back up your own claims is kind of you. So, I’m more curious, what about N’Gai Croal’s and Leigh Alexander’s articles is taking games “too seriously?”
Is there no place for critical analysis of games in your mind?
I think the overwhelming response to this article has summed it up: Games journalism is taken far too seriously.
I’m not a games journalist, I just do this for a laugh. Perhaps that is why our opinions are so wildly different.
I’m going to admit defeat and close the comments on this now because I’m exhausted. And your insults have hurt my feelings.
———————————————————–
COMMENTS RE-OPENED after a bunch of requests.
Games journalism is only being taken “too seriously” by people taking a dump on it, like yourself. Your article defeats your logic.
“I think the overwhelming response to this article has summed it up: Games journalism is taken far too seriously.”
Those are some sound metrics.
Seriously, though, now we’re of the mind that there’s such a thing as a monolithic games journalism?
http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/f/the-top-7-girl-on-girl-kisses/a-200611281641395094 and
Why does the writing about games have to be simplified? Should it come in one flavor where it’s all for laughs and it’s totally casual? This is 2008, where everyone has an opinion in the form of a blog. If you count the amount of “serious” gaming talk as opposed to the type of game criticism and talk you desire, the serious talk is rare.
Oh, BTW, I hope you at least give N’Gai a thumbs up for linking your site to his “pretentious” column, even if you happen to hate what he is and what he represents.
I don’t believe the people you point out are pretentious. Maybe they look at games as something more than a fun time in front of a TV, but pretension, I think, comes from people too admired by their own intelligence. N’Gai doesn’t come across to me like that. He looks to me like he’s, well, a writer. I believe that’s why he is paid.
Maybe it’s just that you’re into game journalism staying at the level you admired them, just like there are people who think 3d gaming was the worst thing to happen to games. The creation of games is more complex. Gaming is making billions now. Why shouldn’t the talk about games transform into something else, involve people who write well and have a love for games?
[...] Robson at Snappy Gamer wrote an article titled The Problem with Games Journalism. Here are a couple of highlights: There’s an army of writers, not journalists writing games [...]
The gaming industry is a relatively young entertainment medium, and I believe it hasn’t yet found its “flow,” but it will get there. Considering this, and the fact that the industry has just been cracked open with the help of the widely coveted Wii, and that gaming is finally now becoming a accepted in the mainstream, I believe it’s too early to declare that games journalism is going at it all wrong. For the record, I don’t believe it is.
In my opinion, specialized publications (gaming, automobiles, music, music, etc.) will always be geared more toward the enthusiast crowd. They have to be. I believe that’s how enthusiasm works–the more you’re interested in a hobby/industry, the deeper your interest grows and the more you require intellectual (you call pretentious) discourse lest you grow bored and move on. Even if games surpass cinema and television as the entertainment medium of choice for the masses, the majority of players will not read games journalism; and changing games journalism will create more readers, or gamers for that matter.
So does this mean there won’t be a “The Problem with Games Journalism: Part Two”?
*and changing games journalism will *NOT* create…
Snappy, I like your attack on overindulgent, intellectual game analysts. But I think most of those folks you are upset with are bloggers providing critiques (meant more for the industry), not reviews (meant for the players). The two should remain distinct, because a bad critique does not equate to a bad game. I, as a player, could care less about ludonarrative dissonance in Bioshock, because it is a damn fun game. But those big words matter to designers and do help make better games. You are right though, keep the scientific game writing out of the reviews, and just tell us about the experience of playing the game, like a reporter at a crime scene.
If y’all haven’t checked out Play magazine yet, I highly recommend their reviews. No numbers, but lots of intelligent commenting on the whole game experience.
I hate to say this but I agree with Shawn Elliot. Games journalists aren’t really journalists. If you were true journalists you wouldn’t be writing these stupid articles of self indulgence. If anything journalists should be researching and interview people like Blizzard on things like why do they think its OK to split up 1 game into 3 (StarCraft II) and charge the same price for admission and fuck over people. It seriously irks me when I hear people like NGAI and Ryan O’donnell talk about games with such deep over analysis; but thats their job, I accept that. But I also wish they would do something a little more journalistic. If they choose to try to be such deep thinkers why not go and ask Microsoft why their PC gaming platform is so dead in the water and why it seems they’re killing of PC gaming to better the 360 Platform.
These are just some examples of what gamers really want to know yet gaming sites wonder why people are only interested in scores, a re-enforncement of their opinion. Give them something worth reading that we can judge for ourselves instead of just a review of your self reflection to a game.
PS: How is Nick Suttner head of reviews at 1up when he thinks dark sector is a good game and Dead Space is a shit game :-p.
Swanky, have you even read Play? They DO give out numbers. Dave Halverson recently (and infamously) gave Golden Axe Beast Rider a 9. Did they drop the numbers since? Regardles… eh.
Regardless*
So I don’t get jumped on by people who AREN’T TOO SERIOUS.
[...] post dedicated to Michael Abbott, who asked for more LBP discussion, and to that British kid at Snappy Gamer who said we all think too hard. We really beat you hard the other day, didn’t [...]
You know what? It turns out that there are a lot of regular journalists who are wannabe writers, too. For every Walter Cronkite or Nellie Bly or Bob Woodward, there’s a hundred idiots with press badges who think they’re Hunter S. Thompson and want to be the main character of the story they’re reporting in novel form. Journalism is not the lofty, unattainable ideal you imagine it to be.
Games journalism probably does have people like that, but your point is hurt quite a bit by citing N’Gai Croal as your example. He’s not some inerrant games journalism messiah wreathed in light, completely self-assured of his own status. He makes fairly acute observations about the industry and has pretty good perspective. I’m also not sure where you’re getting the idea that he uses big words for the sake of being pretentious. I’m not defending Croal here, I’m saying if you actually go read the things he writes, they defend themselves from your assertions.
The idea that games journalism has suddenly become too big for its britches, this anti-elitist backlash, seems to be primarily coming from people who aren’t journalists or writers, people who run websites and make short summaries of the links of the day. It is completely understandable that someone who sees videogames as a “throwaway, not-so-serious” work doesn’t care at all about what critics or journalists or writers are saying about games. That position is absolutely valid. But to say that anyone who attempts to describe the design and state of these works with any sort of detail is wasting their time is silly. You could be right, or you could be throwing your lot in with every crotchety dinosaur who ever said that about film or radio, or whatever.
You say that this pretentious circle of ivory tower gaming faux-intellectuals is incredibly cliquish and exclusive presumably excluding the voice of the everyman. If you check the state of discourse in your typical forum, I think you will find it is not the idyllic discussion in the town square you imagine it to be. In your haste to rant and hypothesize, you have confused vitriol with insight, and it would seem from the comments that that particular product is in high demand.
I’m sorry, I might have lost you at ‘inerrant.’ It means “not liable to error.” I apologize for peppering this post with such words, which I fully understand are not appropriate outside of a dissertation or postdoctoral research document.
Very well written. You’re not one of those wannabe, pretentious games journalists, are you?
Thanks, man! You think I could go pro? I’m still waiting for my monocle and top hat to come in the mail.
Hi Spankminister, your point was excellent until you made the petty comment at the end.
I didn’t mean it as a mean-spirited personal attack, simply a tongue-in-cheek use quote from your article to illustrate the ridiculousness of the point you were making. Given that you spend a lot of your post making generalizations and unfounded assertions, I didn’t think you’d have a glass jaw about it.
I guess you may have edited this comment, because the notification I have in my email says: “Hi Spankminister, your point was excellent until you made the petty comment at the bottom which changed my opinion from “he has a point”, to “arsehole”.
It turns out that those two attributes aren’t mutually exclusive. I don’t see why I can’t make a reasoned point and make fun of you at the same time. In short, I apologize, Mr. Angry Internet Ranter, if by my offhand comment, I have inadvertently hurt your feelings.
Yeah I changed my mind about the arsehole comment because I felt it was a little harsh. And don’t apologise, you haven’t hurt my feelings.
Here’s the one thing I don’t get about this article, and I apologize if this has been harped on before: all of the mainstream VG mags (Game Informer, GamePro, EGM, even Play, etc.) always have been and certainly still are aimed at a supposed “average gamer” who just wants to be told what to buy. The only thing they seem concerned with is selling magazines — The Bottom Line. The writing in an average issue of any of those mags is probably at a middle-school reading level at most (this is meant as an observation, not an insult). I’m not saying guys like Dan Hsiu don’t take their jobs seriously, but EGM certainly doesn’t seem very concerned with analyzing games from anything resembling an intellectual perspective. So if the majority of mainstream mags already aren’t doing what you say they shouldn’t do, what bother is it if a minority (and make no mistake about it, it is a minority) of writers attempt to dig deeper?
Like I said, if the average gamer just wants to be told what to buy and nothing more–that’s most of the games “journalism” I’ve seen since the first time I bought GamePro at a grocery store in 1991. The average gamer is not only being invited to read games journalism, he already is the primary target. The N’gai types, whether they write for Newsweek or their own Blogspot accounts, will always merely be filling a niche.
I think you hit on a good point. A video game magazine needs to get as many hands to pick them up as possible, and more kids will be willing to read a game magazine over esquire or time, so the language has to be accessible to them. People on blogs or in “mature” magazines don’t have that boundary, so they’re using “them fancy, big pretentious words” because the members of their audience might actually have graduated from high school or college, so these people might not be turned off by game talk that doesn’t end in “5/5″ or “95/100.”
[...] centred around SnappyGamer’s annoyance that he writes like ramraider annoyance that a cabal of pseudish writers is going to turn reviews into a wasteland where a man can’t find h… (There’s enough straw-men in Snappy’s piece to make me not feel too bad about tying [...]
The day games journalism becomes little more than simply saying whether Generic Openworld Crime Simulator V is worth buying or not is the day we can kiss goodbye to anything worth playing.
Meaningful criticism and commentary is the only way gaming can evolve. Sales statistics and metacritic scores will only give us sequels and rip-offs.
I agree. I’m not saying that meaningful criticism and commentary shouldn’t take place. Where do I say that? I’m complaining about pretentious bollocks-talk.
As for metacritic scores and sales figures - where do I talk them up?
That’s basically the crux of your argument though isn’t it?
Essentially you’re saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that journalists should stop getting self-absorbed and reflective on a game, start saying if its good or bad, and who will like it.
I see that as the kind of thing executives want really… they want people bigging up their games to the masses: Essentially becoming part of the sales/metacritic “success culture” that currently defines the mainstream gaming industry, and as a consequence defines the string of Call of Duty’s and factory-sports-sims.
But gaming can be so much more than that. We’ve got every bit the potential for the sweeping, expansive and deep social commentaries of film or literature. Pretencious is *good*. We should be promoting that.
In a way, I do agree in a sense that the mainstream, “casual” gaming scene wants more simplistic reviews. Basically whether or not they should buy a game. That’s what a score if for really. If someone wants to quantify a game’s worth, we can do that. We do that already. The written component though should fufil more than that. It’s pretty easy to go through a game checking the boxes (”Does it have pretty explosions? Yes? Tick!”) But that’s boring frankly. It’s boring for the reviewer, and boring for the reader. And utterly useless to anyone involved in development.
I’ve realised I’ve actually lost my point somewhere in this reply. So I’ll sum it up:
Sure. We should be saying giving a buy-or-not-to-buy verdict. But if gaming is ever to gain credibility in the world of arts and entertainment, we need to steer developers in the right direction.
I think the point where we meet agreement is somewhere in between what we’re both trying to say, so I’ll agree to disagree
You certainly make a good point.
Yup, I think you’re probably right on that count!
One thing that strikes me, is that reviews should be entertaining. Yes I mean it. They should be fun to read. If I’m going to purchase a gaming magazine, or spend my online time with a website, then I expect to be entertained. It is, after all, part of my leisure time that I am spending.
I couldn’t care less whether one of Whitehead’s reviews is valid criticism or not. I do care that he couldn’t write anything entertaining if his life depended on it.
It’s good if a review is entertaining, but a review is made to be informative, not entertaining. Some reviewers entertain their audience because that’s what brings some people back for more; but you can also be a good writer and not have to be entertaining or jokey to keep your audience coming back.
Nah, thats bollocks. You can wrap up a solely informative review in a quarter of a page. If you want me to read two pages (or 803 pages in Dan Whitehead’s case.) then it’s got to have something else.
When you look at the history of games magazines, the same two names keep coming up, time and time again. Those would be Your Sinclair, and its bastard mutant offspring, Amiga Power.
Why were they so fondly remembered? Is it because of how highbrow they were? Was it because of the quality of the criticism? No. It’s because they were a good read. Their reviews were well written, informative, and above all, entertaining.
I’d rather read a YS or AP style review than anything that has ever appeared in Edge. Period. A knob gag over an in-depth critique of the sub-texts of the game’s story, and how it subverts gaming’s conventions. Period.
A review is doing something right if it makes me laugh, and tells me whether to buy a game.
Maybe at a certain age you want a review written in a certain way. However, some people out there LOVE to read lengthy articles. Maybe a review shouldn’t go too long, but if it’s an article about gaming in general, then I think it can go in depth, and it does not necessarily have to be witty or goofy.
There’s a place for serious and silly, without a doubt.
What I’m getting is that gaming is now including moms in the kitchen or doing yoga who want to know what game to buy next.
When the most at-hand options are Jeff Gerstmann starting a gangsta-rap feud, mainstream sites front-paging Lara Croft’s chesticles in ads while giving Gears 2 9/10!, or five posts in a row about Braid, it’s frustrating.
There doesn’t need to be less serious games journalism - I think there should be more - but it needs to be recognized as a niche, not the answer to a rapidly maturing gaming culture.
There’s a market for professional, buttoned-down, boring game reviews that get to the barest, simplest points and provide sensible guidance. We have very little of that, and you have to be inside games culture already to find it.
When Jonny says Rupert Murdoch will hire journalists to write The Sun for gaming, I know what he means: A media businessman with an eye for practicality will give the underserved newcomers to gaming the simplicity that’s in line with their casual gaming habits. It’s not a dumbing down.
The only problem with Jonny’s piece is that his tone is, well, that of a Snappy Gamer’s. He’s not the answer, he knows it, and neither is N’Gai or Leigh or Kieron, or Kotaku or Joystiq, or any games magazine still in print. The closest proxy around now are the likes of Yahoo! Games’ writers, and even they’re awfully in house, but that’s the sort of stuff people who don’t have time to be part of a gaming community are looking for and getting.
I wasn’t going to comment because i’m a little late to the party but i guess i’ll (potentially) make a fool of myself anyway
“I’m not denying that there’s a middle ground, Kieron. I’m complaining that the middle ground isn’t big enough. Too much of games “journalism” is taken up with this self indulgent shit.”
Jonny, you say you want the middle ground to be bigger for all those gamers out there who aren’t served by the over- (or more) analytical gaming press. People have already asserted that the gaming magazines pretty much have this covered and you agree to an extent (as do I).
However, i’d like to point out something that i haven’t seen mentioned anywhere here. The fact is that this big group of gamers (i’d call them casual myself but that’s a different argument) don’t care about this middle ground. They don’t spend enough time or energy on their gaming hobby to justify spending the money that will support the middle ground or the advertising revenue that helps support it.
There’s a reason that these magazines are shutting down left, right and centre and it’s not because those gamers are going online for their reviews instead - though some of them will. Just as with music, movie, art and book reviews we’ve ended up with micro reviews and then full-blown critiques with nothing or very little in between. We have specialist film, writing and art magazines (much like EDGE) but how many of those do you see? How many ‘mainstream’ magazines with the equivalent readership of Heat, Cosmopolitan or Vogue are there in these categories?
The sad fact is that there is little to no place for the middle ground in any specific topic that i can think of and it’s no one’s fault - least of all the gaming writers and journalists because lets be honest here: Where there’s money there’s business.
I’ve enjoyed reading intellectual discussions about video games, or at least intelligently discussing video games, for as long as I’ve been a gamer. I appreciate that you want to mindlessly consume your games, Mr. Robson, but please, don’t sell the rest of us short.
I don’t remember ever saying that I want to mindlessly consume video games, I just don’t like unnecessary over-analysis and pretension.
[...] There are always detractors for everything and are to be expected. Like this now almost infamous response. It’s fine. Healthy detractors keep the “self important bearded tossers” on our [...]
This is the real problem with games journalism.
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/the_videogame_news_racket/
The mainstream gaming media are corrupt and run by people who don’t actually know much about gaming, that is why most of the gaming community ridicule them and don’t take reviews seriously, and the mainstream don’t even know these guys exist, so really, they’re just a delivery mechanism for advertisements by the publishers, glorified word-of-mouth. Just look at how they treat them, they send them BS swag and occasionally send them on trips to test their games on locations (MGS4), blowing their simple minds in the process (1up did a Halo 3 LE un-boxing, for example). And for those who don’t realize it yet, all it takes is for one of these rackets to write something blatantly incorrect about a game you know well, which will happen regularly. Go read reviews of games you have recently mastered if you don’t believe me, and you’re bound to realize it.
You’re right, Giraffer, and that’s going to be the jist of Part Two
Giraffer’s comments are basically exaggerations based on a person on an outsider looking in. Most of us know next to nothing about journalism besides what we read. Oh, by the way, if pro game game reviewers spent time completing games, they would have much less time actually completing their reviews for print and getting content out there.
Gamers have the leisure time to play all these games, but when games are part of your job, and time is money, how the hell would they play a whole game, or even half a game, when most games are 20 hours on average?
also, i don’t think that you have to play the majority of a game to review it. If graphics suck, they will not improve; if gameplay sucks, it doesn’t get better; if a story is poorly written, there is no magic that’ll turn it into fine prose.
I don’t need to be “on the inside” to see that something’s wrong, as EGM isn’t printed secretly, Lieghs horrible writing that doesn’t make sense is proudly made public by her (”I like Flow as a journalist but not a gamer”), and Kotaku’s gaffs are public for all to see on their front page. I can also clearly see corperate gamesites and mags take money from game companies in front of my eyes when ever I visit Gamestop, IGN and 1up via their banner ads. If you’re really stubborn in believing this, perhaps you missed the whole Kain and Lynch debacle with Gerstmann.
Does their lack of time contribute to their lack of background and understanding of video games? Most corperate reviewers are not experts in any genre, let alone the genre of the game they’re reviewing. This is equivalent to the football pundit on TV who obviously doesn’t know much about the sport, why would I want someone who has less understanding than me provide me with insight? His insight wouldn’t have any value. I’d rather listen to an expert, which these journalists certainly aren’t. it’s why, for example, I go to a fighting game community with people who know what they’re talking about when I want to get an impression of a fighting game. And even when these journalists are not reviewing game, their writing still isn’t of much value. N’Gai Croal, one of the most respected people in journalism (despite contributing even less than the average IGN reviewer), has admitted that he only started gaming in 1999, and it shows when he loses his shit constantly at stuff that is nothing new in gaming, such trial and error aspect of Mirror’s Edge.
To think that writers are poor is just an opinion, which we could argue for ever on, but we don’t need to agree on that. However, on the “in the pockets of corporations” issue.
I am very well aware of the Gertsmann scandal of a year and change ago and I think that was the most awful way for the guy to bow out of Gamestop. I’m glad that he’s on his own at his own site, though, because he was part of what was right about the gamespot podcast.
I don’t believe that just because the corporation is “evil” or corrupt that it bleeds into every single sector of the company. The guys writing the reviews are just dudes. Maybe they get pressured to write good reviews, but you cannot get people to bow to your wishes 100% of the time. That’s why you had the Gertsmann debacle.
It could be that wow, maybe the guys on a website where they advertise a game also happen to like that game! Why can’t that be totally possible? What should gaming websites sell on their site, shampoo? If I read an in-depth review of a game, I believe it’s valid, then I might like to buy a game.
I’m not as down on the corporate side of games criticism as you are. The alternative to these “corrupt” reviewers and companies is for the reader to pay straight out of pocket for these sites to stay up. I think that you just have to hope that the people who work for these big sites are just like you and me- not willing to bow to pressures above their heads.
Once the money of the people you are criticizing enters the equation, credibility is immediately questionable, it doesn’t matter how credible the reviewer or organization has been. When somebody is being payed to advertise a product, you don’t expect to take his criticsm seriously, even if someone is fan of that product (I really don’t see how this is supposed to make them more trustworthy). Additionally, a corperation can do is hire a person who fits their needs, and that person could be the most credible reviewer in the world, but that wouldn’t make a difference. It’s just like how Gamespot didn’t have a problem with Gerstmann writing the countless negative reviews throughout his years of working with them, they could care less what he hates, but as soon as he stopped liking what they wanted him to like they got rid of him. And in the future, if Matt Cassamassina, for example, stopped being a Nintendo fanboy he would be quickly fired.
Additionally, the alternative you mention isn’t the alternative, how can you even think that? I get to read reviews here for free, and I’ve read, and written, many times about games on forums without expecting a penny in return? And as for these sites going down without support, that would just be natural selection, as they are really unnecessary. If we ignore the issue of their reviews, you can see that the news and media they provided was not gained by themselves via any form of reporting, they just regurgitate whatever information game companies bestow upon them, either via press releases or exclusives that they use as currency against them.
I will link to this article again:
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/the_videogame_news_racket/
Maybe you didn’t read what Alex wrote because of the insults he directs at websites, but if you can get past that, you’ll see his article is spot-on, and I don’t think you could challenge any of the main points, as they are facts! Everybody get’s their news from the game companies, and any other news never comes from these big sites or news blogs.
You talk bias and these corporate schleps being pawns of their advertisers, but you link me to this biased “article” about “Lamespot.” Everyone shows their cards when they attempt to be objective; some just come out and do it while others try to hide it.
This guy’s got a mad-on for Gamespot and these other game sites. I can take your opinion, but you need to live in the realm of fact over name-calling and opinion to really get people on your side.
The article didn’t have to resort to 3rd grader tactics to say that he believes games journalism and opinion is corrupt. There’s a better way, I believe.
Yes, it obvious he doesn’t like them, but do you only read articles about people who like what they’re writing about, or do you want him to hide the his opinion? You mention facts, but are you saying he isn’t presenting facts in the article? He didn’t “resort” to name calling to present opinion, he presented facts, the names and insults are just extra, and you’re dismissing everything written in the article because of that. Forget the article if you don’t want to read it because of the way it’s written, instead, how about you please tell me whether the following is true or not:
Game journalist are fed all their news by game companies, via press releases (90% of game news?), or exclusive content. Without the game companies giving them this news, there would be no news at all, as they’re not doing any real journalism. Additionally, their only “original” content is the reviews, and they also depend on companies to give them their early review copies. This all in addition to signing NDAs left and right, how many times have we heard the word “embargo” thrown around by blogs like it was nothing. I don’t know, but it seems pretty obvious to me that these guys are totally dependent on the good graces of game companies. And if you don’t play ball, you’re screwed, like when EGM recently gave Ubisoft a string of bad reviews causing, or when they held a discussion about MGS4 as they weren’t allowed to talk about certain things because of an agreement with Konami, to some people that might signify not bending to their rules, but if that was true, why did they sign the agreement in the first place?
You’re free to prove me wrong on these points, but these are all widely known facts, and if you require proof, I can point you to many instances where the journalists talk about such issues consistently (usually sounding like they want pity from readers), but that would be like walking someone outside by the hand just to prove to them that sky was blue, it’s really not worth effort, especially when you can’t prove otherwise, or are just unwilling to do so.
When you think about it, what reason is there for game companies not to just present the consumer with the news directly? All of them have blogs, mailing lists, website, etc. to deliver news to their audience, and in fact, these days the news can be delivered via the console itself. As for magazines, while it’s true that there are people who might not be able to, or don’t the desire, to follow news online and want it in printed form, what reason is there for things like “exclusives” that the magazines thrive on? Why give information to one single outlet but not the other? Are the game companies responsible for the well-being of that particular publication? You say that they wouldn’t survive without such support by the game industry and the we’d have to pay out it of our pocket to keep them around, but they put themselves in that position by being totally submissive to game companies. You would think that it would be the norm for a publication actually be defendant on it’s audience to survive, if nobody wants to read EGM, why should it be around? Maybe you should think about why they give away all those free subscriptions. lol
Well, I think we’re arguing the “is NASCAR a sport” debate. I think that games journalism isn’t just about getting a PR letter in their e-mail and spweing it out. They play the games, they (whether it’s corrupt or not) review them, and they also conduct interviews, visit offices, etc.
I don’t think that Games journalism can equal all of news journalism. They’re just a fraction of all of journalism, and they are mostly dealing with entertainment. I think that if magazine writers are respected, I give just as much respect to game journalists.
As for why game companies just don’t send their news to gamers directly? I’m glad I, for one, don’t, because their news is dull. I appreciate the filter of a gaming website or a magazine. Game companies aren’t in the business of giving you their updates; They are int he business of making games and hoping that you are satisfied with your product.
Also, times have changed. You can read blogs of representatives of companies. Let’s not pretend that we’re still in the dark, as if it’s the 80s. Developer websites are not devoid of content. You can find some news on those sites.
BTW, when you live in a capitalist society, and you’re putting out a pro publication or website, advertisement is paying your bills. When money or power is involved, you will have your corruption, but we are not robots. Some people crumble under pressure, while others follow their own code. I’m of the opinion that corruption gets put in the light and eventually the right people are on top. That’s not to say that I’m not suspicious of overwhelmingly good reviews or reports.
LAMEFAQS
FANITSU
EUROIDIOT
I’d expect something a tad more professional from a guy in his 30’s. Nonetheless, he brings up some good points.