The numerous conflicts about video game journalism are very interesting and all have their own bone to pick with the industry. Whether it be the movement of most video game articles to the world wide web or the movement towards "New Game Journalism", they all have a common thread and I believe that to be that video game journalism has hit a rut (and not the good kind either). It's reached a point where magazines struggle just to stay afloat and every review or preview is the exact same way. I'm not saying that way is bad though. I believe just laying out the goods, the bads, and the "meh"s of every game lets readers know exactly what the game is about, but come on... it does get a little tiresome after a while. That is why I am a strong advocate of New Game Journalism.
All of Kieron Gillen's ideas make perfect sense. Why would someone review a game like Halo 3, Left 4 Dead, or World of Warcraft without mentioning the multiplayer experience? A community can very well ruin a game; there's no doubt about that. I enjoy pretty much every game under the sun, but when I get beat (yeah, it happens to everyone once in a while) and return to the game lobby to hear people screaming "yeah, suck it b****. I pwned your a** and banged your mom" it kinda makes me think that the game isn't even worth playing if people are getting to be that big of D bags about something that's supposed to be fun. What I'm saying is that every game has it's own pulse and feel to it just like every human does so we should treat each one differently in our analysis of it. Focus on what the game is made for. Most people wouldn't greet the president with the phrase "what's up buttercup?" if they're meeting him for the first time because he's the president, not some long-time snuggle buddy (or whatever you're into). In the same sense you wouldn't only look at the story when analyzing Halo 3; you're just asking for angry fanboys if you do that. Yeah, it has a campaign but I guarantee the developers didn't walk in to work on the first day of development for the game and say "let's put all the attention on the story. We gotta make it bigger, better, and bolder". Let's just use some common sense with our critiques.
As far as the battle between magazine's and internet reviews: Cheez-Its beat Cheese Nips every time.... That is about as useful of a statement as me writing an entire paper on the subject. With the internet came a lot of changes and there's not much anyone can do about it. Music, games, books, programs, and many more things are all mediums that have the same nemesis. Unless we go back in time with our DeLorean and slay Al Gore for inventing the internet, it's going to be here to stay so learn to love it.
So there you have it, short and sweet. Now let's go start a Video Game Journalism revolution.
Edit: And for the record magazines do not have a toilet browsing advantage. I've seen people with their laptops in a public stall numerous times. Just a side note.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"What I'm saying is that every game has it's own pulse and feel to it just like every human does so we should treat each one differently in our analysis of it. "
ReplyDelete---this is a great statement, and I rather like the implications of looking at games as organic, shifting things - they change with each playthrough and player, and I like language that helps facilitate this.
Simply put: the print publication industry is dead, particularly for gaming journalism. Why look at a magazine (that has admittedly higher resolution and better design than most web sites - indeed, for now, websites cannot boast the design of print) when I can look at a blog with full-size screenshots? Why look at still images in a magazine when I can find video clips of the game in action online? ...why read print when the journalists I care about are all online?
It is unfortunate - I've wanted to write for a videogame magazine since I read my first EGM more than a decade ago, and I've become very aware recently that this will probably never happen. As you seem to suggest: c'est la vie.
All good points here; New Games Journalism can most certainly be the tool used to repair the sinking ship of game criticism. And while it is inevitable that the internet will eventually phase out gaming magazines, it's still important to retain the quality of writing found in mags and move it to the field of the internet.
ReplyDeleteI hope we can maintain the quality that has been found in video game magazines when everything is shifted over to the internet. I feel somewhat cynical, I suppose, because of the overwhelming amount of garbage on the internet. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you, and kccleveland as well. We need to fix what is wrong with game journalism. I just think the journalist, those who write for the web, could look a little deeper into the game and tell us not so much about the game play, and a little more about why the game is what it is.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a lot of great points about valuing a game for what it is, not some flat line expectation. I also agree that those writing about a game should also include the multiplayer environment, along with things like balancing and lag, but that would require them to go to print at least a week to two weeks after release, otherwise the community wouldn't be properly represented. You know?
ReplyDelete