Some questions for Gaming Journalism

Before any of you get smarmy, yes, I realise that there is no single "gaming journalism entity" (probably) but this was the best way I could think of to frame some of these comments and spark a little discussion, so please, just swing with it.

-

I. Are you really going to ride the equality train all the way down?

Lately there's been this trend among gaming journalists to criticise games for not being inclusive enough to women and to ethnic minorities, and, I've got to ask, how far are you willing to take this pony?

You do realise that you're simultaneously endorsing "games as art" and asking for developers to include certain content catering to various groups, right? This means, essentially, that you are supporting artistic freedom whilst telling developers that they should only exercise that freedom around and atop a series of ethics which may or may not jibe with their own.

Crackdown 2, for example. It got a bad rap for, besides just sucking, not including the option to play as a female agent. What, now developers have to spend time and resources creating a particular play-****before they're on safe ground, ethically? Suppose budget were an issue? Suppose they didn't want to, for whatever reason?

ME2 was criticised by some for not offering the same level of homosexual romance options as Dragon Age; that is a blatant attempt to pressure a studio into altering its artistic vision for the sake of a particular audience.

If you want gaming to be taken seriously as an art-form you shouldn't be making these kinds of insipid demands; imagine if a major film came out and was criticised for not including a specific type of sexual encounter; those particular critics would be mocked, and widely.

I very much want to see quality content for ALL audiences (i.e., not just heterosexual males, who typically have dominated the industry) but demanding it is stupid, and the credibility of gaming journalism is undermined by its refusal to recognise the developer's vision as sovereign.

Do you actually care about these audiences, or are you just making a poorly thought-out attempt at appearing conscientious?

-

II. Cinematic? Who cares?

Sorry. There are any number of highly cinematic games which are good in their own right, but they aren't moving the medium forward. Heavy Rain is a step backwards; Rockstar's storytelling methods are archaic, and boring.

The strengths of the medium ought to be played up, not down. Why should games imitate another medium when they can do so many other things that film simply cannot?

It's like the film adaptation of Watchmen; sure, you can make it (they did), but why in the bloody hell would you want to? Watchmen was a comic book, and it played spectacularly to the strengths of its particular medium, in ways that the film (which sucked, mostly) simply could not capture.

Look at Braid for an excellent example of a game telling the kind of story that a film never could; play Amnesia: The Dark Descent and realise that the future of horror (name the last truly good horror film you saw) lies with this medium, which can, through means of interaction, create a sort of terror that no other medium can imitate.

Look at all the journalists pissing their pants over L.A. Noire. Why do you give a flying **** about that game? Film is off in one direction, and the gravity of gaming innovation is pulling towards another altogether. Leave the past where it belongs.

-

III. Are you going to be product reviewers or art critics?

This is a choice which must be made. Now, clearly I'm not suggesting that racing games should be criticised for their weak stories, but there is the question of whether or not any major gaming journalism outlet is ever going to have the balls to call some of these games out on their bull ****.

For instance, can you name any major outlets that were willing to trash Black Ops for its degenerate, psychopathic story, which had not a shred of value? Not merely that it was bad, see, but that it was sick, and ugly, and utterly masturbatory?

Of course not. Most of gaming journalism is devoted to basic product reviewing. Even the ones that tend more towards aesthetics rarely take that kind of stand on any issue, whereas it's quite common in other, more developed critical fields.

In other words, who's going to have stones enough to step up and decry a major commercial game for failing artistically, and not just in some other way?

----

Ok, now clearly this was meant for the SW community, mostly, so let's get a talk going.

Thoughts, anyone?

Well I guess my first issue with what you say is, do you want gaming reviews or game critics? right now it doesn't take some degree to become a gaming journalist so I don't have much of an opinion on what they think of the medium. I just want info on games, the critics are often times the people on the boards who aren't paid to play games.

Well I guess my first issue with what you say is, do you want gaming reviews or game critics? right now it doesn't take some degree to become a gaming journalist so I don't have much of an opinion on what they think of the medium. I just want info on games, the critics are often times the people on the boards who aren't paid to play games.

ActicEdge

I want critics.

I'd like to see gaming journalism have distinct critical voices (Kaels, and Rosenbaums, and Chaws) rather than just a bunch of largely interchangable (content wise, that is, I'm not trying to insult anyone) product reviewers.

Somehow, being a distinct critical voice within a gaming publication (i.e., straying from the average) is seen as a negative. Then again, I suppose it's also the same for film right now; just look at the amount of hatred dumped on Armond White.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Well I guess my first issue with what you say is, do you want gaming reviews or game critics? right now it doesn't take some degree to become a gaming journalist so I don't have much of an opinion on what they think of the medium. I just want info on games, the critics are often times the people on the boards who aren't paid to play games.

jethrovegas

I'd like to have critics.

I'd like to see gaming journalism have distinct critical voices (Kaels, and Rosenbaums, and Chaws) rather than just a bunch of largely interchangable (content wise, that is, I'm not trying to insult anyone) product reviewers.

Somehow, being a distinct critical voice within a gaming publication (i.e., straying from the average) is seen as a negative. Then again, I suppose it's also the same for film right now; just look at the amount of hatred dumped on Armond White.

Well now that that is out of the way I would say that it is possible but the critics have to be independent which makes it much more difficult for them to gain a voice. Reviewers essentially work with publishers, in order to get a truly good critic they pretty much can't be influenced by anyonw and that would make playing all these games and judging them while making money pretty hard. I mean, I don't know enough about history to dump on BLOPs story but the campaign itself imo wasn't outstanding, just solid. As a reviewer I don't know how popular I would befor saying that in the eyes of the pubs however.

Well now that that is out of the way I would say that it is possible but the critics have to be independent which makes it much more difficult for them to gain a voice. Reviewers essentially work with publishers, in order to get a truly good critic they pretty much can't be influenced by anyonw and that would make playing all these games and judging them while making money pretty hard. I mean, I don't know enough about history to dump on BLOPs story but the campaign itself imo wasn't outstanding, just solid. As a reviewer I don't know how popular I would befor saying that in the eyes of the pubs however.

ActicEdge

...and we have a winner.

That shouldn't even be a factor. It is, but damn, it really, really, shouldn't.

Heavy Rain is a step backwards? Pfft, variety in experience is not a step backwards. You yourself said what games should do is do what other cannot. Games don't just add the factor of interaction, they are flexible, less strict than other mediums. Games are based in variety, and expanding that, creating new and great experiences should be the evolution of gaming. One direction will never satisfy.

I agree with the arguments in OP except #2. Game design is pushing cinematic qualities because developers want to advance the techniques required to present a good narrative. But even if there is a problem in it, which I don't see, it would have to do with developers, not journalism.

But yeah, there's too much inconsistency in criticizing games because of the spectrum of bias and lack of guideline.

I don't care if there is no female character, but if it suits the game and there is that option they are more likely to get my money

I um agree with a lot of this. Don't got much else to say. jg4xchamp

Oh come on, give me some adjectives at least.

'Wonderful', for instance. 'A brilliant, scathing commentary.'

Heavy Rain is a step backwards? Pfft, variety in experience is not a step backwards. You yourself said what games should do is do what other cannot. Games don't just add the factor of interaction, they are flexible, less strict than other mediums. Games are based in variety, and expanding that, creating new and great experiences should be the evolution of gaming. One direction will never satisfy.

lx_theo

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]I um agree with a lot of this. Don't got much else to say. jethrovegas

Oh come on, give me some adjectives at least.

'Wonderful', for instance. 'A brilliant, scathing commentary.'

Before any of you get smarmy, yes, I realise that there is no single "gaming journalism entity" (probably) but this was the best way I could think of to frame some of these comments and spark a little discussion, so please, just swing with it.

-

I. Are you really going to ride the equality train all the way down?

Lately there's been this trend among gaming journalists to criticise games for not being inclusive enough to women and to ethnic minorities, and, I've got to ask, how far are you willing to take this pony?

You do realise that you're simultaneously endorsing "games as art" and asking for developers to include certain content catering to various groups, right? This means, essentially, that you are supporting artistic freedom whilst telling developers that they should only exercise that freedom around and atop a series of ethics which may or may not jibe with their own.

Crackdown 2, for example. It got a bad rap for, besides just sucking, not including the option to play as a female agent. What, now developers have to spend time and resources creating a particular play-****before they're on safe ground, ethically? Suppose budget were an issue? Suppose they didn't want to, for whatever reason?

ME2 was criticised by some for not offering the same level of homosexual romance options as Dragon Age; that is a blatant attempt to pressure a studio into altering its artistic vision for the sake of a particular audience.

If you want gaming to be taken seriously as an art-form you shouldn't be making these kinds of insipid demands; imagine if a major film came out and was criticised for not including a specific type of sexual encounter; those particular critics would be mocked, and widely.

I very much want to see quality content for ALL audiences (i.e., not just heterosexual males, who typically have dominated the industry) but demanding it is stupid, and the credibility of gaming journalism is undermined by its refusal to recognise the developer's vision as sovereign.

Do you actually care about these audiences, or are you just making a poorly thought-out attempt at appearing conscientious?

-

II. Cinematic? Who cares?

Sorry. There are any number of highly cinematic games which are good in their own right, but they aren't moving the medium forward. Heavy Rain is a step backwards; Rockstar's storytelling methods are archaic, and boring.

The strengths of the medium ought to be played up, not down. Why should games imitate another medium when they can do so many other things that film simply cannot?

It's like the film adaptation of Watchmen; sure, you can make it (they did), but why in the bloody hell would you want to? Watchmen was a comic book, and it played spectacularly to the strengths of its particular medium, in ways that the film (which sucked, mostly) simply could not capture.

Look at Braid for an excellent example of a game telling the kind of story that a film never could; play Amnesia: The Dark Descent and realise that the future of horror (name the last truly good horror film you saw) lies with this medium, which can, through means of interaction, create a sort of terror that no other medium can imitate.

Look at all the journalists pissing their pants over L.A. Noire. Why do you give a flying **** about that game? Film is off in one direction, and the gravity of gaming innovation is pulling towards another altogether. Leave the past where it belongs.

-

III. Are you going to be product reviewers or art critics?

This is a choice which must be made. Now, clearly I'm not suggesting that racing games should be criticised for their weak stories, but there is the question of whether or not any major gaming journalism outlet is ever going to have the balls to call some of these games out on their bull ****.

For instance, can you name any major outlets that were willing to trash Black Ops for its degenerate, psychopathic story, which had not a shred of value? Not merely that it was bad, see, but that it was sick, and ugly, and utterly masturbatory?

Of course not. Most of gaming journalism is devoted to basic product reviewing. Even the ones that tend more towards aesthetics rarely take that kind of stand on any issue, whereas it's quite common in other, more developed critical fields.

In other words, who's going to have stones enough to step up and decry a major commercial game for failing artistically, and not just in some other way?

----

Ok, now clearly this was meant for the SW community, mostly, so let's get a talk going.

Thoughts, anyone?

jethrovegas

I think you should ask HIPHOPGAMER.

He's pretty well known...perhaps he could mentor you and answer your questions with validity.

I dont really agree with the cinamatic point your trying to make. I dont mind a video game trying to be cinamatic and having these great cutscenes it adds to the experiance. Most of the time I dont just want straight up gameplay I want a story and character personalites. Its one of the reasons I like gaming. Its been around for years just not as cinamatice as something like L.A. noir. Just look at hte FF series fromt he snes they did what they could with the tec,but if they could they would have added big cg cutscenes and somewhat of a cinamatic experiance. Hell they added cg cutscenes when the re-released some on ps1.

Also on a side note I really enjoyed the watchman movie and felt it was well done and yes I read the comic. I must add that this is also a nicely formed discussion pieceits just I dont agree with everything you said.

I agree with the arguments in OP except #2. Game design is pushing cinematic qualities because developers want to advance the techniques required to present a good narrative. But even if there is a problem in it, which I don't see, it would have to do with developers, not journalism.

But yeah, there's too much inconsistency in criticizing games because of the spectrum of bias and lack of guideline.

PSdual_wielder

Why are cinematic techniques necessary to present a good narrative?

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Well now that that is out of the way I would say that it is possible but the critics have to be independent which makes it much more difficult for them to gain a voice. Reviewers essentially work with publishers, in order to get a truly good critic they pretty much can't be influenced by anyonw and that would make playing all these games and judging them while making money pretty hard. I mean, I don't know enough about history to dump on BLOPs story but the campaign itself imo wasn't outstanding, just solid. As a reviewer I don't know how popular I would befor saying that in the eyes of the pubs however.

jethrovegas

...and we have a winner.

That shouldn't even be a factor. It is, but damn, it really, really, shouldn't.

The amount of games out taking into account that its quite a bit more expensive then a movie and longer too, I don't know how one can realistically buy, play and get out a critics point of view in time for it to be relevant to the audience.

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]I um agree with a lot of this. Don't got much else to say. jg4xchamp

Oh come on, give me some adjectives at least.

'Wonderful', for instance. 'A brilliant, scathing commentary.'

I'm diisappointed in you :(

Anyway, with regard to trailers, at this point if it isn't mostly gameplay, I don't take it seriously, you can manipulate any camera angle and cutscene to look cool, the gameplay however is less subjectable to that amount of crappy tinkering.

I agree wiith your first point very much. I actually was not aware that there was that much of an outcry over equality, but if there is, it's unfounded.

For your second point, I agree somewhat, but the problem with this is that not every video game sets out to redefine the genre or even accept responsibility for moving it forward. A lot of games just want to do a variation on something that's already been done before, for the sake of being enjoyable to play. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

And for the third, I agree. Black Ops is a great example, but no one wants to give shoddy scores to the top selling game on the market. When you get to the big-budget, it turns back into a popularity contest. But that's true for most any medium in a lot of ways. Your argument on this one transcends gaming and I'm not sure it's very solvable.

I agree wiith your first point very much. I actually was not aware that there was that much of an outcry over equality, but if there is, it's unfounded.

For your second point, I agree somewhat, but the problem with this is that not every video game sets out to redefine the genre or even accept responsibility for moving it forward. A lot of games just want to do a variation on something that's already been done before, for the sake of being enjoyable to play. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

And for the third, I agree. Black Ops is a great example, but no one wants to give shoddy scores to the top selling game on the market. When you get to the big-budget, it turns back into a popularity contest. But that's true for most any medium in a lot of ways. Your argument on this one transcends gaming and I'm not sure it's very solvable.

bowlingotter

Fair point. The distinction, I guess, is between making a game which holds to existing formulas and making a game which does nothing new, that is, doesn't even try. The first category is hardly to be blamed; the second one arguably is.

I hate to think of it that way. Rather, I see it more as a matter of there not being any strong, serious, well defined gaming critics to take up the center. Film is different; I'd say that in general the good film critics aren't recognised anymore because there aren't enough of them, and too many of them are apathetic to the state of film criticism, as are most movie-goers.. I don't think gaming criticism is developing the same way.

It's solvable if distinctive options are presented. GameSpot could go that way if they really wanted to. So could Destructoid, if they weren't such panderers. I don't think GS would loose one iota of traffic, either.