“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.” (http://www.snappygamer.com/2008/12/02/the-problem-with-games-journalism-part-one/ [comment from Dec. 2])
..and I really think that he’s on to something. I am particularly attracted to this idea of “specialist games writing,” as it follows the trend of contemporary games in the past few years. Games are no longer run/jump/shoot, necessarily; they’re no longer good/bad/buy/sell; they are no longer time-wasting mechanisms. Actually, they are unless you make, buy, or write about games, but the breadth of people buying those games is as broad as the forms needed to write about them - so the writing really ought to reflect that.
As I’ve said in class and written about a little bit, I find the /experience/ of the player as an individual to be the single most important aspect of games-writing. While I’ve characterized doing this as sort of a Hunter Thompson approach to the field, I’m not quite sure that entirely encapsulates the idea, because often, there is more going on than just “the player run jumps and shoots” vs. “i ran, jumped and shot.” Often, it’s about what things the game is trying to say, too. Take this example from Alec Meer’s playjournal of the new RPG from Pirahna Bites, Risen:
“A shame about her character model, which I can’t help but perceive a peurile intent behind. She’s all washboard-stomach and physically improbable bosom, wearing an outfit that’s somewhere between noblewoman and stripper. At this earliest of stages, I don’t have the foggiest what the game’s general attitude to women is – but the first example Risen gives of it is not a positive one.” (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/10/07/the-risen-report-first-night/)
The focus of this piece overall is most certainly not to explore the gender identification aspects of the game fully, but it points the way that there’s something to be looked into here; women are sex objects. Johnny Robson of Crispy Gamer might bemoan this as over-analyzing and looking a bit too much into a game; but if videogames are bits of media that are having a profound influence on people’s lives (if for no other reason than great amounts of time are spent on them), then it is important to look at them from perspectives like this - and what they are saying women should look like, and how we should treat them. If a game like Grand Theft Auto IV is selling millions of copies, isn’t it important to have some idea what sort-of subversive messages that it is sending (intentionally or not)?
If, for any other reason, I find huge fault with Robson simply for my own personal sake. I’ve been a fanboy of the NGJ-style since I came across it a couple of years ago, and know that the only gaming journalism I really tend to read with great interest is of that variety. If for no other reason, I want to see this overly-complex, hyper-intellectualized stuff on Gamasutra because I, as an individual, find it fascinating. Sure, I want to be a games journalist; but what I will be is the same as what I have always been: a gamer that loves reading games journalism, and demands that great varieties in style exist.
I agree that a great variety should exist when it comes to games journalism but I also think that it should be limited to who is writing it. Not everyone is cut out for this sort of topic and it should be mostly left up to the writers who play the games, not the Harvard Grad student who did not land the job at the New York Times. Regradless that he may play videogames, the style of writing effects the overall point. But then again, to each his own. You state here that you find that style of writing fascinating which I have no problem with, I suppose it really depends on the writers intentions for writing the piece.
ReplyDeleteThis being said, do you feel there's still a need for harder, straight-facts journalism? Some people have said that games might be too soft a topic, but the facts of the industry, and who's deciding what gets made, would still need reporting and coverage. Is there a way to mesh both?
ReplyDeleteGreat blog. I agree 100% with all of your points. As I touched on in my blog, how good a game actually is, especially in today's internet era, doesn't have as much weight as it used to simply because of the experiences we may have in the game. The absolute perfect game could be released tomorrow and get all perfect reviews but someone may still refuse to buy it due to a particular awful experience with the game.
ReplyDeleteOn the note of Johnny Robson: yes, he can go eat a bag of dicks. The only difference between movies and video games is that one is interactive. Both tell a story and both give off the perceptions our society has whether intentionally or not so it doesn't make sense why one would analyze the content of one but not the other.
On a final note, I have just been introduced from to the world of NGJ but from what I can see, it is a step in the right direction.