The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Traditional Journalism + Game Journalism = ?
Zahaladeen
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I work at a local newspaper and I've been on my bosses about puting together a regular video game review + blog.
My main points in arguing that it needs a place in the paper, or at least the online edition are thus:
These are my main points off the top of my head. I think this would be good for the paper, but that is yet to be seen. So I ask you, my fellow gamers... do you think this is a good idea? Yea? Nay? Don't care? What would you like to see specifically? Do you read reviews of games in your newspaper/website and is it good, bad, or horrible? Let me know what you think.
My main points in arguing that it needs a place in the paper, or at least the online edition are thus:
- Gamers would apreciate the objectivity of traditional journalism rather than the hype of game journalists who reguarly obfuscate coverage to reflect the whims of advertising $.
- Parents who would apreciate a semi-literate take on what their kids are playing with the added bonus of traditional news values - aka objectivity.
- Everyone plays games now. Adults are playing more than kids and teenagers these days, opening up a whole new "hobby" field other than fantasy football and the like.
- Seattle is a hub of gaming activity, industry, and community.
These are my main points off the top of my head. I think this would be good for the paper, but that is yet to be seen. So I ask you, my fellow gamers... do you think this is a good idea? Yea? Nay? Don't care? What would you like to see specifically? Do you read reviews of games in your newspaper/website and is it good, bad, or horrible? Let me know what you think.
This isn't an attempt to get readers or whatnot, I just want to see what other gamers think about the value of gamer news. That is all.
Zahaladeen on
0
Posts
I'm not against it appearing a newspaper, though, if the journalist knows what he or she is talking about. Then again, that goes for any topic.
I will say though that game review - which is a part of game journalism - is not wholly objective. Review is critique which is, of course, an at least partially subjective process. And not all - in fact a large majority - of game developers are wholly unaffected by advertising schemes. So if you're using that as a lie to sell this project to your boss, that's fine, but I hope you don't actually hold that point of view. Some sites suffer from it, most don't.
And if you plan on actually reviewing games, you should realize that the journalist(s) involved will have to be somewhat subjective (but also objective). Review != news reporting. One is critique, as I said, and the other is...well, reporting.
On a side note, I'm sick of all the "news" stories of DDR that pop up every now and again like it came out last week, or is the only game related news.
You know what I like about newspaper articles? How each paragraph is basically one, gigantic run-on sentence.
Yeah, there have been times when AP style drives me insane, especially how most reporters just try to cram as much as they can into their lead without mercy or constraint, and editors seem to encourage it because they too want the snazziest lead impossible to draw in the reader and keep them there so its more of a means of keeping reader interest rather than an adherence to proper grammer and sentence structure.
The DDR "story" made me lol.
I agree with you about being marginally subjective, but what I am shooting for is something that really gets across the strengths and weaknesses of a game and why you should or shouldn't play it. A decision not based on wether the game in question is being advertised on the site/magazine/newspaper.
I think there is a way to do it well, without being the typical AP gibberish.
Also, the essential result I see from advertising on game magazines is the shrinking of the 10 point scale to the three point scale, 7-10. I just look at the small half or quarter point differences between games much more closely, or I become more discerning and look for the real seal of approval, the 9+. If every reviewed was an advertised one and if massive ad placement could be proved to cause an increase in scores, then I would see the issue, but otherwise I say just leave the hobby to the hobby magazine.
His personal website is straight out of 1996.
Seriously, I know amateur scrapbookers with better design sense.
Don't be that guy.
You might have a chance in Seattle, though.
Well I'm going to write it. I'd post some links to some of the stuff I've done but I don't know if that's "in-code" or not. If it's cool I will and you can judge for yourself.
I agree, I'd rather it be someone who knows the scene and the medium rather than some wanker. And that's the problem right now, we're just using Associated Press video game reviews and nothing new or interesting. Plus their reviews are crap. They did a review on Mass Effect that I thought completely missed the mark, and another review on Bioshock that was a resounding "meh".
I think I can do a lot better than that.
Does he even play games? I mean really? Looks like he is more interested in looking rad all day.
Edit: I didn't think his reviews were terrible either
Emphasis added. Aside from putting up reviews that show he played the game for maybe 10 minutes (Ratchet and Clank's review is the most glaring pile of fail), he just can't write.
Yeah, he didn't play the game. Like, at all. At no point does what he describe happen. Ever.
Also, I was pointing out that a Tomb Raider game would do nothing but push women away. It's misogyny for zit-faced, horny Ron Paul supporters taken to an extreme.
His approach to writing is amateurish and his attitude is obnoxious. I wrote like he does now when I was in 5th grade.
Thanks for ignoring the fact that I was pointing out that he said a top-heavy bimbo with guns that's basically a figure for male lust is going to attract women in some new and exciting way.
That's right, I can. Because there is a lot of amateur writing in journalism. Did you have a point here? I mean, telling me that I can make the same claim for a good many journalists doesn't exactly help you make your case that this guy isn't a bad writer.
I have no idea what this refers to or how it relates to the guy above being an abysmal writer, which he is regardless of whether or not you enjoy his writing.
and Hippie, I don't recall seeing the journalist ever go ''zit-faced misogyny clown magnet = gud gamez 4 womyns!" - I'm pretty sure he was referring to the climbing/adventure elements, because that whole article is basically a piece on how women are supposedly now playing more games that were ''traditionally'' intended for men. It is interesting that you read an article that talks about games with masculine themes gaining increased acceptance with women and then responded with ''oh yeah! well chicks don't want to play with big-boobed sex objects because thats guy stuff!''
Without much more context than a passing mention, it's hard to talk about his intentions, but it seems that the only reason he put it up there was that it was (in his flawed, horrible tastes) a good adventure game that starred a chick, and so of course chicks will like it.
Given that it's coming from a man that can barely put together a coherent article, I think that's a much more reasonable assessment than looking at it as some hamfisted treatise on women in gaming.
"But the Wii game that seems destined to appeal to women is "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider Anniversary." It's a masterpiece.
You explore tombs and cities by running through them, climbing ropes and walls, swinging across open spaces from a grappling hook, swimming underwater and, of course, shooting anything that gets in your way, which includes bears. Poor little bears.
New women gamers also will see why guys have been into Lara Croft so much visually. When she shimmies poles and does heaving-bosom splits while climbing ledges, it looks like the cleanest dirty game ever. So it seems like it's made for a man, but it's strong enough for a woman."
I re-read your post three times and as I indicated in my post I don't understand what you're trying to say. I don't know who Mike Turner is and even if I did I still don't think I'd know what you are trying to say. So maybe you should just clarify yourself if you have a point.
Actually, I have been writing game reviews for five years now for various outlets.
However, my argument was never "I can do better than this guy" so my credentials or lack of credentials are neither here nor there. My argument has nothing to do with me whatsoever. My argument is simply: "this guy is a poor writer."
See, you don't actually have to be better than someone, or claim to be better than someone, to criticize them. I'm sure George Bush is doing a better job than I could do at being President of the US here but I still say he's done and continues to do a shittastic job. I am not a published novelist yet but I would call Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman's collaborative writings "amateurish." I am not a successful movie/film director (and never will be) but I would say that Battlefield Earth is absolute drivel and that everyone involved should be shot, even if they know a damn sight more than me about filmmaking.
I never claimed to be better than this guy; I only claimed that he is awful. And he is. He is absolutely awful.
Okay, let me break this down for you, since you seem to have trouble grasping this very simple truth:
Valid criticism does not always come from a position of higher authority.
You see this guy we're discussing? He's a journalist, right? You know what he's doing? He's criticizing video games. Is he a video game designer? Nope!
This is, therefore, analogous to anyone - journalist, art student, garbage man, Bill Gates, you, me, him, her, or them - offering criticism on a millionaire artist. Not all criticism is valid, but to suggest that criticism that flows upward instead of downward is inherently invalid is, well, retarded.
Just like my criticism of this guy's writing. If you want to wash it away as invalid, be my guest. I think he's an awful writer, and I stand by it. How is he awful, specifically? Well, his style itself is very childish. It sounds like he's writing for the lowest common denomenator, but I get the impression that he is in that group as well - as though big words and sentences with more than eight words frightens him. He's very contraction-friendly too and while contractions are fine they do look sloppy when your "professional" article is positively dripping with them.
Then you get to the content which is just a fucking mess. Here's an example I randomly googled (I typed "Gamer Dork" and pulled up one of the first three links):
http://blog.nola.com/living/2007/12/game_dork_column_debuts_with_g.html
Heeeeey let's pick this apart. Let's see. "Thrills female and kid gamers en masse" which is inept as there is absolutely no statistical evidence supporting this demographic as being the main Wii supporters...not to mention that it both denigrates women AND men - as if men can't enjoy the Wii and lumping women in with children to imply that they share unsophisticated gaming tastes - which also supports what Wonder_Hippie was saying.
Next you have the sentence "supplies are good." Aside from being a really silly way to write, it is also a lie. December 7th, 2007 is a week or two after Wiis started drying up in stores and they became harder to find even as Nintendo was trying to get them out there.
And that's just an article and a paragraph I chose basically at random.
He's horrible.
Don't bother responding to what I type if you can't demonstrate an understanding of my point. My posts are easy to read, and relatively free of spelling errors, so the point shouldn't be that difficult for you. I read your posts with an emphasis on comprehension, I am not just digging for quotes I can pull out of them and dispute so I would expect the same respect from you.
I probably didn't understand your post about millionaire comic artist Mike Turner because my brain couldn't accept that you were trying to seriously put forth the argument that a bunch of art students have no right to criticize a millionaire comic artist. The reason the art students thing has no relevance is because it is not at all analogous to what we're talking about here. I really have exhausted my ability to communicate this point to you, though, so I guess we're at a conversational impasse.
Point being: my reading comprehension is fine. But after analyzing your inability to communicate and comparing it to the writer we are talking about, I can only assume you ARE the writer we are discussing. Or maybe you're just trying to defend shitty writing. I don't know. You can go ahead and read this guy's crap all you want, but you are suggesting that success dictates quality, or at least suggests quality, and that is absurdly wrong. People have every right to criticize people, and the higher you go, the more in the spotlight you are, and the more criticism you are like to receive.
I really don't know what else to say to you. I disagree 100% on everything you've said and there's nothing of substance to respond to. You aren't even defending his writing, you're attacking the basis of criticism. Attacking my right or my wherewithal to criticize this guy won't make his writing any better. His writing speaks for itself.
I'll provide some context for my Mike Turner comment, since you seem to be capable of googling someone to grab pieces of articles but are completely incapable of researching this guy - Most of what critics say about him is often correct: he fucks up proportions & muscles like an amateur but still sells more comics and gets more work in 1 year than most people do in their lifetimes. The criticism of someone successful in their field is accurate (as is your criticism of someone in your field, jesus christ this is awesome how I made that enormous mental leap, I must have had help from magicians) but it fails to address the main issue - what he is doing is working, so you should attempt to learn something from him instead of just blindly assuming he is made of feces. If someone wants to make game journalism in newspapers famous but can't possibly fathom why a video game columnist is doing well, then they are screwed before they even started.
Yes, and this is a stupid point as I've tried to explain. The reason someone in the spotlight gets a lot of criticism is that someone in the spotlight has more exposure. A book that never makes it to the New York Times bestsellers list is, naturally, going to get less criticism.
Again, you are implying something here without actually saying it. What I think you are suggesting is that people criticize people at the top out of envy or jealousy or something, hence the whole "I should take what you say with a grain of salt thing." But I dunno. I wouldn't want to assume. So, saying that what I say should be taken with a grain of salt isn't an argument because you aren't following it up with a rational reason that people should take what I say (or what the art students said) with a grain of salt. "Because people at the top always get criticized" isn't valid excuse to not take me seriously. Yes, people at the top always get criticized. So what? If you can explain THAT then you might have a point.
Do you see now why all your posts have been a waste of my time?
I would go and edit out where I said that popularity "can never, ever, under any circumstances dictate quality" but I didn't say that, imply that, or suggest that. See "never, ever, under any circumstances" is a qualifier that basically means, well, "never" but much more strongly. I never said that it never does. I'm saying that you cannot construct an argument that assumes success dictates quality. This should imply, if you are paying attention and understand the English language, that I'm saying success doesn't necessarily dictate quality. It may and it may not.
Readable and well-written aren't necessarily the same thing. Obviously, well-written pieces should be readable, but that something is "readable" doesn't make it well-written. There is more than that very simple criteria to consider something well-written.
So, since I never argued that this guy's articles weren't readable, I guess this is an invalid strawman argument too.
Well, your lack of carriage return has made me want to skim your posts, but I've actually read every scintillating word in each one, I promise. As for assuming I know what you're saying, uhm, I can only do what I can to derive your meaning from your sloppy, logic-less posts, because you certainly aren't meeting me halfway here.
I don't think it's that your posts are difficult to understand. I think it's that you aren't actually saying anything comprehensible in them.
Wow?
I'm not even saying I want to have a syndicated newspaper column on video games, but let's say I did. Are you suggesting that I should learn from him solely on the basis that he is successful?
Bzzt. Try again.
Also, I'm not the topic creator. I think you are confusing me with the guy proposing this to his newspaper.
Yeah, he's not good. What I learned is: don't write like him.
The issue isn't getting famous. The issue is real journalism in an area that lacks it.
The guy's writing isn't nearly as bad as you guys make it seem, and I think its just a case of some pretentious nose-thumbing in his general direction. Aside from some really contrived arguments (HOW DARE YOU NOT CITE THAT WOMEN AND KIDS LOVE THE WII) and waving your hand, stating that he somehow contradicts himself all the time without actually showing a circumstance where he does, you guys haven't really shown me how terrible it is - so far all I have really seen is a bunch of people in this thread jerking each other off over how terribly he writes and not offering any sort of real reasons why. If he really was as shitty as you guys make it sound I think it would have been a hell of alot more obvious.