THE BORE
General => Video Game Bored => Topic started by: Tabasco on December 09, 2008, 04:45:27 AM
-
http://shawnelliott.blogspot.com/2008/12/commencing-countdown.html
Subject: You're invited...
to participate in an email-based symposium on the practice and politics of writing game reviews.
Categories:
Review Scores
Reader Backlash
Reviews in the Age of Social Media
Reviews in the Mainstream Media
Casual, Indie, and User-Generated Games
Review Ethics
Reviews vs. Criticism
Evolving the Review
Optional: Response to Symposium Readers
Needs more Vestal and Erickson
title stolen from http://www.snappygamer.com/2008/12/02/the-problem-with-games-journalism-part-one/
-
Oh my
-
Reader backlash could be interesting.
They should just do that whole discussion on GTAIV and how they all failed to do their jobs.
The line-up's pretty good. A healthy mix of indie and big name journos.
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FUCKING "VIDEOGAME JOURNALIST"! That's like saying you're a "corporate waste disposal technician" when you're a janitor for a Fortune 500 company. It's bullshit.
-
Needs more Vestal and Erickson
They're not the same person?
-
Honestly, I'm kinda bored of all this stuff. It's great that people care about furthering games writing, but it's never going to change the fact that most people couldn't give a fuck about anything other than the score at the bottom.
-
Honestly, I'm kinda bored of all this stuff. It's great that people care about furthering games writing, but it's never going to change the fact that most people couldn't give a fuck about anything other than the score at the bottom.
It's a good thing I'm not most people. I'm still interested.
I love reviews, but I think most of them are shit. They will only get better when more truly talented people/writers take a swing at it. As it is, most reviewers are game nerds first, gamestop clerks second, and writers a distant third.
-
WTF is a "Hip Hop Activist"?
-
:piss People that think about "games journalism" for more than five seconds in a given year :piss2
(If you're employed in that, um, industry, I'll grant you another five seconds to make it fair.)
-
Honestly, I'm kinda bored of all this stuff. It's great that people care about furthering games writing, but it's never going to change the fact that most people couldn't give a fuck about anything other than the score at the bottom.
It's a good thing I'm not most people. I'm still interested.
I love reviews, but I think most of them are shit. They will only get better when more truly talented people/writers take a swing at it. As it is, most reviewers are game nerds first, gamestop clerks second, and writers a distant third.
It's hard for people like that to break in, though. I worked a little with Shawn while he was features editor at 1Up, and it sounded like they were only really interested in top 5s and the like, really. Hard to put intelligent shit out there when you're cockblocked by upper management at the big sites. Maybe I'm just silly and jaded, though.
-
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FUCKING "VIDEOGAME JOURNALIST"! That's like saying you're a "corporate waste disposal technician" when you're a janitor for a Fortune 500 company. It's bullshit.
I don't agree.
There are music journos, why can't there be game journos?
Because video games, as much as I love and enjoy them, will never, ever, ever approach the artistic impact that music has. And if you say otherwise, you're lying to yourself.
-
"Are you happy with your game?"
Yes.
"What influenced your game?"
something in my office
"Why did you do this with your game?"
i thought it worked better
"Do you think gamers will be happy with your game?"
i hope so
"Are you happy with gamers being happy with your game?"
yeah
"What will your next game be like?"
something different but still the same
"Did you ever think of using (current trend) in your game?"
yeah but it didn't really fit
"Do you think you'll be happy with your next game?"
i think so
"Thank you for your time."
you're welcome
i just wrote 80% of all "gaming journalism" interviews
-
And you could hit the David Jaffe 1% if you threw in a "fuck" or three.
-
"Things are shaping up to be a great game. We can't wait!"
-
Journalism isn't particularly concerned with artistic impact in the music field either, though. I think the problem is that most of the games press we see is the equivalent of music press like Smash Hits, NME, Billboard, etc. Fundamentally, there is intelligent commentary that can be made about videogames, but it hasn't bubbled up because the field is so young, particularly as it seems to have collided with the Internet and blog culture in its most formative years.
The death of gaming print media doesn't help at all, either.
-
I just hate the reviews where the writer feels the need to talk about his or her life in the review. That or use inside jokes that nobody really gives a fuck about except for the staff and hardcore creepers.
I still am haunted by Tim Rogers' shitty Metal Gear Solid 2 review.
-
Journalism isn't particularly concerned with artistic impact in the music field either, though. I think the problem is that most of the games press we see is the equivalent of music press like Smash Hits, NME, Billboard, etc. Fundamentally, there is intelligent commentary that can be made about videogames, but it hasn't bubbled up because the field is so young, particularly as it seems to have collided with the Internet and blog culture in its most formative years.
You know, the thing is though that I just don't care about any so called "intelligent commentary" concerning videogames. Since it's a participatory hobby for me unlike music, guess whose opinion and comments count the most? Fucking MINE. I don't know how to play a guitar, can't sing for shit and don't know how to read music. It's fun to read about the process because it's foreign to me. Videogames? Not so much. It's all about the end experience. Who cares about what drives developers or any meta trend in the industry? Give me a fucking game to play and stay out of the way. "Videogame journalism" should be focused about 90% on previews of upcoming games and technology, 10% on reviews of final product, and 0% on any opinion or commentary. I don't want to know about the people that develop these games- stay chained to your desks, nerds!
-
You know, the thing is though that I just don't care about any so called "intelligent commentary" concerning videogames. Since it's a participatory hobby for me unlike music, guess whose opinion and comments count the most? Fucking MINE. I don't know how to play a guitar, can't sing for shit and don't know how to read music. It's fun to read about the process because it's foreign to me. Videogames? Not so much. It's all about the end experience. Who cares about what drives developers or any meta trend in the industry? Give me a fucking game to play and stay out of the way. "Videogame journalism" should be focused about 90% on previews of upcoming games and technology, 10% on reviews of final product, and 0% on any opinion or commentary. I don't want to know about the people that develop these games- stay chained to your desks, nerds!
Sorry I'm not entirely sure what you're complaining about. There's no such thing as a videogame journalist but you are only interested in previews?
I'm saying I want just the facts, thank you very much. Editorializing and writing about the personal lives of devs and industry muckity mucks is not interesting to me at all, nor is meta commentary on the industry. Tell me what's coming, give me screenshots and impressions. Other than that, be glad you're being paid money to "write" about videogames and drop the lame pretension that you have a OMG SERIOUS JOB. You don't. You write about videogames for a living. That's not serious.
-
It's just that not even the "best" video game "critics" have written even Roget Ebert's farts worth of a worthwhile criticism. The medium is goofy.
-
The biggest problem with reviews is that everything is so superficial. There aren't enough post-release "deep dives" or "post-mortems" based on weeks or months of playing the game. This is particularly true of games with strong online components.
I think sites should have running diaries or something letting their writers continue to write about their gaming experiences post-release. It's too much about the build-up and the explosion. We need more cuddling.
-
this.
is.
MASTURBATION!
<kicks "games journalism" into the well of its own trenchant egocentrism>
-
Using the word symposium is a mistake unless you're plato, but this doesn't sound that bad. I mean, given the joke that sites like IGN, Gamespot, and 1up have become, having some serious discussion could be good. But maybe under a different title, yes?
-
I just don't feel any different from the guys reviewing games. Some of them have good writing styles, but overall, I feel like they're just as subject to hype as the next guy and don't reveal anything new about games to me, like music or movie reviews do. They don't seem to have any pull with the companies or the people they write for...no major review site will ever post a sub-9 review for GTA or Halo.
so all of this exploration seems like it'll be fruitless.
I don't even read game reviews or articles anymore, aside from some game blogs that put up interesting, intelligent articles.
-
I dig the post mortems you'll see on Gamasutra and Edge.
As far as reviews, I treat them as entertainment properties themselves. All I want is length, notation of any game breaking bugs, and a number at the end. Some are good. I'm playing Flatout: UC and the dude from Eurogamer completely nailed the review.
But this whole roundtable things is a joke. I still remember all those shitty Bioshock reviews that fapped over it's atmosphere and story, but failed to mention it's monotonous fetch-quests. If that's these guys hope for the future of their craft, no thanks.
-
Top illiterate gaming journo must be Garnett from 1UP. He can't articulate shit.
I agree that he is illiterate and inarticulate (I've only ever heard him fawn over games in a valley girl-esque "oh my god" and spewing GAF memes) but he is merely turd in a sea of turds. I think that GamePro ranks up there in terms of worst writing, but I really hate Hilary Goldstein if nothing more than for his spread of FUD on podcasts.
-
Using the word symposium is a mistake unless you're plato, but this doesn't sound that bad. I mean, given the joke that sites like IGN, Gamespot, and 1up have become, having some serious discussion could be good. But maybe under a different title, yes?
Extreme Makeover distinguished mentally-challenged fellow Critic Edition :rock
-
I enjoy ripping on critics, but a good deal of the blame for the lack of good writers in gaming media should probably be placed on the games themselves. How can anyone demand a serious take on the products, when the products themselves are largely blunt takes on perhaps more demanding concepts than developers can do justice (or the marketplace, due to its inherent limitations, can support)? If games develop past blunt satire, oorah's, baseline inoffensive humor and in your face literary and religious references with all the subtlety of a turd on light parquet, the majority of the current gaming media troupe will very quickly prove itself incapable of covering the medium.
-
yeah, the satire in fallout 3 is pretty heavy-handed at times
that game was best at the quests more grounded towards the quest-giving characters themselves rather than the quests which tried to convey some sort of message (there are only a few, but those were the ones i least enjoyed)
-
I was surprised to hear a number of 1uppers haven't finished college? Really?
Not that you need a degree to prove you can write, but you'd think the analytical and deconstructive skills one would acquire by, you know, going to school might be useful?
-
this.
is.
MASTURBATION!
<kicks "games journalism" into the well of its own trenchant egocentrism>
prole gets it, of course.
-
I was surprised to hear a number of 1uppers haven't finished college? Really?
Not that you need a degree to prove you can write, but you'd think the analytical and deconstructive skills one would acquire by, you know, going to school might be useful?
I'm assuming it's a lot of the younger people that jumped in when those who found real jobs bailed from ziff. Only two people I would suspect that are older than 30 are Garnett and that Asian guy who doesn't breath.
-
garnett's over 40, i believe
-
wow, Triumph is like, 180 degrees wrong. Previews of upcoming games and technology are completely worthless. Usually they just regurgitate PR and hype, or else if they're trying to be "critical" it's irritating misinformed criticism based on a few screenshots or a 10 minute demo play. The best time to talk about a game is after it's out, when you might actually have something to say about it. Interviews are at least making use of a resource unavailable to the public, although they tend to always ask the same lame questions as Crushed ably illustrated.
-
Garnett has a great speaking voice and is often a very good host. Plus he's a damn nice guy. He just gets a bad rap because he's not always great at communicating his opinions. On the other hand, Shane is a dick who doesn't seem to play many games (in comparison to how many games he actively discusses), but he's very effective at communicating his opinion, however uninformed it might be.
-
I agree with tennin.
I also don't expect much to come from this circle jerk. Game journalists will all wax intellectual about the industry and basically everything except for themselves. In fact, they will probably think more interviews and more PR/Previews are needed. Maybe they think pinching off some more Podcasts will be the answer.
Reviewers just need to review the game and state their thoughts on said game. If they didn't bother playing the game, they shouldn't put out an embarrassing review that makes them look like a moron. Either hand it off to someone else or don't do it at all. People won't notice that a game review is missing but they will know if there is a review of something that was obvious the reviewer didn't even play.
I don't expect anything else to happen because they can talk about ethics but publishers give these rags and sites the revenue. If they pull out, a lot of these sites will collapse quickly.
-
also, it's fine if reviewers don't always have time to finish the games they review --- some of them take forever after all --- but they should state in their review how long they played it
-
Sorry guys, this medium will never lend itself to OMG SERIOUS BUSINESS enough to warrant anything resembling "journalism". I still maintain the best use of these websites (cause who reads print anymore, really) is to show off games and technology coming down the pipeline. I suppose that some reviews are moderately useful- I know this is a different genre of entertainment altogether, but while I don't always agree 100% with Peter Travers' film reviews it's usually about 80% or so and that's a good guidepost. Trouble is, I haven't found any reviewer like that in videogame land and doubt I will- moneyhats are obviously the law of the land right now. Hell, people I respect on EB give better feedback on games than any "professional videogame journalist". Just give it up already.
-
The obvious caveat would be if Itagaki killed a big tittied cheeseburger hooker with a katana in a sake and cocaine fueled rage- then we'd have use for a "professional videogame journalist". Of course, if that happened actual journalists would cover it so "professional videogame journalists" would once again be as useful as tits on a stealth bomber.
-
I still maintain the best use of these websites (cause who reads print anymore, really) is to show off games and technology coming down the pipeline.
How is showing off games and technology coming down the pipeline worth anything to anyone?
-
You see it wrong cardcheat cause you judge games by the same standards as books it seems. The level of their story doesnt need to be on the level of a book to be seriously discussed, because a story is only a small part of a game. There is plenty of other stuff, known as gameplay which can be seriously discussed.
FUCKING DUH. That doesn't require a journalism degree or trying to sound smarter and more important than you really are. WTF are you talking about, jerky?
-
I still maintain the best use of these websites (cause who reads print anymore, really) is to show off games and technology coming down the pipeline.
How is showing off games and technology coming down the pipeline of any use to anyone?
Jesus Christ tennin, were you THROWN as a baby? It's obviously more useful to know what's happening in the future and near future than what Denis Dyack thinks about fucking philosophy. Are you being purposely obtuse here?
-
I dunno, Triumph. Post Mortems are pretty awesome. I love hearing about stuff behind the scenes.
-
Shane is awesome, I don't get why people hate him.
-
Because he speaks like a Ps3 Fanboy forum poster.
-
I dunno, Triumph. Post Mortems are pretty awesome. I love hearing about stuff behind the scenes.
Yes, because by all means let's hear about how a couple levels on Force Unleashed had to be cut. That's a great justification for these yahoos to call themselves "journalists". Obviously you guys take this hobby more seriously than I do.
-
Yes lets only enjoy things that you do. God forbid someone would find insight into a games production interesting.
Don't you have an AIDS test to study for or something?
-
I got yo back Kosma, let's drop this fool
-
I dunno, Triumph. Post Mortems are pretty awesome. I love hearing about stuff behind the scenes.
Yes, because by all means let's hear about how a couple levels on Force Unleashed had to be cut. That's a great justification for these yahoos to call themselves "journalists". Obviously you guys take this hobby more seriously than I do.
Well, I don't mean I want people to analyze the story of Solid Snake's life or shit like that. Just that specific area of reporting is legitimately interesting.
I'M JUST SAYIN, G. :punch
-
How any of you people have ever even SEEN a vagina in person is beyond me.
-
i stopped caring about printed/professional reviews when i realized zelda:oot was supposedly the best game ever yet it sucked donkey dick. never looked back.
as far as reviews on the internet, i sometimes go to gamefaqs and see what reviews it has from fellow gamers. usually you can pick a very negative and a very positive review to see what shines and what smells as a starting point. forums can also be misleading sometimes, especially when games get the cult treatment.
as for the "pros", more often than not you can find good info on previews than reviews since a)they are unfinished so criticism is expected and b)they don't seem to be considered as important in the grand scheme of moneyhats.
i guess things are changing though, with the death of print and forums being the new pr tools, filled with virals and whatnot. every day i trust other posters' opinions less, especially since sales started motivating people to hype games.
-
How any of you people have ever even SEEN a vagina in person is beyond me.
Look at this internet hero.
Dude hanging around with a ear ring in your right ear doesn't make you a cigarillo, you understand that right?
-
what the hell is a tennin
-
Because he speaks like a Ps3 Fanboy forum poster.
And he brings absolutely nothing to do the table since you already know what he's going to say before he opens his mouth. Listening to him talk about current games is as useless as watching Hannity and Colmes.
However, he actually does bring something to the table on Retronauts, especially when he shuts up every once in a while.
-
you know why most people end up as GAMES JOURNALISTS? because they're unqualified to do anything else. why would you care what some uncultured sloth thinks about a game?
and even if they do get the chance to think for themselves and ask someone questions about their game or development they're all the same.
and why do you think they're so intent on putting themselves over? because they do a shitty job that anyone else could do and are so desperate to get out and do some real work.
-
I like reading about post mortems too. What went wrong, what went right, etc. that you see in GameDeveloperMagazine. Good reads when I was at GDC.
-
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2008/12/10/2nd-annual-slate-gaming-club-round-2-excerpts.aspx
N'Gai Croal, Newsweek: Your point about professionalism also intrigues me. You're correct that, by and large, the level of craft in the video game industry continues to grow each year, and 2008 was no exception. I wonder if, however, by settling for the professionalism inherent in the acknowledgment that "we are those men, and we had fun with these games," we let games off too easily when they take the easy way out, interactively speaking....
Was Epic's handling of Maria's fate a failure of craft or art? I say it's worth thinking hard about, especially when writing for a mainstream audience like yours in the Times and mine at Newsweek. Because when we avoid such questions, we're gulling our readers into believing that story and gameplay are mutually exclusive--or that games are just like other media.
-
Of course, if that happened actual journalists would cover it so "professional videogame journalists" would once again be as useful as tits on a stealth bomber.
Hmmm...
*submits idea to B2 development team*
-
... yeah, that was pretty bad.
-
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2008/12/10/2nd-annual-slate-gaming-club-round-2-excerpts.aspx
N'Gai Croal, Newsweek: Your point about professionalism also intrigues me. You're correct that, by and large, the level of craft in the video game industry continues to grow each year, and 2008 was no exception. I wonder if, however, by settling for the professionalism inherent in the acknowledgment that "we are those men, and we had fun with these games," we let games off too easily when they take the easy way out, interactively speaking....
Was Epic's handling of Maria's fate a failure of craft or art? I say it's worth thinking hard about, especially when writing for a mainstream audience like yours in the Times and mine at Newsweek. Because when we avoid such questions, we're gulling our readers into believing that story and gameplay are mutually exclusive--or that games are just like other media.
if they were honest with the mainstream audience, they'd tell them how hackneyed and predictable that B-movie shit was compared to the books and movies those audiences have read and seen. not even B-movie level...the gears universe is a few guys running from spot to spot killing things with some cliched cinematics and dialogue thrown in to give the appearance that the player is taking part in some epic action narrative. stock characters in a stock setting speaking stock dialogue--it's not worth thinking about at all.
Unless you get paid to think about and write shit like this :teehee
-
hahahha these people are funney
-
they are not happy with me at qt3 :'(
-
that thread is full of unintended hilarity
i forgot about qt3, i need to post there some
hell, i might even use proper punctuation and grammar
-
they are not happy with me at qt3 :'(
what happened at QT3?
-
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=49321
-
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=49321
can't wait to read this shit :hyper
edit:
initial impressions; Doug not as thrilling when up against people who can string cogent arguments together. 2/5.
-
yeah, it's a bit disillusioning :-\
-
nooooooooooo, whatever shall i dooooooooo
personally, i'm pretty pleased
(edit: though i'd like to know what those cogent arguments are)
-
Time to go Jaffe on 'em and tell them you fucked all their mothers.
-
I don't know, there is some victory in getting thesaurus-having people to blabber that much in defense of something that is, really, pretty damned trivial.
-
nooooooooooo, whatever shall i dooooooooo
personally, i'm pretty pleased
(edit: though i'd like to know what those cogent arguments are)
I think you did pretty good. I tugged one to it.
-
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=49321
can't wait to read this shit :hyper
edit:
initial impressions; Doug not as thrilling when up against people who can string cogent arguments together. 2/5.
The arguments basically centered on whether the symposium was either a waste of time, an exercise in pseudo-intellectual masturbation and the benefits of having such a conference. My personal take on it is indifference. I rarely read any gaming publication with at any length or consistency. I do like what N'Gai Croal and Stephen Totilo bring to the table, actually covering games from a non-customer reviews fashion. I know N'Gai has his fare share of haters and he sometimes tries too much with the film analogies, but I find him entertaining, nonetheless.
-
ROFL, evilore coming in at the first mention of GAF. What a twerp. I'd flex him with the quickness.
-
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=49321
tales of symposium: dawn of the new wank
-
it's hard to score a clear gaf-esque knockout with folks that have command of the language, but look at the responses: 50% personal attacks; 25% semantic complaints and nitpicks; 10% totally meta chatter; and 5% attempts at decent responses. it's gaf with a slightly more grammatically civilized veneer
-
show them how a real review should be written, drinky (http://www.gaming-age.com/reviews/archive/old_reviews/ga2/n64/zelda.shtml)
Because most of us gamers knew in our heart of hearts that this game was going to be something special. Shigeru Miyamoto, the game's often-lauded mastermind, frequently referred to the then-underway Zelda project as potentially his greatest videogame accomplishment yet.
doug :heartbeat shigeru
-
I read all 9 pages of that thread. A resounding meh. Where is my ownage? I'm going to read a GAF thread now.
-
reading that QT3 thread makes me think I'm too stupid to post there
-
When Tim Rogers is doing a better job than the current lot of "major editorial voices" out there, it's a sad day in the "games journalism" community.
I think you're going a bit too far with that one... :P
-
personally, i'm pretty pleased
(edit: though i'd like to know what those cogent arguments are)
it's not that the responses were particularly strong --- they weren't --- but they didn't provide you with much ammunition either, so your posts over the course of the thread kinda give off a cumulative tilting at windmills impression. you seem to be taking all your legitimate frustrations with game reviewing practices in general and awkwardly marshalling them against this little symposium thingy, which looks to be fairly innocent as useless circlejerks go.
-
i doubt whether all the symposia in the world will infuse talent or discernment in people who haven't got any. and i doubt whether this symposium even includes the pederasty which every good symposium ought to
who wants a piece of shane elliot anyway
NOT ME
edit: i guess technically it's shawn elliot, but that conflation of shawn and shane is i think fortuitous
-
I'm retconning my score to a 3/5.
Threadwinner:
DoomMonkey crying in his cereal :'( :'( :'(:
What's great is that here we have 10 people who enjoy a fairly prestigious position in the game industry setting out to discuss the issues they have faced in that industry, and ol' Clever Doug here has a problem with the WAY they go about talking about it.
It fucking annoys me SO MUCH when a jackass like Douggie here has a problem with something and then criticizes other people for not addressing that problem in exactly the way he thinks they should.
Everybody is addressing it in their own way, man. Just like you're addressing it by being a frothing idiot, and I'm getting angry with you for it.
It's ironic. Like rain. On your wedding day.
and the follow through
Gawrsh, Sandy Vagina: I'm sorry I made a post regarding my opinion on a web forum dedicated to industry opinions! Maybe I should have held a symposium!
:rofl :rofl :rofl :gun
Runner Ups:
Evilore popping in to the thread when GAF gets mentioned and then redeeming himself on page 7 with his "obsession" comment.
Bill Dungsroman ownage on the tail end of page 9.
-
bill is usually in better form than that, truth be told. i expected to flinch at least once!
-
reading that QT3 thread makes me think I'm too stupid to post there
nah, ten-dollar words don't amount to much in this economy
having a broad vocabulary doesn't make a poster any less of a gibbering mongoloid than someone who only posts FAIL or DO NOT WANT gifs
-
reading that QT3 thread makes me think I'm too stupid to post there
nah, ten-dollar words don't amount to much in this economy
having a broad vocabulary doesn't make a poster any less of a gibbering mongoloid than someone who only posts FAIL or DO NOT WANT gifs
totally. Qt3 has a lot of former USENET dorks who developed a "thesaurus culture" throughout their tenure. never stopped 'em from saying the stupidest shit.
-
personally, i'm pretty pleased
(edit: though i'd like to know what those cogent arguments are)
it's not that the responses were particularly strong --- they weren't --- but they didn't provide you with much ammunition either, so your posts over the course of the thread kinda give off a cumulative tilting at windmills impression. you seem to be taking all your legitimate frustrations with game reviewing practices in general and awkwardly marshalling them against this little symposium thingy, which looks to be fairly innocent as useless circlejerks go.
that's a pretty apt summation, actually, although you missed the cntext: qt3 is CRAWLING with wannabe game journos who worship these dudes.
-
leper willco
-
reading that QT3 thread makes me think I'm too stupid to post there
nah, ten-dollar words don't amount to much in this economy
having a broad vocabulary doesn't make a poster any less of a gibbering mongoloid than someone who only posts FAIL or DO NOT WANT gifs
yeah, but I'm already pushing it with my mumbling incoherent talk, having to type up paragraphs of that stuff would be annoying. Plus everyone seems to be serious. I like it here.
-
I am offended the list of journos included Gerstmann and not Mr. Davis
-
Elliot's defense was incredibly demure. I think that's sort of admirable, even becoming of a symposium!
I've already said it was probably a mistake to use that word, but the whole gaming industry could use some "reformers" in getting the ball rolling (and addressing a number of those problems you mention in your first post).
The most interesting proposition in the thread was seeing if Shawn would review Nightmare of Druaga. I'd love to see how he'd do it.
-
god that thread was garbage. waste of three minutes
-
Oh, and another thing: are the personal attacks par for the nonchalant repartee course over there? I've read Qt3 before and I've always come away with the impression that everyone is fairly level-headed...and when they aren't, they get called out rather brutally. That was kind of GAFish.
-
that's kinda bill's (an a few others') schtick. it's a holdover from the omm forum days, when flaming each other (following an adjective-heavy formula) was par for the course. it's not really that common there, these days, and bill's kinda worn out his welcome.
-
I'd venture it's because they don't really like the games they review that much, but they sure do love their sense of industry participation. I don't care if the questions in a "symposium" are leading, but it's gotta be asked: why is the shit that gets written so damn inaccurate when it comes to the basics of any B-list game?
I remember hearing Shane B. and Jeff Haynes recalling their trip to Konami's secret mountain Kojima Lair to play MGS4 early and give feedback. No moneyhat in the world could have bought what making those guys feel important did.
-
Who's the bigger wanker: the wankers who have a wankfest about "videogame journalism" or the wanker who spends 9 pages on a forum fighting about this "symposium" before it even happens?
-
Who's the bigger wanker: the wankers who have a wankfest about "videogame journalism" or the wanker who spends 9 pages on a forum fighting about this "symposium" before it even happens?
Well, if the wankers hadn't had their wankfest that one wanker on the forum wouldn't have had anything to wank about for nine wankin' pages. Wanker.
-
Also, almost all of the QT3 wankers over there missed the bigger point: that the very notion of "videogame journalism" is absurd.
-
There are no 'toys journos' as far as I can tell.
you can't tell very far, apparently! a simple Google search yields a bunch of examples e.g. from www.toycyte.com "... Fair enough, but being an intrepid toy journalist of a rather inquisitive nature, there were just some things I needed to know. ...", from www.figures.com "Think You Have What it Takes to be a Toy Industry Journalist?? Figures.com and Action Online are looking for a few good writers ...", from http://www.action-figure.com "I'm gonna ask all of you who are still undecided on this line to go out and do something. When these come out in April...buy the Hulk. Why? cos then you will understand why just about every (if not EVERY) toy journalist is going nuts over this line. No ToyBiz hasn't bought us all off, they don't need to!"
and many, many more.
-
"Games criticism" might be a better terminology to move forward with (Shawn Elliot would probably agree with this).
-
Who cares.
-
people who are embarrassed by articles written by a 'game journalist' who thinks games should be on the Wii because of heart and wish to somehow carve themselves into a pretentious hole instead of a manbaby japan wankery one
-
people who are embarrassed by articles written by a 'game journalist' who thinks games should be on the Wii because of heart and wish to somehow carve themselves into a pretentious hole instead of a manbaby japan wankery one
I agree his first blog post was really what the hell, but his second one was pretty good.
-
"Games criticism" might be a better terminology to move forward with (Shawn Elliot would probably agree with this).
but they aren't free to criticize. they could never give a super high profile game less than a 9.
-
There's some fairly obvious proof that Prole's troll at Qt3 was a failure by his own standards: Dave Long agreed with him. Prole would never want that outcome in one of his threads.
-
Is Dave Long that guy at gaf with the ridiculous avatar of the asian guy getting his cock bit?
-
Is Dave Long that guy at gaf with the ridiculous avatar of the asian cock getting his cock bit?
yeah. I've always wondered if that's him or some ridiculous 90s Genesis ad.
the qt3 thread is kinda sad. only that bill guy got trolled. otherwise, they're all too intelligent to provide real flamebait. I think they may have educations and lives.
Elliot's response was a bit saddening too, like he's aware of the reality that game journos are just above Gamestop employees and QA testers. Now I feel bad :lol
-
on gfw radio Shawn seemed to made it clear that he didn't think there was really such a thing is game journalism and referred to himself and others and enthusiast press
-
Enthusiast press seems accurate. I guess what I'm saying with the criticism thing is that's something that they should perform beyond mere buyers-guide reviews.
Drinky probably fast forwarded through that part of the podcast(s). To him they're the self-proclaimed literati.
-
They don't seem very enthusiastic about games, though. Nitpicking and fault-finding isn't enthusiasm, it's, well, nitpicking and fault-finding.
-
wrong thread lol, nothing to see here
-
The thing I always liked about Shawn is that he didn't take himself too seriously and he knew his place. The same was true with Jeff Green and the rest of the GFW crew. That's why he didn't fit in with 1up Yours.
-
plus he hated shit like CONFIRMED and FAIL
you could almost hear him flinch whenever some messageboard jenkem was spoken
-
There's some fairly obvious proof that Prole's troll at Qt3 was a failure by his own standards: Dave Long agreed with him. Prole would never want that outcome in one of his threads.
it's failure overall because the phrase "self-titled literati" was a stupid choice of words, which is why i shouldn't argue on the interwebs and play persona 4 at the same time -- but i just can't imagine the internet being so important that i'd stop jerking off to teddie. they're nitpicky enough to pick up on my slip-up, and they're smart enough to realize it wasn't contextually validated. i am disappointed in myself, although i got almost 10 pages out of it and a LOT of defensive posturing, which means insecurities were clearly in play and thus i was definitely onto something. (you can almost always shut me down in 1: "we don't care, dork.") opportunity: squandered. ah well. can't rock 'em all! onward and upward.
that said, i made bill flinch a bit, and i always like deflating the old omm forum crowd just to remind them they don't have the market cornered on old-school flaming.
-
They don't seem very enthusiastic about games, though. Nitpicking and fault-finding isn't enthusiasm, it's, well, nitpicking and fault-finding.
I think that has to do with the enthusiasts being nerds, not that they aren't enthusiastic for games.
-
http://shawnelliott.blogspot.com/2008/12/symposium-part-one-review-scores.html
16000 words of . . . something. Including Prole idol Tom Chick!
-
http://shawnelliott.blogspot.com/2008/12/symposium-part-one-review-scores.html
16000 words of . . . something. Including Prole idol Tom Chick!
I really tried to start reading it. Robert Ashley's bit was okay because I generally like him, though it's the same old story (reviewer stops reviewing games, falls in love with games again). The rest of the first couple thousand words is a pretentious gobbylagook that's an absolute chore to read. These guys need editors. Badly. At least Gerstmann sounds the least pretentious of the lot and knows his place, who his reviews serve, and why people read them.
The worst part is that I just wasted 5 minutes reading something that gave me absolutely zero insight into the topic. Isn't the whole point to learn something?
-
I'll probably print this out and read it as I poop
I did check out what Tom Chick wrote in the first section since he always confused me a bit in his approach, but it is basically what I assumed. He's the type of guy who believes that since people can't avoid the expectations and hype, they should embrace it. Kind of shows with no hyped games making his top list.
-
I'll probably print this out and read it as I poop
I did check out what Tom Chick wrote in the first section since he always confused me a bit in his approach, but it is basically what I assumed. He's the type of guy who believes that since people can't avoid the expectations and hype, they should embrace it. Kind of shows with no hyped games making his top list.
It's just as bad if you let "hype" affect you positively or negatively. Both are unavoidable since we're all human.
-
that was a lot of prose to say a few things everyone with an attention span beyond that of the average gaffer already knew. yadda yadda we're not in bed with the publishers; whoa hey scores make for bad intarweb dialogue; argh i can't assign a score to something subjective. SNOOOOOORE.
again, my challenge to them stands: review "nightmare of druaga" honestly. it's not a great roguelike, but i doubt any of them can articulate why. if one of them succeeds, it will be through dedicated research and an attempt to understand a game in a genre no-one plays, and in the process of self-discovery they might realize why their readers consistently mistrust them.
-
I'm not saying it's a negative or positive thing he's doing. Actually it's worse to let the hype affect you since you get 10/10 for a name (GTA4) rather than the actual game.
-
aaaand like i said -- trollishly -- in the qt3 thread, they're ignoring the obvious pink elephant in the room: that nobody trusts videogame reviewers, given the gross inconsistency of their standards. oh, maybe we kinda sorta trust the regular byline, but we as readers inevitably turn to suspicions of bias and politics because we can't fathom why else the greater body of writers are so fucking AWFUL at reviewing, well, everything. it's not even about scoring; it's about not being able to articulate WHY they love gta4 despite the glaring flaws, and why they can't meaningfully discuss dynasty warriors despite the game being very mechanically sound to a LOT of gamers. why should i listen to anyone who can't get the basics right?
-
No, they do talk about whats good in these games. They just use non-descriptive words like 'heart' to describe, uh, something.
-
aaaand like i said -- trollishly -- in the qt3 thread, they're ignoring the obvious pink elephant in the room: that nobody trusts videogame reviewers, given the gross inconsistency of their standards.
I brought this up on the gaf thread about this too. It has been impossible for years to get good reviews of wargames or flight/naval sims , and now even RTS , RPG, and mainstream turn-based strategy (niche TBS has been bad for a long time) reviews are going right into the dumpster. I don't even know what audience they are trying to review the game for, nor does it ever appear that they've spent enough time to cogently evaluate-or hell, sometimes even identify-the main features of the product.
I remember reading the (few) reviews for Kharkov: Disaster on the Donets, EU3: In Nomine, and Birth of America 2 earlier this year. It was a nightmare, no one bothered to step back and review the games for the kind of people that would actually be interested in playing them.
-
I have to admit that their shit viewpoints about Dynasty Warriors made me discredit a lot of reviewers. Its so blatantly obvious about what games they actually played vs. what games they dicked around with in the Free Mode for 15 minutes for some screen and video grabs and called it a day. Like I said, if a reviewer hates the genre, hand it off to someone else or just don't review it. That or suck it up and play it. People will tend to notice a shitty review far more than if the game were never reviewed in the first place.
GTA4 got those scores because its all about the hits. Either give GTA4 a 9.5+ or face piles of hate mail. Only it turned out GTA4 was an 8 game at best and now a lot of the reviewers are just as fucked now. I liked Gerstmann's reviews because often times they withstood the test of time (most important). Twilight Princess really was an 8.8 game and not the 9.5+ that reviewers creamed their panties over. Not a shock, after reading that link, Gerstmann had some of the best viewpoints there.
Of course, this is just all my out of the ass assumptions here but reviewers need to restore credibility by actually reviewing instead of pimping their personalities out on a podcast. It's fine if you can pimp your personality and review games well but if you can't do both, you should focus on the latter.
-
aaaand like i said -- trollishly -- in the qt3 thread, they're ignoring the obvious pink elephant in the room: that nobody trusts videogame reviewers, given the gross inconsistency of their standards.
I brought this up on the gaf thread about this too. It has been impossible for years to get good reviews of wargames or flight/naval sims , and now even RTS , RPG, and mainstream turn-based strategy (niche TBS has been bad for a long time) reviews are going right into the dumpster. I don't even know what audience they are trying to review the game for, nor does it ever appear that they've spent enough time to cogently evaluate-or hell, sometimes even identify-the main features of the product.
I remember reading the (few) reviews for Kharkov: Disaster on the Donets, EU3: In Nomine, and Birth of America 2 earlier this year. It was a nightmare, no one bothered to step back and review the games for the kind of people that would actually be interested in playing them.
Or witness IGN's now-legendary Soccer Club Manager review. It's like watching Spellbound and complaining there was no CG.
-
aaaand like i said -- trollishly -- in the qt3 thread, they're ignoring the obvious pink elephant in the room: that nobody trusts videogame reviewers, given the gross inconsistency of their standards. oh, maybe we kinda sorta trust the regular byline, but we as readers inevitably turn to suspicions of bias and politics because we can't fathom why else the greater body of writers are so fucking AWFUL at reviewing, well, everything. it's not even about scoring; it's about not being able to articulate WHY they love gta4 despite the glaring flaws, and why they can't meaningfully discuss dynasty warriors despite the game being very mechanically sound to a LOT of gamers. why should i listen to anyone who can't get the basics right?
You're giving way too much credit to the typical, mildly informed gamer. My real-life friends who play games are mostly intelligent, talented people who really do enjoy the hobby, but don't spend nearly as much time reading about them and discussing them as most of us here would. And you know what? They all pretty much only read IGN and trust their reviews. They don't know or care who's writing the reviews. I'm not even sure they read the text. But they sure as hell look at the scores.
The average person doesn't want a detailed, heavily-researched critique that you and I might enjoy (though I doubt it). We're an EXTREMELY small subset of the industry that likely couldn't sustain any publication or website where people actually get paid to do what you want them to do.
-
very, very true. :'(
-
This is all moot. I can't think of a single person irl that seeks out reviews/grades for any form of media, even my gamer co-workers. People buy what interests them, stick with what they like and word of mouth does the rest. Preferably, games coverage would just talk about everything except an arbitrary opinion tacked on to the final product. Ive encountered many games with shitty reviews whereas I found a facet of the game that clicked with me. The opposite holds true as well. So now I'm going to rent what looks interesting and decide whether or not I could see myself sticking with it. Its up to clever marketing and consistent delivery of whatever appeals to the intended audience to carry a franchise.
Edge rocks though. They have the occassional misstep but theyre good at explaining whether a game succeeds on its own merits.
I wish they would forgo scores again.
-
aaaand like i said -- trollishly -- in the qt3 thread, they're ignoring the obvious pink elephant in the room: that nobody trusts videogame reviewers, given the gross inconsistency of their standards. oh, maybe we kinda sorta trust the regular byline, but we as readers inevitably turn to suspicions of bias and politics because we can't fathom why else the greater body of writers are so fucking AWFUL at reviewing, well, everything. it's not even about scoring; it's about not being able to articulate WHY they love gta4 despite the glaring flaws, and why they can't meaningfully discuss dynasty warriors despite the game being very mechanically sound to a LOT of gamers. why should i listen to anyone who can't get the basics right?
You're giving way too much credit to the typical, mildly informed gamer. My real-life friends who play games are mostly intelligent, talented people who really do enjoy the hobby, but don't spend nearly as much time reading about them and discussing them as most of us here would. And you know what? They all pretty much only read IGN and trust their reviews. They don't know or care who's writing the reviews. I'm not even sure they read the text. But they sure as hell look at the scores.
The average person doesn't want a detailed, heavily-researched critique that you and I might enjoy (though I doubt it). We're an EXTREMELY small subset of the industry that likely couldn't sustain any publication or website where people actually get paid to do what you want them to do.
that's a fucking good point. But still doesn't excuse some of the awful reviews they've pulled out before. Fight and Heal never forget, and that's just off the top of my head. The problem here is that these game reviewers are having a big symposium about various issues related to the trade, without questioning their own reviews and their own peers. If they want to be taken seriously, I think they should flat out admit first hand that the actual level of critique in the medium is just flat out bad. I just want them to bring up the inconsistencies in their reviews; Ultimate Ghouls and Ghosts is slammed for being too hard, Mega Man 9 is seen a ray of sunshine; Lost Odyssey and Mass Effect have really weird technical issues, The Last Remnant is slammed by the press, mostly for the same reasons as Mass Effect and LO, when the gaming community thinks it's pretty good; Blue Dragon is -- from my memory -- treated like a rabid dog ready to kill for being too easy, too kiddy when Poke'mon is one of the best reviewed game series am I correct? Dynasty Warriors are said to be too same-y, too repetitive, too many games ;etc on top of being released annually while the Tom Clancy's, the Call of Duty's, the Madden's get a free pass. There's very little reason for a subset of people to trust these reviewers and they are not doing their jobs. Yes, we are a small subset of people, but readers nonetheless and the writers should cater to all readership, I think.
I admire their willingness to talk these things out and discuss them, but in some areas of the field it seems like they're tip-toeing around one big area that -- and this just me personally -- feel is important in this whole order of business. If they would address the things I described above I say this would be pretty damn interesting and good for the industry and faithful.
That said, I look forward to seeing how this thing grows. Who knows what we'll see regarding the next subject. But in the end, the whole symposium feels pointless, as novel an idea as it seems.
-
They don't give a shit about any of that. What they care about is generating enough buzz so someone else (Microsoft, EA, etc.) can scoop them up down the road. Which is why many are all about the status quo but makes sure that their personality quirks are in every review, every forum post, and every podcast.
-
I swear I read an awful review in EGM once circa 2003 where the reviewer kept on and on about the japanese rpg genre and even admitted not liking the genre, but still reviewed a perfectly good game, only to shun it. I forgot the title and I'm too lazy to go through old EGM's but maybe someone probably knows what I'm referring to.
Wait, didn't the guy compare the entire game to Final Fantasy Tactics and then, in the end, give it a bad score? It was basically,"This game isn't FFT lol 6.8"
-
I swear I read an awful review in EGM once circa 2003 where the reviewer kept on and on about the japanese rpg genre and even admitted not liking the genre, but still reviewed a perfectly good game, only to shun it. I forgot the title and I'm too lazy to go through old EGM's but maybe someone probably knows what I'm referring to.
I'm not convinced there is such thing as a "good game" in that genre.
-
But then you're stupid, so it all evens out.
-
Hey man, I'm sure the genre is fuck awesome if you like crap. I prefer good games.
-
There is no bad genre. Only ignorant fuck wits think otherwise. There's something good in every genre. You just lack the taste to find it. Go back and play Uncharted.
-
Hey man, I'm sure the genre is fuck awesome if you like crap. I prefer good games.
I've only been here a few weeks and some of your shit is already getting tired.
-
Hey man, I'm sure the genre is fuck awesome if you like crap. I prefer good games.
I've only been here a few weeks and some of your shit is already getting tired.
I'd be moody too if I single handedly ruined Free Radical
-
Hey man, I'm sure the genre is fuck awesome if you like crap. I prefer good games.
I've only been here a few weeks and some of your shit is already getting tired.
Just put me on ignore and go back to nerding it out with your bullet lists and Nielsen links out.
-
Hey man, I'm sure the genre is fuck awesome if you like crap. I prefer good games.
Strong words for someone who hasn't played any RPG other than 5 minutes of Lost Odyssey.
-
Hey man, I'm sure the genre is fuck awesome if you like crap. I prefer good games.
Strong words for someone who hasn't played any RPG other than 5 minutes of Lost Odyssey.
At this point, I just kind of have a mental picture of duckman that consists of shit spewing out of his mouth whenever he so much as cracks his lips open.