Looking for Lester Bangs

Here's another article lamenting the lack of, in this case, The Lester Bangs of videogames.

Hate to break it to you, but Lester Bangs is dead. He died in 1982. When he was alive, Rolling Stone hadn't become the boob-laden commercialized sad rag it is now with an endless parade of one-hit wonders and Britney Spears clones on the covers. The Ramones were still playing. And alive.

Maybe there is no Lester Bangs of videogames because there's no Lester Bangs of ANY medium. Not anymore.

But let's dissect the article a little more. It's very easy to say there's no Big Important Critic of videogames when videogames themselves are not as big as films or music. You simply don't get famous writing about videogames. Because if you did, surely Chuck at Esquire would have known about Clive at Wired, who wrote a review recently of Jaws Unleashed that began:

The bikini-clad swimmers have no clue what's coming.

Deep beneath the surface of the water, I glide like a cruise missile of death, quietly circling my prey and picking my angle of attack. Then I sense an opening and bam: I shoot upward, sink my teeth into one wriggling leg, and begin ripping my prey back and forth. Blood mixes with the frothy water-bubbles as the shrieking begins, and pretty soon I'm snacking on yet another resident -- oops, former resident -- of Amity Island.

He also apparently doesn't know about the whole movement under the unfortunate moniker "New Games Journalism" and all its practioners who, although you may argue over the legitimacy of their project, do in fact attempt exactly what Klosterman longs for.

The problem is, no one really cares for the stuff beyond a small group of like-minded folks who are mainly writers and developers. Gamers, for the most part, don't care to read about how a game makes you feel. Without an audience, fine writers who style themselves critics languish unread on blogs or in tiny niche websites.

But I also think he's misunderstanding what videogames are. Klosterman quotes Steven Johnson saying that videogames are more like architecture, which is a very interesting point (and when was the last time you read architecture criticism in a magazine?). But Klosterman confuses architecture with action:

But there's one (rather obvious) difference between architecture and video games: Architecture is static. I live in a building that has fourteen floors, and that's always true. I can't manipulate the floor plan of my apart¬ment or the number of bricks in the wall. What makes video-game criticism complex is that the action is almost never static. Unlike a film director or a recording artist, the game designer forfeits all autonomy over his creation—he can't dictate the emotions or motives of the characters. Every player invents the future.

Uh... yeah, sort of. But outside of a play space like Second Life, actually, no player invents anything; she merely determines the sequence of certain events, and sometimes, the quality of those events. It's a very limited sort of freedom. The architecture that Johnson's talking about is the very code of the game, which is identical for everyone. We have different reactions to it, sure, but then, we have different reactions to films as well.

The difference really is why we want to read about certain writers' reactions to films but not about their reactions to games. So the answer is, there is a Lester Bangs, there are probably hundreds of them, but no one gives a shit.

Comments

[T. Holbrook Walker]

Threefold amen to that, sister.

[greggman]

Is this more a chicken and the egg thing? I enjoy reading Roger Ebert's movie reviews. Even if he doesn't like the same movies I like he's got such an extenstive knowledge of movies that he almost always points out something I hadn't throught about.

On top of that, being that he's seen so many movies he often notices the true flaws. Something that a fan like me or someone with less movies behind them might miss.

Are there ANY game critics that do this? I've never read one. Not on 1up, not Gamespot, not IGN, not even GameCritiques. The people that review games are fans. They almost always have no clue what it takes to make a game so they get awed by total BS and hype from the developers or publishers or their own fandom.

I've thought about starting a website, hardcoregamecritics.com or something like that were game reviews are required to actually be "crtical". Where you can point out a flaw or a great part but it's got to be backed up with well thought out arguements and not just "that totally rocks dude!" or "that suxor" attitude lurking behind most current game reviews.

Would anyone give a shit? Well, maybe not at first but I happen to think with some persistence quality game critism would actually have an audience.

[Tetsuo]

I think it's less that there needs to be a Lester Bangs of videogaming and more that there needs to be a Roger Ebert; what we need is a small group of critics, known and respected for their views, to rise. For too long the gaming media has essentially been full of interchangeable, faceless reviewers. Ask anyone not directly involved with games journalism to name, say, three reviewers of games on any platform, in any medium, and odds are good you won't get shit. I think the rise of podcasting is helping this, though - like the guys said on the latest 1up Yours, using audio and video helps inject more personality and emotion into it, and helps you get to know the people involved better. I'm starting to believe the Next Big Thing in games journalism isn't going to be in any of the traditional media - I think they're going to rise through podcasting or video podcasting. They could, can, and will still work in traditional media, but the identity will come through those other channels.

As for gamers not wanting to read about the emotional side - I think that's just because it's something totally new. It's a big adjustment. And virtually every big outlet that's tried it has pussied out far too quickly for anyone to get used to it.

[Troy Goodfellow]

"I think they're going to rise through podcasting or video podcasting."

If so, it will be a while. I have yet to find a podcast or even videocast that is compelling enough to make regular listening. (No offense intended to the 1up videocast, of course.) At this point podcasts are set up more like casual chats than anything else, so there is little room for much light and less room for heat. And videocasts try to cover too much with too many people. (Bangs was as much about self-promotion as anything else.)

Another thing standing in the way of getting a Lester Bangs is that there is no "go to" media outlet for gaming news and insight. The internet has let a thousand flowers bloom, so there are too many voices saying the same thing.

Too few outlets privilege feature stories or editorials over reviews and previews, further cementing the customer service journalism that permeates the field.

If we want a watershed journalist, we may only notice them in retrospect. There are a half-dozen writers, I think, who can make even a review of an average game interesting and can use them to say interesting things about game design. (I won't name names - yet - to avoid leaving out someone I work with.) Maybe in five years we'll look back on the Pinckard era.

[Frank Lantz]

Erik Wolpaw.