gamegirladvance

Summing up Game Journalism

Amit sums it all up to tell you why your game magazine sucks. He acknowledges that a lot of people have said this all before, and we've been saying it since, oh, 1999? At least? The real question is, why do we still have to say it?

I think though that more than just pointing out what's wrong and spiraling us into a pit of despair, some of his bullets are constructive. Take number three, for example. "You've lost the hardcore gamer. This is a good thing." Yes, that's right. You'll never be hardcore enough for the hardcore, anyway. They need too much information, too fast - and as Amit points out, the best delivery system for that is online. But that's fine. Your mainstream gamers what more than tips, tricks, cheat codes, standard reviews (ah, see also, number five: "Your reviews are boring.") We read books, we see movies, we think about games. We could use at least one RES of games.

And what about aesthetics? Amit forgot to mention that most game magazines look the same - terrifically noisy, with a cartoon character on the cover drowning under neon-colored bubble text. Is this going to make the average 28-year-old gamer, male or female, feel smart for buying it? Is this going to be the irresistable candy that lures the subscribers?

But we all know this, already. So many of you readers and my colleagues have complained about these very issues. I tried last year to start a new games magazine - it didn't get far, as we foundered on getting funding and our total inexperience, and got seriously tangled in priorities. It was a crushing experience. But I've recovered now, and the engine's warming up, and I've got new ideas and new strategies. Who's with me? Damn it, when are we going to stop talking and make it happen?

I'm tired of waiting. What about you?

Mao and the New Games Journalism

You may remember early Christian game reviews. Endless rants against every game that came out for either being too violent, or having less Jesus than a Jack Chick comic. While this sub-community has matured in recent years to more coherent review methods, I invite you to revisit the glory days of weird-ass reviews. Stand and bear witness to Maoist game reviews.

Unfortunately, these guys haven't been keeping their reviews up to date, but they cover some of the classic PC games from 3-5 years ago. From the review of Fallout 1 & 2:

"...in the opinion of this reviewer, Fallout is more of a Maoist Role Playing Game than "linear" RPGs such as Myst. Just like there are many roads to socialism, where some are better than others and some are false turns, the player in Fallout will discover ways to do much better or play the game from an entirely different perspective the second, third, and further times through the game."

Business: it's just a game.

Yesterday I heard a story on NPR Marketplace about a new book, Got Game, from Mitchell Wade and John C. Beck.(Note to future game-technology authors: please please please come up with new catch phrases for titles. Don't try to be cute. It's all been done.) In a brief interview, Wade talked about how video game training has influenced the next generation of business people and entrepreneurs. Some of his research sounds interesting and worthy of further investigation. For example, game-raised workers exhibit:

1. Willingness to take measured risks - gamers learn this innately long before they get to business school.

2. Different way of interacting with others. For example, less respect for hierarchy and seniority. In game world, anyone can be beaten by a 12-year-old. Gamers tend to respect ability, not seniority.

3. Seriousness about expertise, and being rewarded for that expertise. No matter how many times you fail in a game, if you REALLY want it, you CAN beat it. No doubt a helpful attitude in business.

One other thing Wade emphasized was that these characteristics were found in their research pool regardless of whether the subjects play games currently; the important thing for the data seems to be that they had played games.

Public Beta

More evidence of the emergence of mid-to-high brow gaming criticism, Public Beta out of the UK. Looks like they have a magazine and a book in the offing.

They're launching their effort with a call for answers to "difficult questions about video games" - belyingly basic stuff. "What is a videogame?" and "What makes a video game rubbish?" and "Where do you play games?" I'm going to take a stab at answering; mostly because I like to see new efforts to frame this medium. And it's a chance to frame a self-portrait as gamer. The call for answers is open; you can download a sheet in the right column and give their questions a stab yourself.

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Interactive Fiction

Andrew Vestal and Nich Maragos have written a delightfully engaging, mind-bogglingly thorough piece on interactive fiction on 1up. Bill Mackenty, who sent it to me, noted that it was the best treatment he'd seen in years, and I have to agree. It's long, but worth reading every word.

Critic Critique

Every once in a while, somebody at GGA likes to talk about the lack of quality writing in game reviews. Call it payola. Call it 8-out-of-10 syndrome. Call it the collective identity-loss within the critical community in general.

All of this making even more remarkable David Smith's review of Manhunt at 1up.com.

From the opening of the review:

My experience with Manhunt progressed through four distinct stages, and instead of ticking off the usual bullet points about graphics, sound, control, and the like, I'd rather just describe those stages in sequence. It makes it easier to explain what Manhunt does well, and to explain the point at which I think it ultimately fails.

So my next question for all of you is, is this a step in the right direction when compared to the usual technical rundown?

Room to Play

I never mentioned it before, because I was overloaded with stuff at the time I think, but I contributed an editorial article to Insert Credit a little while ago, called Room to Play.

I'm sure you've all seen Insert Credit. If you haven't, you should check it out. Lots of smart, and smart-ass, writing.

Unprofessional Video Game Writing

As an occasionaly scuba diver with a passion for deep blue depths, I was eager to play EverBlue 2, a February 2003 PlayStation2 release from Capcom.

The game is an odd mix of console-style Japanese RPG and first person underwater exploration. Not poorly executed either! There are definitely some limitations on the "freedom" of swimming around underwater, and the game takes broad liberties with scuba diving. But the gameplay of searching out sunken wrecks, exploring and excavating them, and helping people on shore with lost items - it's all good times.

I wanted to review EverBlue 2, but I didn't want to review it in the context of being a video game, I wanted to review the game's capacity to reflect the experience of scuba diving.

I contacted Rodale's Scuba Diving magazine, a publication that concerns itself with hot diving spots and new rebreathers. I pitched them their first video game review.

Sunday Reading Material

Justin brought back a stack of magazines when he visited the Ziff-Davis offices last week, and they've been sitting on our dining room table taunting me: "Reeeead usssss, Jane!" So this morning I sat down with my toast and my coffee and started to go through them.

The first one I picked up was GameNow, described by Z-D as catering to "8-12 year olds who aspire to be 17." Justin pointed out that the cover for that market was a bit absurd: it shows a pendulous-breasted Taki fromSoul Calibur II, nipples clearly poking out through her leotard. Mmmmkay.

Anyhow, the inside was surprising, particularly the devastatingly honest review given to Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness by one Ethan Einhorn:

We waited three years for this?!! Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness must be the sloppiest major game release I've ever played. [Emphasis in original.] Everything - the framerate, the puzzles, the sound effects - is unacceptably coarse.

[He gives some examples of what he means, then goes on:] And those are just the little issues. More damning is the positively ancient control scheme. After playing such games as Metal Gear Solid 2 and Splinter Cell, Tomb Raider's traditional setup feels awful. I want real analog ontrol, not the three-speed approximation present here. Lara moves like a robot, and her imprecise jumps are guarranteed to throw you off cliffs. Being forced to save your game after every successful jump in a platform-filled cavern does not equal fun.

Final score: D-. As deserved.

Buzzcut Cometh

Ludology links us to buzzcut.com - a rich weblog covering theory and criticism of electronic entertainment. It's open to contributors; so far the content is a solo effort of David Thomas. Thomas has been reviewing games for the Denver Post for about four years. Looks like he's eager to use the web to chart his thoughts between reviews - his The Theology of Games post has a breezy tone somewhere between critic and lay-philosopher. He's published an extensive bibliography - cheers for more studied gameheads sharing their thoughts online!