EDITORIAL: Blogging Down The House - Who's Zooming Who?
March 13, 2006 5:12 AM | Simon Carless
So, video game blog Kotaku has a new feature up, named 'Blogging Down The House', that apparently heralds a new 'Preview Ho of the Month' feature on the website, which will be "a compilation of the most egregious, blatant promotion for unreleased games from across the gaming press", announced in a feature that begins: "Why do games, for the most part, unrelentingly suck such ass?"
The article's author, Wagner James Au, is a former in-house and current out-of-house blogger for 'virtual world' Second Life, and is, to be honest, a bit of a long-time critic of the mainstream game biz. In reviewing E3 2001 for Salon, he suggested that the game business was "still grossly unprepared for the mainstream, a disreputably grab-ass, twerpy adjunct to the real media." Even more stridently, in a follow-up article on the Columbine massacre for Salon in 1999, he stoked the game violence connection quite ably by suggesting: "Knowing the dark urges these games evoke in me, I can easily picture Klebold, Harris and all their pathetically savage predecessors, slack-jawed before their PCs and game consoles, misappropriating them to dress-rehearse the revenge melodrama they've already scripted in their heads." Nice.
Now, I've already mailed Au to point out that Dan Hsu's previously GSW-referenced rant on magazines trading ad space for reviews was published in EGM, despite him saying that it "didn’t show up in game magazines", and honestly, I think major Slashdot threads and a massive 78-comment VGMWatch thread about the story doesn't qualify for making it something that "most of the gaming press cravenly failed to follow up on."
But, putting aside that story, and bearing in mind that I may be more of a 'glass half-full' guy than Au, here's the important point. I have the April 2006 issue of Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine here next to me, and sorry - the previews just aren't "groveling" or "hyping crap". For Midway's Stranglehold, for example, the most judgmental line I can find is: "Besides the Hollywood treatment, the core game will be third-person action title, replete with guns, bullet time... and even vehicles." That's a description, not a rave. And we at GSW recently discussed how video game magazines genuinely seem to be evolving, as more mature gamers demand more considered, expansive editorial.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't video game previews, or even reviews, that aren't off-base. Everyone makes mistakes, as Au himself admits. But in suggesting that: "Bloggers have transformed the mainstream media... US politics... and Hollywood... It is time for blogs to do the same thing for the game industry, breaking the closed circuit of suck once and for all", this is where Au loses me.
Attacking the integrity of video game journalists will not magically make video games 'better', in some kind of tremendous cacophonous upswell. Here's the truth of the matter - good game writing is out there, and video game creativity and innovation will continue to exist, both on the risk-happy indie game scene, and even in many mainstream games, despite the financial factors which favor risk aversion - as a random example, try the analog punch controls in Fight Night Round 3. With the genesis of aggregated game rankings and the Internet, previews surely aren't the root of all evil when it comes to misguided buying decisions.
And, since I feel Au is picking up on a larger trend, there is no absolute death of creativity to go alongside the industry's financial issues right now - there wasn't in 1983, and there wasn't in 1994/5, and there isn't now. In fact, we should be criticizing constructively, as we also try to do on sister pubs Gamasutra and Game Developer magazine, and helping to meld a better industry through coherent discussion.
My view is that we should collectively be highlighting intelligent writing from Computer Games Magazine, The Escapist, OPM and the multitude of online sources that GameSetWatch covers daily, and helping to break indie and mainstream games that startle and innovate, rather than finding a different shaped stick to bash game journos (and, by inference, the game industry) over the head with. Sure, it's not perfect out there, but isn't it more fun to try to build the new world together than to break the existing one down for no good reason?
[UPDATE: Over at QT3, Tom Chick has a slightly different rebuttal, suggesting: 'I never thought I'd say this, but Wagner James Au has a point. It's not a very good point. And it's not particularly well thought out. In fact, I'm not even sure it's the point he's trying to make.']
Categories:
9 Comments
I don't have the April edition of the Official US Playstation magazine in my hands, though I do happen to be holding the one from March. The first preview is for Kingdom Hearts II and is a step-by-step description of the gameplay that is entirely indistinguishable from the copy you'd read from the game's manual or official walkthrough, and has, of course, not the slightest critical comment. The second preview is for Metal Gear Acid and again comes with not even a whisper of criticism, but does make sure to say that "first impressions are good", and that it has "fun, addictiveness, humor... nicely done". These are words with which retailers reserve shelf space.
Sure you're reading your copy close enough?
W. James Au | March 13, 2006 12:52 AM
Didn't see anything like this in the April issue, but I'm guessing the OPSM preview of Kingdom Hearts II was based on the final Japanese version of the game, which was released in Japan in December.
Given that this is an iterative sequel to a game that was already fun and well-received in its first iteration (as, indeed, is Metal Gear Acid 2), it's hard to see how there's any unrelenting suckage there. I really think these are both bad examples.
I guess I get excited by screenshots and information about games based on prior track record of the developer and watching movies - I don't feel unduly guided by journalists. Maybe I'm in the minority.
Also, Official PlayStation Magazine does have playable demos of most titles shipping with it, so that seems to go against the concept that they're trying to hide something.
simonc | March 13, 2006 6:47 AM
Wagner, your OPM rebuttle would be a little more valid (in my eyes) if KHII and Metal Gear Acid 2 weren't generally seen as being good games.
Justin Davis | March 13, 2006 10:01 AM
It's the "official" magazine. Wrap your mind around that journalistic conundrum before you start parsing the text.
Troy Goodfellow | March 13, 2006 10:17 AM
James, isn't "a step-by-step description of the gameplay" that has "not the slightest critical comment" pretty much exactly what a preview of an unfinished game should be? That is, isn't unbridled criticism as unhelpful to the reader as unbridled praise?
Ideally (and understand that I'm well aware that no outlet, including OPM, hits this ideal all the time), a preview should be straight reportage: "This is what you can expect from the game." The fundamental problem with too much praise or too much criticism is that the game isn't finished. And so any judgement the writer levels against the game can be misleading.
Ultimately, the point of a game preview is to impart information. Now, of course, if the game truly is really exceptional -- or seriously flawed -- in its preview form, that's information that might be important for the reader to know. But in the vast majority of cases, hunting down and reporting flaws in preview code is as unproductive, unhelpful -- and potentially, seriously misleading -- as the game-praise circle-jerk you rightly criticize in your piece.
Again, I know very well that no one's hitting this ideal with every preview. There's always room for improvement, and your post does certainly help remind all of us in the media to keep such things in check. But, man -- go back and read issues of any game mag from about 10 years ago and you'll see how far the games media has come.
Joe Rybicki | March 13, 2006 10:25 AM
The thing about previews is that when you're basing your article on an unfinished version, you know that the bad things may be improved, while the good things will probably stay as they are. So if a game is fun at the preview stage, it's probably going to be fun when it goes gold as well, so it's safe to say so. The problems can and in most cases should, wait for the actual review.
Ofcourse there are times when problems are so obvious that they should be mentioned, and in those cases, they usually are (at least in the publications I read).
fluffy bunny | March 13, 2006 12:27 PM
Well said. I'm also disappointed by Au's comments, which though grounded in some measure of truth are unfortunately awash in self-righteous hyperbole and hype. With the advent of this "Preview Ho" feature Kotaku seems content to establish itself as just another shrill, cynical website instead of the thoughtful, reputable, independent voice it could be. Definitely not a step in the right direction.
Adam LaMosca | March 13, 2006 2:34 PM
i've probably said this too many times before (whenever kotaku gets mentioned), but i stopped reading it because it's like the tabloid paper of game blogs.
nick botulism | March 13, 2006 2:35 PM
Since I can't comment at Kotaku...
"It is time for blogs to do the same thing for the game industry, breaking the closed circuit of suck once and for all"
As a blogger, I'm not sure I'm ready for the responsibility. As a freelancer for the gaming MSM, I'm not sure what the hell this is supposed to mean.
The "closed circuit of suck"?
Blogging hasn't changed Hollywood, and has only changed politics because, you know, it really matters.
And I doubt that passing out Preview Ho Awards will do anything more than invite further ridicule on Kotaku. Now pointing out preview hype - before the fact - that can be useful. But if they actually start handing out awards with Ho in the title...classy guys.
And furthermore, games do not "unrelentingly suck ass"...yet another deft turn of phrase. There is no shortage of great gaming experiences out there whether it be indie, large commercial or casual.
If you can look at the games released in the last five or six months and not find something to be happy about, there's just no way for you to be happy.
Troy Goodfellow | March 13, 2006 3:49 PM