Headline Headaches

Thanks to CNN's e-mail alert system for alerting me to a story by Marc Saltzman, a technolgoy freelancer for Gannett News Service. The story is headlined Expand games with music, video add-ons, which is a fine headline, as that is what the story is actually about. It's the sub-headline that confused me something awful:



Game console accessories can add depth to your game play. Add-on controllers make driving and flying games more realistic, and memory cards let you save games so you can continue your play later.



While these sentences are technically true, they have absolutely nothing to do with the article in question. The short article, which discusses the EyeToy and XBox Music Mixer, mentions nothing about steering wheels or flight joysticks. Saltzman does note that the PS2 memory card can be used to record short video messages with the EyeToy, but as far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with saving games "so you can continue to play later."



How does a headline like this get published? Did some mid-level editor simply do a google search for "video game accesories"and write a sub-headline based on the results? Is the editor being bought off by some maker of steering wheels and flight sticks that insisted he mention their products in his headline? Did he think that the fact that you need a memory card to save games nowadays was especially newsworthy?



None of these are very likely, but it's hard for me to picture any other way that a headline and a story could have so little to do with each other. I welcome your theories.

News-itorial alert: Andrew Burnes - Voodoo Extreme

Update (9:40 p.m. 12/10/03): Mr. Burnes has additional opinions to share now that Rockstar has reportedly agreed to take references to Haitians out of future copies of Vice City. According to Burnes' story, this development shows that, "hypocrisy and bandwagon bashing have gone too far." Thanks for the updating us on your feelings, Andrew.





Andrew Burnes has some strong feelings about those wacky Haitians who are up in arms about their portrayal in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I know this not because I read an editorial Burnes wrote, but because I read a "news" story that he wrote on the subject. Congratulations, Mr. Burnes, you've written a news-itorial.



From the article:



Colour and kreed should not matter, but they suddenly should once x is of the y community? Give me a break - should we now all go protest that you can kill white people in Vice City? Should Elvis impersonators protest because they were once killed in a Grand Theft Auto game? No, they shouldn't, and nor should the Haitian community. Repeat after me - it's a game [Cockney accent]you muppet[/Cockney accent].



The writer's opinion and views should not matter, but they suddenly should when you're writing about x instead of y? Give me a break - should we all go write our personal opinions into the end of all our news stories? Should game journalists be given free reign to editorialize because they once wrote a subjective game review? No, they shouldn't, and neither should Mr. Burnes. Repeat after me - it's a news story [Condescending accent]you muppet[/Condescending accent]



The Voodoo Extreme story is almost worse than the previously covered WCBS-TV report because the its editorializing is overt instead of hidden throughout. It just goes to show you that neither side of this argument is immune to biased reporting.

One sentence review of Spike TV's First Annual Video Game Awards

"If this is where the industry is headed, count me out/

out of service, out of Africa, I wouldn't hang about!"

[Adapted from Zazu in Disney's The Lion King]

Haitians protest game; blog protests coverage

Well, the flood gates are officially open on this one.



The gate-opener, by most accounts, is this WCBS-TV report that says "Shame on You" to Rockstar Games and their game, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, in which "players are instructed to exterminate an entire ethnic group," according to the report.



It's unclear whether the report started the flood of action we've seen recently or whether it simply helped fuel the debate. Regardless, protests outside New York's city hall and calls for a "boycott and legal action among some in the Haitian community are probably only the beginning of this story.



I'll get to the mainstream and specialist coverage of the events so far in a different post, but first let me air out a laundry list of problems I have with the original WCBS-TV report on the topic. Please read the transcript, or better yet watch the video of the report on their site before reading my comments:

• The first line of the report calls Grand Theft Auto: Vice City the "best-selling video game of all time." As far as I can tell, this is just an inexcusable factual error. The New York City Daily News puts Vice City's sales at "nine to ten million copies," putting it far behind even classic games like Super Mario Bros. 3 (which sold 17.28 million units according to Gamecubicle). The error was repeated in this Miami Herlad article which adds that the game grossed "more than $160 million even before it hit the stores, making it the best-selling game ever." This quote suggests that the Herald might be neglecting the difference between "fastest-selling" and "best-selling", which is an important distinction. To me, "best-selling" means that the game has sold the most units overall, regardless of time since release, while "fastest-selling" would mean that it sold the most in a specific time period (i.e. before release). This might seem like semantic nitpicking, but it shows a distinct lack of attention to detail on the part of both these reports.
  
  
• Early in the piece, Arnold Diaz says that the object of Vice City's is "to kill, kill again, then kill some more." Looking at it a different way, you could say the object was to "completely run the city," by buying businesses or "to do tasks around Vice City without getting caught or dying, as these two sites did. Heck, for most of the (admittedly brief) time I played the game, my object was to "escort passengers to their location in a stolen taxi." The alarmist, narrow description of such an open-ended game shows how little Mr. Diaz understands this game or this medium.
  
  
• It should also be noted that, if you stick to Vice City's mission objectives, then most of the violence is not "random and indiscriminate," as the report claims, but rather motivated by a struggle for power and profit in a town ruled by gang-warfare. It is up to the player whether or not to participate in indiscriminate killing, and the CBS report implies that this is not the case. The truth is that there is an important distinction between allowing players to kill random bystanders and requiring it, a distinction that is not even alluded to in the report.
  
  
• The interview with John Difenderfer was well done, but perhaps not indicative of the Vice City playing public in general. Difenderfer's quote saying that "you have to have a strong mind to be able to play this game and not want to go out and kill people," is especially suspect. A ridiculous majority of the ten million people who've bought the game must be extremely strong-minded, then, or they would all be gunning each other down in the street. A more discerning journalist probably would have filtered out such a quote. The report would also benefitted from comments from other gamers, or any indication that the reporter even talked to any other gamers in his reporting.
  
  
• As has been pointed out elsewhere, gamers in Vice City are not instructed "to exterminate an entire ethnic group," as WCBS-TV claims, but instead to take out a rival gang called "the Haitians." I will only add that Mr. Diaz should have become aware of this fact as he got "deeper into the game" to file his report.
  
  
• The characterization of Rockstar President Sam Houser as "hiding" is a bit much. If he refused to comment, say that he refused to comment. There's no need to go on and say that he is "refusing to speak with us at all, refusing to even acknowledge the community's concerns about the game." Sure, it's true, but it taints your coverage with a stench of bias that is hard to remove. The use of a picture that makes Houser look like a convicted felon does not help your case.
  
  
• The use of sources from the National Institute for Media and the Family and the Haitian Centers Council is a good start, but where are the sources on the other side of the issue? I understand Mr. Houser didn't speak with you (and that this might have hurt your feelings), but did you bother to look for anyone else to present a defense of the game? New York Newsday and The Miami Herald, among others, were able to find sources outside of Rockstar willing to defend the game, including other Vice City gamers. "It's not anti-Haitian. You join the Cuban gang to kill the Haitians, but after that you join the Haitian gang to kill the Cubans," an undidentified Vice-City-player in the Herald says. "It's like the movie Scarface. Did the Colombians sue Al Pacino after it came out?'' I can't imagine that there was no one in New York who could have given Mr. Diaz a similar comment to balance his coverage.

Maybe it's a bit much to expect objective reporting from a series entitled "Shame on You," but this report is so far from a fair and balanced look at the issue that it really troubles me. Am I being too extreme, or do you readers agree that the report was at worst horribly biased and at best terribly unbalanced? Feel free to leave your comments below.

Making the fun of a badness of English

Ombudsman reader Sam pointed me to an interesting post that recently went up on Insert Credit:



Our Final Fantasy 12 trailer has been removed. Why? Tim received this message from *name withheld* at Squenix:

"Please remove the movie from your sight as soon as possible. Otherwise, we Square Enix will proceed to the legal step."

Note: The original post had the name of the PR person.



Insert Credit complied with the request, which is obviously the right course of action here. But they also started a forum thread devoted to Photoshopped images that make fun of the Square/Enix representative's admittedly shaky English.



Sam asked me whether I though it was "good business for a 'journalistic' 'source' to openly mock a PR agent with a shaky grasp of English?" Frankly I'm wholly undecided on the issue. I think it's a tad insensitive, but I think it's pretty funny at the same time. So I'll open the issue up to the floor. Post your thoughts using the link below. Let's get some conversation going here.



Here's wishing a happy Thanksgiving to all my U.S. readers.

Responsible rumor-mongering

If you read any internet gaming message boards on the week leading up to Nov. 15, you probably read quite a few rumors about possible events by Microsoft and/or Bungie to celebrate the anniversary of the U.S. release of the XBox and Halo, respectively. You could also read these rumors on at least one respected video game news site, The Digital Gaming Network (TheDGN).



Between Nov. 8 and Nov. 12, TheDGN posted eight seperate stories about potential Nov. 15 surprises. All of these stories (except for one refutation: Bungie's Speaks Out) were rumors based on questionable, if not totally baseless, evidence. The stories discussed such possibilities as a secret release of Halo 2, the shipping of Halo 2 promotional materials, and the release of "Halo Deluxe featuring online play."



Every one of the stories ended up being false. According to TheDGN Deputy Editor David Allen said the whole thing was a hoax, "deliberately created by several people, although they did not neccessarily work together."



TheDGN Editor Mark Milian said that he does not regret posting the rumors. "Rumors are part of the entertainment industry, and I am confident that our educated readers understand that rumors are nothing more than unconfirmed buzz."



Believe it or not, I agree with him.



Usually, this would be an open-and-shut case for an intrepid ombudsman like me. I would shame the site for reporting on rumors without doing adequete reporting. say they deserved what they got and call it a day. But TheDGN's rumor-mongering is unusual for a few reasons. Consider this quote from a DGN story:



"we cannot confirm the following"



and this one: "this information should be taken with a grain of salt"



and this: "TheDGN strongly believes these pictures are fake."



and this: "we cannot guarentee that these images are genuine"



Quotes like these are part of what puts TheDGN's articles into the realm of responsible rumor-mongering.



Milian explained in an e-mail that he is fully aware of the dubious nature of many of TheDGN's stories, and he wants the audience to be aware of it too. "If a rumor is posted, it is always tagged as such; we never try to pass something that hasn't been confirmed as truth," he said. "We will always tell our readers up front whether a story is unconfirmed right away in the article." You'd be surprised how often this bit of basic journalism gets ignored by major video game news sites



Milian also noted that TheDGN actively tried to verify the rumors, rather than just forgetting about them after the post. "David Allan, one of our writers, was actually the first to expose that the [Nov. 15 commerical] pictures were doctored. I had contacted two Microsoft representatives and Microsoft's marketing representative, and all reports of the commercial's existance came back inconclusive." TheDGN posted numerous updates to stories when new information revealed them to be false, another important responsibility for any news site that wants to post rumors.



The staff at TheDGN also used their common sense to guide their editorial judgment, Allen said. "We noticed immediately, before posting the screens of the hoax commercial, that certain things looked wrong, such as the ESRB logo looked out of place and that the '11.05' numbers were clearly ripped from a poster for the Matrix Revolutions. As such we mentioned in the news post that we strongly believed the screens to be fakes." Filtering rumors through your own perception like this is an excellent way to give the readers some added value over simply being a rumor-passing mouthpiece.



So, to quickly review, there are three main things a news site has to do to responsbily post a story based on a rumor:

• Clearly tell the audience that the story is unconfirmed.
  
  
  
  
• Keep reporting on the story and post updates when new facts come to light and...
  
  
  
  
• Use your editorial judgment to determine whether the story seems credible or not.

"Reporting on rumors is one of the aspects TheDGN is known for," Millain said, and if they continue to do so is a responsbile manner, then I say more power to them.



Posts may slow down a bit as we head into the holiday (and final exam) season. I'll try to make it up to you readers in January, when winter break will free up my schedule.

Some quick links

Hello readers. Today's post is actually going to look more like a normal blog post than a long-winded essay that just happens to be on blogspot. I hope you don't mind.



First off, I'll put my money where my mouth is and point you to my coverage of Nintendo's College Media Day for the Diamondback. Now you can see for yourself whether my intergrity has been irreperably corrupted by piles of free merchandise. For comparison, also check out the coverage by The Oregon Daily Emerald and The Duke Chronicle, both of which focus on the event more than my Mario Kart preview.



Secondly, I highly reccomend the movie Shattered Glass to anyone reading this blog. It's a great cautionary tale on the dangers of plagiarism for any journalist (or aspiring journalist), and it's a very well-made movie to boot. Don't wait for the video; catch it while it's still in theatres.



Don't get too used to this format: next on the docket is a breakdown of the Halo 2 rumors that were flying all over the place last week. Expect the same long-winded analysis that has either made you enjoy this blog or made you stop reading by now.

The VG Ombudsman Gift Guide

No, that title doesn't mean I'll be telling you all what you should get for each other this holiday season (although I wouldn't mind an XBox if you're in the buying mood). Nope, this post is going to address how you should handle getting free stuff (like I got at Nintendo's recent College Media Day) without looking like a total sell-out.



As a foreword, please note that these are my personal views and rationalizations being put forth here. Some people may be much stricter than I am on this subject. Some more lax. Your moral code may vary. No guarantee of clear conscience is expressed or implied. No refunds after 90 days. etc...



That being said, I've divided "the guide" into a few sections, each of which I think should be treated differently. Let's start with:



Games/Consoles



This is probably the most important area of free stuff that video game journalists will encounter. It's also probably the trickiest to navigate. Some people get into this business for the sole purpose of being able to swim in large bins of free games and consoles. I know it might be hard for these people, but I highly reccomend that ou don't keep any games or consoles you didn't pay for.



The problem with taking ownership of a game you're given for free is that you are likely to judge it differently than a game you bought yourself or are just renting or borrowing. Regardless of how hard you try to remain objective, your mind automatically puts things that are free and that you plan to keep permanently in a different category with things that cost you money or that you are only keeping for a short time. It's much easier to say that a game you paid nothing for is worth owning than to say the same of a game you had to spend money on.



By agreeing not to keep of the game after you've reviewed it, you make it that much easier to be objective about it. You still didn't have to pay anything to play it, but you don't get any permanent value out of it (besides the opportunity to play and review it). By not keeping the game, it's easier to look at yourself as a detached observer rather than a game owner who has a vested interest in the game's quality. It will be easier for your readers to look at you this way too (and the perception of integrity you give your audience is just as important as the integrity you project on yourself).



What to do with the game after you're done reviewing it? Some newspapers and organizations will simply retain ownership of the discs, keeping them in their archives for future reference. Others give them away or sell them at fire sale prices to readers once a year (My college paper has a massive $1 per CD sale every May). If your paper or organization doesn't want to get involved, there are plenty of good charities that will take the games (I'll be giving my free Nintendo discs to Toys for Tots, personally.) Avoid the tempataion to sell the game to a consignment store; this will not only make you try to rush through the game to get the maximum secondhand value, but it may also give the game an artificial worth in your mind that it might not deserve.



Travel/Lodging



Another tricky one. In general, you have to weigh the importance of the event to your publication and your readers against the possibility of missing the event if you don't take the accomodations.



For example, let's say you live in San Diego and are asked to attend a lunch conference in Los Angeles. If you own a car, you can easily make it yourself, so there's no real risk of missing the event if you don't take a pre-paid flight that is offered by the conference holder. In this case, I would not take the travel accomodations and get there myself.



Let's instead say that you were expected to attend the same conference but had to travel from Massachusetts. Obviously, you can't simply drive there. First, see if your publication would be willing to pay for the travel costs. Ethically, this is usually the preferable solution over taking a free trip from a company you are supposed to be covering objectively, but many video game publications are not able to afford such luxuries.



Next, decide whether or not the expense of travel would be an undue burden for you to take on yourself. Be honest with yourself; if it's a $100 plane ticket and you will be making $500 for the article, it might be doable. If it's a $1,000 ticket and you are getting no money for the article, it might be unreasonable to expect you to pay your own way.



If you've gotten to this point, you have to judge whether the harm to your reputation from taking a free trip is greater than the harm to your readers by not covering the event. In most cases, the harm to your reputation won't be that great; most readers won't fault you for accepting a free trip to a corporate headquarters or a businesses press conference, for instance. If the trip is for a wild beach bash at a private Hawaiin villa, however, the perception may not be as rosy. The beach bash might not be as crucial a story for your readers as the press conference, either (even though it would probably be more fun for you, the journalist).



The best advice I can give here is to use your best judgement based on the facts of the trip.



Food/Drink



I'll divide this into two sub-categories: catered events for a large group and private meals with sources. In general, I feel you should accept free food at catered events and insist on paying when meeting privately with a source.



The main difference here is whether or not you are receiving preferential treatment (or perceived as receiving such). When you are at a large, catered event with many other journalists and/or businesspeople, you aren't being treated differently because of your stature as a journalist. Since everyone in the room is being given the same access to the food, your taking it doesn't set you apart. While it could be argued that accepting the food sets you apart from those journalists not invited to the event, you are often there to work the room and talk with as many people as poissible. Being sociable often involves accepting the offered food or drink to avoid looking rude. On the same token, though, don't stuff yourself with as much free food as you can stomach. Moderation in all things, of course.



With a private, one on one meal with a source, however, the situation is different. If you don't pay here, you are allowing the source to specifically attend to your needs and allow you to get off for free. Regardless of whether or not the source was trying (and/or succeeding) in currying your favor by paying, any outside observer will definitely get the perception be that you have been unduly influenced. If you insist on paying for yourself, you can still get the information you want from the source while keeping your integrity intact.



Clothes/Tchotchkes



Some very strict ethicists might refuse to accept things like an F-Zero T-shirt or a deck of Advance Wars 2 playing cards, but I am not among them. When I get a free T-shirt, all I'm thinking is that it's one less T-shirt I have to buy. I don't care about the comapny that paid for it, be it Nintendo, Mountain Dew, Reese's, Dell, etc. (I have shirts from all of these, BTW). Wearing an F-Zero shirt is unlikely to influence my impressions of the F-Zero game, even if it is a very high quality shirt.



The only exception to this policy is for official press events, such as E3, or other professional journalistic events. Wearing a free, company-sponsored T-shirt to these can come off as very unproffessional. Wearing them to work can similarly make you seem like a corporate shill to your co-workers (even if you aren't). Wait until your off day to enjoy the 100 percent cotton.



In the coming weeks I'll put together a synopsis of my impressions of how I was treated/handled by Nintendo's highly trained PR professionals. Until then, feel free to disagree with my rambling ethical rationalizations as much as you want in the comments thread.

The best headlines ever!

Actually, that headline is a bit misleading. This is actually a post about a couple of misleading headlines (audience: Oh, I get it. I just love witty meta-humor.)



Just a quick recap: A headline is misleading if it states or implies something that is refuted or not stated in the article. Now, let's get to it.



The first example is from Chris Morris' usually excellent Game Over column. His latest column is headlined "No More Mario?" a question that clearly implies further questions such as: Huh? Why would Nintendo decide to abandon its mascot of over 20 years? Has Nintendo finally given in and made Pikachu its mascot?



Hold tight, Pokemon fans, because those who read the article will find that Nintendo senior vice president George Harrison simply said that there may not be another Mario game for the GameCube. Note that he didn't even say this was definite. Morris paraphrases Harrison: "While a new Mario game for the GameCube is still a possibility, it's definitely not certain." So the answer to the headline's question of "No More Mario?" turns out to be, "Maybe not on the GameCube," instead of the bombshell many no doubt expected based on the headline: "Yes, Nintendo is done with Mario."



To be fair, the sub-headline does clarify by saying that, "Nintendo's plumber may be through with the GameCube," but even on the column's index page, most people will probably miss this smaller text and simply click on the the large bold lettering asking if Mario is no more.



My second example headline isn't quite as strong, but contains an incorrect implication nonetheless. The GameSpot story, headlined "Game gimmick in Japan takes sales skyward" implies that some new technology or delivery method is doing well, possibly better than expected. Reading the full article, however, reveals that the gimmick of selling a flight simulator game to passengers on Japanese flights does not start until Nov. 11, six days after the article was published. Unless they're talking about pre-sales (which the article does not even hint at), it's hard to believe that sales of this unreleased product are going "skyward."



Now I appreciate a good pun as much as anybody else (possibly more) and I realize the author of this headline was probably only trying to highlight the airborne nature of this new delivery gimmick with the "skyward" reference. But as it currently stands, the headline has a dual implication that misrepresents what the story actually says. A new healine such as "News sales gimmick set to take off" or, "New sales gimmick prepares for liftoff," keeps the pun while more accurately representing the story.



Since the headline and the article are often written by two different people, it's not surprising that they occasionally do not match up. But this doesn't mean you don't have to be careful of the message you send to your readers through the headline. The headline is a reader's first and sometimes only impression of an article, and if those few words aren't completely accurate, it can totally alter the reader's understanding of the subject. Don't count on the sub-headline or a story blurb to clarify for you; make sure someone who only reads the headline would have an accurate perception of the article's content.



I know some of you are waiting for my promised post about accepting gifts, and I promise it will be up by the week's end. It takes awhile to develop an entire ethical framework, and I want to make sure I do it justice. Until then, dear readers.

GameSpy Interviews Dungeons and Dreamers Authors

Wow, the free stuff post generated more discussion than I was expecting. I'll follow it up with my position on accepting such gifts once my midterms are done (meaning sometime after tonight), but for now I thought I'd point you to a great interview GameSpy did with John Borland and Brad King, authors of the excellent Dungeons and Dreamers: the Rise of Computer Game Culture from Geek to Chic.



Of course, I'm insanely jealous that I didn't think to interview them before GameSpy did, but the interviewer asked all the important questions. For those too busy to read the entire 4-page piece, here's what I think is the most relevant quote to video game journalists:



King: We had a sense that somehow there was a narrative story that weaved throughout the last thirty years of the gaming industry. There are several great books on game companies and the games, but nobody had really tackled the culture from a narrative standpoint even as millions of people in Japan, America, and Europe continued to play.



We were also told to expect game companies to be very standoffish because they were used to dealing with, for lack of a better word, fanboy press. There were a few companies that we had trouble with -- one, in fact, just lost a ton of its developers -- but really, almost everyone we approached was happy to help out. That was pretty cool.



The interview also made me aware of Borland and King's Dungeons & Dreamers blog, which has some pretty good links and some pretty insightful things to say. Happy reading.

What price, good press?

This weekend, I attended Nintendo's first annual College Media Day as a representative of the University of Maryland's student newspaper, the Diamondback. I will give a full account of the press-only event in a seperate post, but first, in the interest of full disclosure, here's a list of the goods and services I received on this trip at no cost to myself, listed in order of their estimated retail value. I don't think many people outside the industry realize just how much companies are willing to spend to influence the press. Hopefully this will help correct that problem.

• Round-trip airfare from Washington D.C. to Seattle, WA: $1,000
  
  
• Two nights at the MarQueen hotel in downtown Seattle: $300
  
  
• **A black Nintendo GameCube: $99
  
  
• *A ruby Game Boy Advance SP: $99
  
  
• Cab fare to and from the airport: $70
  
  
• A copy of F-Zero GX: $40
  
  
• A copy of Soul Calibur II: $40
  
  
• Dinner in a private room at the Pyramid Alehouse (including two rounds of appetizers and unlimited alcoholic beverages): $40
  
  
• *A copy of Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3: $29
  
  
• The Evanescense album "Fallen": $15
  
  
• Catered lunch at Nintendo HQ: $15
  
  
• Two breakfast vouchers at the hotel's Cafe Ladro: $10
  
  
• An F-Zero GX duffel bag: $10
  
  
• An F-Zero GX T-shirt: $10
  
  
• A copy of Electronic Gaming Monthly #173 (Dec., 2003) (Game of the month: Mario Kart: Double Dash): $5
  
  
• Two reporters notebooks with GameCube and Game Boy Advance Logos: $5
  
  
• A deck of Advance Wars 2 playing cards: $1

Total estiamted value: $1,788



*- These entries were not received by all 24 attending college journalists, but only by the top two finishers in the Mario Kart: Double Dash tournament held at the headquarters. I placed second.

** - This is in addition to another GameCube that they will be sending to the newspaper offices to ensure a staff member will be able to play the games they send in the future.



Keep in mind that in a litle over two years I've worked at the Diamondback I've made a little over $1,000, less uncovered expenses (i.e. buying and renting games for review). Also keep in mind that each of the 24 reporters from around the country that gathered for the weekend got a similar deal and that this figure does not include the time spent by a team of about a dozen representatives from Nintendo and PR firm Gollin/Harris to show us around and give presentations.



All in all, I'd estimate the event easily cost Nintendo over $100,000. This isn't that much compared to the amount spent on events like E3 each year, but, if nothing else, it indicates a pretty major push by Nintendo to cater to the key college-aged demographic.

A great N-Gage article gets (Game)spotted

Thanks to reader Brandon Cruz for pointing me to what he called "an excellent example of newswriting from a

rather unlikely source: Gamespot." While I don't think Gamespot is that unlikely of a source for good video game journalism, I do agree that Tor Thorsen's article, N-Gage start stumbles, is a great bit a newswriting. While plenty of sites covered the story adequately (and others covered it not so adequately), the Gamespot article went above and beyond the competition in providing relevant information to its readers. Here's a quick list of some of the things it does right:

• Addresses both the dismal sales figures and Nokia's official sales statement in the same article. Many sites covered these developments seperately (as they came on seperate days) but failed to mention the first (Nokia's statement) in the article about the second (the Arcadia sales report).
  
  
• Gives relevant comparison to sales numbers for the market leading Game Boy Advance. Many other articles did this too, and I applaud them for it.
  
  
• Quotes from analysts about the sales numbers Yes! This sets the article apart more than anything else. While any yahoo who can read a sales report can tell you how many N-Gage's have been sold, a real journalist will talk to people to find out what those numbers mean to Nokia and to the consumer. These analysts get paid to talk about this stuff, and most of them want to get their names out there, so give them a call whenever you need some more context. This kind of added value will keep readers coming back to your site for a more complete picture of the news.
  
  
• Information about AT&T bundles of the N-Gage. This is information I saw alluded to in other articles, but not explicitly discussed with pricing details as it was here. Good digging.
  
  

Congrats to Mr. Thorsen on a well researched and presented article.

We can't get no respect

If you read the Penny Arcade newsposts, (and what true gamer doesn't?) you may have seen this story in the Seattle Weekly about the comic's creators. Reading through the fairly standard profile story, I was struck by the frankness and accusatory tone of this quote:



Of course, there are plenty of other sites for compulsive gamers, but they tend to be either whores to their advertisers, or bland clones of each other, chock-full of interchangeable, weirdly earnest reviews. Consensus develops quickly in the video game world, and companies will spend a mint to generate fake buzz—flying journalists on junkets to aircraft carriers or English castles, for example. But the Penny Arcade guys talk like real gamers (if real gamers were a lot more intelligent). Their self-aware intellectualism makes playing video games seem like the height of urbanity.



Opinions like this are the reason we have to strive for a higher standard. The dedicated video game press won't get any respect until it treats itself more seriously and treats its subject with a more critical eye.

Success!

Regular readers may recall my complaints about Gamers.com and their opinion filled "news" story about the Karaoke Revolution songlist. Imagine my surprise when, sorting through my IE bookmarks this evening, I found these notes inserted into the article copy:



At the beginning of the article: [Note: The following employs the royal "we," and is also not meant to be taken even remotely seriously, although that is the real Karaoke Revolution song list. Please adjust your perceptive filters accordingly.]



At the end of the article: [Further Note: The author really doesn't give a damn either way, but simply enjoys an excuse to say "Rip Slyme." We now return you to your regularly-scheduled semi-objective videogame news.]



I'm not sure how long these notes have been up or whether they were even in response to my opinions (I have my suspicions), but I welcome them regardless. While I still think this article didn't belong in the news section, the notes at least prepare the readers for the breach in "semi-objectivity" they're about to read. If anyone from Gamers.com wants to fill me in on the circumstances that led to the posting of these notes, I'd be happy to hear it.

Critical Mass Media

Thanks to Slashdot Games for pointing me towards an article on mass media coverage of computer games at Adrenaline Vault. The author, Bob Mandel, discusses the subject from a variety of angles; some good, some bad, all worthy of discussion. So let's discuss them. I'll be copying and commenting on sections of the article that I found myself agreeing or disagreeing with strongly. You should read the entire article first if you want these comments to be in context. Feel free to add your own comments afterward if you agree/disagree with my assessments.



The argument is that just as any discerning person can make intelligent comments about books, television shows, movies and music, so an intelligent novice can evaluate computer software.



I'm not sure who exactly is making this argument, but it has to be a pretty uncommon one. I think most people understand that covering any entertainment medium well requires specialized knowledge and skills. The people who cover these topics for the mainstream press are rarely just random, discerning people who have no experience in the field. Most of them are experienced critics who at the very least are familiar with the major works and goings on in the appropriate industry. Tom Shales, who writes about television for the Washington Post, shows a level of understanding of how the TV industry works that goes well beyond what "any discerning person" would know.



To begin with, perhaps the most basic error common in mass media coverage is to call recreational offerings for the PC “video games.” This term technically refers to console titles viewed on a television, not to entertainment played on a computer. Recently, I read a story in a prominent national newspaper titled, “Vivendi Says Half-Life 2 Video Game Delayed.” The error is important because many of the patterns that apply to computer titles don’t relate to console offerings and vice versa, so lumping the two together can be misleading.



Now this is just nitpicking. The terms video game (or "videogame" if you prefer) has, in the past few decades, come to be associated with any game played on a screen. While the difference between computer and console games can be important, it is not that crucial to most mainstream readers in most cases. In the "Half Life 2 Video Game," example, for instance, simply identifies what "Half Life 2" is to an audience that may not be familiar with it, or with the difference between a video game and a computer game, for that matter. "Computer game" might have been a more accurate identifier, but it probably would not have fit and does not appreciably add to the headline.



And while we're at it, lets not call Game Boy games "video games" because they're on an LCD screen and not an RGB video monitor. Cell phones games too... no video there. And how about Arcade games that use vector graphics? Lets just agree on "video games" as the overarching term and stick with it, huh?



It seems as if the mass media assume all computer games incorporate extreme levels of gratuitous violence.



While this is true for many mass media outlets, it is not fair to generalize about the entire mass media in this way. The New York Times' Game Theory column, for instance, covers a wide range of games across all genres with equal consideration. This point would be better made with some examples that show the overriding focus on violence.



A classic example of these underlying assumptions occurred in an episode of the now-defunct television series, “Touched by an Angel.” The story dealt with a teenager who became so obsessed with the violence in an imaginary game - Carjack 2000: Millennium Edition - that the lines between fantasy and reality eventually blurred, and he committed real-life violence parallel to that within the gameplay. The moral of the story is that one can’t easily disengage from the intensity and brutality of a virtual experience after it’s over, and that it’s largely unacceptable to defend the pursuit by saying, “It’s only a game.” Many mainstream journalists share this perspective.



Here's where the article got confusing for me. Are we talking about mainstream journalists or about mass media entertainment in general? Just because a popular TV show uses a stereotypical, fictitious game to prove its moral does not mean that any mass media journalists harbor these same stereotypes. The author says that "many mainstream journalists share this perspective," but gives no support for this assertion. Where are the examples of news articles that show these perspectives? You need more than a prime-time drama to illustrate your point.



A well-known battery advertisement on television shows a young man competing against an elderly man, consistently beating him until the boy’s handheld unit loses power and the old codger finally wins. The underlying premise appears to be that all interactive entertainment offerings require ultra-fast reflexes adults have long since lost.



Again, this is a case of confusing commercial and/or entertainment speech with journalistic speech. While a battery commercial might be good for showing a societal stereotype about video game players, it does not prove that the same stereotype exists among mainstream journalists. If you're going to talk about the news media, give me examples from the news media, not from society at large.



As an aside, there was a ridiculous ad in many video game publications recently that ran an ad showing an "extreme" skateboarding "dude" in a garage with a decked out car playing an N-Gage with his tongue sticking out. While I found this ad stereotypical and ludicrous, I would not use it to criticize Electronic Gaming Monthly's editorial staff.



It’s not surprising that mass media largely covers only highly publicized AAA computer titles and miss the rest. However, it’s hard to gather an impression of the general nature of an industry or of the creative minds involved in game development if you only investigate a tiny fraction of its products.



This is a problem, but one that is hard to fix when video games are only a part of your coverage and not the main focus. Mainstream sources, in being mainstream, have much more to cover than just video games, and can't devote the same resources to video games that the dedicated press does. We can't expect the same coverage of niche and independent titles in mainstream media that we do in the dedicated VG press for this reason.



This is reminiscent of the foibles of judging a movie by the studio producing it or a book by its publisher.



These are indeed foibles, but not ones that I'm sure happen very often. Most movie and book reviews I've read focus on the quality of the book or movie without giving undue precedence to the producer or publisher.



Mass media coverage of computer recreational offerings generally lacks relevant context.



A very good point. Context is always important and many mainstream outlets do not treat it as such. Then again, many dedicated outlets do not either, so...



Although some reviews by writers dedicated to the computer entertainment sector also miss the mark, general media are frequently way off base, either rating a mediocre offering as wonderful or calling a highly creative but offbeat title disappointing.



Who are you to say what is "off the mark" in a highly subjective review? Just because the mainstream media does not agree with what you think of a game, or what the dedicated press in general thinks, does not mean they're out and out wrong. Perhaps they're just considering the game for a different audience, one that is less familiar with the industry and has less time to devote to games (i.e. a mainstream audience). Unless they're basing their opinions on incorrect facts, it's hard to say they're completely off base. But, again, you give no examples for your point, so...



Perhaps the most common phenomenon in the popular press is saying that every new release is “pretty good.”



A problem that also infects many video game web sites and, to a lesser extent, magazines.



Furthermore, general media articles often read like press releases, devoid of critical analysis and merely summarizing a product’s key features.



See above comment.



Specifically, critics in the mass media appear to have a rather narrow and arbitrary definition of graphics quality. These writers almost always equate visual excellence with photorealism, with the underlying assumption being that all developers try as hard as they can to replicate the real world in their products.



Again, see above. I feel that many of these criticisms being laid against mainstream sources could also be leveled against many video-game-centric sources with little to no effort.



In general, the popular press appears to be much more interested in the business aspects of the gaming industry than its creative dimension. Every time I read a newspaper story on a new recreational computer offering, I end up finding out more about the past and present financial status of the developer and publisher than I do about the gameplay. Why should anyone assume readers interested in electronic entertainment would care more about the annual profits of the firms involved than the intriguing dimensions of the products they release?



Are these stories, by any chance, in the business section of the paper? Contrary to what you think, many people (investors, for instance) are interested in the financial and business dealings of a $6 billion industry and less interested in the artistic aspects. People who read the newspaper tend to care more about these things than people who read video game magazines, hence the increased focus. Just because you don't find these articles interesting, don't assume that there is no one out there who could possibly care about them.



Now, if you are talking about video game reviews that give undue focus to business instead of artistic aspects, that's a different story. But you give no examples, so...



By and large, there are too many complicated technical and artistic dimensions to computer gaming for someone totally new to this form of entertainment to assess quickly and fairly.



This is true, but in my experience, not all the people reviewing games for mainstream sources are totally new to video games. Some examples to back up your claim would be nice (as always).



In my mind, higher expertise is more necessary for virtual recreation because it’s the only subject that’s fully interactive; other entertainment media involve a more passive experience where the abilities of the reviewers involved don’t determine how far they progress.



I disagree with this wholeheartedly. While anyone can technically watch an entire movie and remain conscious, it takes a trained and experienced eye to actuall fully experience the movie on all its levels. Only such a qualified person can write intelligently about the movie. The same definitely holds for video games, but this does not set them apart from other forms of entertainment.



In the end, if you can’t spot any difference between pieces by dedicated game reviewers and mass media entertainment writers, then those of us who fall in the first category are doing something very wrong.



I feel this is true, but for a different reason than the author states. Because of the different audiences that the mainstream and dedicated writers are going for, each should discuss different aspects of the game or issue they are discussing. The dedicated audience will be more appreciative of comparisons to obscure games, while the mainstream might benefit from a relation to a common real-life experience. The important thing in video game writing, as in all writing, is to know who you are writing for and tailor your writing to that group.



All in all, I found this article to be long-winded and overly accusatory given that the author gives very few good examples of game journalism to back it up. It seems to me that the author is harboring some stereotypes of his own.



If you made it this far, you might be interested that I will be attending my first press junket next week: the Nintendo College Media Day in Redmond, WA. We will see if I can keep my objectivity in the face of a free trip across the country, a tour of Nintendo HQ, and a chance to play games like Mario Kart: Double Dash before they come out. I'll be sure to give you readers a full report.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to sources

Thanks to John Scalzo of Gaming Target for pointing me to his editorial about the hypocrisy of video game violence crusader Jack Thompson. Mr. Scalzo sent me the link to highlight Mr. Thompson's quote calling game journalism "an oxymoron," but I'd like to use the article to discuss the more important issue of how to respectfully handle sources.



In the article, Scalzo details his attempts at correspondence with Thompson. In the first sentence of his first e-mail, Scalzo says:



I would like you to know that I have nothing but contempt for the way you have continuously ignored the mounting evidence that video games are not harmful in your tireless crusade to make gamemakers "pay."



Scalzo goes on to call Thompson ignorant and a fraud, and then takes Thompson to task for resorting "to petty name calling in response to a serious question."



In his defense, Scalzo said he was just trying to get his point across as directly as possible. "I thought it was a rather simple message," he said in the editorial. "Yes, I was probably a bit more harsh than I needed to be, but I did not want to speak in code. I wanted to make my opinions known so that he would make his."



While it's good to be up front about your position, there's a difference between being direct and being rude. If you antagonize the source from the get-go, all you're likely to get back is an antagonistic response (which gets into the issue of baiting your source, but that's for another time). If you show them respect and courtesy, they're likely to return the favor with a respectful and courteous response that addresses your questions.



Here are some quick tips from my (admittedly limited) experience with talking to sources:

• Always address your source as Mr. or Ms. in your first contact with them. Use your discretion in subsequent contacts. If they use your first name informally in their response, then you can usually feel free to do the same for them.
  
  
• Always identify yourself and the organization you're writing for. Provide a web site link if possible so the source can check you out. This helps establish trust, assuming your web site is trustworthy.
  
  
• Make it clear that anything they say in response is fair game to use in publication. This helps avoid problems down the road if your source suddenly tries to take back something they said earlier. Anything they say after you give them this warning is fair game for printing.
  
  
• Frame your questions in a way that allows equal possibility for a positive or negative response. A contrived example (from outside of video games):
  
  Good question: "What is your positon on abortion?"
  
  Bad question: "Do you support the murder of thousands of innocent fetuses each year?"
  
  
• I always like to end my e-mails with, "Thanks in advance for your reply," or some similar polite enticement for them to respond quickly. You'd be surprised how far a nice "please" or "thank you" will go in establishing a good relationship with a source.
  
  

Use these tips and you should have no trouble getting along just fine with your sources.

Fahey: Nintendo-bashing undeserved after loss statement

I thought I'd share with you readers a nice little piece of editorializing I recently read by Rob Fahey of GamesIndustry.biz. Mr. Fahey sent this piece through the GI.biz e-mail newsletter, and it's being reprinted here with his permission. I think it speaks for itself, but I would like to add that I think it's essential for most video game publications to have someone on staff who understands how to read and interpret financial figures like the ones discussed below from a business standpoint. Without further adieu, Mr. Fahey:



It's not exactly uncommon for Nintendo to come under attack from a wide range of critics these days, and there's no doubt that some of the attacks are deserved - particularly those focused on the company's appalling treatment of the European marketplace. However, last week's announcement that the company has recorded a six-month loss figure saw the console maker savaged openly by a large number of commentators - some of whom should really have known better, and some of whom simply don't know enough to discuss financial figures like these.



Yes, Nintendo has dropped its projections for the first half into loss - but closer reading of the figures reveals that this is almost entirely down to losses made on its overseas cash reserves (some $5 billion) due to the stronger Yen and weaker US Dollar during the six month period. The company's operating profit projections, in fact, remained unchanged.



So why did so many news websites and industry commentators choose to read this news as proof that the GameCube is somehow doomed, while the continuing operating losses at Microsoft's Home and Entertainment Division scarcely cause an eyebrow to be raised? The answer is simple; Microsoft has an incredibly powerful and well-coordinated PR machine behind the Xbox, spinning every figure that emerges into a positive light, while Nintendo has seemingly decided that it doesn't need to get involved in the messy business of PR - making itself seem either arrogant or scared, depending on who you speak to, in the process.



This is perhaps Microsoft's biggest triumph with the Xbox to date - a spin machine which has successfully convinced the world that it's thoroughly thrashing the console veteran Nintendo in every way, despite the fact that most figures put the installed base of GameCube ahead of the Xbox by over 100,000 units, and that Nintendo continues to make healthy operating profits while the Xbox loses money hand over fist. Even shockingly poor figures - such as the 50,000 installed base of Xbox Live kits in Europe - have been made to sound positive with enough repetition and chest-beating from the Xbox team. Nintendo would do well to swallow its pride and learn some lessons from the new industry upstart, before the predictions of doom become self-fulfilling prophecies.

The coolest news story in the universe!

Thanks to alert reader Steve Lin for pointing me to this IGN article about Tetsuya Mizuguchi's reported departure from Sega. Everything seems to be going fine in this fairly standard tamplate news story when, all of a sudden, the writer decides to add a little of his opinion to the story:



Of course, this is just our translation of Mizuguchi's Japanese comments. Given that Mizuguchi is the coolest game producer in the universe, he probably said it much cooler than that.



The italics in the previous quote were added by me. The bold-face section was not.



Now the writer is entitled to his opinion. He's allowed to think Mizuguchi is the coolest game producer in the universe. He might think that Mizuguchi is the human incarnation of all that is good and pure for all I care. But these opinions are best captured in some sort of editorial, or in a less effusive, more context-relevant quote such as the one that appeared later in the article:



As our review scores may suggest, we're big fans of Mizuguchi and his unique brand of gaming, so we can't wait to see what he produces in the future.



This line makes the author, and the site, come off as appreciative followers of Mizuguchi's work rather than raving fanboys who think that everything Mizuguchi touches turns to gold. It also implies that his departure will cost Sega some of its best games (in the author's opinion), and that any other publisher would be lucky to have him. Whereas the first quote might just indicate that Mizuguchi wears a cool leather jacket. Who knows.

Lies, damn lies, and rental statistics

Imagine if a respected newspaper decided that, instead of listing the top 10 grossing movies for all theatres nationwide each week, it would start listing the top grossers only at Cineplex Odeon Theatres. Such an idea is ludicrous, of course. Why list the statistics from one company when the more relevant listings for the whole industry are readily available?



We should be asking many members the video game media that very question right about now.



There were a number of sites that decided to publish the top 10 rented games list provided by online rental house GameFly for the week ending Sept. 28. Here is that list, copied from Gamespot:



Rank / Title / Platform/ Publisher

1 / Dungeons and Dragons Heroes / Xbox / Atari

2 / Simpsons: Hit & Run / Xbox / Vivendi Universal

3 / WWE Raw 2 / Xbox / THQ

4 / Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004 / Xbox / EA Sports

5 / Simpsons: Hit & Run / PS2 / Vivendi Universal

6 / Soul Calibur II / Xbox / Namco

7 / Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004 / PS2 / EA Sports

8 / Otogi: Myth of Demons / Xbox / Sega

9 / Soul Calibur II / PS2 / Namco

10 / Disgaea: Hour of Darkness / PS2 / Atlus Co.





As you can see, XBox has 6 of the top 10 spots on the list, including the top 4. Also notice that when a game is listed for the PS2 and XBox, the XBox version has the higher placement.



The news sites were quick to pick up on this supposed trend. "XBox rentals show their strength" said GameSpot. "It looks like more and more XBOX titles are becoming the top rentals," said OnlyOnXBox.net. But is this really the case? Can we really extrapolate anything about the industry from the report of this one retailer?



A quick look at a report from the Video Software Dealer Assocation trade group says otherwise. Here's their rental rating list for the week ending Sept. 27. copied from GameMarketWatch.com:





1. (PS2) Madden NFL 2004 -- Electronic Arts

2. (PS2) Soul Calibur II -- Namco Hometek

3. (PS2) NCAA Football 2004 -- Electronic Arts

4. (PS2) Enter the Matrix -- Atari

5. (PS2) Midnight Club II -- Take-Two Interactive

6. (Xbox) Madden NFL 2004 -- Electronic Arts

7. (PS2) ESPN NFL Football 2K4 -- Sega of America

8. (Xbox) Soul Calibur II -- Namco Hometek

9. (PS2) Cebela's Deer Hunt 2004 Season -- Activision

10. (XBox) Star Wars: Knights of Old Republic -- LucasArts





Notice any difference? There are only three XBox games on the VSDA's list, and games listed for both systems are ranked higher for the PS2.



How do you decide which list to use? Well, GameFly's list gives the top rentals among people who rent their games from one specific online retailer, while the VSDA's list "collects point of sale information from video retailers nationwide" according to ConvergentData.com. Gamefly's list skews towards hardcore gamers willing to pay a monthly fee to get unlimited length rentals through the internet, while the VSDA's list encompasses the undoubtedly larger number of gamers that rent games for a set period of time from brick-and-mortar establishments.



It should be obvious that the VSDA's list paints a more accurate picture of the game rental landscape.



This doesn't mean GameFly's list is useless. If you're looking at trends among the niche group of gamers that uses online rental houses, the list is a valuable resource. But none of the sources I saw reporting on the list mentioned this important distinction in their stories (with the exception of EvilAvatar, which said that the prevalence of XBox games "might have something to do with [GameFly] being an online rental service.")



It's pretty obvious that most of these sites used GameFly's list simply because it was made easily available to them. In fact, it is easily available weekly to anyone who e-mails pr@gamefly.com with a request, according to PCVsConsole.com (which seems to have copied GameFly's press release verbatim, right down to the About GameFly, Inc. kicker).



But just because something's in your inbox doesn't mean it's the best information for your readers. The VSDA's weekly numbers are also available every week on their web site, free to use for anyone interested (with registration). The VSDA numbers are undeniably a more accurate representation of the industry and a more relevant resource for most readers. I highly recommend them over GameFly's numbers.



I'm going away for the weekend, but when I get back I'll try to make some sense of this whole "the PS2 is a computer"/"The PS2 is not a computer" mess.

MISLEADING HEADLINE REVEALED! FULL DETAILS INSIDE!

Imagine my surprise when I visited Spong.com last Thursday (Sept. 25) to see this shocking headline:



"New Nintendo console revealed and named! Full details inside, first games announced"



I was shocked. I had assumed that Nintendo would wait until E3 to reveal any substantial information about their next console. Eager for more information on this possibly huge story, I scanned the sub-headline:



"Chinese move spawns new hardware"



This just baffled me further. What does China, usually a non-player in the video game market, have to do with the successor to the GameCube? I clicked the link...



Nintendo Japan has announced a new home console specifically designed for use in the piracy-riddled country of China."



As I continued to read about the announcement of the iQue -- a Chinese console based on N64 technology that is focused on preventing game piracy -- I wondered how anyone could write a headline that was so misleading.



While almost all other news outlets (both video-game-centric and conventional) managed to write headlines that were both informative and concise, Spong managed to craft a headline that is neither.



While the headline Spong wrote is technically accurate, no one without previous knowledge of the story is going to infer its intended meaning. When any sane, thoughtful person who follows video game news reads the words "New Nintendo console," they immediately start to think about the successor to Nintendo's GameCube. The author of this headline must have known this, just as they must have known that the real story here was Nintendo's move into China and not the fact that the "first games" for the system were going to be Chinese ports of old Super Mario Bros. titles.



Of course, the goal of this headline was probably not to provide clear information, but instead to get as many readers as possible to click the link without technically lying. And while Spong does get more adviews this way, they lose something more important in the long run: credibility. The next time I see a headline that seems to good to be true on Spong, I will probably click over to some other site that is less likely to inentionally skew the facts just to gain more readers.



A dishonorable mention goes to Gamerfeed for their story headlined "New Nintendo Console." Gamerfeed avoided winning the worst headline award by including a self-aware subhead -- "Click here to find out exactly why this title is misleading the reader!" -- and by posting a more clearly titled story -- "Nintendo's New Chinese Console Revealed" the next day. To be fair, Spong also had a follow-up story, but the headline "Nintendo's iQue, first hardware shots" fails to provide even basic information to someone who has not read the previous article.



Stuff I'm covering for the near future: FF7: Advent Children: How did some sites come to think this thing was a game and not a movie? Also, an overview of the coverage of GameCube's drop to $99 and a long overdue look at Gamerfeed's redesign in style and substance.

From the "Why write an article at all" file

The Gamespot.com headline:

"NBA Jam Ships"



For those who can't be bothered to click the link, here's the whole story:



"Acclaim began shipping NBA Jam for the Xbox and the PS2 today.

[Big annoying advertisement goes here]

NBA Jam is a 3-on-3 basketball simulation that features arcade-style action, including huge dunks, no fouls, and characters who catch fire when on streaks."



Yep. That's all of it.



Here's a new, slightly longer headline (written by me) that would save the reader a click of the mouse:

"New basketball game NBA Jam ships today for PS2 and XBox"



If you're adept at message board-speak you could add a little "[nt]" to the end there.



Now I know even the most trivial of headlines needs an accompanying article to help sell ad space (see [big annoying ad] above), but when the whole article is only two lines long, you have to consider whether what you're linking to (and what you're writing) is worth the effort. The time it took author Bob Moseley to write those two sentences and a headline is time he could have spent writing something that was actually worth the reader's time.



First off, if you're going to write yet another article announcing that yet another video game has finally shipped, you have to put some minimal amount of effort and enthusiasm into it. I know it's hard to get excited about yet another cookie-cutter "Game X ships" story, but you've got to give the readers something. The Gamespot article doesn't even mention that the new game is a continuation of the popular arcade series that hasn't been seen for nearly a decade. Granted, most Gamespot readers know this already, but your job is to assume that the audience always knows less than you do (since you do this for a living, they probably should)



But the writing is not the main problem. The main problem is that shipping announcements like this get treated like news stories at all. When the whole of the information in a story can be conveyed in a one-sentence headline, it's not a news story -- it's a blurb. And when that blurb is about something as frivolous as a new game shipping it amounts to simple free advertising -- free advertising that is biased towards the games you deign worthy of an article. (I suppose you could write a story about every single game that ships for any system ever, but you wouldn't have time for much else. Even if the stories were only two sentences long.)



Instead of clogging up the news section with these types of non-stories, I'd recommend creating a section, (or sidebar, or dropdown menu or something) that simply lists the games that have been released in the past couple of weeks. The list could link to the appropriate preview or review for each game, and leave it at that. This keeps the public informed while eliminating the bias of selective featuring and the need to think of two-sentences worth of new stuff to say about games like NBA Jam.



The other route is to just make your shipping announcements read more like press releases, but unless you're comfortable having no credibility and inserting words like "BOOMSHAKALAKA!" into your writing, this route is best avoided.

Digging deeper for Phantom information

Thanks to Ombudsman reader Alexei Miagkov for point me to a HardOCP article that does some investigative reporting about the Infinium Labs and its supposed Phantom game console. The author uses evidence from press releases, internet resumes, phone calls, registration papers and some good, old fashioned leg work to paint a picture of a company that seems like an investor's nightmare. From the article:



We were surprised that there wasn't even an office at the address listed for Infinium Labs. The use of a post office box as the main contact point for Infinium Labs was very surprising as well. We spoke to Mr. Roberts today and he confirmed that there are currently no physical offices for the Infinium Corporation, but he assures us that they are on the way. Combine these elements with a past history of bankruptcies and failed business ventures, and it paints a very bleak picture of the possible success of this company.



I applaud the authors for looking past the official Infinium press releases at the man behind the company. By following a paper (and digital) trail of documentable evidence, HardOCP has managed to get past the PR double talk and give a more accurate gauge of Infinium's current state than a simple link to a promo video ever could. Hopefully, other outlets (with a larger budget and staff) will pick up this trail and do more in-depth reporting to find the truth behind Infinium.



My only criticism of the coverage is the "Our Thoughts & Opinions" section. While it is good that this section is clearly labeled and separate from the factual portion of the article, I don't think it is totally necessary. Had the facts been presented correctly, the reader could have been trusted to make their own decision about the evidence rather than having an opinion force-fed to them at the end of the article. If the editors really wanted to share their take on the fats, they should have done it through one of their [H] editorials. But with evidence this damning, the facts should be able to speak for themselves.

Newell, Author Comment on Fake Half-Life 2 Interview

"Internet gaming journalism is based on one principle: If it's on a website, it must be true!"

-Directrix, NerdsAhoy



Directrix is in a good position to make this statement. On the afternoon of Sept. 1, he put a now-infamous fake interview with Gabe Newell up on his site. He posted a link to the article on the SomethingAwful forums, and set off an absolute firestorm of linking from sites large and small, some of which handled it skeptically, and some of which did not.



Directrix said he never intended for anyone to believe the interview. "I'm not sure if you're familiar with those forums [at SomethingAwful]," he said, "but it is a humor site. In my opinion the people who post there are much more intelligent than what you would find in your average forum, so I didn't expect anyone to buy it. It was basically me sarcastically poking fun at the fact that any rumor, no matter how insane, can pop up on the Internet and people will believe it.... Or not believe it, and argue about it for pages on end."



Planet Half-Life, a member of the GameSpy network, was one of the sites that didn't totally believe it. Their post about the interview indicated that, "it could very well be a fake," but justified its own existence by explaining that "there's already a ton of inaccurate information out there."



Kevin Bowen (a.k.a "Fragmaster"), Planet Half-Life's manager, said he doesn't regret running the story. "It was a better than average fake and the answers were somewhat amusing," he said. "We were pretty sure it was fraudulent from the start and we indicated so in the post. A lot of other sites were fooled and there's a whole bunch of other false information out there, so we wanted to give it some sort of mention to acknowledge its existence and point out that it was bogus."



But Directrix notes that, while PlanetHalfLife handled the matter skeptically, they "wouldn't take an official stance on whether the interview was real or fake until [Valve Founder/Managing Director] Gabe [Newell] himself confirmed it. They should never have even posted it."



Newell confirmed that he was contacted by numerous web sites about the article, and said he felt such direct confirmation was a good way to prevent such things from happening in the future. Newell added that he didn't feel any malice towards Directrix or those that linked to his story. "It's the kind of thing that happens all the time on the Internet," Newell said.



Directrix, however, said he wasn't contacted by any web sites seeking to confirm the veracity of his article. "I was never contacted by anyone who could string a complete sentence together," Directrix said. He acknowledged that some of the people who linked to the article may have been in on the joke, but said the problem then was "that their audience apparently cannot distinguish between fact and sarcastic humor."



Directrix said that other web journalists could learn a lesson from the saga of his article. "Don't trust one source for your information," he said, "especially a website that no one has ever heard of before." He wasn't very optimistic about the chances his advice would be followed, though. "The same thing could happen tomorrow and nothing would turn out differently... The only thing I've learned from this is that it's amusing to sit back and watch it take place. Kind of like watching Sea Monkeys eat each other, except you don't have to change the water."

Battle of the Reliable Sources

You probably heard rumblings from a variety of sources about a possible deal between Sony and NVIDIA for the PS3 graphics chipset. Chris Morris first broke the story on Aug. 27 (later updated Sept. 2) in his regular CNN/Money column. He based his article on the commentary of industry analyst Erach Desai who said that nVidia "are in discussions with Sony for the PS3."



You might not have heard about the report calling the link "ridiculous." Rob Fahey at GamesIndustry.biz broke that one on Sept. 1, quoting a "senior source" at Sony as saying that teaming up with NVIDIA, "would simply make no sense either technologically or commercially."



So what do you believe: The commentary with the named analyst, or the news article with the unnamed source? I talked with the authors of the competing articles to try and make some sense of this controversy.



When commentary becomes fact



First off, it should be made clear that Morris intended his article to be taken as commentary, not as a hard news story. "All of my columns... are labeled as commentary at the top of the page - above the headline," Morris said. "That affords me the luxury of interjecting opinion, speculation and analysis into the stories. When it's a straight news story (say, the launch of a new console), we put it in a news template and just go with a standard byline."



But just because it was a commentary piece doesn't mean Morris didn't do his homework. "Mr. Desai has been on record with those for some time and I called him to make sure they still reflected his thoughts on the matter. Sony and nVidia were also asked for comment and responded as they saw fit."



The commentary heading didn't seem to prevent many sites from reporting the story as if it were fact, without even seeking outside confirmation. Fahey said this sort of lazy journalism is simply unacceptable. "It's a bit sad to see dedicated, professional games sites spreading this kind of story without asking any of the obvious questions," Fahey said. "Obviously it's fair enough to expect sites to run the story as it emerges - that's the difference between web news reporting and print news reporting... - but nobody seems to have asked any tough questions about it, even a few days down the line."



Unfortunately, Fahey doesn't think this is a trend that is likely to change anytime soon. "It's not the first time and it's certainly not the last time that the online media covering the games industry will jump on a story like this and print sensationalist nonsense without really thinking about what they're saying."



The problem, Fahey said, is that many video game "journalists" are not informed or critical enough of the industry they cover. "Anyone familiar with both Sony and NVIDIA would have raised questions about this story as soon as it emerged, but apparently some elements of the games media... just chose to report the story in a totally credulous way."



Naming your sources



Setting aside such concerns, some might say that Fahey's refutation doesn't hold as much weight because he doesn't name the "senior source" at Sony who provided the basis for the story. There's no way for the reader or other members of the press to confirm what the source is saying, or that the source even exists!



Fahey said that while GamesIndustry.biz usually won't base a story on an unnamed source, he decided to make an exception this time. "In this particular case, our source was simply talking a lot of sense, and while I'd have loved to have named him, his comments still carry weight regardless," Fahey said. "It's always unfortunate when ongoing business negotiations or other concerns prevent very informed people from putting their names to their comments, but that's just how the industry works and I think we all appreciate that."



Fahey went on to say that the sources he used for his article go beyond the unnamed one that ended up being quoted. "Although I only quote one source, I've also spoken to a number of Stateside analysts about the story," Fahey said. "Writing a story that rebuts something which has been reported elsewhere is something that has to be even more carefully researched than an original news story, in my experience - purely because you're stepping on a lot of toes when you publish it, and if you set a foot wrong, the people who you're leaving red-faced will come in and tear your story to pieces."



As for Morris, he said he doesn't have any reason to believe that GI.biz didn't have a "senior source" to back their story. However, he did say that he had no way of knowing whether their source was a "decision maker" or not. "The guessing game about the next generation of consoles has been going on pretty much since the last batch came out," Morris said. "It will continue until the exact specs of the 2005/2006 machines are revealed."



Don't look back in anger



In the end, Morris said he stands behind everything in his story. "The column never said nVidia's tie with the PS3 was a sure thing. It speculated, based on reliable sources, that the companies are talking and that a partnership might make sense for a series of reasons. I'd write it again today the exact same way."



Fahey, on the other hand, said in retrospect that he could have handled his refutation a little better. "I could probably have been a lot more professional and less tabloid-style with the story - but it was the weekend after a very long, tiring trade show, so I guess I can be excused having a bit of fun with it. It's not every day that I get to write "MONSTER RAVING LOONY NVIDIA RUMOURS CONDEMNED AS DAMNED LIES!" style headlines, whereas some of the other guys out there seem to be making a living off it."



Whether or not Nvidia and Sony are actually in talks, I commend both Mr. Morris and Mr. Fahey for handling the matter professionally and for covering the story fairly.

Well, it has Playstation in the title, so...

A whole boatload of sources (and then some) picked up on a quote from Japanese paper Ashai Shimbun saying that the Playstation 3 will indeed play all Playstation 1 and 2 games. In their articles, some members the media called the revelation "not shocking by any means," (EvilAvatar) " and said it was assumed by "everyone and their mother." (GamerFeed) My question, then, is this.



Why didn't anybody ask about this before?



Before today, it was very easy to assume that Sony's new system would play PSOne games. It seemed like a total no-brainer, an absolute lock considering the success of backwards-compatibility on the PS2. But one if there's one thing a good journalist should know, it's this:



Nothing is ever an absolute lock!



I'm amazed that, in all this time since the PS3 buzz started (E3 2002 by my rough recollection) that no one else bothered to ask anyone at Sony about backwards compatibility for the PS3. In the months and months of hype and interviews and pre-previews, it didn't occur to anyone to confirm this most basic of assumptions. Doesn't anybody in the industry know that you never assume anything that can be confirmed with a simple question?



It may be that someone did ask about this before, and simply got a "no comment," but I find this unlikely. If the question had been asked, but not answered sufficiently, I would think that the rest of the media would pick up the scent and continue to ask the question until someone finally broke the silence. Then again, this might be giving the video game media too much credit. But I highly doubt Sony was remaining tight lippedo n the matter until today, when it decided to reveal its grand plans to a reporter who happened to ask. Regardless, the fact that a Japanese newspaper broke this story instead of a video game magazine or web site shows that the video game journalism industry needs to focus on its fundamentals.



Stories I'm currently following: The PS3/Nvidia controversy and the fake interview with Gabe Newell. Inform yourselves with those links until I'm able to report the full story.

Former EGM editor speaks about redesign

Name drop alert!



Former EGM editor and VG Ombudsman reader Greg Sewart has recently contacted me about the article I did on EGM's redesign. Having worked on the redesign himself, he though he could give you readers some insight into the whole process and reasoning behind it. It's better than my rambling opinions on the matter, anyway. Here's Greg:



One thing to note: the old colour and layout scheme is was actually adopted at issue #100. The redesign back then wasn't quite as drastic as this new one, but this is far from the first time EGM has changed its look. I do agree that the most recent design (the one you describe) was by far the cleanest. However, it could be argued that it was also the most boring. It left very little room for things like art, huge screenshots, etc. Are those things important? That's up to the readers I guess.



The biggest change was dropping the colour coding for each system. At least, that was the part we struggled with the most. Unfortunately, that system was a throwback to the days of the Saturn, PS1, and N64. Not a lot of games were getting the cross-platform treatment back then. So deciding which game went where was enerally pretty simple, and didn't shortchange any particular system's Previews or Reviews section.



As the PS2, Xbox, and GC took over, multi-system ports became very common. We started having to make judgment calls regarding whether to put multi-console releases in either the PS2, Xbox, or GC sections. Due

to the overwhelming popularity of the PS2, more times than not that's where games were placed, which all but decimated our Xbox and GC coverage. At least, that's how it looked when everything was colour-coded. We started getting loads of e-mail from readers regarding our lack of coverage for the two secondary systems.



On top of that, the amount of software being released created a real space issue. Generally that meant it wasn't feasible to review three different versions of the same game. But limiting the review to one system version meant not pointing out potential differences in between the game on the PS2, Xbox, or GC. After agonizing over this problem for what seemed like forever, the current setup is what everyone agreed on.

Is it better or worse? I personally think it's a step in the right direction, though, like the rest of the magazine, it's obviously a work in progress.



A lot of similar problems could be found in a Previews section that was divided by system. That section was my responsibility at the time, and again, having a huge PS2 section at the cost of the Xbox and GC coverage (even though we were covering a lot of games to be released on all three systems) really made us look bad in the eyes of a lot of readers. At least, that's what the hundreds of e-mails led me to think.



The other problem with the old Previews section was it needed a hook. We'd been toying with grouping certain titles together in order to make more interesting (and hopefully more in-depth) mini-features about certain trends, or at least to tell people why we were covering particular games. With an old, colour- and system-organized section, the results were pretty messy.



Does the new setup work? Well, I have my opinions on what does and what doesn't, and have shared them with the folks at EGM. I do like that every game gets a multi-person review now, and gets more than a 1/3 page

column. I like grouping the Previews together into small features, too. The whole magazine just seems to flow more. It's less jarring when you move from one section to another.



That said, the new EGM is not without its problems. I just figured you'd like some insight as to where the editors and art people were coming from when certain decisions were made regarding this big redesign.



Thanks for your insider's look, Greg. A special note to those of you who read this far: School is starting up again next week, and this will likely impact the frequency and length of posts to this blog. I will still try to get a little something up when I can, and my goal will be 3-5 posts of varying length per week. But you won't likely see many more weeks like this one with 8+ posts. Remember, the more greviances you mail me the easier it is for me to post lots of updates! Thanks for reading, and I hope you'll all continue to do so in the future.

EA N-Gages

What one story has likely been covered by the most video game web sites in recent days? If you said the story about female gamers outnumbering males or the one about Everquest allegedly leading to a young child's death, you'd be absolutely wrong. We're gamers! We don't have time for such mindless, unimportant stories! We want to know what games are coming out. Hence the blanket coverage of the story about Nokia's N-Gage receiving support from Electronic Arts (press release link).



This is an important story, and one that every video game news site worth it's hard drive should be covering. I'm just pointing out that there are other, potentially more far-reaching stories out there that many sites seem to be missing.



Anyway, the press release has a lot of PR-speak, but very few facts outside of:

1. EA will be making games for the N-Gage.
   
   
2. EA's N-Gage games will be "beginning this year for the holiday season"
   
   
3. A psuedo-fact: EA will "make use of all the great features of the Nokia N-Gage."
   
   

I think a good metric for any stories on this subject, then, would be how much information they provide beyond this bare minimum. A few bonus points if you mention the system's release date and price point. Super bonus points if you get a scoop that no one else does. Negative points if you quote directly from the press release.



The following stories are ranked in increasing order by that rough metric (and the rest of my own personal opinions), in Big Bold Links Format (as pioneered in that big bold link). Let's do it.



Gamers.com - EA Supports Nokia's N-Gage



It was a close race between Gamers.com and Gamespot here, but Gamers edged out the bottom spot by pulling the following quote directly from the Nokia press release:



"This is a great opportunity for us to extend titles from EA Sports and EA Games onto a new and exciting game platform," said EA Executive Vice President of North American Publishing Nancy Smith. "We plan to make use of all the great features of the Nokia N-Gage."



To the author: How much are you getting paid to write these stories? I bet Nokia will pay you more if you tell them beforehand that you'll be repeating their material verbatim.



The article says that Gamers confirmed with, "various sources at the ongoing ECTS trade show," but fails to mention if any of these sources are, in fact, not press releases. Gamers redeems itself by providing a little analysis about the deal's importance to Nokia, but all in all a dissapointing article.



Spong - EA N-Gage; New mobile platform receives support from the big boys



I'm confused why the plural "big boys" is used in this sub-headline as Electronic Arts is one company, last I checked. Anyway, this article is a little more informative than some that are above it, but loses mega-points for taking another quote straight from the press release:



"This is a great opportunity for us to extend titles from EA SPORTS and EA GAMES"



Not only is this a bad quote, but it's not even the full quote. The press release called it an opportunity to "... extend titles from EA SPORTS and EA GAMES onto a new and exciting game platform." Without this part, the sentence makes little to no sense. Maybe they left it off to avoid sounding like they were being a mouthpiece for a corporate PR man. Well, that obviously failed.



As a sidenote here, let me say that I'm not totally against quoting from press releases in all cases. If it's a really good quote that fits a need your story has, it's ok to do occasionally. But if you're going to have only one quote in your story, try to make it one that is not from the press material that every single outlet has. Either get something that sets you apart or just don't use a quote in that story.



Gamespot - EA committed to N-Gage



You would think a site that already has its own dedicated N-gage section would do a little better job covering what is possibly the biggest partnership in its tiny life. But Gamespot couldn't even muster up more than two sentences for this story. Two sentences! This story is actually less informative than the press release, which is hard to believe given that the press release had almost no information. In fact, the story gives almost no information that wasn't provided in the headline. I just wasted a perfectly good click on you, Gamespot. Thanks for nothing.



GameSpy - Electronic Arts Titles to N-Gage



I haven't figured out a way to link to GameSpy's archived news yet, so here's there story in its entirety:



Electronic Arts will make titles from its EA SPORTS and EA Games brand available on the N-Gage, Nokia announced today. Under the agreement the publisher will deliver its first N-Gage games during the holiday season. Stay with GameSpy N-Gage for the latest details on this deal.



Another big gaming site that doesn't seem to care about this announcement. What good is having a whole section devoted to a system if such big news about the system only gets a cursory glance. This just barely edges out the the Gamespot story by pointing visitors to the N-Gage section and promising more details to come. But just barely



AdrenalineVault - N-Gage Gets Games



Uh, actually the N-Gage had some games before this, so the headline is a little misleading. Nonetheless, this is a nice little summary article culled from the bigger, badder Reuter's article (see below). It is only three sentences, but at least the sentences are fleshed out, and the system's release date and price are mentioned for the uninformed. Considering AVault's PC focus, this is a decent story.



Gamerfeed - Electronic Arts to Develop for N-Gage



The oftentimes king of the one paragraph story, Gamerfeed comes out with a surprisingly meaty look at the EA, N-gage situation. The article starts by noting the widespread criticism of the young system, (context!) and then gives the important fact that the deal will give the N-Gage 20 more titles by Christmas. (Gamerfeed doesn't mention this, but the source for this was probably the superior Reuters article - see below).



The rest of the article is mostly information culled from Reuters, but it still contains important information about the European price point and opinions on the price from both EA and Nokia. Gamerfeed may have gotten most of their information directly from another article, but they managed to give the important points concisely and add some context of their own as well. A good example of link-and-quote journalism done right.



Reuters - Nokia Recruits Electronic Arts for N-Gage Games



Noticing a pattern in these headlines yet? Anyway, Reuters stomps most of the competition with a comprehensive article that goes well beyond the press release lite that most game sites offered.



While good reporting on the European price point and the concerns it is raising are nice, it's the little things that make this article stand out. Mentioning that Nokia is "the world's largest manufacturer of mobile phone handsets," and highlighting some of EA's important franchises are little details that help the mainstream reader. Granted, some of these details are already known by most gamers, but not everyone who reads a video game website is as knowledgable as those who write them. Little details like these make your story richer and increase your audience by providing more information to those who aren't already insiders.



GamesIndustry.biz - EA set to develop for N-Gage



To everyone else on this list: pay attention. This is how to do this story right.



Right of the bat, in the lead sentence, you get the most important fact (EA is developing for N-Gage) and why it's importnat (much needed credibility for Nokia).



The next graph mentions the timeframe for release and notes the use of Nokia's mutliplayer capabilities for these games (I'm not sure where they got this information though. Maybe extrapolating from the press release?)



Then they give what is potentially the most important piece of context in the whole article: What other companies are developing for N-Gage. I'm amazed that no other article I found mentioned any of these companies! How else are we going to gauge the importance of this story without knowing the development landscape that EA has now gotten itself into. I follow video game news pretty regularly, and even I didn't remember what companies were already signed on the for the portable. How is the casual gamer suppsoed to know this? (Not that GI.biz is written for the casual gamer, but you should never assume your audience knows anything that's potentially important)



The article goes on to talk more about EA's importance in the industry and discuss the european price point from the unique angle of mobile phone subsidies (well, not unique really. They cite European trade magazine MCV. But it was new to me, anyway). The only downside to the coverage? The EA deal is not even mentioned in another article discussing the console's roadmap. Oh well, you can't always get what you want, right?