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.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Sunday, October 26, 2003
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.
*- 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.
- 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
*- 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.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
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:
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.
Monday, October 20, 2003
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.
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.
Sunday, October 19, 2003
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.
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.
Friday, October 17, 2003
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.
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.
Monday, October 13, 2003
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:
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.
Thursday, October 9, 2003
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 8, 2003
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.
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.
Friday, October 3, 2003
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)