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.