PSPricing

Man, it's easy to write headlines with PS in them.



Anyway, GameJournalism.com seems to have beat me to the punch with a write-up about recently circulated reports citing a $349 price point for the PSP. Game Journalism takes a skeptical stance and shows the whole affair to be a simple hoax propagated by speed-of-light Internet journalism.



Well, lots of folks fell for it, and it illustrates how "news" can travel around the Internet without ever being checked. It's important to note that it's not only gaming sites that are susceptible to this; supposedly "mainstream" media have made the same mistake. A nugget of information appears in an obscure corner of the Internet, and begins to circulate and build buzz, appearing on additional blogs and news aggregators. As the item moves up the food chain, the source appears increasingly credible. Before you know it, it's a news story on GCAdvanced.



I've covered similar hoaxes on this blog in the past, and I don't have much to add this time that can't be found in those posts or in Rich's GJ post.



I will say, though, that the same Internet technology that allows these rumors to spread maks it easy to follow the document trails and check the facts when hoaxes like these come up. Whether or not the truth is able to get a foothold once the lie has been publicized there is another matter entirely.

PSTwoubles

I know it's been a long time since some of you took the SATs (and a long time before others of you will take them), but try this analogy on for size:



PlayStation (1) : PS one :: PlayStation 2 : ?????



If you answered PStwo (Or PSTwo, or PS two, etc.) then you probably aren't Sony.



Yes, despite the collective will of the games journalism community in the weeks leading up to the announcement, Sony's new, slimmed-down version of the PS2 is not officially being called the PStwo. At least not yet. Somewhat surprisingly, much of that same journalism community seems to have picked up on that fact:

• "What's still unclear is whether this unit is the oft-talked about PStwo. ... So far Sony hasn't used the PStwo moniker - which they've trademarked - in connection with this new machine. Instead, it's being referred to by the not-so-sexy handle of PlayStation 2 model SCPH-70011 CB."
  
  -The Edmonton Sun
• "Sony has confirmed the wide-held suspicions about the remodelled PS2: which has not yet been officially dubbed PSTwo (and judging by pictures of the box, perhaps it won’t be)"
  
  -Spong
• "A remodelled, slimmed down version of the PlayStation 2 - dubbed 'PStwo' by the press, but not yet referred to by that name in Sony's press literature - is due out this November 1st across Europe."
  
  -EuroGamer
• "Oh, and another thing, it’s not being called the PStwo. Nope, we’re to refer to the new model as the SCPH-70000(CB). Excited, aren’t you?"
  
  -Joystiq
• "But the expected name, PStwo, looks like being ignored. The new version - SCPH-50000, if you must - is simply being referred to as a 'completely new look PlayStation 2.'"
  
  -Games Asylum
• "We're all tempted to call this new wonder system, which has a flip-top loading design like the old Turbo Duo, the PStwo. But, Sony Computer Entertainment master Ken Kutaragi would probably get very cross were we to make such a slip. So, we'll have to be content with calling it the new model PS2, or the SCPH-70000. In Japan, the actual model number for the launch version of the system is SCPH-70000CB, with CB standing for Charcoal Black, the color of the system."
  
  -IGN
• "The new PlayStation 2 replaces existing models and won't, as rumored, be called the PStwo."
  
  -WindowsITPro

Did this order come from on high, or is the entire press corps just more observant than usual? (If any Tokyo Game Show attendees heard something official on this matter from Sony, please let me know.)



Of course, some of the first reports used the PStwo moniker without comment and probably without knowing any better, and the name was used all over headlines, both with and without quotes.



The PStwo is pretty obviously a great name for the system. It differentiates itself from the original PS2 without signifying a change in underlying hardware, and it matches up historically with the officially-named PS one. But like Driver 3 and Ultra Nintendo Entertainment System, it's a great name that isn't officially supported by the company making the product. So, do we rebel against this latest corporate naming fiat or do we keep writing out "redesigned PlayStation 2" until our poor typing fingers bleed?



Observant readers should be able to tease out my opinion from the preceding words, but observant readers should also know by now that my opinion doesn't matter too much. I am interested to hear what you think, though. Leave your comments on this latest stylistic not-really-a-controversy-but-still-fun-to-whine-about issue using the link below.

Where do Sega fans go online to get game info?

Surfing around this afternoon, I noticed an interesting poll in the bottom right corner of Sega's of America's web site. Here's the question and the results as of 2:35 EDT on Sept. 27.



Where do you go online to get game info?



1UP.com - 87 (6%)

GamePro - 123 (8%)

IGN - 300 (21%)

GameSpot - 474 (33%)

Other - 471 (32%)



This poll is far from scientific of course -- the sample is self-selected from Sega.com visitors. Still, it's interesting to see the results skewing so far towards GameSpot and IGN (Which was not listed as IGN/GameSpy -- how old is this poll?). Is there some specific reason that Sega fans aren't visiting 1up?



I'd love to see a breakdown of the sites that make up the "other" category. Would it be dominated by major news and review sites, blog-style link outlets or small, independent-minded sites? Hard to say.



One thing's for sure... if I was an advertising manager at Gamestop or IGN, I'd be expecting a call from Sega pretty soon.

Games is Games

Flipping through the channels last night, I stumbled across the very excellent documentary Word Wars on Discovery Times. Directly inspired by Stefan Fatsis' also-excellent book Word Freak, both will appeal to anyone interested in games.



Watching the movie got me thinking about two things. First off, why haven't there been any movies like this made about various videogame subcultures? Any decent filmmaker could take a video camera to QuakeCon, PAX, heck, even their local DDR Machine, and find plenty of quirky characters that would make for some great stories. Or are these movies already out there and I'm just unaware of them (if so, please tell me about them?



My second thought: why are videogames usually held wholly apart from other games in the specialized press coverage? Why can't the same magazine cover videogames and board games, or tabletop role-playing games, or collectible card games? Surely the overlap in interest among readers is high, and an expertise in evaluating one type of game should transfer easily enough to another. Is there something unique about videogames that warrants their seperation? I'm seriously interested in your answers to these questions, so drop me an e-mail or use the comments link below. I'm going up to Philadelphia for the weekend and I'd love to see an overflowing comments thread when I get back.

Flippity Flop

Thanks again to Ombudsman reader Sally Jacques for sending in her concerns about the headline for this GameSpot article. The headline reads, "New KumaWar level reenacts John Kerry's Swift Boat mission," with the subhead, "Downloadable mission lets you step into the senator's shoes--or at least his flip-flops." Sally asks, "do you think the 'flip-flops' reference was totally necessary? Should a game site really get political like this?"



For those who are too busy playing Doom 3 to follow one of the most important elections in years, the flip-flop line is a reference to a persistent charge by President Bush and the Republican party that Democratic candidate John Kerry often wavers on key policy decisions, flip-flopping between positions. The label has become almost omnipresent in national political debate, and the Republicans went so far as to hand out John Kerry flip-flops at their national convention.



Before I give my answer to Sally's question, here's what the article's author, GameSpot reporter Chris Kohler, had to say when asked about the subject on Instant Messenger:



"The use of the line 'shoes, or at least his flip-flops' is a reference to the two different scenarios in the game - Kerry's version of events, and the Swiftees'. Obviously, it does play off of the political debates that are currently going on. But clearly not in a way that endorses one candidate over another."



Kohler went on to say that the line wasn't intended to be an endorsement or an attack on either candidate, and said he doesn't feel that it reads that way. He added, "it's not only a well-known label, it's indicative of the whole nature of the video game. That there are two vastly different stories."



First of all, I disagree with Kohler's assertion that the flip-flop label doesn't endorse one candidate or the other. While the label is well known, it's definitely casts John Kerry in a negative light that I'm sure he and his supporters do not accept or appreicate. Saying the comment is completely politically neutral is not really accurate.



That being said, I feel this particular "political attack" is pretty innocuous. Kohler doesn't harp on the label, mentioning it almost in passing only once in the article's subhead. In the text of the article, Kohler calls the events "controversial," but doesn't make any statements about the truth of either version of events, or on the character of the parties involved. The use of the label serves a journalistic purpose too, highlighting the game's two different versions of events in a cute, concise way that most readers will understand.



With political games becoming becoming increasingly popular, issues like these are likely to keep popping up. In general, it's important for all journalists to keep their personal politics out of the mix when writing news stories. For game journalists, this means covering controversial games fairly, but also covering government laws and decisions regarding games with a balanced eye.



This policy only applies to news reporting, though. Reviews and commentary pieces represent the author's own opinion, and the author's personal politics can factor greatly into that opinion. To take political considerations out of the equation in these cases would be an unecessary limiting factor on the author's free expression and could lead to some rather bland opinion pieces. This is yet another reason why it's important to keep news and opinion writing clearly seperate, especially in the videogame realm where the two often mix together.

Quote of the Moment

"When you talk about the martial arts [videogame] genre, you have these stories about guys who can shoot fireballs. In my experience, never once have I seen a person throw a fireball."

-Martial artist and video game enthusiast Way Yin Yuen, on the realism of today's fighting games

From today's New York Times

The Best of What's Around

Ten bonus "coolness points" if you recognized the headline as a song title.



Anyway, just to prove I'm not a bitter, negative crank towards videogame journalism all the time, I thought I'd take this post to point out some of the better examples of videogame writing I've seen recently.



The first is an interview with GameSpot's Brian Ekberg that ran on NPR's Morning Edition last week. The subject was NFL Madden 2005, a game that Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep gamely tried to play for the first time on the air, with Ekberg's help.



Now, I'm a little biased because I spend eight hours a day working for NPR's communications divison, but I'd like to think I'd enjoy this piece even if I had never heard of NPR. The outsiders perspective Inskeep brings to the interview is a welcome respite from the predicatably jaded been-there, done-that coverage that most videogame outlets give to Madden games. Be sure to listen to the piece all the way through to the end; the sounds of that desperate touchdown run are priceless.



Next we have an article on game sequels in Monday's New York Times that was sent to me by a few readers (thanks to all of you, by the way). While I am getting a little tired of the endless comparisons between the videogame and movie industries, I feel this one is pretty apt. The article itself is full of the kind of data and quotes that can make a reader care about an issue they may not have considered before, and it manages to cover both sides of the issue well.



Amidst all the PSP and Nintendo DS stories popping up around the Tokyo Game show this week (look for more on those next week, by the way), I came across a surprising little analysis piece over at PlanetGameCube. While the site could have gotten by posting the Nintendo-generated sheet by itself, they went the extra mile by adding some explanatory commentary to the technical details. In doing so they add important context for readers that might not know how good "256 x 192 pixel resolution" actually is.



And finally, I was a little tickled by a recent article on yet another PSP press conference over at GamesIndustry.biz. The article itself is pretty standard, but one line in particular made me smile:



"We won't announce the price of the PSP today," Kutaragi told the assembled hacks yesterday ..." (emphasis added)



Just between us hacks, that's not usually how we refer to each other. But if the shoe fits...

Secret Gamer Kyle-X on Hiding Behind pseudonyms

When I first started reading Electronic Gaming Monthly back in 1992, two of my favorite features of the magazine were rumor-mongering Quartermann and mysterious reviewer Sushi-X. Despite not knowing who they really were, I felt connected in a way to these characters through their writing (and through the mysterious pictures of both that sometimes showed up inEGM).



Imagine my surprise, then, when I recently found out both Sushi-X and Quartermann didn't exist!



Well, they did exist, technically. But, according to on-again off-again EGM writer Chris Johnston, their columns were not authored by one person, as I had previously believed. Turns out that after the original creators of these characters got tired or moved on, other staff writers would simply take turns writing their columns. Shocking!



This got me thinking about the role that pseudonyms in particular and anonymity in general have had on the video game journalism industry. There are many different ways not to put your full name on an article, and I'm against almost all of them. Here are some examples, and why I don't like them:

• GamePro's emblematic character-reviewers. I remember enjoying the antics of "Scary Larry," "Dan Electro," "Dr. Zombie" and the rest of the crew back in the day. I even have fond memories of the occasional comics that would feature the characters. Of course, I subscribed to GamePro when I was between 10 and 12 years old. Now I find the characters childish and a little insulting.
  
  
  
  How am I supposed to take a review seriously when it's "written" by someone who hides behind a cartoon image? Furthermore, given the pseudonym's potential portability between authors (see above examples of Quartermann ans Sushi-X), I can't even be sure that two different reviews by "Dr. Zombie" are actually by the same person. This become a problem if I want to compare different reviews by the same reviewer to gauge their interest.





• Unsigned articles: Sites like Blue's News and Spong often post articles without any attribution. When an article is written anonymously, the true source of the information is left totally to the reader's imagination. At the very least, it makes it look like the publication doesn't fully value the contributions of their writers, or that the writing is a conglomeration of thoughts from the entire staff (in which case the article should be signed "staff"). At the worst, it makes it look like the articles are written directly by a PR person, or simply pieced together from other reports.
  
  
  
  As ludicrous as some of these suggestions might be, an article without a byline leaves them all available in the eyes of the reader. Some sort of indication of authorship is neccessary in almost every case to let the reader know who is talking to them.





• Web handles: Slashdot, Evil Avatar, and many other blog-like sites often let users post news items using internet handles instead of real names. The problem with handles is they make the writer look like a fanboyish message board poster rather than a serious person that deserves the reader's respect. When I see a bit of writing by someone named "Karl The Pagan," I don't expect any award-winning journalism. A real name immediately makes the author seem more real and more reliable to the reader.





• Game Informer's hidden last names: I just noticed this recently, but the editorial crew in Game Informer are identified primarily by their first names. You have to squint at the tiny type in the sidebar to find the full names, while the first names appear in big type next to the pictures on the Staff page and under each review. To me, this comes off as a little too personal for a professional magazine, but it's not a horrible transgression. Still, I think a well-publicized last name is a sign of respect to the author and an important connection for the reader.





• GMR's Game Geezer: I've only read a few issues of GMR, but the Game Geezer columns and their grizzled writing style stand out in my mind. While I like the humor and tone of the articles, I can't eliminate the feeling that the Game Geezer, like Quartermann and Sushi-X, don't really exist. Back in the days of Game Players magazine, Bill Donohue managed to inhabit his own grizzled persona, The Jaded Gamer, without hiding the his true identity. I suggest GMR do the same.

In the end, properly signing your articles is all about establishing trust with your readers. If you don't trust them to know who actually wrote an article, why should they trust you to give them accurate information? It's high time that serious game journalists stop hiding behind characters and pseudonyms and start letting readers evaluate them as real human beings.

Take That, GamePro

Anyone who thinks that no one could be more bitter about the state of videogame journalism than me might change their tune when they read Brian Hook's recent evisceration of GamePro on his always worth reading site, Book of Hook. I'm not GamePro's biggest fan, but even I think that Hook's summary opinion of the magazine -- "gaudy, short, poorly organized, and empty of real content" -- is harsh. Then again, I haven't seen the issue he's talking about, and he does make some good arguments for why GamePro isn't, in general, worth your time. But did he have to be so mean about it?



In other news, yours truly has taken on a part-time, paying gig as the newest blogger on Weblogs Inc.'s Playstation 3 and Xbox 2 blogs. Basically I troll the web for any tidbit of news about either system and post a summary, along with my comments, for all to see.



Those with long memories might remember that I railed against this very type of writing early in the history of the Ombudsman. Obviously I don't feel quite as strongly about it anymore. Now, I feel such link-and-quote journalism is ok as long as the author doesn't pass off the work as their own, and can use their expertise to provide context and interesting opinion wherever possible.



Did I mention they're paying me to do this?

A Note About The Name

Some people might think it's pretty pretentious for me to declare myself an ombudsman for an entire industry that didn't ask for any help or give me any endorsement. Those people would be right.



A real ombudsman acts as a reader representative, handling complaints and trying to find satisfactory solutions. It's a full time job that involves monitoring the news for accuracy and balance.



What I do occasionally resembles this, but most often it's not even close. A large majority of my posts represent my opinion and only my opinion. As the subtitle of this blog suggests, it's mainly a videogame journalims review. Sometimes this means reviewing for accuracy, but most of the time it's simply reviewing for quality.



Why am I not more like a real ombudsman? Part of it is access. Since I don't actually work for any of these organizations I'm writing about, they don't have to answer my questions or the questions of my readers. Another reason is time. I have a full-time job and a budding freelance career and a life outside of this blog, so I don't always have as much time as I'd like to cover every angle of some of these stories. If either of these seem like a cop out, that's probably because they are, to an extent.



So if I've just admitted I'm not really an ombudsman, why the name? To tell you the truth, when I started this thing over a year ago, I just thought it was a cool, slightly relevant name for a videogame journalism blog. By the time I realized that readers were taking it as a pretentious misrepresentation, I had too much invested in the name to just change it on the spot. (This also explains why Video Game is two words in the title when I now consider it only one word in most writing. This might change, though).



So the name will stay, for now. I am thinking of a new subtitle, though. The Video Game Ombudsman: Not really an ombudsman. Whaddya think?

Happy New Year

Today's update has been postponed for celebration of the Jewish new year. Guess this means I can't use Christmas and Easter as an excuse, eh? I'll try to write something up for tomorrow. Until then, just re-read a random post from the archives and pretend it's new.

A Review, As A Matter Of Fact

Thanks to Ombudsman reader Sally Jacques for writing in to ask "what your stance on what mags should do when the person who is responsible for an article is proved totally wrong."



Sally pointed me to a thread on the Official XBox UK Magazine (OXUKM) forums as way of example. Seems that the magazine recently ran a review for Headhunter: Redemption developed by Amuze and published by Sega. The thread, purportedly by two Amuze developers, points out some factual errors with the review:



In your review of Headhunter Redemption (Issue 34, October 2004), you claim that cut scenes "can't be skipped... Grrr!" This is incorrect: all cut scenes in the game are skippable. Grrr, indeed.



More mysteriously, you conclude your review by stating that "the odd bike chase succeeds in breaking up the on-foot action." There are no biking sequences in Headhunter Redemption: a fact that would be apparent to anyone who had actually played the game.



First of all, let me say that I have not verified that (a) these statements were printed in the review, (b) the statements in the review were false or (c) the original posters are actually Amuze employees. That being said, I have no reason to doubt any of these things given the corroborating statements in the rest of the thread and a similarly worded posting on Amuze's web site. While these facts are central to this specific dispute, they are not relevant to the more general question of how to handle apparent factual errors in reviews.



Later in the OXUKM thread, the author (or someone claiming to be him) responds to the charges:



As for factual inaccuracies, things seem to have been taken out of context.

I stated that cut-scenes couldn't be skipped because, in the review code we were sent, no amount of Start / A / any button pushing could skip the cutscenes.



And as for mentioning the bike sections, again I was referring to the cutscenes.



This defense highlights the two (or three?) main ways that I can envision factual errors getting into a review: versioning discrepancies and author sloppiness/duplicity.



A versioning discrepancy (i.e. a difference between review code and final, released code) is an unavoidable side effect of top-heavy game development schedules and bottom-heavy magazine publishing schedules. As I have said before, I feel that videogame reviews based on unreleased code should clearly state that they are based on an early version of the game. If, when the game comes out, the early review turns out to be inconsistent with the final product, a correction should be published at the earliest possible convenience.



Sometimes, as in this case, the correction would be relatively minor ("It turns out the cutscenes are skippable... whoops"). Other times, the changes to the game and the review may be substantial, even necessitating a change in overall opinion or scoring ("What was a buggy, badly conceived game three months ago turned out to be sufficiently playable upon release.") Either way, the correction should be prompt and easy for readers to find. (On a small side note, I specifically remember Game Players magazine handling minor corrections like these quite amusingly in their letters section with threats of violence to the offending author.)



In the case of author sloppiness (i.e. an author writing things about a game that are just wrong) there might be bigger issues at stake. In this case, I find it hard to believe that the bike chases which the author allegedly said, "succeed in breaking up the on-foot action," were actually in cut scenes. First of all, the language clearly implies that the bike chases are a part of gameplay the breaks up other parts of the gameplay. Secondly, Amuze claims that there are no bike chases in any of the game's cut scenes (again, this is all unconfirmed, but I have been given no reason to doubt it).



Sometimes, a factual error like this, especially a small one, could be chalked up to simple confusion on the part of the reviewer. No two gameplay experiences are exactly alike, and it's possible that a specific set of circumstances in a reviewers playing of a game might lead him or her to perceive something that isn't really true. It's hard to come up with an example of this that doesn't sound too contrived, but it is a possibility.



The other possibility, that the reviewer didn't actually play the game, is much more serious. With the amount of easy information available from press releases and previews, it's all too easy to completely fabricate a review of a game based on no play time. Factual errors like these could be a major red flag that such fabrication is occurring, especially if the language can be traced back to earlier material that was also proven false. In this case, a May 12, 2003, press release for the Headhunter: Redemption lists "lightning-fast motorcycle thrills on futuristic highways" as a feature, making the motorbike comment especially suspect.



In cases like this, it's up to the editor to talk to the author and further investigate whether the review represents sufficient time spent with the game (how much time is "sufficient" to review a game is a much larger topic for another time). If it's found that an author misrepresented their work, then a formal apology to the readers and a second review of the game are probably in order. Disciplinary action against the author should be left to the editor's discretion.



But be careful here. It's very easy to accuse an author of not having played a game, especially if they write a review you don't agree with. Such accusations fly around internet message boards all the time. But a simple difference of opinion is rarely enough to prove that someone wrote a review without playing a game. Factual errors and suspiciously similar language are among much more reliable methods for determining misrepresentation.



So, to sum up, how to deal with factual errors depends on their cause and their size. If the case of small, honest mistakes, all that's necessary is a correction. In the case of larger, suspicious errors, further investigation and action by an editor might be necessary. Hope that answers your question, Sally.

Slow News Day

The top four stories on Gamespot at 4:20 EST on Mon., Sept. 13, 2004 (headline and sub-head):

• Def Jam: Fight for NY off to factory -- Electronic Arts' rapper-brawler has gone gold; set to ship September 20.
• Rome: Total War goes gold -- The Creative Assembly's ancient-world real-time-strategy game marches on to the factory.
• ShellShock: Nam '67 ships -- Less than 24 hours after it goes gold, Eidos' Vietnam-set shooter marches on to stores.
  
  
• Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2005 golden -- Electronic Arts' perennially popular golf game is being caddied to the factory.

When it rains it pours, eh?

Rumor Engine: Games

The next time you're about to post a story that you think sounds a bit fishy, you might want to check with Rumor Engine: Games. While the submissions there range from potentially credible to totally ludicrous to pretty amusing, chances are if it appears on Rumor Engine it needs a little more fact-checking.



Even if you aren't researching a specific article, crusing the rumors is a fun way to learn what kinds of chatter is being thrown around cyberspace. Or, if yo uwant to have some fun, post your own rumor and see how long it takes to appear in your favorite news outlet.

DT Q & A on GJ

Yay, acronyms!



If you haven't has a chance to check out Rich Miller's Game Journalism blog yet, now's as good a time as any. Rich looks at game journalism as a part of the larger videogame industry and manages to consistently link to excellent examples of good game writing.



Rich recently posted a Q & A with Dave Thomas of the International Game Journalists Association. I've considered Dave a good friend for a few months now, even though we've only met in person for literally 30 seconds at Nokia's E3 booth. If you read the Q & A, you'll probably notice that we share a lot of the same ideas on game journalism and where it's going. It's nice to know that a succesful, mainstream columnist and a struggling, freelance hack can agree on some things.

When the Latest News Isn't

Turns out that the local PBS affiliate was only showing the new Video Game Revolution special on the high-definition digital cable channel. Despite the literally couple of dollars that the ads to the right have garnered, I can not currently afford a high-definition TV, so I could not watch the documentary last night



As I try to procure a copy of the program another way, enjoy this interview I've been sitting on for a while:

---

A few weeks ago, the story broke that Nintendo had been granted a patent for an add-on device with "communication and storage capability via a modem and hard disk drive."



Some in the videogame press community (and some in the non-videogame press) quickly filed speculative reports on the device as an XBox Live-style GameCube peripheral. One source featured the highly misleading headline, "Nintendo Patents XBox Live". Another source enigmatically guessed that the device might function as a Personal Video Recorder. It was race time at the rumor track.



To my knowledge, Gamespot's Tor Thorsen was the first author on this story to track down the actual patent, rather than relying on the summary provided on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Site. What he found revealed the newly-approved patent as a 1999 filing for the now-defunct Nintendo 64 Disk Drive.



I talked with Thorsen via e-mail about the fact-checking that went into his story and how videogame press as a whole handled the situation.



The Video Game Ombudsman: How were you first tipped off about this story?



Tor Thorsen: If told you, then I'd have to kill you. (just kidding -- see below)



VGO: When you get a tip like this, what sort of fact checking does it go through? Does this process apply to all articles, or only some? Take me through the process.



TT: Initially we were tipped off about the patent. I looked it up at the US Patent & Trademark office (USPTO) and found out it was legit. I looked at the description, and checked the "granted" date. I also sent off e-mails to Nintendo's reps (who can be very slow about getting back). Then I wrote an initial draft of the story, which heavily played up how strange it was that the week before, NOA reps were talking up game-only devices and blasting the PSX. According to that patent, they were making something that sounded a lot like a cross between the PSX (TV integration) and Xbox Live (online & game-content downloading capabilities). That version got sent to copy edit while I did a second round of fact-checking.



VGO: Was there anything about the story that made it seem particularly suspicious to you when you first heard about it?



TT: The whole situation seemed bizarre--either Nintendo's whole PR effort for the last year was BS, or they had done a "Crazy Ivan" about-face. It just seemed off. My spider sense was tingling, but there was the official gov't USPTO listing right in front of my face. Then I got hold of the scan, and I realized it was the 64DD.



VGO: What part of the patent scan first indicated to you that the patent was for the 64DD and not a new system or peripheral?



The diagram (!) and the other dates -- neither of which was including in the listing on the USPTO Web site.



VGO: Are you surprised that articles that preceded yours (and some since) did not notice the connection to the 64DD? Do you think these sources actually read through the entire patent?



TT: Online game news is a two-headed beast. You want to be first to put it up, but you also need to get the facts right. I think a lot of sites let the former override the latter. I come from a more traditional journalism background, so I've had fact-checking drilled into my head since I worked at my college paper.



That said, the online USPTO listing did not have the diagram or the initial date on it. The one thing that sent my alarm bells ringing was the original date on the page which said "Filed: April 4, 2003." That meant that either Nintendo's PR people had been putting on a very false front by pooh-poohing "convergence" (or whatever the marketing droids are calling it this week) for over a year, or something was amiss.



Here's the whole content from the USPTO site:



[editted out for space. See the online USPTO listing]



Reading that--an official document from the US gov't--you can see how it would be really easy to think it was a brand-new patent.



VGO: If you had not figured out the true nature of the patent, how long do you think it would have continued to be reported incorrectly? How far do you think the speculation would have gone?



Not long. Shortly after my story went up, Nintendo called to explain it to me. They called other people too, but, ironically, only one of our competitors bothered correcting it immediately. The others let it run until the next day, and many smaller-level sites were parroting it as fact days later. Nintendo was smart to do damage control, though -- a lot of publishers don't understand that rumors will persist only for as long as they let them and stay silent, fueling speculation.



VGO: What do you recomend to other videogame news writers to avoid oversights like the one your article corrected?



Something like 75 to 80 percent of news stories are based on press releases, so no fact checking is really necessary (though, due to the vague wording, clarifications often are). It's easy to get sloppy when you're getting spoonfed stuff all the time and you've got about a half-hour to write the thing, proof it, code it, publish it, and make it not sound like crap.



That said, a lot of people have been in this game a lot longer than me, so I wouldn't presume to tell them how to do their jobs. My advice to myself is simple: check your facts and trust your instincts. If something feels wrong, that's probably because it is.

PBS And Playboy Prattle About Play

First off, before I start to hear from a bunch of complainers saying I already broke my Tuesday/Thursday update rule, it was not my fault. The date and time on the new introduction post reflect when it was actually ready to publish, not when it was actually published because of Blogger glitches.



Anyway, people looking for interesting perspectives on videogames from unlikely sources have two very distinct choices today. The first is a new PBS special, The Videogame Revolution, which is premiering tonight at 9 p.m. I'm a little biased towards public broadcasting (my day job is at NPR), but I am looking forward to what will no doubt be a comprehensive look at the short history of the medium. Expect a full review tomorrow.



Today's second selection from the "they cover videogames?!?" file is Playboy, whose October issue features full-frontal nude pictures of videogame characters. It'd be easy to write this feature off as not worthy of serious consideration, but a quote about the feature in an Associated Press story today made me think otherwise:



"Part of the thrust of the piece is that gaming is not just for kids," [Playboy senior editor Scott] Alexander said. "We want to establish the way Playboy's going to be covering video games. We want to cover them from perspective of an adult who has a life. We're not writing video game reviews for kids who play five hours a day. We're writing for the grown-up who may play five hours a week, if that much."



I might just have to pick this one up. For the articles, of course.

Introduction V 2.0

Any sufficiently developed artistic medium requires an equally developed set of critical and journalistic standards to help give it meaning.

-Me



The question of whether videogames are an artistic medium is far from settled, but granted that premise, I hope the conclusion above makes sense to you. If so, welcome to The Video Game Ombudsman.



Until very recently, most writing about videogames was, to be blunt, thinly veiled public relations junk. Overtly corporate magazines like Nintendo Power and other more independent publications gave young gamers who could string a few sentences together a job that let them play games for a living. What they wrote usually wasn't considered that important -- just some press release filler to condense the whitespace between the pictures and ads that fueled childhood dreams and filled publisher pockets. Not that it couldn't be good, even great, but it wasn't well-developed as a whole.



Times are changing. A generation that grew up on games does not consider them mere child's play anymore. Fiction authors, cultural critics, academics and journalists are taking a serious look at videogames as more than just a consumer product. They're writing web sites, blogs, articles and books that expand the way people think about games.



This blog is dedicated to any such writing.



In the original introduction to this blog, I said I would "put a check on the often sloppy, lazy, biased, and unethical world of video game reporting." That is still a focus of this site; journalistic standards and ethical considerations will be discussed.



But in the coming year the blog will also try to answer broader questions about videogame writing. What important topics aren't being covered by the videogame press? What topics are we harping on too much? Does videogame writing influence or only reflect videogame making? Who are we writing for? What can videogame criticism learn from other critical forms? What should it reject? Is there still a place for the print videogame magazine? What makes videogame writing good?



I'll attempt to answer these and other questions through regular, well-researched columns, editorials and interviews, as well as occasional links to other sites that address the same topics. The writing, as usual, will mix my unapologetic opinions with fact-based reporting and the views and opinions of my readers.



There's a lot of videogame writing out there, and I can't read it all. If you see a piece of videogame writing or think of a game journalism issue you have a strong opinion about, I want to hear it. As I've said before, "this column is only as good as the readers that take part in it, so do your part by dropping me a line."



About the Blogger



Kyle Orland graduated from the University of Maryland, College Park in May 2004 with degrees in computer science and journalism. He's been writing about videogames since 1997, when he founded Super Mario Bros. HQ, which he ran for four years. He's written for a variety of online and print publications including The Diamondback, GameCritics, and GameSpot. Kyle is a founding member of the International Game Journalists Association and is always looking for freelance and permanent writing opportunities. His favorite game of all time is Super Mario 64.



Also, he's not really an ombudsman.

The VGO Is Back

If you've ever read a blog, you know it's the bloggers perogative to take long, unannounced hiatuses only to return as if nothing ever happened. Or, at least you do now.



The difference is I'm not acting like nothing ever happened. Now that I've taken some time to enjoy the last days of summer (and am preparing to enjoy a long Labor Day weekend) I'm ready to rededicate myself to the Ombudsman. This will manifest itself in a few ways:

• Regular Updates: Promises, promises, I know, but this time I'm serious. The Video Game Ombudsman will be updated with features every Tuesday and Thursday, starting next week. By features, I mean longish articles, usually falling into one of the following categories:
• Interviews: These have gotten some good response from readers recently and, frankly, they're easy to do, so expect more of them in the future.
• Reviews: I figure if others can review games, why can't I review them? Magazines (both specific issues and entire publications), web sites, and books will be subjectively reviewed for overall quality based on what I consider important (which should be apparent to readers by now). Expect my usual unapologetic opinions.
• Editorials: My usual post style, dealing with the larger issues of video game writing that I find interesting. These will sometimes be general diatribes and sometimes be specific complaints.
• Coverage Analysis: As big events happen in the world of videogames, I'll look at how the videogame press deals with them, as I've done in the past.
• Other Updates: On other days of the week, expect shorter updates with links to videogame-journalism related things I find interesting or short commentaries about how I'm right and everyone else is wrong.
• Administrivia: Little things around the site are changing along with Blogger, including different Google ads (on the right), a new comment system (see the bottom of this post), each archived post on its own page, and the ability to e-mail posts to friends.
  
  
  
  In the interest of full disclosure, I do make some money from the ads, based on clicks, but I don't actively solicit them. Rather, they're provided automtically based on the content of the page. So if you notice me trying to awkwardly fit in the names of big companies to attract big-paying ads, feel free to call me on it.

That's about it for now. Expect a major revision to the now quite-outdated introduction early next week, after which the new schedule will take effect. Until then, feel free to leave your comments below, as always.