I have to admit, I haven't read most of the articles listed on Guardian Gamesblog's recent list of ten unmissable examples of New Games Journalism. I definitely like the concept behind the "movement" towards more experiential writing about games, but I just haven't had the required time or mindset necessary to read through ten of these things in the past few days.
That's why I'm sending out huge thanks to Ombudsman reader Dan Dormer, who pointed me to a hillarious list of reasons why news game journalism is, um, not so good. The guys behind UK Resistance (which excellently describes itself as "a WEB SITE, not a blog.) apparently aren't big fans of 15,000 word articles that they say are primarily "centred around how GREAT the writer is, how long he can write for in one go and how many books he knows about and films he's seen."
On the one hand, I feel this is a horribly basic and unfair generalization about all the pieces lumped under the wide and growing "new games journalism" heading. On the other hand, it's pretty funny, and pretty accurate in some cases. Read it and take yourself down a peg.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is by far one of the greatest pieces ever written on NGJ, which is indeed rubbish.
ReplyDeleteI don't get the hate for NGJ, myself, and have just posted my own feelings on it - very close to Matt's actually.
ReplyDeleteNGJ is just about making the writing less about the game and more about the gamer as far as I can tell. And don't tell me that you don't care about that, because we all swap war stories about what just happened to us in WoW or how you led your OOTP baseball team to 12 straight world championships.
The difference is in the skill with which these experiences are relayed. And if it means a lot fewer articles about "hotchix who game" or "GTA killed my baby" than I for one will be cheering.
There's nothing wrong in theory with New Games Journalism, just like there's nothing wrong with Hunter S. Thompson's Gonzo Journalism...in theory.
ReplyDeleteThe big difference here between NGJ and 'normal' game reporting is that, like 'normal' journalism, game reporting (I'm talking mostly reviews, previews, etc. here, the established core of game media) there's guides and outlines and a general feel for how those are written.
It's much easier for a poor writer to hide behind a standard game review than it is to write something really original like NGJ purports to do. So when they fail, they tend to fail abysmally.
Wrote a little thing about it a few days ago: http://www.thegameblog.com/game-editorial/ten-missable-ngj
'Ten most missable examples of NGJ'
And I've been looking, I really don't think "unmissable" is a word. I really don't.
Walker
If I see one more video game reviewer use the phrase "it's a mixed bag" I'll scream.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that a too-specific definition of "journalism" is being used here. Gaming journalism encompasses reviews, previews, editorials, news, blogs, etc. whereas all the complaints and praises about it seem to be fairly review-centric. I'm a fan of Tim Rogers as much as the next guy, and I enjoy reading his gargantuan pieces, but only as long as I'm not expecting a straightforward traditional "review" of the game in question - and therein lies the difference. I can understand the complaints about the position in which the writer places himself within the piece in question, about the "15,000 word" conversations, and seemingly pretentious book references when it specifically comes to game reviews, but those reviews on their own do not represent the entire body of "New Games Journalism", "Old Games Journalism", or really any journalism at all. Praise or complain about the reviews, fine, but it's misguided to worship or decry the entire umbrella of "gaming journalism" because of them exclusively.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that a too-specific definition of "journalism" is being used here. Gaming journalism encompasses reviews, previews, editorials, news, blogs, etc. whereas all the complaints and praises about it seem to be fairly review-centric. I'm a fan of Tim Rogers as much as the next guy, and I enjoy reading his gargantuan pieces, but only as long as I'm not expecting a straightforward traditional "review" of the game in question - and therein lies the difference. I can understand the complaints about the position in which the writer places himself within the piece in question, about the "15,000 word" conversations, and seemingly pretentious book references when it specifically comes to game reviews, but those reviews on their own do not represent the entire body of "New Games Journalism", "Old Games Journalism", or really any journalism at all. Praise or complain about the reviews, fine, but it's misguided to worship or decry the entire umbrella of "gaming journalism" because of them exclusively.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that a too-specific definition of "journalism" is being used here. Gaming journalism encompasses reviews, previews, editorials, news, blogs, etc. whereas all the complaints and praises about it seem to be fairly review-centric. I'm a fan of Tim Rogers as much as the next guy, and I enjoy reading his gargantuan pieces, but only as long as I'm not expecting a straightforward traditional "review" of the game in question - and therein lies the difference. I can understand the complaints about the position in which the writer places himself within the piece in question, about the "15,000 word" conversations, and seemingly pretentious book references when it specifically comes to game reviews, but those reviews on their own do not represent the entire body of "New Games Journalism", "Old Games Journalism", or really any journalism at all. Praise or complain about the reviews, fine, but it's misguided to worship or decry the entire umbrella of "gaming journalism" because of them exclusively.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that a too-specific definition of "journalism" is being used here. Gaming journalism encompasses reviews, previews, editorials, news, blogs, etc. whereas all the complaints and praises about it seem to be fairly review-centric. I'm a fan of Tim Rogers as much as the next guy, and I enjoy reading his gargantuan pieces, but only as long as I'm not expecting a straightforward traditional "review" of the game in question - and therein lies the difference. I can understand the complaints about the position in which the writer places himself within the piece in question, about the "15,000 word" conversations, and seemingly pretentious book references when it specifically comes to game reviews, but those reviews on their own do not represent the entire body of "New Games Journalism", "Old Games Journalism", or really any journalism at all. Praise or complain about the reviews, fine, but it's misguided to worship or decry the entire umbrella of "gaming journalism" because of them exclusively.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the double post there, blogger.com's being..disagreeable.
ReplyDeleteI found it hard to get riled up about this article. Well no actually Kyle's comments riled me up but then I actually read it, and it's was really just harmless humor. Great find, I think I might like this website.
ReplyDeleteI think the backlash over NGJ comes from the fact that a lot of people that are trumpeting NGJ seem to want it to replace "Old Game Journalism."
ReplyDeleteAnd that's just idiotic.
Reviews, previews, news and features can cover a very wide range of topics, feelings, moods and writing styles. If anything, NGJ is just some writers making more out of what used to be called a "Feature" than before.
To say that a product-centered industry like video games would be better off if the product-centered writing went away is ridiculous.
We'll all be better off when NGJ and Old Game Journalism just become "Game Journalism" and everyone can back to reading and writing what they like.