Category: INTERNETZORZ

1015: JARNAWRITINGLIZMZ

The discussion surrounding the recent "Games Journalists Might Be Corrupt" debacle continues, it seems, with a recent piece by Ben Kuchera over on the Penny Arcade Report summarising nicely why it's an issue worth discussing. I don't really want to get into that conversation again right now because it's already being researched and reported on by people with more time and resources on their hands than me.

What I do want to talk about, though, is the ancillary discussion which always crops up any time Issues surrounding "games journalism" crops up — that is, a matter of what is "games journalism" and the divide between "journalist", "blogger" and any other definitions you'd care to give.

I saw an interesting quote earlier today on Twitter. I forget who it was from so I can't link to it, unfortunately, but it read something like this:

"Don't get into games journalism because you like games. Get into it because you love writing."

That's exactly the reason I enjoy writing about games — because I love writing, as the 1014 posts prior to this will attest. I mean, sure, I love games, too, but I could love games without wanting to write about them, and yet I voluntarily compose thousands of words on the subject every week — here, over at Games Are Evil and for my day job. If I didn't love it, I wouldn't do it.

There's something of an air of snobbery surrounding writing about games, though, and it's all to do with that "J" word. When outlets like Polygon publish a piece like this, you get people expressing genuine surprise that someone has "done some actual games journalism". For sure, well-researched investigative pieces are very much worthy of note and should be praised — but just as in regular newspapers, they are not the be-all and end-all of writing. In mainstream culture and current affairs, we have plenty of critical and opinion pieces alongside the deep-dive investigative pieces — so why is this sort of thing looked down upon in games writing?

It's the obsession with that "J" word. "Journalism" carries with it certain expectations — specifically, reporting and investigation, and perhaps uncovering some facts that might not have come to light otherwise. But there's just as much value in someone composing an in-depth personal response to something they've played in detail, or indeed an opinion piece on a pertinent current issue in the industry.

It's not "one size fits all", in short, and I think part of the problem in the "writing about games" sector (whatever you want to call it) is that too many outlets are trying to be one size fits all. We see sites like VG247 posting articles on everything from the latest DLC drop for Call of Duty to sales figures via who has got a new job on a magazine — something which the vast majority of gamers who are not involved in the industry probably wouldn't give a toss about. We have sites like GamesBeat experimenting with a review format that features feedback from a games critic, a business analyst and an academic, and it's not entirely clear who that's for.

We need greater focus and less generalisation. The outlets that are good at "real journalism" such as Kuchera's Penny Arcade Report (and to a lesser extent Polygon) should keep doing what they do because it's important — and it'd be good to see more outlets focusing on this side of things with properly-trained staff. But at the same time, the sites who are effectively "magazines" as opposed to "newspapers" should keep doing what they're doing too. Their work is no less valid or important, but their purpose is different — while the "journalistic" outlets' primary purpose is to inform, the "magazine" outlets' primary purpose is to entertain. There's a degree of crossover between both, of course, but I can't help but feel that focusing on either one or the other rather than ending up doing a half-assed job at both would benefit everyone in the long run.

I actually wrote a piece on this subject a while back regarding the ever-controversial Kotaku, a site which consistently draws heat for its seemingly "irrelevant" articles and often irreverent attitude. I still stand by what I say in that post — if Kotaku was more honest and open about its target audience (18-30 year old men) and tailored its content accordingly, then I feel it would be a better publication as a result.

It's also what I'm trying to do over at Games Are Evil with a limited team and resources. We're not under any illusions about being the first to report on anything or the most timely with our coverage, but in acknowledging that fact and taking a more "magazine-like" approach — weekly, focused columns punctuated by brief news snippets on subjects that are a little "off the beaten track" and regular features such as our daily Song of the Day — I feel we're building a better, more distinctive publication rather than yet another "me too" blog, and one that I'm actually pretty proud of so far.

Anyway. The "games journalism is broken" discussion will probably continue in perpetuity, particularly given recent events. I do know one thing, though, and that's that I am really glad I am not Lauren Wainwright right now.

1011: Sigh... Another Shitstorm

Boy, it all kicked off earlier. Again.

For those who missed the whole shebang, basically, this is the flow of events over the last two days to the best of my knowledge.

Yesterday:

  • Twitter "debate" erupts over whether or not it was ethical for UK games journalists attending the annual "Games Media Awards" ceremony to be tweeting promotional hashtags in the hope of winning a PS3.
  • Winners of said competition name-checked by several Twitter users.
  • Several of said winners speak up and say they are giving away their PS3s.
  • Eurogamer publishes this article by Robert Florence (now recreated on GAF because the Eurogamer-hosted one has been edited) in which he notes that journalists defending such a competition could be seen as corrupt. He quotes tweets from several public sources (mostly Twitter) in said article.
  • MCV staff writer Lauren Wainwright, who was originally quoted in Florence's article, posts on Facebook "Yes, I've seen it. Yes, it's slander. No, it's not being taken lightly." and quickly makes it clear that she is referring to Florence's article.

Today:

Most of the salient points surrounding this issue have probably already been addressed far better than I will do in this post, but since this is my personal blog I thought I would give my take on the matter, as something of an "outsider" to the UK games industry. (It's true; despite living in the UK, pretty much all games/tech journalism work I've done in the last few years has been for American outlets — the last UK publication I wrote for was the UK Official Nintendo Magazine, and that was back when the N64 was one of the current-generation consoles.)

I have come to the conclusion, not just as a result of this shitstorm, that I am Not A Fan of the UK games journalism industry.

Actually, that's not quite true — there are plenty of people in the UK industry with a considerable degree of integrity who sadly toil away in relative obscurity. People like Lewis Denby over at Beefjack, Ashton Raze and Tom Hoggins over at The Telegraph's games column, and itinerant freelancer Chris Schilling — and scores of others, too, most of whom I follow on Twitter. These are all people that I may not have had the pleasure of actually meeting in most cases (though I met Denby at the Houses of Parliament one day) but whom I have interacted with and have grown to trust the opinions of. I have no issue with these people.

However, what I do have an issue with is the "old boys' club" that is at the core of the UK games journo industry; a toxic heart beating away and infecting all around it with its bitterness and vitriol. In this inner circle, most people seem to actively hate their job, mocking it at every opportunity and deriding genuinely interesting ventures such as a games journalism introductory session that IGN attempted to host in London a short while back. The apparent priority for a number of these individuals — from what I can tell from their public output, anyway — is getting drunk and taking the piss out of the medium they're supposed to be representing. "VIDEOGAMES," they'll say (and misspell), deriding something that everyone is already aware of and completely ignoring the more interesting things going on in the business.

The focal point of all this vitriol is surely the Games Media Awards, an odious annual event hosted by Intent Media, the parent company of Wainwright's employer MCV. Now, you might not think that celebrating the achievements of hardworking journalists is a bad thing, and for the record, I don't either — but for the last two years I have seen nothing but obnoxious behaviour surrounding this event. I don't know about you, but for a professional industry awards ceremony, I expect a certain level of professionalism, formality and decorum — none of which are readily apparent in the slightest when looking at the GMAs, which are little more than a pissup for journalists organised by PR staff and publishers.

I knew that something was up when the "humorous" Twitter account promoting the event last year was publicly lambasting anyone (including me) who took umbrage with its less-than-professional tone. These suspicions were only confirmed when the sponsors for the event showed up brandishing about a million free condoms and with an army of dwarfs in tow. The event was a complete debacle and many of the journos present did decry the sponsor Grainger Games' behaviour as abhorrent, to be fair — but equally, there were plenty of "oh man, I was so drunk" stories circulating.

This year, it was a different controversy — specifically, a whole lot of behaviour which Florence quite accurately pointed out could be interpreted as shilling. Journos were getting their photograph taken with the dude from Far Cry 3 and tweeting about some game I've never heard of called Defiance, and publicly sharing both on Twitter. Some people quite rightly criticised this, and that's what kicked off this whole debacle. Specifically, it was Intent Media and various other members of the "inner circle" defending their behaviour that kicked off this whole debacle.

You see, part of the problem with the "inner circle" is that it believes itself superior and immune to criticism. At no point were those who had been "caught in the act" willing to discuss the possibilities that their actions might be misinterpreted, whatever the actual intentions behind them. Wainwright's "complaint" and possible threat of legal action is just one of many silencing tactics that have been used surrounding this issue, with the others being the old favourite "remember when we just talked about games? Games were fun!" and "get back to work" arguments.

Well, yes, games are fun, and it would be nice to get back to talking about them. But these conversations that we're having here are important, too. This whole ridiculous situation came about for a reason, after all, and it's something that the industry should learn from. Specifically, outlets should begin getting their staff better acquainted with media law, and they should also instill in their employees a culture that criticism is not always a negative thing; sometimes it is an opportunity to grow, change and improve.

Will the industry actually learn from this, though? Probably not, sadly. I would, however, like to state for the record that I have never seen this level of ridiculously shameful behaviour from the American games press. Sure, there's been plenty of public spats — particularly surrounding high-profile figures such as Destructoid's Jim Sterling and the Polygon crew — but nothing that's actually left me feeling as ashamed of the industry I've worked so hard to be a part of as the last 48 hours have.

I'll leave you with this excellent piece by Jeff Grubb from back in the early days of Bitmob. I agree with everything my hirsute honey says. And that's the last I will say on the matter!

This is my 1,000th daily post on this blog

Well, there we are. 1,000 days of non-stop daily blogging. I am the best, I win, etc. Sorry this post is so late, but once you've read it you'll hopefully appreciate that it took a bit of time to put together. I felt I should make the effort, you know. Special occasion and all that.

Of course, I'm well aware that I'm not the first person to reach a thousand days — as I mentioned a few days back, Mr Ian Dransfield got there first due to… well, starting before me. I joined the initial #oneaday crowd a little late, on January 19, 2010, whereas the people who actually started the whole thing off began closer to New Year's Day. As I noted in that post I just linked to, however, I am officially the Last Man Standing and I don't mind admitting that I feel more than a little proud of that fact. Through thick and thin, I've stuck by this self-imposed project with no end and no goal, and I have enjoyed the experience immensely.

And, more importantly, I plan to continue enjoying it from this point onwards. Post number 1,000 — that's this one — is most certainly not a fond farewell and a hanging up of the… whatever implement best exemplifies blogging. (My computer keyboard, I guess.) No; it's a significant milestone, for sure, but I see no reason to stop. There are plenty of things to write about. And while they may not always be the most interesting or universally appealing, as I've noted on this blog a number of times before, the original intention of #oneaday was not to be interesting or universally appealing. It was simply a kick up the bum to get those of us who enjoyed writing to do more writing. Writing for ourselves, rather than for someone else. Writing without limits, without the necessity of sticking to a style (though those of us in it for the long haul naturally developed our own personal styles), without word counts, without anyone deciding whether or not the thing we were writing about was worth writing about. And, of course writing without editing.

Yes, these are the pure, unexpurgated contents of my brain you're reading every day. Unfiltered, uncensored, completely truthful. (Well, okay, regarding the latter, I might omit to mention a few things, but that's not exactly the same as lying.) A couple of people have commented to me over the course of the past thousand days that they're impressed by my ability to just lay my soul bare on the page like that, to confess to things that others might find difficult to talk about. For me, though, it's actually something of a relief to be able to talk about a lot of these things, be it my depression and social anxiety or my enjoyment of visual novels that, in many cases, have bonking in them. This blog has been a good "friend", as it were, providing me with a place to empty my brain of all the thoughts that have been floating around with it over the course of each day, and in the process I have made a few actual friends who have either related to the things I've written or just found them interesting. Which is, you know, nice.

More after the jump — it's a long one. (That's what she said, etc.)

Continue reading "This is my 1,000th daily post on this blog" →

#oneaday Day 998: Generally Generalising

First up, read this. It's an impressive piece of investigative journalism regarding a Reddit user known as "ViolentAcrez" — a notorious user for his practices of posting creepy photos of often-underage women without their consent. The piece describes the reporter Adrian Chen's (successful) attempts to unmask ViolentAcrez and publicly shame him for the things he has spent the last few years doing.

Fair enough. As a number of people have said in relation to this story today, the "free speech" so beloved of Reddit users does not mean the same thing as "free of consequences". And while Michael Brutsch, the man behind the handle "ViolentAcrez", has not technically broken any laws with his activities — he wasn't posting child pornography or anything illegal, simply reposts of images that were already in the public domain on Facebook and other services, and later voyeuristic images taken without the knowledge of the people depicted — the fact stands that his behaviour was more than a little creepy, inappropriate and actively harmful in a society that is, for the most part, actively trying to improve attitudes towards women.

I'm not denying any of this. While I find the tracking down and public shaming of a notorious Internet troll a little creepy in and of itself, what Chen did in the name of journalism is a far cry from what Brutsch has been doing for the past few years — and probably for the best in the long run. Brutsch will certainly think twice — or at least be a lot more careful about his "social media footprint" — before trying anything like this again. There's a lesson to be learned in all this — if you're a dick on the Internet, sometimes it will come back and bite you in the ass.

There is something that bothers me about this story, however, and that's been the reaction to it. Specifically, the negativity directed towards the entire Reddit community as a result of this story and surrounding issues. For those who haven't been keeping up on this story over the past few days, a number of Reddit subforums, or "subreddits" as they're called, completely blocked all Gawker links in a showing of solidarity for Brutsch who was, despite his behaviour, regarded as a valuable member of the community and a "necessary evil" by many — while he was a notorious troll, the Reddit staffers made active use of him to police the less salubrious parts of Reddit and ensure that nothing that actually was illegal was being posted. A "man on the inside", as it were.

Because certain parts of Reddit decided to show their support for and/or actively defend Brutsch's behaviour on the grounds of "free speech", apparently all of Reddit is now something to be reviled — a "cesspit", as I saw it referred to earlier today.

This is the bit that makes me uncomfortable — an entire community being blamed and ostracised for the behaviour of one man in particular, and also for that of those who support him.

I've been on Reddit. I haven't been on there for a while but I enjoyed a brief stint on there a while back. I joined some interesting discussions on a variety of topics ranging from gaming to TV shows  via funny pictures and an accidental excursion into naked photographs that users had taken of themselves. (In the latter case, the notorious "gonewild" subreddit, the majority of comments were in fact, body-positive — particularly on the pictures of those who had been brave enough to post a picture of their obviously-overweight body — rather than perverted, which I found to be interesting. Also, it genuinely was an accident that I found myself in that subreddit — Reddit's main screen gives little to no indication what "gonewild" is all about. In retrospect, I should have thought about it a little more before jumping in, but hey, I'm pretty hard to shock. But I digress.)

I didn't spend long enough to make any particular friends there, but I have heard plenty of stories of people getting to know each other and making lasting friendships or relationships through the site. There are plenty of stories of Reddit communities pulling together to support others, too — stories of helping people through difficult times; stories of helping people who are struggling for money; stories of, in short, human helping human. I know at least one person personally who is using a specific subreddit for support in getting help for some of their personal problems and issues. There is plenty that is positive to say about Reddit.

And yet for the obnoxious, totally inappropriate actions of one man and his supporters — some of whom, it seems, have been or are on Reddit's staff — apparently this entire, incredibly diverse Internet community should be ostracised.

Something really doesn't sit right with that for me. To generalise one of the largest communities on the Internet as all being scumbags like this just seems both dangerous and unfair. I have plenty of friends who enjoy using Reddit for completely innocent purposes, be it discussion, promotion of things they have been working on or discovering interesting new reaction .GIFs. I know that they'd be the first to distance themselves from the sort of behaviour that Brutsch has exhibited, and yet if you were to take what a number of commentators are saying at face value, you'd have to brand these people as deviant perverts and assholes, too, simply by virtue of the fact that they're Reddit users.

This is not helpful.

I'm fully aware that I've been guilty of this sort of thing in the past — not specifically with regard to Reddit, but with 4chan. I've referred to that place as a "cesspit" before and certainly it has more than its fair share of trolls and unpleasant people there — but equally now I realise that there are also plenty of other people who just make it their hangout of choice. They, subsequently, become guilty by association with the "/b/tards" who are responsible for the majority of objectionable material and behaviour on 4chan (and, by extension, the rest of the Internet. And they're probably pretty pissed about that.

The same thing is happening with Reddit. As much as Reddit would like to market itself as a "social news" tool, let's not be under any illusions — it's nothing more than the world's biggest forum. Like most forums, it has tons of subcultures and cliques, most of whom stick to their own neatly-carved niches for the most part. Some of these subcultures and cliques are objectionable in nature, and it's up to the site admins and moderators to determine what to do about that — something that they haven't done a great job with so far, and something they need to work on.

However, the mere presence of some objectionable subcultures and cliques does not mean that the entire website as a whole is somehow objectionable. It's the same as saying that a particular city is a "cesspit" because, say, a greater-than-average number of registered sex offenders live there. Or the same as saying that all people who like a particular thing are a bunch of assholes. Or, in fact, the same as almost any other unfair, unsubstantiated generalisation. It's not helpful — all it does is turn everyone outside that group against them, and everyone inside that group becomes defensive. The two sides inevitably clash, and things just get worse and worse rather than better. It doesn't help anyone.

So by all means think that Michael Brutsch is a creepy old pervert whom you wouldn't want anywhere near your children. By all means criticise those who supported him — including members of Reddit's staff.

I agree with you.

But take a moment to think of the thousands — more likely millions — of people who make use of Reddit on a regular basis and have absolutely nothing to do with this before you start branding the entire community as pond life. Would you want to be made guilty by association with something you had no involvement in whatsoever? I doubt it very much. So quit doing it to others.

#oneaday Day 994: I Don't Care

I'm coming to the rather cynical conclusion that I'm not sure I care enough about certain issues to want to shout and scream and rant and rave about them all day, every day. A big part of the reason behind this is the fact that people who do care enough about certain issues to shout and scream and rant and rave about them all day, every day are wearing me down significantly. I won't get into specifics, as that will likely only provoke more shouting, screaming, ranting and raving, but suffice to say I really can't be arsed with it any more.

I am fully aware that taking this rather apathetic attitude towards Big Issues makes me officially Part of the Problem. But, you know, I just don't care any more. I have had my share of shit things happen to me in my life — nothing on a par with the abuse and crap some social groups have to put up with, though, obviously — and I am just exhausted. I am 31 years old and I just want to settle down with a nice, quiet life. I want to have a nice house with a cat and/or a dog, a car that doesn't rattle when it goes around corners, a job that I enjoy that also allows me the free time to do things I want to do. I am partway there already (mainly on the job front) after a difficult couple of years, and I just do not have the energy to get upset and angry over things outside of my immediate situation any more. It's selfish, and I'm completely aware of that — and mildly guilty about it, to my annoyance — but it's true. I want my own life to be sorted before I try and fix the rest of the world, and I've still got a long way to go yet.

In honesty, it's not that I genuinely don't give a shit about the issues in question and don't think they're a problem. It's that any time a "discussion" on said issues comes up, it devolves within a matter of seconds into people throwing tables at each other, telling each other to "get a grip" or that Their Opinion Is Wrong. I've tried on several occasions to engage in such discussions in a reasonable, rational manner and every time this pattern has emerged, without fail. It's utterly predictable. Someone makes an inflammatory statement deliberately designed to provoke, someone else comes along with a counterpoint, then both sides gather the troops and proceed to bitch and scream at one another with no resolution being reached. Then the whole thing just happens again and again and again. In some cases, people in question repeatedly stoke the fire in an attempt to get the arguments to flare up again long after the initial flurry has passed.

I have one far-off friend in particular whom I otherwise like very much who I now feel I can't really engage with via social media any more because 90% of their posts seem to follow the pattern outlined above. This sort of person attracts like-minded individuals, most of whom are strong-willed and keen to argue their case aggressively. I hate unnecessary aggression and will do anything possible to avoid it, whether it's in actual conversation or on the Internet. If that means no longer talking to someone online, then it's a sad situation for sure, but it's what I'll do.

There's also the fact that in a lot of cases these screaming matches don't achieve anything whatsoever. A lot of the people who hold these strong opinions can very much talk the talk but then don't do anything to back up their bold words. If they took some sort of action regarding the things they feel so strongly about, I might be more inclined to care more one way or the other. But when the same old arguments arise day after day after day, I just get tired and don't want to engage with it any more. The impact is lost. I don't care any more. I just want to have a quiet life. If your points are making me — and doubtless plenty of others like me — feel like that, you are not arguing your case well.

Is that such a bad thing? Apparently so. But if it's wrong, to mangle the cliché, I really don't have the energy or give enough of a shit to be right.

 

#oneaday Day 989: Blackout

I was all set to write something profound tonight, then the Internet died and I'm relegated to blogging from my phone.

All right, I didn't have anything hugely profound to say and even if I did I could clearly still say it from my phone, but the Internet has gone down, which is, as everyone thoroughly immersed in 21st century living knows, incredibly annoying.

Given its prevalence in our everyday lives, it's very easy to forget what life without the Internet was like. Something as simple as checking the news or finding out what time something was on TV relied on you having… oh, it's back. I'll return when I finish watching this episode of The World God Only Knows. Ja ne!

… … … …

20 minutes later…

There we are, that's better.

Shit, now there's pressure on me to write something meaningful. Umm…

Nope, I got nothing. And fuck all that Internet talk. I've written that exact same post at least five or six times already in the last 989 days.

I finished watching Welcome to the NHK today. The last few episodes were major-league Feels territory. It was a fascinating show, all-told, that I may write about in more detail at some point in the near future. What I particularly liked was that it wasn't particularly easy to pigeon-hole into a specific category of genre. It had elements of comedy, drama, romance, surrealism and all manner of other stuff too. On the whole it was quite an emotional experience for me — I'm not sure how much it would resonate with someone who couldn't relate to some of the issues therein, but I certainly found it to be an excellent, worthwhile, enjoyable and moving watch.

Tonight, as I mentioned earlier, I've started watching The World God Only Knows after recommendations from several people. I'll blog in more detail about this when I've watched more than two episodes, but it seems to be highly entertaining so far.

The premise, for the unfamiliar, is that dating sim addict Keima inadvertently enters into a contract with the unfeasibly cute and broom-wielding demon Elsie to help round up "Loose Souls", runaway spirits that hide themselves inside the hearts of girls. Keima is thus tasked with making said girls fall in love with him, thus releasing the Loose Soul for Elsie to catch. Keima, sadly, is more than a little socially awkward, having spent all his time dating 2D girls rather than interacting with real people. However, since reneging on the contract means that both he and Elsie will be decapitated by the magical collars placed upon them, he has no choice but to go along with the outlandish plan. Consequently, he attempts to use his knowledge of dating sim tropes to figure out girls in the real world and, of course, Hilarity Ensues.

I've watched two episodes so far and already I want my own Elsie to hug. Certain characters just nail the whole adorableness factor, and she has this particular characteristic in spades. The show as a whole is rather endearing, too, though, regularly lapsing into heavily-stylized and chibi sequences rather than trying to remain too grounded in reality. The concept is, after all, ridiculous, so rather than trying to take itself too seriously the show appears to very much embrace its silliness. I'm fine with that, and am looking forward to exploring the rest of the episodes.

Anyway, on that note I think it's probably time I hit the sack. Hopefully tomorrow will see a more coherent entry and less in the way of Internet outages.

#oneaday Day 988: Love and Tolerate

The world is full of social issues that really, thinking about it, we should probably have gotten over by now. As a general rule, hating anyone for arbitrary reasons such as their gender, race, sexuality or haircut is something that the human race of the 21st century should have moved past now, but it's sad to see that this sort of thing still goes on. And yes, people probably should speak out against sexism, misogyny, racism and all manner of other issues when they crop up. If they don't, then these issues just continue to fester and get worse. If you don't get any sort of feedback on the things you say, you never learn that they aren't acceptable, after all.

At the same time, I can't help feeling discomfort at the tone in which some of these criticisms are presented. I read an article over on Boing Boing today about "why the fedora grosses out geekdom". Perhaps I'm not clever enough to "get" Leigh Alexander's writing, but I came out of that article having absolutely no idea of what she was getting at. Supposedly she was exploring why the fedora had such negative associations, even among members of geek culture — this is the first I've heard of it, I have to say — but it actually came across to me as yet another rant against the phenomenon of "Nice Guys". I've written about this topic in the past and it really does bother me — even more so since learning that a very good friend of mine (and a genuine nice guy (no caps) to boot) abandoned his previous (excellent) blog due to its name — "Nice Guy Gamer" — having negative connotations. While I don't argue that there are guys out there who do fulfil the "Nice Guy" (with caps) stereotype, as someone who believes himself to be nice (no caps) it irks me enormously any time this discussion comes up.

In short, Alexander's piece just came across as rather judgemental, even if that wasn't the intention. In providing links to the various "shaming" Tumblrs that focus on men wearing fedoras and these supposed negative connotations, she has fuelled the fire and made people aware of another avenue of bullying people based on their fashion choices. Not only that, she has also drawn attention to a supposed connection between the people who choose to dress this way and undesirable character traits. Statistically speaking, there probably are some men who wear fedoras and who are manipulative jerkwads, but equally, there are probably also plenty of men who choose to wear them purely as a means to express themselves. We geeks aren't particularly known for dressing well at the best of times, so perhaps we should cut those who make an effort to give themselves a distinctive appearance a bit of slack. (NB: I do not own a fedora. I do have a straw trilby that was purchased entirely to stop me giving myself sunstroke when sitting outside, and not as a fashion statement.)

I guess my point is that while there are plenty of issues that really do need resolving — the way that many women are treated on a daily basis is unacceptable; racial epithets just need to go away; medieval attitudes towards sexuality need to be thrown through the window — there are clearly better ways of going about it than attacking (or at least drawing unnecessary attention to) subcultures or trends that may or may not have anything to do with undesirable character traits. Attack sexism, misogyny, racism, homophobia and all that other bullshit the world can do without when it comes up, yes. Speak out against injustices. Make a difference.

But seriously. Dudes in hats? Let them enjoy their quirks. Love and tolerate. Not everything is bad. At this rate there will be very little left in the world for people to enjoy without feeling guilty or self-conscious. And that sounds like a pretty miserable existence to me — especially as a geek who feels perpetually uneasy and self-conscious.

#oneaday Day 982: Must Try Harder

I'm not normally one to put down the hard work of others, particularly in my own field of writing, but I feel compelled to say a few words about some things that have been published this week.

Here's one.

Here's the other.

Now, lest I come across as some sort of joyless bastard, I am aware that both of these pieces were written in jest in an attempt to be — I assume, anyway — "satirical", but the fact is that they both utterly fail in what they are trying to do, leaving them both looking rather foolish — particularly the deranged scribblings of the Borderlands 2 piece.

There are several things that irk me about these two pieces. Firstly is the fact that they exist at all, and on high-profile, (arguably) respectable sites that actually pay their writers. It's hard to feel that this sort of thing is justifiable when there are plenty of people across the world writing purely for the love of writing about games. My team over at Games Are Evil is just one of many groups who don't write about games as their main, paying job but still put in a ton of effort to produce great content and strive to improve their own work over time. The scores of community writers over at Bitmob are another great example. The countless bloggers all over the world. Those who run enthusiast sites in their own time in an attempt to get noticed. All of those produce higher quality work than the two pieces linked above — and yet these are the articles that are deemed worthy of pay. There's no justice there.

The second thing that has vexed me somewhat regarding this matter is the amount of praise they have got — mostly from fellow professionals, it has to be said. The first piece in particular drew a frankly astonishing amount of fawning, with quotes including that it was the "most clever [review of Borderlands 2]" that one tweeter had ever read; that it was "anarchic stream-of-consciousness, like the game itself"; that it was the "most incredible piece of games journalism ever" and the "Ulysses of games journalism".

Now, I'm all for celebrating good writing. But this was not good writing. Even from the perspective of it presumably being some sort of parody (or "anarchic stream-of-consciousness") it just didn't work. The number of utterly bewildered comments beneath the article is proof of that — and it's the same for the Eurogamer piece.

The thing is, I know both writers are capable of much better — and I have nothing against either of them personally. The author of the Borderlands 2 piece is not only the editor of one of the biggest video game sites in the UK, but also a novelist. I expect considerably better from him, in short — or if he's going to try something clever, it should be something that actually works.

Since taking a step back from mainstream games journalism (my day job focuses on mobile and social games, and Games Are Evil focuses on the "alternative" side of computer and console gaming) I have regrettably confirmed a few suspicions I had about the state of the games journalism sector in the UK. A noticeable, vocal proportion of it is made up of a very insular "old boys' club" which appears to believe itself immune to criticism, meaning that it feels more and more liberties can be taken with what sort of work and attitude is acceptable — and anyone who steps out of line to say "hang on a minute…" gets summarily ridiculed. I found myself the recipient of such scorn last year when I pointed out my discomfort at the tone and content of the Games Media Awards Twitter feed, and consequently have shied away from publicly criticising things ever since. I was in two minds about posting this entry at all with that in mind, but in this instance I felt the need for a bit of cathartic release if nothing else.

There are plenty of fantastic games writers out there who don't need to resort to… whatever these two pieces were resorting to. Satire? Parody? Childishness? I honestly don't know, even after rereading them both several times.

Demand better from your articles about games. For all the pontificating about how games journalism is "broken" and how it should be "fixed", if these pieces are anything to go by it seems to be getting worse rather than better.

Changed my blog theme. Let me know what you think!

I changed my theme. EXCITEMENT. I've been using the WordPress "Twenty Ten" theme until now but I thought I'd see what the newer "Twenty Twelve" looked like. Pretty similar, as it happens, albeit with a bit of extra white space and borders around images. It also makes these brief "aside" posts stand out a bit better. Let me know what you think.

Updates to Pages

Always wondered what this "aside" thing did — now's as good a time as any to try it out, I guess. I've updated my About Pete and More By Pete pages. In particular, I've redirected the defunct What They Play links on the More By Pete page to use archive.org's Wayback Machine so, as if by time-travelling magic, you can still read the articles, even though they don't exist any more! YAY~