Tag: outlets

1165: Endless Infinite Discussion

Around this time of year in 2011, one Mr Tom Ohle, a fine upstanding gentleman at the forefront of promoting games you might not have heard of quite so much as the games you have heard of a lot, wrote this post, named The Case of the Great Game Nobody Saw.

Lest you’re too lazy to follow the link, allow me to summarise: Tom works in PR for video games. The titles his company Evolve PR has represented over the years include things like CD Projekt Red’s The Witcher series, the deep strategy games of Paradox Interactive, TimeGate Studios’ Section 8 series, the Anomaly series and numerous others. As all good PR people should, Tom believes in the games he’s paid to promote — some more than others. Sometimes games come along that are genuinely excellent — games that, in Tom’s words, are “magical, revolutionary, disruptive or otherwise worthy of consumers’ awareness” — and, as you’d expect, Tom and co. would very much like to see these titles succeed, and they do their utmost to try and convince various outlets that these games are worthy of coverage and promotion. When these games don’t get the coverage they deserve — either because of “bigger” games monopolising the front page or simply through being rejected outright — it’s enormously disheartening, not only for Tom and co. but also for the makers of these games.

“At its core, this is an issue that pervades entertainment and consumerism as a whole,” writes Tom. “People stick with brands they know. Everyone craps all over themselves (myself included) when a new Rockstar game is announced. That’s fine; they make great games. But in an industry that so often complains about derivative sequels, soulless big-budget productions and a lack of risk-taking, isn’t it about time we started focusing on quality? Shouldn’t those companies looking to push the boundaries of the medium begin to reap the rewards? If things keep going the way they are, we’ll never shed the $60 price point, we’ll get sequels to major franchises every year, and we’ll all keep complaining and wishing things were different.”

Almost two whole years have passed since Tom wrote that post, and I don’t think things have improved at all since then. If anything, I think they’ve got worse. For all Polygon’s posturing about reinventing games journalism and for all Kotaku’s posting of random bullshit only tangentially related to games, we’re still in a situation where an alien visiting the games industry would believe there were only a few interesting games released every year, and that they’re often entries in the same series. Call of Duty. Battlefield. Assassin’s Creed. And so on.

Most recently, I’ve been becoming somewhat frustrated with Bioshock Infinite. I have no doubt whatsoever that it’s a fantastic game, and everything I’ve heard seems to indicate that it is, in the words of a friend of mine, “intelligent Hollywood… a ‘The Matrix of gaming'” and that is, on the whole, a good thing. We need creators like Ken Levine in the mainstream of the industry to push things forward and prove that there’s a market for intelligent experiences as well as Mildly-Racist Brown Michael Bay Manshoot #327. I am glad that Bioshock Infinite exists, that it is apparently living up to the hype and that, I imagine, it is probably selling quite well as a result of all that hype.

What I’m less thrilled about is the fact that it’s not really solving the problem Tom was talking about in his post. Bioshock Infinite may be “intelligent Hollywood”, but it’s still Hollywood. It’s still a single game from a high-profile creator monopolising press coverage and social media, completely dwarfing smaller-scale experiences that — shhh — might actually be more interesting. Do we need videos explaining “why you should play Bioshock Infinite on Hard mode”, articles about its ending, articles about why Ken Levine doesn’t believe in Utopias, articles about how to edit the INI files, tips articles, articles about why having it spoiled didn’t matter, articles about… have I made my point yet? This is a disproportionately large amount of coverage for one game — one very good game, admittedly, and one which has a lot of expectations to live up to, yes, but still just one game, and one game that people were already very much aware of in the run-up to its release. I’m already absolutely fucking sick of hearing about it, and the more I hear about it, the smaller the already-miniscule chance I will ever play it becomes — a phenomenon I discussed in this post.

The standard response to this is, of course, that this is what the greater audience is hungry for. Millions of people are going to buy, play and love Bioshock Infinite, and they should be catered to, as those millions of people are probably also going to want to read lots of things about Bioshock Infinite.

However, here’s my (slightly selfish) question. What about me? What about people like me? What about all of the people out there — I’m sure I’m not the only one in the world — who didn’t really like the first Bioshock all that much (I played System Shock 2 almost immediately beforehand, which just made the fact that Bioshock wasn’t System Shock 3 all the more painful and frustrating) and consequently are not all that interested in this new one? What about the people who are more interested in other types of games? Don’t we deserve some quality and wide-ranging coverage of the things that we’re interested in? (Where’s my “Tips for playing Hyperdimension Neptunia Victory“ post, hmmm?) We have fan communities and enthusiast blogs, sure, but where’s our high-profile professional outlet covering this stuff that’s a bit off the well-worn path? (Besides Games Are Evil, of course, which I’m not going to pretend is anywhere near as big as I would love it to be!)

The gaming medium has grown up enormously in the last few years. With constantly improving software and hardware technology providing more and more flexibility for interactive artists to realise their digital dreams, and the rise of the indie space and Kickstarter allowing game makers to break free of the shackles of corporate culture, we’re most definitely undergoing the “Cambrian explosion of possibilities” that SimCity, The Sims and Spore creator Will Wright talked about back in 2008. It’s a great time to be someone who enjoys playing games.

But the games press has not evolved alongside the medium as a whole. The medium as a whole is now, as I’ve said numerous times in the past, far too broad for one outlet to be able to do justice to all of. And yet pretty much all of the big outlets choose to focus on the same part of this massively diverse medium. It’s the part with the biggest audience, the biggest budgets and the biggest amount of money involved in it, yes, but it’s still just one part of a whole. Read the news pages of one big site and you’ve read them all. Read the reviews section of one site and you’ve read them all. The sheer volume of things on display at events like PAX East and GDC help a little, but more often than not you still just hear about the same things from slightly different perspectives. Or you hear about Battlefield 4.

Why haven’t we got to a stage where big outlets can feel confident enough to distinguish themselves from one another yet? Don’t give me a reason to stick with one outlet, give me a reason to read all of them because of their completely different content. (Right now, I don’t read any of them with any degree of loyalty, because very few of them provide coverage of the sort of thing I’m interested in any more!)

It’s massively frustrating, and I don’t even work in PR. I can bang my drum all I like about the types of game I’m interested in and want to experience more of… but is anyone really listening?

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.