Are Vidgames Ready to be taken seriously by media reviewers?

[portnoyd]

What follows is an article I read on the can yesterday when the only thing in reach was the Wall Street Journal. This article generally pissed me off, and my reply, that I sent Kevin, is in the first reply.

Are Videogames Ready to be taken Seriously by Media Reviewers?

by Kevin Delaney (Kevin.Delaney@wsj.com)

The U.S. Videogame industry today is larger than Hollywood's domestic box-office receipts and is closing in on music sales. Doesn't a sector that size deserve sophisicated mainstream critique, even academic study?

That's what industry boosters are saying. A call for a "third way" of game criticism, beyond jargon filled reviews and advertorials, is being heard from a growing cadre of academics around the world who themselves have begun serious research on video games. In a sign of their increasing numbers and organization, more than 400 of them are expected tomorrow in Utrecht, Netherlands, under the auspices of the newly formed Digital Games Research Association, based in Tampere, Finland.

Some of the academics complain that the videogame industry lacks the sort of critical media eye that has accompanied the development of cinema, and has acted as cheerleader for more creative and important - if less financially lucrative - films.

Without such legitimate critique, they argue, the industry will take few chances on things besides violent fare, sports games, and half-hearted ripoffs of Hollywood. If the games industry is ever going to get beyond its current fascination with heavy ammunition, high-speed chases, and pixeliated hot-tub vixens, their argument goes, the public has to hear from reviewers who can call the game makers to task or applaud loftier offerings - and do it for a new, bigger audience.

Instead, videogame reviews are stuck in the Pac-Man era. Matteo Bittanti, a researcher in Italy, says games are still judged on graphics, sound, longevity, and playability. That would be like film critics writing only about a movie's audio track and special effects.

The magazines out now are primarily "magalogs, official catalogs, unofficial promos, and buyer's guides masquerading as serious information", Mr Bittanti says.

The academics want a videogame version of Cahiers du Cinema, the French film review founded in 1951 that assisted in the birth of the French New Wave movement and championed the likes of Hitchcock and Truffant.

The game makers themselves are indifferent. "The academics are rushing to study games, and the industry doesn't much care", says Chris Crawford, a veteran game design guru.

The global games industry earned an estimated $27 billion in sales in 2002, and is growing at the pace of close to 20% a year in the U.S. But game makers still have work to do to expand their core of fans - 12 to 25 year old males - to attract the broad appeal and cultural influence of film or music.

All this is not to say there is no serious game analysis. British games monthly Edge is getting kudos from both game makers and academics for its higher-brow coverage of the industry. One article this year deconstructs the video game review itsel, outing an informal industry practice of bartering favorable critiques for exclusive rights to review games. But Edge is a niche magazine. Its average reader is a 25 year old male who buys 30 games a year, and the publication circulation is frozen at 30,000 since it was created 10 years ago.

It's probably too early for a mainstream Rolling Stone approach to videogames as social and political phenomena. For starters, can covers of game developers and virtual women compete with Britney Spears in her underwear?

One paper to be presented in Utretcht applies a literary criticism concept of French writer Andre Gide to Super monkey ball, a simple action videogame. Troels Degn Johannson, of the Center for Computer Games Research at the IT University of Copehagen, interprets the pitfalls facing players as a "recognition of one's fundamental insufficiency" in life. Unlike other serious university researchers, however, this one notes that he stinks at playing the game.

Other academics call for a more rigorous defintions of "fun" and gameplay" in videogame analysis. The debates between camps of researchers - like the "narratologists" and "ludologists" - are inpenetratable to outsiders. But some conference papers are more accesible, such as those concerning policy debates on topics like game addiction and the violence portrayed.

A research team led by one of the conference organizers, Prof. Jeffrey Goldstein of the University of Utrecht, will present results of study that allowing videogames in the workplace doesn't hurt productivity. Another study compares video games released by the U.S. government and Lebanon's Hazbollah militia, a U.S. designated terrorist group.

Works like this remind us of games' growing influence on contemporary art, politics, and culture. One interesting example online is NewsGaming.com, a Uruguayan Web site providing the videogame equivalent of political cartoons. Its first effort called "Sept. 12th" takes at aim at the U.S led war on terrorism.

Better video games criticism is a good idea. But for it to matter, games will have to expand their cultural and social impact to match their economic weight. Game publishers should work harder to attact more gamers outside of their traditional demographic market. They can also offer more sophisticated fare, games worth writing about.

[portnoyd]

Here's my reply. To sum it up, I thought his article was grossly underresearched.

This is a response to your article from today's (11/4) WSJ.

Before I begin, I'd like to provide background on myself, so you know where I am coming from, and what I have seen. I am 24 years old (naturally right into the core audience). I have been playing video games for nearly 20 years, starting with the Atari 5200 (Atari's second console machine, a failure, by the way) all the way to the current systems, which have the public's eye. I have also fallen into game collecting, similar to baseball card collecting. I have amassed over 2,000 unique games as of today, and it is unlikely the total will stop there. Video games have shaped my life, to a certain extent, and I take articles such as yours seriously. Hence why I am contacting you today. I have seen the video game industry go through multiple ups and downs, as well as different shake-ups as lawsuits and the switch in company control of the industry.

Your article ends with "[Game publishers] can also some more sophisticated fare, games worth writing about". You also mention that "...the industry will take few chances on things besides violent fare, sports games, and half-hearted rip-offs of Hollywood", as well as "... If the games industry is ever going to get beyond its current fascination with heavy ammunition, high-speed chases, and pixelized hot-tub vixens..". Judging by these statements, I can clearly say that you have not researched this article in the least. You show you have a closed mind regarding video games by generalizing them into games such as first/third person shooters, that rely generally on weapons to get around, sports games, and driving games, when that generalization leaves out at least 50-70% of the games produced today. How would you know, based on these generalizations, that the games you seek, the ‘sophisticated fare’ is not really out there already?

You also refuse to identify what "sophisticated fare" actually is. What you're doing is putting video games into the category of movies, without defining what makes a game "critically applauded" (My phrase), but instead using the standard of movies for "critical" review. Movies and games cannot be judged the same way. Both are fundamentally different, and both are two very different forms of entertainment.

The media reviewers you mention in the article title, are they experienced with games? Do they know what creative or important means, in regards to video games? Do they define it with regards to movies? Art? Are you going to sit down Roger Ebert in front of a console and tell him to review it? Are you going to have people review games who have been playing games for years, such as myself? Or how about the academics/DGRA who have taken a sudden interest in them?

Although, I agree that review of a game by graphics and sound should not be considered as it should. I personally think that the review should be black or white - the graphics and sound are of the level to accurately allow gameplay and control, as well as compliment the game's story. However, you cannot have a review with purpose that does not touch on the playability and gameplay of the game itself. To not do so, is akin to completely avoiding judging a movie based on its plot. If movies are supposed to let you feel the emotions of the characters involved by watching, then the games are supposed to let you experience the emotions by playing and taking up their role.

Introducing a video game ‘Cahiers du Cinema’ sounds like it would be a good idea, but it would simply preclude a genre of game solely of itself. It would also suggest you want a game made that is not interactive (as the playability and longevity (read: replay value) of the game is of no importance, according to Bittanti). What, then, is the point of making the game in the first place? To be in a museum as a piece of art on the wall? A game meant only to be ‘critically acclaimed’, not played, or enjoyed. A game no one would want to play except for the people who petition and clamor for the ‘creative and important’ games. And is only sold to those people. And you wonder why the game industry is indifferent.

Can a game be made that can fulfill both ends (a game both acclaimed by the ‘magalogs’ and what not, and the academics)? We are human, so anything is possible. However, I think it would be very difficult.

[lendelin]

portnoyd, both reads (the article and your response) are very interesting, and it's great to see that there are people who go beyond the usual, limited "new game - is it good or not" talk.

The article and your response are indicators of the maturation of games on a lot of levels, research about games, research about the history of videogames, professional media criticism, and much more.

I agree with a lot the article stated; however, like you, I find it condescending that games have to rise to the pseudo-intellectual level of some media critics before taken seriously. After all, movie critics not only review "Schindler's List," but also the latest goofy-slapstick Adam Sandler movie; additionally, to imply the division of 'art' and 'mass entertainment,' art vs. commercialism as a possible prerequisite to be taken seriously is short-sighted, elitist, and certainly doesn't apply to reviews of movies and literature as well because the lines between commercialism and art are and always were murky at best; after all, Schindler's List was a commercial success.

However, there are certain things I agree with, and that goes primarily for the state of game reviews which, in return, reflects the content of games.

Article:

Instead, videogame reviews are stuck in the Pac-Man era. Matteo Bittanti, a researcher in Italy, says games are still judged on graphics, sound, longevity, and playability. That would be like film critics writing only about a movie's audio track and special effects.

The magazines out now are primarily "magalogs, official catalogs, unofficial promos, and buyer's guides masquerading as serious information", Mr Bittanti says.

Isn't there somthing to it? What has basically changed from vol. 1 of Nintendo Power to the recent issue of GameInformer? I'm aware that there were more serious magazines in the 80s tailored towards adults and videogame buffs, I'm also aware that soon in the 90s finally review grades for games were introduced, but as "mainstream" media critique of games goes, we are still stuck in some infancy stages; or better put, we experience a very early transition phase from a child's toy to a serious, independent form of entertainment which still shows the roots of simplistic reviews tailored towards the teenage crowd as potential buyers.

What we need (and the article adressed some problems) are reviews which go beyond the usual categories; they have to pick up game heritage, include evolution of game play and compare them to games of the past; tackle questions if the story combined and rfelected in gameplay is convincing or not (and shift the critique emphasis from graphics to the story (gameplay) told); and by that I mean illogical, ridiculous story elements which reflect in gameplay. The scrutiny for games has certainly to be put up a notch or two.

The above problems are a mirror of game content:

Article:

Better video games criticism is a good idea. But for it to matter, games will have to expand their cultural and social impact to match their economic weight. Game publishers should work harder to attact more gamers outside of their traditional demographic market. They can also offer more sophisticated fare, games worth writing about.

I agree with that. Aren't videogames still too often stuck in the "rescue the princess" theme and it's various simple variations? Videogames, like a lot of movies and literature, are fairy tales for teenagers and adults, but even teenagers, not to mention adults, want some more complicated fairy tales; stories and game content which show character development, ambiguity of the "good" and "bad," they want grey shades beyond the black and white pictures.

We already experience the trend which the writer of the article and I demand, but we are still in the very early transition phase. Game content is expanding and causes controversy. Professinal writers are increasingly coming into the game industry very similar to scriptwriters for movies, and then it's up to game developers to let us play the story. CGI sequences are increasingly done by professinal directors, it won't take long for the game-scriptwriter and game-director to become an established profession.

Game content in the future will pick up more controversial themes like sex, homosexuality, drugs, relationship problems, and even the most controversial theme of them all - religion.

I disagree heavy with some European artsy fartsy types who want and demand Truffaut-like presentation of these themes and think the attraction to minorities alone make good art, but I think it's time for games to tackle more serious problems and present it in a variety of ways, let it be "artistic" or in a more "entertaining" way. I prefer the latter because the influence of these critics on high cultural horses on the European movie industries was devestating because they lost at times completely the contact with a wider audience and became a niche for intellectuals.

However, I think the article and your response made clear that it's about time for videogames to become a serious contender within the entertainment industry, not only economically, but also culturally.

It would be nice to have kind of a "Rolling Stone" mag for videogames, and it would be great to have an academic "Journal of Videogames" which would cover various topics like structural changes in game development, the plethora of economic issues of the game industry, analyses of game content, serious psychological Qs why videogames are played in the first place and why and what is appealing to us, and even, yep, the old topic of "violent" games and their effects on game players; it would be great to have an academic forum where game developers, economists, video game historians, social scientists, psychologists, journalists, and video game collectors could ask and answer old and new questions and discuss trends of the industry.

Videogames have to be put on a higher level both within the entertainment industry and within academia, and it will happen and started to happen already; however, in contrast to some European voices described in the article I prefer the "natural" development over the "institutional" top to bottom approach, which is a typical French approach. :)

[hydr0x]

ok, before i start, you perhaps do know that i'm studying Computer Science right now, what you don't know is my second study subject, it's Media Science/Research with the emphasis on Cinema/Movies.

I've already read quite a lot of texts (Hickethier...) about Media Research and i've got to say, the coverage of videogames has risen during the last years, but not enough. There already are some people trying to make a more "movie-review-like" approach to analyzing games, and i think this is good.


portnoyd, both reads (the article and your response) are very interesting, and it's great to see that there are people who go beyond the usual, limited "new game - is it good or not" talk.

The article and your response are indicators of the maturation of games on a lot of levels, research about games, research about the history of videogames, professional media criticism, and much more.


i totally agree with you here :)



I agree with a lot the article stated; however, like you, I find it condescending that games have to rise to the pseudo-intellectual level of some media critics before taken seriously. After all, movie critics not only review "Schindler's List," but also the latest goofy-slapstick Adam Sandler movie; additionally, to imply the division of 'art' and 'mass entertainment,' art vs. commercialism as a possible prerequisite to be taken seriously is short-sighted, elitist, and certainly doesn't apply to reviews of movies and literature as well because the lines between commercialism and art are and always were murky at best; after all, Schindler's List was a commercial success

there's one thing i've got to add to this. It's right that the critics also review movies like "Little Nicky" BUT they always give such movies very bad reviews, see e.g. Bad Boys 2 or even Pirates of the Carribean. There will always be two different kinds of critics for every media, as you said, the division of "art" and the division of "mass entertainment". But they both need each other, the art needs the others to make money to allow making art. And the mass orientated media will always need the art-critics to make their industry look serious :)

For me, there is nothing bad with having some critics of videogames that mainly look at the games from an art point-of-view (i once saw a very good 4-hours report about video-game-art on 3Sat, german tv channel), i doesn't hurt the "normal" videogames at all, so we shouldn't complain about such an approach, in fact, it could really help videogames to get accepted by the public.



However, there are certain things I agree with, and that goes primarily for the state of game reviews which, in return, reflects the content of games.

Article:

Instead, videogame reviews are stuck in the Pac-Man era. Matteo Bittanti, a researcher in Italy, says games are still judged on graphics, sound, longevity, and playability. That would be like film critics writing only about a movie's audio track and special effects.

The magazines out now are primarily "magalogs, official catalogs, unofficial promos, and buyer's guides masquerading as serious information", Mr Bittanti says.

Isn't there somthing to it? What has basically changed from vol. 1 of Nintendo Power to the recent issue of GameInformer? I'm aware that there were more serious magazines in the 80s tailored towards adults and videogame buffs, I'm also aware that soon in the 90s finally review grades for games were introduced, but as "mainstream" media critique of games goes, we are still stuck in some infancy stages; or better put, we experience a very early transition phase from a child's toy to a serious, independent form of entertainment which still shows the roots of simplistic reviews tailored towards the teenage crowd as potential buyers.

What we need (and the article adressed some problems) are reviews which go beyond the usual categories; they have to pick up game heritage, include evolution of game play and compare them to games of the past; tackle questions if the story combined and rfelected in gameplay is convincing or not (and shift the critique emphasis from graphics to the story (gameplay) told); and by that I mean illogical, ridiculous story elements which reflect in gameplay. The scrutiny for games has certainly to be put up a notch or two.


i have to agree with you here lendelin, todays reviews are missing some aspects of videogames, they often miss the evolution this game "brings" to the genre, they miss judging the storyline, which is sooo important for many many games. For me it always seemed as if the reviewers only mentioned the story detailed enough if the game was so superb because it has a great storyline (Half-Life, Max Payne, Chrono Trigger....). Things also missing are influence on the "viewer" and some other things which i can't remember right now, sorry :(



The above problems are a mirror of game content:

Article:

Better video games criticism is a good idea. But for it to matter, games will have to expand their cultural and social impact to match their economic weight. Game publishers should work harder to attact more gamers outside of their traditional demographic market. They can also offer more sophisticated fare, games worth writing about.

I agree with that. Aren't videogames still too often stuck in the "rescue the princess" theme and it's various simple variations? Videogames, like a lot of movies and literature, are fairy tales for teenagers and adults, but even teenagers, not to mention adults, want some more complicated fairy tales; stories and game content which show character development, ambiguity of the "good" and "bad," they want grey shades beyond the black and white pictures.


i've also got to agree 100% with that, i could sometimes hit developers in their face for the bad storys ;)



We already experience the trend which the writer of the article and I demand, but we are still in the very early transition phase. Game content is expanding and causes controversy. Professinal writers are increasingly coming into the game industry very similar to scriptwriters for movies, and then it's up to game developers to let us play the story. CGI sequences are increasingly done by professinal directors, it won't take long for the game-scriptwriter and game-director to become an established profession.


I also noticed this trend, and i like it, videogames (especially adventures, rpgs and so on) deserve this



Game content in the future will pick up more controversial themes like sex, homosexuality, drugs, relationship problems, and even the most controversial theme of them all - religion.

yeah i also think so, though i'm not sure how far this will go, publisher are more comfortable with releasing adult only games than they were in the past, but the youth will always be the game industry's main target group.



I disagree heavy with some European artsy fartsy types who want and demand Truffaut-like presentation of these themes and think the attraction to minorities alone make good art, but I think it's time for games to tackle more serious problems and present it in a variety of ways, let it be "artistic" or in a more "entertaining" way. I prefer the latter because the influence of these critics on high cultural horses on the European movie industries was devestating because they lost at times completely the contact with a wider audience and became a niche for intellectuals.

It's really a shame what happened to european movies, there are some exceptions (Knockin On Heavens Door, 'Anatomie', 'Lola Rennt'...) but the european movie industry is far to much into arts, the german movie industry is right now only making movies with these topics: Jews in Nazi-Germany, 2nd World War, GDR! I hate it, there are close to zero entertaining german movies



However, I think the article and your response made clear that it's about time for videogames to become a serious contender within the entertainment industry, not only economically, but also culturally.

It would be nice to have kind of a "Rolling Stone" mag for videogames, and it would be great to have an academic "Journal of Videogames" which would cover various topics like structural changes in game development, the plethora of economic issues of the game industry, analyses of game content, serious psychological Qs why videogames are played in the first place and why and what is appealing to us, and even, yep, the old topic of "violent" games and their effects on game players; it would be great to have an academic forum where game developers, economists, video game historians, social scientists, psychologists, journalists, and video game collectors could ask and answer old and new questions and discuss trends of the industry.


yeah, great idea, i'd join that in a second :)



Videogames have to be put on a higher level both within the entertainment industry and within academia, and it will happen and started to happen already; however, in contrast to some European voices described in the article I prefer the "natural" development over the "institutional" top to bottom approach, which is a typical French approach. :)

Mh i don't know, i have no problem with their approach as long as they don't want to force us to also "use" it, natural development is the better way to go, but as long as they don't harm it i have no problem with them trying to find a scientific way to analyize games

[maxlords]

Here's the problem I have with this desire to "legitimize" video games.:


One paper to be presented in Utretcht applies a literary criticism concept of French writer Andre Gide to Super monkey ball, a simple action videogame. Troels Degn Johannson, of the Center for Computer Games Research at the IT University of Copehagen, interprets the pitfalls facing players as a "recognition of one's fundamental insufficiency" in life.

This is the same problem facing a lot of overly serious critiques. The fact is, there is NO such interpretation to be made of a game like Super Monkey Ball. The makers had no intention of making it a metaphor for overcoming obsctables in life. They must made it to be fun and to fall off things if you screw up. We end up with too much over-analysis of things that aren't DESIGNED for analysis that deep and you end up coming off looking stupid. And so does the industry. No one is going to take that sort of critique seriously, and if they do, they're doing the game itself an injustice, not legitimizing it!

I've noticed this in movies where they overanalyze things that are obviously not meant to be, and this sort of project will do that a lot more frequently to video games because lets face it, they can't be judged on the same criteria as other media formats. They're meant to be played and replayed, and things like control and fun factor MATTER to a serious critique just as much as to a fluffy one because those are INTEGRAL parts of gaming! Sure, we can take a more serious look at games....95% of ALL reviews out there are sell-out or fluff, but we don't have be obtuse about it like these people are trying to do! I think these people need to takea step back. A game like Deus Ex or Silent Hill 3 or Xenosaga could be looked at in this way, but not Super Monkey Ball or Super Mario Bros 3, or Landstalker. It's just not something that fits the format of gaming.

[Half Japanese]

I'll just be sitting over here playing my NGPC, thanks.

Why the need to overanalyze everything? The guy clearly didn't know his shit and probably hasn't played anything but the top 10 games released each year, thus his ignorance about other genres/games.

[Jorpho]

It's already been said, but I'll add my two cents anyway:

I agree that it might be nice if something started pulling developers further away from "heavy ammunition, high-speed chases, and pixeliated hot-tub vixens". But highbrow critiques won't do it, and a game that receives much acclaim in a bunch of highbrow critiques probably won't sell very well to the general public.

I can kind of forsee "The Journey to Wild Divine" as falling into that category. $deity help us all if games like that are the future.

...And in fact, therein lies the problem. Books and movies can be sad, or thought-provoking, or wildly humorous, and express a wide range of other ideas. That is not to say that video games cannot be the same way, but video games need to be fun, or there's just no point. Few are going to stick around and listen to a deep message with rich symbolism if it involves messing with an awful control scheme and repetitive levels.

[Kid Ice]

Are you going to sit down Roger Ebert in front of a console and tell him to review it?

LOL

Actually, I think there are already a few good sources for intelligent videogame criticism. Maybe you should of just sent them a few website links, Dave.

[kevincure]

maxlords...I don't think you understand what the academic videogame types want from the reviews. They're not calling for videogame reviews that, for instance, view PacMan as a Marxist parable (as Steven Poole did in the otherwise quite good "Trigger Happy"). But they are calling for videogames to be reviewed on more than "fun factor". Everyone knows that videogames are, moreso than movies and books, designed to be fun first and thought-provoking second (even Gonzala Frasca concedes that making fun secondary would be a huge shift in videogame design).

Nonetheless, game review and criticism still needs to exist outside of the "magalog" format of today. A certain game's place in history, its innovations - all important. Game magazines and websites need to address history, need to address the unique ways in which videogames can affect the player, social aspects of games, cultural aspects of games, games as social commentary, etc..

For instance, how do the design choices of SimCity affect the player's view of the urban environment? How are a generation of men playing FPS as they grow up going to affect modern warfare? These questions are beginning to be answered by the videogame academics (right now, there's a split between the "narratologists", mostly film studies types applying narratology to explain games (a wrongheaded approach, I think) and the "ludologists" who focus on novel nature of the gameplay itself).

As an example, Unicopli is currently editing "Sim City: Mappando le citta virtuali" (Mapping the SimCity) for release on Ludologica's imprint next year (and hopefully in English soon after).

Some of ludology may be hogwash, but the bit that isn't is going to get us better games. Everyone can agree that's a good thing.

[Ed Oscuro]

maxlords...I don't think you understand what the academic videogame types want from the reviews. They're not calling for videogame reviews that, for instance, view PacMan as a Marxist parable (as Steven Poole did in the otherwise quite good "Trigger Happy"). But they are calling for videogames to be reviewed on more than "fun factor".

I agree.

While it's true that movie reviewers are just as guilty as game critics of reviewing the "same old stuff" we all know that, at the end of the day, they won't change the picture. Movie reviewers often back themselves into a corner, simply because they can get away with very negative reviews. It's not fair that Mr. Smith gets fired for having negative opinions of many games, while Joe Average's consistently negative reviews can keep him in a job. However, who do you take more seriously?

I think that everybody here wants more inventive games--and I do mean everybody.

The article is full of it, though, because it apparently hasn't been reading GameSpy's reviews. They give Unreal 2--Unreal "freakin" 2-- a 70% score because it's not as hot as it once would've been. Clearly, reviews like that are helping change the face of things. The industry does not have any sacred cows--I bet that DOOM 3 gets a 70-80% score from GameSpy, unless the monster screenshots we've been seeing are misinformation and/or the gameplay is inventive enough to offset that.

The quality of reviewers is likewise top-notch. Take Ben Turner's piece on Revenge of Shinobi (GBA), possibly the most elequoent thing ever created in relation to that game (...besides the closing of the game studio that created it, that is).

The one thing that's missing is that game reviews don't end up going on a tirade because some game abuses their sense of morals. They often comment on the ethics of modern games, sure, but it's just working towards the result of presenting a complete picture of the title. We had to tread through countless reviewers lambasting Kill Bill because of the "rape joke," which it seems wasn't the intent of Tarantino in the least.

No, there's a difference between giving a useful review and preaching to the choir. Some movie reviews are essentially just that, and I'm glad that the game reviewers I depend on shun that approach.

[christianscott27]

i would just like to see games get more of toe hold in the mainstream press. the boston globe devotes sections to arts that the public by and large ignores, such as dance, stage and gallery shows but shortchanges the gaming world with a mere 2 paragraph review article on the saturday comics page. even our youth oriented "alt. press" mags ignore the gaming world, they'd rather talk about some crumby clone band that nobody listens to. TV news same deal, yeah they'll do a 3 minute bit on a new console or the occasional "sales of games up for christmas" story but thats it, still they feel the need to give me the top ten films at the box office every half hour. as it stands right now gaming shares a berth with the porn industry, as big as hollywood, a huge devoted following, innovators in electronic entertainment but almost never mentioned...

i'm not sure the industry is ready for art house critical reviews but there needs to be more of a focus on "is the game a good time" and less on "how does it measure up in terms of X". right now the best game reviewing in my opinion is G4's show with tommy and victor, judgement day. they talk about the games in a way that makes me feel like i could trust their review in the buy or pass dept. most game mags still feel like A) they are written for 10 year olds and B) all of their reviews are "payola" based.

[zmweasel]

most game mags still feel like A) they are written for 10 year olds and B) all of their reviews are "payola" based.

A) I don't know which mags you're reading, but the only enthusiast magazine that aims anywhere near that age group anymore is Nintendo Power. Tips & Tricks also somewhat caters to the kiddies -- quite ironic, given its publisher. EGM, OPM, GamePro, etc. are all targeted at teenagers or young adults.

B) In 14 years of game journalism, I've never once been offered a bribe in exchange for a glowing review. Neither do I consider press junkets (which are standard fare in all forms of entertainment journalism, and which don't affect critical opinions in the least) or advertising (which is how enthusiast magazines survive) to be "payola."

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

i'm not sure the industry is ready for art house critical reviews but there needs to be more of a focus on "is the game a good time" and less on "how does it measure up in terms of X".

Again, can't comment on magazines, but it seems to me that GameSpy does an outstanding job of blending the two.

Art house critical reviews...well...it's fine with me if somebody does that but they'd better not step into the territory of spouting conservative (moralistic, not political) drivel like some of the folks you can read on rottentomatoes.com...

Now less on "how does it measure up in terms of X," I'd like to expand on what you've said a bit: when you're comparing two games that are essentially clones of each other that's a good thing, especially if we're supposed to push the industry further along. I think GameSpy sends a message with their 70% review of Unreal 2 (might've been 74%, actually, but still) that if you're going to get into a crowded genre you'd better measure up to what's already out there. I don't see how that's a bad thing at all, especially since there's a ton of decent games that are a "fun time" but are abandoned in favor of even better stuff.

However, a review that praises a game that's tons of fun or does something so completely right (System Shock 2) but gets points knocked off "because X does the basics better" is really, now that I think about it, a damn shame. "Tilt" doesn't do it, because you've already scared the gamers off. Game reviews that award "turkeys" to games that offer up great ideas and execute them wonderfully yet have average First Person Shooter qualities probably pushes companies to shy away from introducing quality new ideas into the genre, instead Rev'ing their new software on a biannual basis and keeping the fun ideas constrained to low-budget platformers.

[christianscott27]

A) I don't know which mags you're reading, but the only enthusiast magazine that aims anywhere near that age group anymore is Nintendo Power. Tips & Tricks also somewhat caters to the kiddies -- quite ironic, given its publisher. EGM, OPM, GamePro, etc. are all targeted at teenagers or young adults.

B) In 14 years of game journalism, I've never once been offered a bribe in exchange for a glowing review. Neither do I consider press junkets (which are standard fare in all forms of entertainment journalism, and which don't affect critical opinions in the least) or advertising (which is how enthusiast magazines survive) to be "payola."


perhaps it would be more fair to say the magazines are written for people with a 4th grade reading level, some rise above but for the most part this seems to be true.

i'm not suggesting that some game developer comes along and hands out envelopes of cash to reviewers but there does seem to be a pretty consistent match up of lines given to ad space purchased.

i've been reading game mags almost as long as you've been writing for them and i'm still looking for one that skews to a more sophisticated gamer. i guess its the nature of the industry that things still are targeted at the 16 year old but isnt the audience big enough now to support some niches? the last gaming magazine i really liked was nextgen and that one vanished on me, currently i'm getting tips and tricks, gamepro for free and buying others here and there.

where does your work usually appear?

[Ed Oscuro]

i'm not suggesting that some game developer comes along and hands out envelopes of cash to reviewers but there does seem to be a pretty consistent match up of lines given to ad space purchased.

Now I can't and won't comment on print mags, but GameSpy runs ads for almost everything and yet its reviews are always critical. Same goes for IGN and GameSpot--just 'cuz you've decked out your site with a Mars Candy theme doesn't mean the reviewers change their opinions.


i've been reading game mags almost as long as you've been writing for them...

...must...resist...rolleyes... LOL --but really, I don't see how game magazines are "targeted" towards any group in particular besides the general gaming demographic, and even then there's almost always a bias towards giving obscure or niche games adequate (if not better) coverage than the rest. The writing, online at least, has been very excellent. Ben Turner used the word "pablum" in his GBA RoS review...instant karma for the man from me and anybody else who's a fan of that game.

[zmweasel]

perhaps it would be more fair to say the magazines are written for people with a 4th grade reading level, some rise above but for the most part this seems to be true.

You cite Tips & Tricks and GamePro as the two magazines you regularly read, and those are two of the youngest-skewing magazines on the market, although GamePro has long claimed to be hitting an older demographic than it used to (which I don't buy, but hey, they're the ones commissioning the subscriber surveys).


i'm not suggesting that some game developer comes along and hands out envelopes of cash to reviewers but there does seem to be a pretty consistent match up of lines given to ad space purchased.

Developers wouldn't be handing out the cash; publishers would. But in any case, advertising and editorial are unrelated. Publishers usually put their strongest marketing efforts behind their best games -- the same titles that receive the most (and most glowing) press -- so perhaps you're mistakenly interpreting that as an ads-for-editorial deal.


i've been reading game mags almost as long as you've been writing for them and i'm still looking for one that skews to a more sophisticated gamer.

There aren't enough "sophisticated" gamers to support an elitist enthusiast magazine. Several have tried, all have failed. (GameGo!, Game Fan, Intelligent Gamer.) Next Generation was the only highbrow mag to find a measure of success, but it went to shit when it stopped cribbing editorial from Edge and lost its skilled British editors.

I'll freely admit that the videogame magazines of the Golden Age were more sophisticated than the mags of today. I love reading through old issues of Video Games, which were filled with genuine journalism instead of previews and reviews. Great, great stuff.


where does your work usually appear?

Whatever I can weasel into. GMR, GameSpy, PSE2, AsianWeek, SamGoody.com, etc., etc.

-- Z.

[ChuckthePlant]

This is a great discussion. Both the article and the reply were great but missed a few points. I think Battani points about general gaming criticism are absolutely on the mark. Zmweasel's comments may be true but belie the fact that most mainstream critique read as either paid adverts or as a buyer’s guide. They lack critical depth in that they spring from a context free reaction of a specific individual. Often they boil down to a thumbs up or down on the game. This results in the need to cloak subjective review in a numbered system that gives a veneer of objectivity. What is needed is a discussion that can establish an overall subjective theory or direction for games that a designer could use in order to evaluate her or his next effort. Until this is achieved mainstream gaming reviews are meaningless except as sales tools.

This discussion has also introduced a false dichotomy between high and low art. Much of the critical theory of 75 years has demolished this. I suspect that the academics that are attending the conference would reject such a separation. If we say a game, like the aforementioned "Super Monkey Ball," is not deserving of critical attention we would only reinforce this view.

As a final aside, my personal read on the problem facing serious game criticism is two fold. The first is that games are not received as movies with in our culture. A better analogy would be pre 60's comic books. They have a dedicated fan base but are still perceived as being in the realm of children. Until this core notion changes games the writing and the resulting media attention will always reflect this.

The second problem, and the most important, is that critical theory currently is having trouble internalizing a notion of pleasure into its framework. Structural and political readings will always fall short until a better framework is established for that "feeling" one gets while navigating a monkey through the maze or piloting your ship through a hailstorm of bullets. It will be unable to connect to the people who passionately love games and thus risk remaining totally "academic

[zmweasel]

...must...resist...rolleyes... LOL --but really, I don't see how game magazines are "targeted" towards any group in particular besides the general gaming demographic, and even then there's almost always a bias towards giving obscure or niche games adequate (if not better) coverage than the rest.

Magazines always target certain demographics, and proudly announce those demos to their advertisers. For videogame magazines, it's the teenager/young-adult demo. For PC-game magazines, it's the 30ish Caucasian/Asian demo.

When videogame magazines try to hit a "hardcore" demo, they run into trouble, because "hardcore" gamers don't hold enough appeal for potential advertisers. It doesn't matter if a million people subscribe to the fictional Hardcore Gamer Monthly, because magazines don't make any money from subscriptions; they make it from advertising.

It's a different set of challenges for gaming websites, but that's another off-topic discussion.

-- Z.

[zmweasel]

What is needed is a discussion that can establish an overall subjective theory or direction for games that a designer could use in order to evaluate her or his next effort. Until this is achieved mainstream gaming reviews are meaningless except as sales tools.

Game designers already take public and critical opinion into account, as reflected by umpteen sequels with gameplay improvements suggested by player feedback and bitchy reviews. Although it's usually the case that game programmers, which are socially awkward control freaks and power-trippers by their very nature, have a difficult time absorbing criticism.


If we say a game, like the aforementioned "Super Monkey Ball," is not deserving of critical attention we would only reinforce this view.

Super Monkey Ball is certainly deserving of attention, but it's impossible to take seriously an interpretation of SMB as a "recognition of one's fundamental insufficiency." That quote is a fine example of the pseudo-sophisticated bullshit in which hifalutin critics wallow.

I once saw a TV interview with actor Jerry O'Connell where he recounted attending a film-school class in which the instructor was discussing the "symbolism" in the film "Stand By Me" -- for example, what the children really meant during the campfire montage in which Gordie asks the burning question, "Mickey is a mouse, Donald is a duck, Pluto is a dog. What's Goofy?"

O'Connell, who co-starred in the movie, stood up and told the instructor, "I was in that scene, and I can assure you that everything you just said was totally wrong."

It's the nature of academics to look for hidden complexity in apparent simplicity, but all too often, they "see" what isn't there -- i.e., Pac-Man as Marxist metaphor. No less a thinker than Sigmund Freud said, 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

-- Z.

[Oobgarm]

I don't think that this has been touched on, but I'll mention it anyway.

Why does the industry need an academic study on games? The consumers are only concerned about an immediate value fulfillment. They are the ones looking for the "is it good or not" review type information, and they are the bulk of the game buyers. They're not interested in looking at games from an "artsy-fartsy" perspective. They just want to know if the new "Grand Theft Auto: Bloody Mess" is worth their $50.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think it's safe to say that I here have learned something today :)

Mission Complete, sez the Shinobi announcer.

With that "no specific demographic" comment, though; I made a big mistake mentioning print magazines since I don't read them. They target a bit younger at Gamespy--16 or so, and the vocab isn't terribly taxing either in most instances, with a couple very respectable voices rising above the crowd, such as Ben Turner. If you ask me, though, I don't mind reading that stuff. Not the most intellectually taxing, but it serves my purposes admirably.

I have to agree with ZMeston about seeing what isn't there. As a kid I was always particularly good at rooting out the "meanings" of this or that piece of fiction that the teacher would throw out to the clueless children, but I must admit it's only served to get me in trouble recently (i.e. any of the times I've overreacted here on the boards to some innocent comment or other).

I disagree with Chuck the Plant's apparent notion of criticism as needing X framework or other: while utilizing existing frameworks for criticism may help focus your thoughts, I do not feel that the current discussion is good enough. Too often we use discussion (scholarly or otherwise) as an unconscious ruse to forget that there are certain dearly held beliefs we hold that might end up truly false--for the non-gamer looking in, it might be that games are intrinsically worthless and inherently a waste of time, while they feel no such qualms arguing, for example, about the fine points of fine tuning a personal workstation or getting the most queries per second out of a server for academic research.

[ChuckthePlant]

Fantastic discussion. This is really educational for me. I am currently in throws of a cold so I hope that I am not too obtuse.


Game designers already take public and critical opinion into account, as reflected by umpteen sequels with gameplay improvements suggested by player feedback and bitchy reviews.

If there was a developed body of criticism that could inform the designer in his or her history, the societal context they are writing a game in, and the artistic achievements of the past, they may be more inclined to focus on original game creation over technical improvement and numerous sequels with small tweaks. Much of current criticism gives the designer nothing to go on except tweaks and hopeful a boost in sales if the reviewer likes it. Where is the societal context for the game? Where is the history of the genre? A telling point of this failure is the handful of informed histories of video games.



If we say a game, like the aforementioned "Super Monkey Ball," is not deserving of critical attention we would only reinforce this view.

Super Monkey Ball is certainly deserving of attention, but it's impossible to take seriously an interpretation of SMB as a "recognition of one's fundamental insufficiency." That quote is a fine example of the pseudo-sophisticated bullshit in which hifalutin critics wallow.

There are many possible interpretations available for SMB. We should be open to many different views on a game as is possible. Not having seen the whole paper that the article referred to I cannot comment on it directly. I would caution against dismissing it out of hand. I think that these more subtle and contextual driven readings of games are exactly what are lacking. Why does the game resonate in this particular place and time? What is the context that the player brings to the game? You might not agree with the reviewer but your reading, and possibly enjoyment of the game would be enriched.


I disagree with Chuck the Plant's apparent notion of criticism as needing X framework or other: while utilizing existing frameworks for criticism may help focus your thoughts, I do not feel that the current discussion is good enough. Too often we use discussion (scholarly or otherwise) as an unconscious ruse to forget that there are certain dearly held beliefs we hold that might end up truly false--for the non-gamer looking in, it might be that games are intrinsically worthless and inherently a waste of time, while they feel no such qualms arguing, for example, about the fine points of fine tuning a personal workstation or getting the most queries per second out of a server for academic research

I am not sure if we are in disagreement. The critic should articulate through his or her body of work the framework that the criticism proceeds from. These should be his or her dearly held beliefs. They should be open to scrutiny and questioning. This is why criticism should be a dialogue.

Both Oscuro and Zmeston made excellent points along the lines of a "a cigar just being a cigar." This seems to be a pragmatic assessment of a type of criticism that condescends and remains opaque to the reader. I personally think when criticism, academic or otherwise, proceeds from rhetorical flourishes or academic fashion it should be suspect. It is at its best when it provides an enrichment of our experience and a direction for the best minds in the profession to proceed in. Great designers such as Dyack, Miyamoto, Kojima etc. look towards film and literature for their directions. It is a shame that actual game criticism cannot provide this for them.

Sorry about the long post but this is a great discussion.

[zmweasel]

If there was a developed body of criticism that could inform the designer in his or her history, the societal context they are writing a game in, and the artistic achievements of the past, they may be more inclined to focus on original game creation over technical improvement and numerous sequels with small tweaks. Much of current criticism gives the designer nothing to go on except tweaks and hopeful a boost in sales if the reviewer likes it. Where is the societal context for the game? Where is the history of the genre? A telling point of this failure is the handful of informed histories of video games.

Unfortunately, most videogame critics are gamers first and communicators second (or third, or fourth). It's surprisingly difficult to find a gamer with comprehensive knowledge of gaming history AND a decent grasp of the English language. That's how I manage to stay employed, against all odds.

From personal experience, I can tell you that videogame journalists, with a few blessed exceptions, have no aspirations to inject "societal context" into their reviews. They're more interested in seeing how many dick jokes they can work in. (And I was once of 'em, sad to say.)

I should also note that on the recent occasions when I've tried to deliver genuine game criticism, my editors have rebuked me -- which is, of course, well within their rights. They pay me to write in the style of their choice, which is usually a few hundred snarky words.

There is room on the Web for genuine videogame criticism, but not in a print publication, for this and many other reasons.


There are many possible interpretations available for SMB. We should be open to many different views on a game as is possible.

I agree that it's important to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that one's brain falls out. I mean, c'mon, it's a game called Super Monkey Ball, in which you steer around monkeys in balls, and collect bananas with Dole labels on them. This is not a game striving for thematic subtlety or emotional resonance.

However, it IS interesting to note that Marble Madness, the obvious predecessor to SMB, was inspired by the art of M.C. Escher. But not many modern game critics have played Marble Madness, and how many of these dabbling academics would know of it? And how many game critics would know of Escher?


Great designers such as Dyack, Miyamoto, Kojima etc. look towards film and literature for their directions. It is a shame that actual game criticism cannot provide this for them.

Chris Crawford, Sid Meier, and Will Wright are other legendary designers who draw inspiration from film and literature. But that's the thing: creative minds are inspired by OTHER examples of creativity, not by talentless critics.

Also, nowhere is the realm of entertainment is there a larger intellectual gap than the one between game designers/programmers and game critics. Most of the game critics who've moved into game development have failed, further justifying the contempt in which game critics are held. (I consider myself a limited success, but it depends on whether or not you define my job as "development.")

-- Z.

[lendelin]

About reviews in videogame mags:

Reading through the posts with various arguments, I think there is one surprising result: we all agree that we need better, more adult oriented reviews, and more importantly, more serious, adult oriented magazines!

Gamers grow up, game content grows up, but mags didn't yet. Every time I get a GamePro, GameInformer, EGM, not to mention a Nintendo Power, I notice that game mags are still in their infancy, and tailor the content towards the younger/older teenie crowd.

70 pages of previews and reviews, can't I get a measly TWO pages, just TWO, of a more serious outlook on games and the indusrty which we discuss sometimes on this board? Not heavy academic language which is hard to digest, but some essays about aspects of economic restructering of the industry, some thoughts about the past and future of videogames, some essays about how technology influences gameplay, some intelligent essay how videogames reflect societal developments, and another plethora of topics I could think of.

This is what interests us, this is what we discuss simetimes with a lot of passion here on this site in various forms and topics. (E.g. male/female violence in games? what about female/male violence? what about the influence of "Alien" on games with a female character kicking mens' butts, same goes for TV? what about women serving in the military as a result of women's lib movements? all this is refelected in games) Different, more systematic arguments could influence public opinion, and it's so easily done.

Mags circumvent political problems related to videogames!! Should it be the monopoly of political newspapers and magazines? The most controversial, and in it's repetitiveness most boring is the "violent games - violent behavior" topic. I never read in any of the mentioned magazines anything halfway intelligent about it (besides reader letters with "I play videogames and didn't kill someone) Would it really hurt to to tackle the issue in easy to underttand language, no mentioning of statistics, just intelligent common sense arguments from someone who also knows the empirical studies a bit?

Someone (I think it was Zmweasel) put a link up in one of his posts to a really good article by a journalist who went to a gaming convention and interpreted gaming as a social event. (which mentioned some empirical studies, and criticized them with very good common sense arguments) Why not a little essay like this once in a while in a mainstream videogame mag?

Reviews and previews should dominate mainstream mags, but for heavens sake, they should deal with more serous problems and give them a little bit of space.

The obstacles for more "serious" themes in mags are

1)the sociodemographic bases of the mags, so it is often said. Yes, it's indeed an obstacle, and some mentioned attempts of mags which tried to get established as a niche offering, and failed; but if mainstream mags would slowly open to these topics while still focus heavily on previews/reviews, it wouldn't hurt them. On the contrary; I think every teenager who deals with his concerned parents about violence in games, every teenager with half of a brain who asks himself why he LOVES to play games, why certain topics of games change over time, etc. will at least glance at essays which deal with these topics. Maybe mags underestimate the teenie crowd. :) Teenagers can think, they even like to learn sometimes (what a shock), and sometimes they are even curious (again, a shock).

2) the kind of journalists who work for the game mags, as zmweasel pointed out, and more importantly, what the managers of publishers accept. What they accept is determined by their perception what will sell. As I pointed out above, sometimes they misperceive. Sometiems what didn't work in the past, works now. I also think that game mags should hire people who have more skills than just playing games, knowing games, and don't ask any other questions. I'm very sure, that there are some journalists in mainstream game mags with these skills, and because of the sociodemographic argument these skills are suppressed or don't get a channel often. (see GameInformer with Classic GI, which has sometimes great interviews with game developers, and sometimes even in their two coverstories which is often hidden or lost as a preview)

About media critics/academia and videogames:

Sure, zmweasel, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; but don't forget that Freud gave this answer to a journalist who asked him (Sigmund Freud) what it means that he smokes cigars. Freud might have answered differently when the Q would have been about someone else. :)

1) about overanalyzing games; sure, OVERanalyzing by definition is bad. However, there are bad interpretations and analyses, and there are fantastic ones; this goes for movies, literature, art history, comic books, for all of science, humanities, and social sciences, and will go for games as well. When it comes to treating games better, we have also to distinguish between short game reviews about individual games, and broader studies which ask different Qs beyond individual game content.

When it comes to the latter, I'd certainly disregard a marxist-dialectic interpretation of Marble Madness as the struggle of a worker in a capitalist society and the ultimate downfall of capitalism as plain nutty. However, I'd argue against it without calling it nutty, but I would show that it is nutty; but I'd have nothing against it if such an interpratation emerges; after all, the most distinguished professorship for the French revolution at the Sorbonne is still held traditionally by a Marxist (although it came recently under heavy attack)

We also have all kinds of approaches and theories for movie interpretation, paintings, architecture, literature, philosophy, social sciences, political philosophy. Nothing against it. Variety is good, and you have always to deal with fads.

Academia can never appeal to a broader audience; but it's about time that academia deals with videogames. The reasons: 1) we are INTERESTED in these topics(yep!), and 2) academic results can be presented to a broader audience.

Some threads of this site are proof that we are interested way beyond the newest game fad. On this site are great interviews with former game developers which give great hints and insights about conditions of game development over time.

Some threads deal with Qs like "most memorable game moments." WHY is it that we remember certain game moments. WHY do we remember the death of Aeris in FF7, the pig sacrifice in Breath of Fire, certain boss battles, the atmosphere of certain games, why do some games leave heavy imprints in the mind of the majority of gamers, while other games deliver in every review compartment but are easily forgotten, flat, and uninspired? The appeal of games, and I think even what makes a "classic" game, is predominantly psychological, nothing else; this goes from a Galaga to a Metriod Prime. What makes us in games identify with the protagonist, what is it so we can identify with a game, what is it which makes the atmosphere of a game so we get immersed in it?

Another thread dealt with "memorable title screens." Same Qs as above. Every time I plug in the first Metroid and see the title screen, it's appealing, perfect for the exposition of the story and atmosphere of the game.

These questions are socio-psychological Qs which are not explored at all. They are important becasue themes of individual games and their psychological effects on players, and themes as a general reflection of society are not coincidental. The results have societal implications, but moreover, are INTERESTING FOR GAMERS AND GAME DEVELOPERS.

I think it's one of the genius of Miyamoto that he thinks about the psychological effect of gameplay elements on the players mind when it comes down to it. You shouldn't be able to do everything technically possible in a game, and not to do everything right away in a game, becasue you have to "tease" the gamer. You have to set him up slowly to draw you into a game. More importantly, you have to give him the sense of exploration and discovery. Different games from puzzlers, shooters, to RPGs manage it in different ways. That makes a great game! This is a psychological effect! many complained that it was tedious to sail the big ocean as Link in WW, but wasn't it exactly this element among others which gave us "relax" time after tense moments, and more importantly, the sense that you explore and discover a huge world?

I guarantee you that every game you remember and regard as one of the best games you ever played, you identified with the game on different levels, and the atmosphere captured you. Why?? This psychological effect is worth exploring, from individual games to general Qs related to society, from the age-old male/female rescue fantasy across all cultures (lonely hero rescues the princess) to the influential cycle games-society.

A footnote:

zmweasel:

I once saw a TV interview with actor Jerry O'Connell where he recounted attending a film-school class in which the instructor was discussing the "symbolism" in the film "Stand By Me" -- for example, what the children really meant during the campfire montage in which Gordie asks the burning question, "Mickey is a mouse, Donald is a duck, Pluto is a dog. What's Goofy?"

O'Connell, who co-starred in the movie, stood up and told the instructor, "I was in that scene, and I can assure you that everything you just said was totally wrong."


I saw the interview, too, and it was really funny. :) However, the insructor might still be right. :)

Creating something and interpreting it are completely different businesses. The worst you can do when it comes to interpreting a movie or a novel is to ask the director or writer about it. They can shed little light about the meaning of the stuff they created. (The interpreter can use the intent of the artist and the circumstances under which art was created for the interpreation, but nothing more.)

Creating is a sub-conscious process, interpretation is a rational process. What you have to do in humanities and social sciences is to bring order in a chaotic reality. (even goes for chaos theory) Basically, you dissect the reality in different segments like a puzzle, and then you put them together so it makes sense. That's about it. This goes for a Shakespeare drama, poem, movie, or the influnce of interest groups on legislative processes.

A writer isn't aware of most aspects of the literature he creates. He is subject, like all of us, to an immense amount of psychological and societal influences. Famous example: Thomas Mann's "Magic Mountain." In the foreword of the American edition Mann completely agreed with an interpreter who wrote a study how the novel contains all important elements of many "queste" adventure of the Middle Ages, and has to be interpreted in this literature tradition. Thomas Mann wrote that he wasn't aware of it, and only realized it after he read the interpretation.

A novel, and a game, are the result of subconscious work when it comes to the theme and how the theme is treated (gameplay); interpreting the two is an effort to rationalize them in order to make surprising discoveries and to explain how the elemts fit together and to explain their appeal. Like for all classics, the "magical center" can never be explained or rationalized, otherwise writers would produce rational essays about love, war, and traffic accidents, and not poems and novels.

[lendelin]

Holy cow! I really apologize for this long post, I wasn't aware that is is SOOOO long. Geez, not even I would read it. :)

[hydr0x]

Holy cow! I really apologize for this long post, I wasn't aware that is is SOOOO long. Geez, not even I would read it. :)

LOL LOL

i read it :) and it was good too ;) i don't have anything to add though, i think most things have been said and you already summed up the important things, i really hope that there will be more "intelligent" approaches to game reviewing in the future, maybe even someone from this board could be included in such a project ;)

is there something like a hall-of-fame for topics like this one? :)

[hydr0x]

woah, smiley overflow!!

[ChuckthePlant]

I am immensely enjoying this exchange and finding it quite thought provoking.



I should also note that on the recent occasions when I've tried to deliver genuine game criticism, my editors have rebuked me -- which is, of course, well within their rights. They pay me to write in the style of their choice, which is usually a few hundred snarky words.

There is room on the Web for genuine videogame criticism, but not in a print publication, for this and many other reasons.

That is an unfortunate commentary but probably true among all professions these days. What sites or pubs would others recommend these days? There seems to be a demand for better and more diverse criticism ,is it being met?



Chris Crawford, Sid Meier, and Will Wright are other legendary designers who draw inspiration from film and literature. But that's the thing: creative minds are inspired by OTHER examples of creativity, not by talentless critics.

I agree creative minds are inspired other creative minds. We should not forget the power that creative and perceptive critics played in the reception of the films and books they review. We would probably not speak of film noir today were it not for mainly postwar French critics and directors.

Lendelin has many great points especially regarding a reception theory of games and the need for more diversity of writing about games. I wonder what a cogent reception based theory of gaming would look like? Miyamoto in public pronouncements seems to be operating from a strong personal theory himself. His body of work certainly seems to operate from a strong consistent vision.

Video games seem to be in the same position as comics were in the 50’s and 60’s. They have a huge fan base, and are beginning to take themselves more seriously as an art form. Society at large still views them as predominantly in the realm of children and thusly skews its interpretation of them downward.

I disagree that “Academia can never appeal to a broader audience” it is more the fault of overwrought and purposely opaque writing. It is unfortunate that Americans tend to not see the strength of the culture they create. Returning to the movie analogy it took French critics to show us the strength in Film Noir. Hong Kong directors to take up the standard of kinetic stylized violence from the pulp directors of the 60’s and 70’s. Maybe it will take a conference in Holland to allow American academics and critics to take notice of electronic gaming?

I hope my cold addled mind has not been too scattered. Nyquil aside this is a great exchange.

[zmweasel]

That is an unfortunate commentary but probably true among all professions these days. What sites or pubs would others recommend these days? There seems to be a demand for better and more diverse criticism ,is it being met?

InsertCredit.com has the occasional great criticism, although it too ofen falls into painful self-indulgence. Kid Fenris' KidFenris.com is always good readin'. Sirlin.net is good stuff, although more about the mechanics of game design than actual criticism.

Computer Gaming World, back in the '80s, was overflowing with fantastic criticism. My favorite CGW scribe was Scorpia, the magazine's pseudonymed adventure-gaming columnist. I briefly "worked" for her by moderating a couple of gaming forums on the GEnie online service. (Yes, I'm really that old.)


We should not forget the power that creative and perceptive critics played in the reception of the films and books they review. We would probably not speak of film noir today were it not for mainly postwar French critics and directors.

This is true, but most game critics are nowhere near the intellectual level of even the lowliest book or film critic, and that's the biggest obstacle between game critics and developers. Then again, at least the swarthy critics of enthusiast magazines and websites possess a fundamental understanding of gameplay, which academic critics don't.

I would describe Peter Olafson (who I don't believe is currently writing for any enthusiast mags) as creative and perceptive, a fantastic critic. David Smith, too, although he's too hardcore and socially awkward to have any real influence. Beyond that, I dunno.

Also, it could well be that most game developers don't feel the need to pay any attention to elitist criticism, when they have something much more valuable: voluminous public feedback via the Internet, the world's largest focus group.

-- Z.

[lendelin]

Holy cow! I really apologize for this long post, I wasn't aware that is is SOOOO long. Geez, not even I would read it. :)

LOL LOL

i read it :)

You were probably the only one. :) Damn, my first prob is that English isn't my mother tongue, which makes it harder to be concise (not to mention the use of wrong prepositions...like shedding light ABOUT...what was I thinking? :) , 2) I just write and type quickly and don't have the time to shorten it.

But the last post was too much, that's almost embarrassing in it's lenght.

[lendelin]

I disagree that “Academia can never appeal to a broader audience” it is more the fault of overwrought and purposely opaque writing.

I agree, however, there are academic in-depth analyses and research which to a certain extent have to use language and methods which are "foreign" to a broader audience (who wants to look through a time-regression-analyses?) and therefore never reach a broader audience; but the results can be summarized (not simplified), and can be presented in an interesting way without the use of pseudo-sophisticated and unnecessary complicated language. Scientists do that in astronomy, all kinds of natural science, historians do it, and sometimes even political scientists.


It is unfortunate that Americans tend to not see the strength of the culture they create. Returning to the movie analogy it took French critics to show us the strength in Film Noir. Hong Kong directors to take up the standard of kinetic stylized violence from the pulp directors of the 60’s and 70’s. Maybe it will take a conference in Holland to allow American academics and critics to take notice of electronic gaming?


Don't bet on "intellectual" critics, in France the broader audience couldn't care less about Film Noir. It's not a US - European Q either; what happened in Europe with movies was that critics demanded social implications, "meaningful" political and social content, and what they actually meant was to make movies for minorities; and they got it. The result is a commrecially unsuccessful industry, the movie industry in France is in a stage of a beauty sleep, and in Germany it's lingering on a death bed for 40 years. When the "cultured" media critics talk about a "wider" audience, than they mean the appeal to an extreme minority. They also mix up constantly non-commercial success with art.

This goes back to the original article which adresses some valid points, but also shows the condescending and arrogant attitude of media critics in Europe.

The valid points are that we need indeed

1) higher quality videogame mags and research about videogames, mags with better staff and a better educational background who can indeed adress and discuss videogames beyond the latest great games;

2) videogames which pay more attention to good storylines. Some videogames don't need a story at all, an Ikaruga doesn't need it, and some games are fantastic fun becasue of their simplicity (one of the most appealing aspects of games); but adventure games and RPGs certainly could need a boost with better stories.

ALERT - EXCURSION: :)
How often did we conquer space in a videogame, and how often did we actually play a good SciFi story? Professional writers come in slowly and deliver it, and the next big task of developers will be to translate the stories into gameplay. So far what we got are predominantly CGI sequences in which the story can be watched, but not played. The latest Xenosaga pushed the limit of a hybrid game/movie, which for me is an infantile stage of games.

Game developers fall for the technologically possible often (and CGI sequences are very expensive, too!), but don't develop under the motto "the story elements which can be PLAYED should never be just shown." Build-up of tension and atmosphere in a game and a movie work under two very different psychological mechanisms, and movie sequences are more an interruption of gameplay than an enhancement. Imagine a MOVIE which would allow you every 15 minutes to grab a controller and play for a couple of minutes. It would be ridiculous, the identification process, tension build-up, and atmosphere would be interrupted; but we still accept it for games. Adventure games and RPGs are neither literature nor movies/cartoons, and developers have slowly to find their place as an independent form of entertainment/art.
END OF EXCURSION :)

I disagree, however, with the condescending and partially arrogant attitude of some critics described in the article.

The Q "are videogames ready to be taken seriously" is arrogant right there. Yep, they are ready, and for a long time, I took them seriously and played them in 1989, and lots of other adults and kids. :) What these critics mean is are these videogames up to OUR high standards to be taken seriously and, of course, WE decide what should be worthwhile to be reviewed and talked about.

This attitude is dangerous, and a serious obstacle to overcome for the acceptance of videogames for these critics. Christianscott27 made a good point when he said that ballet, theatre, drama, no matter how broad their appeal is, are regarded "worthwhile" to be reviewed by those critics, videogames are not. You pointed to comic books; indeed, the seperation between mere entertainment and "high art" is murky, and where the line is changes often over time. (Bluegrass in the 50s? a hillbilly affair; now? admired by intellectuals and some country-western singers come from New York)

The arrogant attitude is a serious obstacle for the acceptance of games becasue there is (like with political journalists) not an overt conspiracy to ignore or belittle certain phenomena, but there is a "groupthink" effect of an environment which creates and recruits like-minded individuals and casts out individuals with other values and attitudes. There is a class of media critics who wnat to bring up everything to a "higher" level, which is of course "their" level.

I say, game developers shouldn't try to appeal to those critics and Film Noir standards and get down to their level, but we'll wait until they come up to our level. :) ...and they will as soon as book publishers, newspaper publishers, media managers realize that there is interest in the topic and it sells well. The most arrogant political and cultural people transform mysteriously into capitalists if they can make profit; and then serious media critics will deal with games, and serious videogame journalists don't have to hide anymore between previews sections of game magazines.

[Aswald]

No matter what other sorts of games are published, the media will focus on games like DOA: Extreme Beach Volleyball.

SEXISM!! PERVERTS! JIGGLE FACTOR!!

Then the usual media events...

[kevincure]

lendelin's last point is worth restating: interpretation and creation are not the same thing. I'm sure we all agree that its creators intended no parables/lessons in Super Monkey Ball - it's meant for fun. Nonetheless, there are cultural histories that lead to certain gameplay mechanics, and further *videogame* cultural histories that led to those mechanics. Reviewers don't have to see the Marxist parable in SMB (though there are quite a few academics that see the Marxist parable in everything, no joke); they still can, however, analyze the game beyond its fun factor.

For instance, an issue of 1-up Magazine talked about feminist theory and Umjammer Lammy - this can certainly be overanalyzed, but there's also something there worth noting. Steven Poole writes about the fundamental problem of storytelling in games: it's tough to create drama when the player can simply go back to their saved game when something bad happens. This is why the "dramatic" moments in games (RPGs mainly) tend to be cutscenes. RPG reviews should discuss how the developer gets around this problem.

Overfocus on 'fun factor' is not the only problem in game criticism, though. Somewhat bizarrely, the other problem is *underanalyzation* of fun factor. Janet Murray writes about 'agency' all the time; agency means the level at which you're allowed to interact with objects in a form of media. There are a variety of types of interaction, each with their own problems and benefits. This is a type of 'fun factor' that is usually neglected in exchange for penis jokes, as Zach noted. (Good article about Murray's agency)

Good academic criticism isn't about being high-falutin, making everything Marxist metaphors and using obscure words. It's about treating games in a serious way. There will always be a place for Nintendo Power, but there should also be a place for something more intelligent.

[Ed Oscuro]

Overfocus on 'fun factor' is not the only problem in game criticism, though.

I'm afraid I don't understand this statement..? What form of criticism are we talking about--and if we're talking about reviews that appear in the places we would normally find them (online, magazines, etc.) how, exactly, is "fun factor" being focused on too much?

'side that, I'd agree with the "underfocus on fun in favor of flaunting their ability to insert 'clever' puns" observation.

[kevincure]

Ed...meaning focus on the gameplay at its most general level while ignoring the genre history, society, overarching themes, etc.. I see it every review, online and off. And these are in what's considered *good* reviews.

It's 'Roger Ebert' level of game review - the fundamental question is "Did I have fun playing this game?" I completely agree that this is important, and as I mentioned, much more important in videogames than in film, for instance. But there still are many further levels to analyze which will give the player more to think about and understand as they play.

Obviously having fun is an important part of games, but it's not the only part.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ed...meaning focus on the gameplay at its most general level while ignoring the genre history, society, overarching themes, etc.. I see it every review, online and off. And these are in what's considered *good* reviews.

Well, let me break it down a bit so I can come up with some way to relate what I think you're saying to actual real-life reviews as opposed to some (currently imaginary) scholarly critic. I'm just curious as to how this adds up to a better game review.

"Genre history..." For myself and almost every other gamer out there this means "Is this game as good as its predecessors?"

"Society..." Again, I dispise movie reviews that start preaching to the crowd or even take some aspect of a film out of context. While there's nothing wrong with looking at morals (that's the closest thing I can think of that really fits with this category of "Society"), for your average game review is usually a waste of time unless you feel that the game is far enough out of line that you need to mention it, perhaps at length.

If you think that is new to the realm of game reviews, I'd point you toward the normally insufferably bouncy, nearly John Madden-esque onomatopeia of Your Sinclair being derailed for a moment to mention that having a baby wander about during a firefight in the Sinclair release of The Untouchables "seemed a little sick." (http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/articles/theuntouchables.htm)

Likewise, Roger Ebert's review of the Nintendo movie The Wizard (http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1989/12/387649.html) had some important comments to make. I have no problem with movie or game reviews going on at length about morals--if it's truly space well used. In my experience it's usually just preaching to the choir. Truly there's not a lot of space for moralizing and pontificating in a magazine review, and not a lot of tolerance for it either, but is that truly a bad thing?

"Overarching Themes" -- I don't see how it would be practical to include this in normal reviews.

Now I agree these are important things indeed, but I wouldn't say they belong in reviews, but rather in "features" such as weekly columns designed to bring a subject to light. A good example of this--being used by a game's creator as opposed to its reviewers, which is worth noting--would be the "Where did Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon come from? (http://crouchingtiger.ubi.com/qanda.html) article by Dr. Craig Reid on Ubi Soft's website.

Game reviews shouldn't be lumbered with the additional task of going into detail about these things--I don't think you're advocating that, of course--but rather maybe one phrase (i.e. "finds its roots in 1980s Hong Kong grindhouse action flicks") to spur them on to learn more--if they so wish.

Never forget that the ultimate goal is to provide the best review in the least space possible--the best ound bite, really. That unfortunately seems to preclude other considerations.

[ChuckthePlant]

Day three of the cold from hell so excuse a certain lack of focus and an excess of writing.


I agree, however, there are academic in-depth analyses and research which to a certain extent have to use language and methods which are "foreign" to a broader audience (who wants to look through a time-regression-analyses?) and therefore never reach a broader audience; but the results can be summarized (not simplified), and can be presented in an interesting way without the use of pseudo-sophisticated and unnecessary complicated language. Scientists do that in astronomy, all kinds of natural science, historians do it, and sometimes even political scientists.

I think we are saying the same thing here. It is a shame social and cultural critics cannot learn how better to communicate their point without unnecessary hyperbole and convoluted sentence structure. Specialized fields often require specialized language. It is the responsibility of the researchers to insure that they are able to make their thoughts comprehensible. This is what creates the rift between intelligent critics, the cultural producers and the broader audience.


Don't bet on "intellectual" critics, in France the broader audience couldn't care less about Film Noir. It's not a US - European Q either; what happened in Europe with movies was that critics demanded social implications, "meaningful" political and social content, and what they actually meant was to make movies for minorities; and they got it

My point was applicable to the French New Wave only. The films produce in that period, Truffaut, Mellville etc., were both commercially viable and artistically successful in their time. Although a bit off topic I think you are correct about European cinema being moribund. I suspect it actually a result of a failed business model as well a general failure in Western cinema since the 70’s.

I do think it is interesting though the idea of the foreign observer pointing out the strength of one own culture. French and English critics have produced some of the best writing on America. Possibly this could also be the case in the future with gaming and the conference in Utrecht. Anyone have any comments on the state of Japanese criticism?


I say, game developers shouldn't try to appeal to those critics and Film Noir standards and get down to their level, but we'll wait until they come up to our level.

Well said. I would interpret this as a call for a specialized field of study that understands electronic gaming as thing unto itself. It has a unique history, culture, syntax and vocabulary. This does not imply it is exceptional and has no antecedents, but that it is uniquely worth consideration. The Utrecht conference seems to be a preliminary step in that direction. A more meaningful step would be for some well-researched academic histories to be published that examine gaming as phenomena.

Kevincure hits the nail right on the head with his point on the over and under emphasis on fun factor. There are two points worth emphasis. As I mentioned in an earlier post there needs to be examination of the Pleasure factor in games. Why do we enjoy certain types of games? What causes that feeling of fitness and concentration you get with successful navigation of a game? What are the commonalities in this, what are the differences?

The second thing to emphasize is that reviews today for the most part rely on a unconscious acceptance of the reviewers unspoken and unexamined taste as an arbiter of gaming excellence. This does nothing for the person designing or consuming the game except act as sort of buying guide. There is certainly room for this in publishing, but a steady diet makes for a poor meal. A good review or analysis should leave the reader with a greater knowledge of the game and games in general. A great review should open up the reader to possibilities she or he did not realize.

Again a great exchange. It is a testament to this board and to its readers that a considered and reasoned exploration like this could occur.

[hydr0x]

Never forget that the ultimate goal is to provide the best review in the least space possible--the best ound bite, really. That unfortunately seems to preclude other considerations.

THIS is the ultimate goal?? i have to heavily disagree here, of course, a reviewer for a gaming mag always has to force his review down to 4,2,1 or 1/2 page(s), but i'm pretty sure if they could, they would make longer reviews. Just look at some online-reviews which are longer, it's not bad if something is long, as long as it's still "fun" to read and tells you something new. Almost all mag-reviews are missing a lot of points (even the long ones), so there really is a need for longer reviews, to be honest, i would read a whole book about some games if there is so much to tell about it ;)

[ChuckthePlant]

Just caught Oscuro's post. This is great way to possible examine the applicability of what we are talking about. I will try and suggest possibilities for each of the area you brought up


"Genre history..." For myself and almost every other gamer out there this means "Is this game as good as its predecessors?" .

Maybe the question is not is it as good, but how does this game fit within the history of gaming? How does it result that this game is produced at this time. Why should the consumer be interested, or not interested in this game beyond that the reviewer thought it was fun or not.


""Society..." Again, I dispise movie reviews that start preaching to the crowd or even take some aspect of a film out of context. .

I am not a fan of moral arguments in most critiques, all though they do have a place. I would be more interested in placing a game in its societal context. Why are military themed games so popular at his time in America? Why do genre of games that were once popular lose their appeal Why is the First person shooter relegated mostly to shooting? Why in gods name should a game like “Manhunter” be produced at all. Is it responding to pretty clear genre problems posed by the perceived need to up violence in a false attempt to make games more “mature.” These are all questions and analysis that should be addressed that would enhance the review of any game.


"Overarching Themes" -- I don't see how it would be practical to include this in normal reviews. .

I am not sure if I agree that this is not practical. Thematic analysis could be very good at finding hidden connections between games and opeing up possible interpratations. This could really enhance the gaming experience.


"Never forget that the ultimate goal is to provide the best review in the least space possible--the best ound bite, really. That unfortunately seems to preclude other considerations.

Unfortunately this is probably true although this discussion shows there is a desire for more. What is needed is outlet for more substantive attempts to review games, carry on meaningful discussions about the history of gaming, and interpret and reinterpret them. This I cannot help but imagine would be of interest to many gamers.

[Ed Oscuro]

"Overarching Themes" -- I don't see how it would be practical to include this in normal reviews. .

I am not sure if I agree that this is not practical. Thematic analysis could be very good at finding hidden connections between games and opeing up possible interpratations. This could really enhance the gaming experience.

"Electronic Gaming and Thematic Analysis Monthly" sounds like a real corker to me! *Groan*

I still don't see how this is a desireable feature for an actual game review, so we can count that right out. Now, the link I posted takes right right approach by extending what's mentioned in brief with a "sidebar feature." I've really only seen anything approaching this in "Top games of X type" or "Obscure games that are cool" features found online.



"Never forget that the ultimate goal is to provide the best review in the least space possible--the best ound bite, really. That unfortunately seems to preclude other considerations.

Unfortunately this is probably true although this discussion shows there is a desire for more. What is needed is outlet for more substantive attempts to review games, carry on meaningful discussions about the history of gaming, and interpret and reinterpret them. This I cannot help but imagine would be of interest to many gamers.

I don't see how the current reviews don't already make "substantive attempts"--especially those tougher ones by the folks at GameSpy, who I feel have done quite well dealing out lower reviews when an excellent game just doesn't match what's expected of it given the competition. (I know I mention GameSpy quite a lot, but they're the folks I'm familiar with.)

History of gaming...again, there's the "first person or game to do X" type reviews. Until people currently working the industry retire or take the time to fill us in on the facts, we're stuck with a good deal of speculation. It's worth mentioning that we'll never officially read about many of the good bits, the juicy gossip that are floating around out there (except for the occassional denial) because people don't want to get sued. This goes for internal staff as well as game reviewers. I think defining "inventor of the computer game" is itself quite a challenge to pin down...never mind the marketing deals that have gone down (and those that didn't, and those that got smashed in favor of others).

As a result, I don't quite understand how you can really have a scholarly discussion in games about anything besides the technology and presentation (including themes, inspirations, and aesthetics).

What with all the games coming out nowadays, it's hard enough just to keep track of them all and review them--trying to suss out a developer's influences is a whole other beast--especially if it takes cues for an obscure game, which, of course, nobody might ever be able to figure out. Developers, unlike (the more famous) authors and poets, tend to be workaday types totally uninterested in preserving their thoughts and innermost secrets, as they're almost always preoccupied with actually getting something done.

[kevincure]

Chuck addressed most of what I was planning to say in response to Ed, but I think I should reclarify that by "game criticism" I don't necessarily mean mass market, EGM-style review. There is certainly a place for EGM's (to pick a mass market mag at random) style of brief, "I like this game or I don't" style reviewing.

This is, however, not good criticism. There's a wealth of literature on what makes good criticism (in videogame terms, it gives us background on the game, the genre, its societal context, its "agency", etc., etc.). Clearly this would be out of place in Nintendo Power.

After all, Entertainment Weekly is a "do I like this movie?" type of review, whie more sophisticated analysis of film also has a place. It's this indepth analysis that helps developers and designers make better videogames, allows society to understand the psych/social effects of videogames and allows the player to understand the medium and what makes games both 'good' and influential.

[Scoots]

I find it funny that people think of Rolling Stone as anything other than a tool of industry hype 90% of the time. Anyway...

This is the same problem facing a lot of overly serious critiques. The fact is, there is NO such interpretation to be made of a game like Super Monkey Ball. The makers had no intention of making it a metaphor for overcoming obsctables in life. They must made it to be fun and to fall off things if you screw up. We end up with too much over-analysis of things that aren't DESIGNED for analysis that deep and you end up coming off looking stupid. And so does the industry. No one is going to take that sort of critique seriously, and if they do, they're doing the game itself an injustice, not legitimizing it!
Maxlords, I think if you can make an interpretation, it's valid. I don't want someone telling me this IS or ISN'T what the programmers intended, but if you can make a case for an interesting psycho/sociological review, I say go to it. I think the academics would say just because they didn't consciously set out to make Super Monkey Ball a parable for human determination, there were probably enough subconscious factors to justify such an interpretation. If video games are to be viewed as works of art, they aren't going to have one concrete "meaning."

[RetroYoungen]

i would just like to see games get more of toe hold in the mainstream press. the boston globe devotes sections to arts that the public by and large ignores, such as dance, stage and gallery shows but shortchanges the gaming world with a mere 2 paragraph review article on the saturday comics page. even our youth oriented "alt. press" mags ignore the gaming world, they'd rather talk about some crumby clone band that nobody listens to. TV news same deal, yeah they'll do a 3 minute bit on a new console or the occasional "sales of games up for christmas" story but thats it, still they feel the need to give me the top ten films at the box office every half hour. as it stands right now gaming shares a berth with the porn industry, as big as hollywood, a huge devoted following, innovators in electronic entertainment but almost never mentioned...

i'm not sure the industry is ready for art house critical reviews but there needs to be more of a focus on "is the game a good time" and less on "how does it measure up in terms of X". right now the best game reviewing in my opinion is G4's show with tommy and victor, judgement day. they talk about the games in a way that makes me feel like i could trust their review in the buy or pass dept. most game mags still feel like A) they are written for 10 year olds and B) all of their reviews are "payola" based.

I agree entirely. Gaming hasn't reached nearly the level of "mainstream success" that it should have by now. I don't know about G4 shows, so I won't say anything there, but it's absolutely true that very few games are truly being reviewed to see if they're fun or not, and I'll admit that in my various reviews on a local EZBoard where I write most all of mine I'm guilty of doing the same thing on more than one occasion. But really, a lot of gamers nowadays don't even see the game in terms of "is it fun," they see them in terms of "dude, look at the graphics on this one!" Many people I know only play certain games because of movie licenses, graphics, and general popularity. If a mag says "this game is good" they praise it like sheep. IMO, that's the only reason that the Matrix game made it so huge (I abhored it personally).

Yes, gaming needs to be taken more seriously. But the main reason that it's not is because the people playing aren't, so to say, up to our level of thinking about games. We want them to be fun, many others want an impressive tech demo. When older people see that gaming isn't a fad and younger people realize that graphics will soon not get too much better, we may start seeing our hobby taken a bit more seriously. Until then, I'm sick of hearing "intellectuals" talk about gaming when they don't play anything. It doesn't have to be about beauty in polys or exploring the ideas of Marx; it has to be fun. That other stuff can come later for all I care, I'll play because I want to blow off steam or crack a smile.

Sorry that was a long post.

[ChuckthePlant]

As a result, I don't quite understand how you can really have a scholarly discussion in games about anything besides the technology and presentation (including themes, inspirations, and aesthetics).

I second what kevincure said regarding the need and importance of more sophisticated analysis of gaming as a phenomena. I understand oscuros’ concern about it being out of place in some of the magazines he mentioned. It is a shame that those magazines are where criticism begins and ends for most people. There is room for these buyer guide quality reviews and the market seems to provide a lot of it. These types of reviews do nothing to advance the state of the art of gaming or increase a players understanding or enjoyment of the game or future games.


Yes, gaming needs to be taken more seriously. But the main reason that it's not is because the people playing aren't, so to say, up to our level of thinking about games.

It is quite possible to have a “scholary” discussion about game that go beyond technology. Part of the problem is a lack of general education about the history and culture of gaming. Again to beat a dead horse this arises partially from a clear lack of scholarly books dealing with the subject. It is the critics’ obligation in part to educate its readership.

If gaming is to be “taken seriously” it needs to take itself seriously. It should try to better educate its players and creators in its history and culture. It should partake in the general dialogue of creator, audience and critic that almost all major forms of public creative activity engage in. Architecture, graphic design, sculpture, painting, film, all do this. Why should gaming be different?

Sorry about the rant but it is a subject near and dear to my heart. Great discussion

[Jorpho]

This is getting rather dizzying.

So, instead, I will post a link to Gamasutra (http://www.gamasutra.com). Remember them? They posted that lovely Dogma 2001 (http://www.pastemob.org/zeller/videogamedogma.html) thing a while back. (For some very silly reason you need to register in order to view it on the official site, but you can still Google for it.) And yet, so many of their recommendations seem to have gone unheeded. Perhaps the market really does have to stagnate in order for such innovation to rise. As for now, it would seem too much money is still being made selling games to younger gamers.

It occurs to me that the game which comes to mind when people mention thematic analyses and such is Infocom's Trinity. Interactive fiction is already free from some of the restrictions mentioned in Dogma 2001.

[calthaer]

Chris Crawford has already been mentioned and I'll mention him again. His site at http://www.erasmatazz.com/ is rife with all sorts of reasons why the game industry isn't mainstream. I think he's correct on many counts...not the least of which being the corporate takeover of the game industry and the bulk of decision-making being put into the hands of marketers putting a big stranglehold on creativity. To quote:

"But most important, I hope that we can rekindle the outlandishness, the risk-taking that once animated our efforts. Granted, we're not the same rumpled crew that started this revolution ten years ago. We're a big industry now, with millions of dollars of other people's money riding on our decisions. Yet we must never forget that we are in the entertainment business, and creativity is the lifeblood of our industry. For the last few years we have been coasting on old creativity, too scared and too poor to take chances on new ideas. Now the market is secure enough to support some bold leaps. Who among us is up to the task?"

[kevincure]

Chris Crawford on Game Design is a pretty good book on the subject to boot - you can get it at Amazon for not too much.