The Ides of Thompson

I didn’t comment on Jack Thompson’s disbarment, mostly because I didn’t have much to add, but thought this GSW meditation on whether he was real or a partial creation of the industry press was worth passing along.  I come down along the middle of the road on this one; he was newsworthy in his sheer persistence, and so had to be reported on, but the gaming press tends to fixate and probably fed the flames more than it needed to.

Fuel On The Fire

What’s wrong with this headline: “Bungie: Game companies should pocket money from used sales“?  Answer: Bungie never said it.  Rather, an audio director at the company, giving his personal opinion, provided that argument.  The headline is wrong and is likely to start a flamewar over Bungie’s involvement.

Needless to say, inflammatory, inaccurate quotes aren’t a good idea.

Missing The Point

John Keefer over at Crispy Gamer suggests that game embargoes aren’t actually necessary.  This is true, albeit also rather obvious.  Unfortunately, Mr. Keefer seems to imply that this doesn’t benefit gamers.  Although I can’t fault him for the sentiment, I would actually disagree.

Keefer argues that there are two reasons for embargoes: first, to time with some publicity drive from the company (earnings calls, conventions, etc.), or second, to reward a journalist with an exclusive.  Let me suggest that there is really one reason for them, and it is the latter.  If companies really didn’t want journalists to potentially write something about a game - if they were planning a grand reveal of the product on some particular schedule - they wouldn’t give them the game in the first place until it was absolutely necessary.  I suspect very few games need their reviews timed in this way.  It may make publishers’ lives a little easier to provide the embargo, but look at it this way: if they couldn’t trust people to hold off, they just wouldn’t provide the game at all.  Rather, the exclusives are pretty much the only reason to have an embargo.

I agree, it’s a crappy practice.  But blaming gamers - “[t]he sad part of this whole equation is that the existing system, coupled with many gamers’ insatiable desire to read whatever information is first available on their favorite big games, leaves those trying to establish some type of journalistic credibility in the dust” - is pretty unproductive.  It also happens to be true.  But what you end up with in the end is the fact that the existing system exists because of the people it’s designed to serve.  More people want exclusives than care about the very valid issues that Keefer raises.  Therefore, it won’t change. 

But there’s not much that can be done about that.

Very Well, I Contradict Myself

So after my previous post, I find myself disagreeing somewhat with Kieron Gillen here.  I agree that there needs to be a place for people interested in “serious” games to find and discuss them.  The industry (and gamers) as a whole are better off when there are more games, and types of games, in the marketplace.  Yet Gillen seems to believe that these “serious” games are objectively better than the others because of their attitude… which seems to me to be misguided at best.

Gillen’s jumping off point is end-of-year awards, which generally tend to reward the most popular games over the most sophisticated.  I agree.  Movies and music tend to reward obscure critical favorites more than the gaming industry.  Yet Gillen seems to view this as a strong negative rather than a different viewpoint:

“[Critics fail] to understand their emotional response to the game is what counts, not some odd check-list of what a ‘great’ game should be. On the 360, Earth Defence Force 2017 is a better game than Gears of War. Stepping more PC and indie, Desktop Tower Defence is a better game than Supreme Commander. ”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Geoff, Industry, Journalism | 6 Comments »

Too Cool for Too Human

There are times when the gaming community kind of annoys me.  This is one of those times.

Look, I know that Too Human had a somewhat disastrous showing at E3 2006 which turned a lot of people off from the game.  No matter how the game turned out, this, unfortunately, would probably keep some people away from the game no matter what.  I’m also quite aware that some people didn’t like the demo that was released for the game.  Certainly, the game has its share of issues, which I’ve also acknowledged.  And if the sort of Diablo-esque loot and skill system doesn’t appeal to you, well, that’s fine too.  I get that the game is not for everyone.

But the game has inspired a sort of vitriol among the community that just saddens me.  It’s not because I love the game and just wish everyone would play it (since the full game doesn’t come out until tomorrow I haven’t even played the full version yet). I expect I’ll like the game despite its flaws, but I honestly don’t care if anyone else does or not (except that, perhaps, it do well enough for them to finish the trilogy if I like it).  The thing that saddens me is how the gaming community can fixate on something and just repeatedly keep whipping away at it for no other reason except that it had a bad showing once, and the developer has the audacity to try and promote its own game after that.  While Too Human has been a whipping post ever since 2006, with its imminent release, some of the criticism borders on ridiculous.

Read the rest of this entry »

Not That I’m Complaining

Quick, what do the following headlines have in common?

“EA’s Latest Take-Two Offer Expires Today”

“GP on Joystiq: Requiem for a Heavyweight”

“Military Using Game Controllers to Pilot Drones, Disarm Bombs”

“Pachter: E3 Headed for Extinction”"EA Extends Deadline for Take-Two Shares; Zelnick Says T2 Has “Multiple” Would-be Acquirers”

If you said that they’re all unrelated to politics, you’d be right!  However, we’d also accept: “What is fully 1/3 of the current headlines on GamePolitics.com?”  (Admittedly, you could make an argument for the military one, but that’s at best a degree removed.)  They can publish whatever they want, but they might want to rethink the branding.

Intelligent Criticism

Insult Swordfighting asks whether people really want intelligent criticism (and highlights an interesting GSW feature in which various “intelligent” commentators are interviewed about their writing and experiences - unsurprisingly, we were not featured).  Many of these writers are also contributors to mainstream journalism sites or publications, and so hearing their views on why they run a blog is a fascinating endeavor.

The conclusion IS draws is that, although mainstream pieces draw far more traffic than the typical niche blog noted, readers are slowly and inexorably being drawn to more sophisticated critiques of gaming.  I don’t necessarily disagree - in fact, this site is predicated on that assumption - although I would note that many of the most insightful blogs are still written from the perspective of industry insiders: developers, professional journalists, and so on.  As a result, journalism that truly tackles gamer-specific issues is more nascent than might otherwise appear to be the case.

There is, of course, something to be said about a site where writers feel that they can truly share their musings.  At the same time, it’s worth contemplating that so many people spend their time writing in a voice they don’t think is truly theirs.

A Pox On Both Their Houses

For those who haven’t been paying attention, there was a minor skirmish earlier this week betwen Gamepolitics and the ESA.  The ESA took issue with one of GP’s posts, highlighting the evangelical views of Texas Governor Rick Perry; Perry’s going to be the keynote speaker at E3 this year.  The ESA complained that GP is a “recruitment tool” for the ECA, an organization that competes with it to some extent… presumably concerned that GP was trying to discredit E3 through its article.  I have the fortunate job of complaining about both of them! 

Read the rest of this entry »

40/40

Here’s an interesting factoid from Joystiq: Famitsu, the highly respected Japanese game magazine, has given out 40/40 reviews to only 8 games in its history: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Soul Calibur, Vagrant Story, The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, Nintendogs, Final Fantasy XII, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and now, Metal Gear Solid 4.

I have no idea how good MGS4 is, but some of these entries seem outright odd.  Nintendogs?  Super Smash Bros. Brawl?  Fine games all, but perfect ones?  Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker?  I loved Wind Waker - more than Ocarina, even - but it’s not substantively different in most ways, and the Triforce treasure quest alone disqualifies it from perfection.  I’m sure you can think of plenty of omissions that should be on the list as well.  I was a bit surprised to see the company that MGS now keeps.  (Feel free to avoid general comments about the quality of game reviews and/or Famitsu - I think we exhausted that topic a few days ago and will no doubt return to it shortly.)

Sunlight, Disinfectant, Etc.

I don’t know that we need to touch off another round of hallelujahs on this, but I’ll throw out my bafflement with the MGS review debacle, just the latest journalistic controversy in gaming.  I can’t think of a single reputable journalist that would accept the type of restrictions that were clearly imposed on MGS reviewers - disclosure or no disclosure.  And sure, I recognize the pressure to be first to market, &c., but seriously, people.  Leaving aside the ethical implications of reviewing a game you had to rush through or had no more than a handful of hours to actually experience, if you don’t like these rules, don’t play the game.  If everyone refused to give publishers what is essentially no more than free publicity to these games, companies would damn well make time to give you reviewable copies with the notice you need to actually play through them.  Get together with your friends, agree not to cheat each other, and tough it out.

I’ll give EGM some credit here, but a lengthy “discussion” is the same publicity that was hoped for from the beginning.  Not attaching a numeric ranking is weak tea.  And seeing game reviewers become coopted into essentially extensions of publishers’ marketing arms is really unpleasant for all concerned.