I feel like I’ve probably written enough about the process of writing about games. Recently, I’ve been leaning towards the opinion that this kind of article might not be suited to our audience. I’m concerned that I am, essentially, writing for myself and the small group of individuals who do the same thing that I do. I’m worried that the people I want to write for – you – might not care about the processes or considerations of writing about games. So I’ve avoided commenting on the noisy carousel of navel-gazing that we’re all a little guilty of in this profession.
Do you care? Should you? Let’s see.
For me, it all started with a three part series I wrote several years ago about what was wrong with games journalism. That’s something that some people had done before and many have done since – with varying degrees of condescension and ill-advised airs of superiority. That mini series included a brief realisation that some of what we do on this website is journalism. I still feel like that: some of what we do here is journalism.
But we’re not journalists and we very rarely engage in journalistic practices.
I think of myself as a critic, a columnist or an author – depending on what I’m writing at the time and how pretentious I allow myself to be. For me, journalism is an almost sacred thing. It’s about finding truth when others would hide it, exposing facts that are integral about things that are important. Journalism is a noble craft and there are precious few journalists around in the world today, to say nothing of the rarity of journalists who turn their trade towards games coverage.
Of course, I also believe that games can be important. They’re an exceptionally popular media, a vibrant artistic endeavor that is defining this period of history and a form of expression and escapism that is unique and beautiful and engaging on many levels. I just don’t think there are many people in the world who take the subject of videogames and apply journalism to it.
I don’t know of many journalists who write about games. I of know dozens, possibly even hundreds, of “games journalists” – paid or unpaid – who write up PR-written press releases, republish what they’ve seen elsewhere or generally perpetuate the heavily PR-led “news” cycle that we take part in. I’ve never been a big fan of the way news is covered by the games media or how tight the grip of publisher marketing departments and PR firms is on how that information surfaces. But it is what it is and there’s nothing I can do to change it so I comfort myself with the occasional sneer or attempt at a witty observation and I get on with trying to provide what our readers want.
Please, don’t mistake this body of writing as some sort of crusade against the perceived ills of the industry, as has become fashionable over recent years. Sensational headlines, controversial lists and out of context mis-quotes are an accepted (by publishers and consumers of games media) side of the industry. That’s not what I personally like to see but it is tremendously popular, so magazines and websites who use those tricks to appeal to people are far more successful than those that don’t. People, it seems, don’t want quality: they want speed, conflict and drama.
The mantra of “Games journalism is broken” that some privileged individuals seem to have hitched their wagon to is perhaps partially true but the slogan applies in more ways than those who exclaim it intend. What I think is broken about “games journalism” is that most of those who use the title don’t truly understand what journalism is and therefore dilute its purity with their co-opting of a term. Some proclaim that there’s a better way and then retread their footsteps along the old path anyway. Others attempt to build an entire body of work on sneering at their contemporaries and claiming superiority, all the while appearing oblivious to the tragic irony of that situation. Rare is the writer who takes a brave new direction and swift is their voyage into obscurity.
[drop2]So, what of the other hot topic of games coverage: the review? Most recently, as is to be expected at this point in the calendar, review coverage has been the subject of some scrutiny. I don’t believe that a game review is “just one person’s opinion”, as many might claim. That’s, er, an opinion.A review has to be based on experience and knowledge and weighs up the successes and failures of a game with as much objectivity as possible. Of course there is some opinion in there – that’s what makes a review individual and often what gives it the character that makes you enjoy a certain writer’s material and perhaps not another’s. That’s what differentiates a review from a feature-list. If any reviewer uses the “it’s just my opinion” defence when challenged on a review, I’d tend to ignore future output from them. It’s a cop out, a cheap excuse to avoid accountability. I always think “own your work, back your own ability or get out of the game and make room for one of the – literally – thousands of people who want to do what you do.”
Of course, there are other pressures that reviewers at some outlets are subjected to. It’s not always easy to give a game your all when you’re only being allowed four hours to complete that piece of your weekly work – some publishers are more demanding and less committed to honesty and accountability than they are to output and visitor figures. That’s fine, that’s their business and they’re successful at it. It quickly becomes reasonably evident to anyone who cares about these things which outlets care about what aspects of games coverage and although it’s frustrating that the methods I disagree with yield the most traffic – and revenue – that’s definitely not a subject that my readers generally care about so I’ll leave it alone here and find my way back to the topic in hand.
I have always believed that a review has to be an objective appraisal of something, coloured by the opinion and experiences of the author. Everyone has an opinion on almost any subject and, while most opinion is valid and almost all is interesting to hear, if it’s not properly justified and backed up, it’s not anything more than that. It’s one side of an argument without any urgency to consider what the other angles might be. A review considers those other angles but it has to be predictive: it’s a relatively solitary process. Otherwise, it’s not coloured by the opinion of the author but the shared opinions of all who have had input.
When I’m reviewing a game, I try to avoid all contact with the opinions of others. Occasionally, I’ll see someone mention over social networks, that they’re also playing the game for review but it usually never extends past “it’s pretty good/bad.” I do all that I can to avoid another reviewer’s score too, because I think that I owe it to my readers to give them an honest account, from me.
I can’t vouch for anyone else but I would be surprised if any committed reviewer didn’t do something similar. Sure, we all chat from time to time but it’s in loose terms and vague language. I’ve never had an explicit conversation with another reviewer about my coverage before a review is published. With a couple of exceptions, everyone I know who reviews games does so with an almost reverential respect for the process. We, generally, really care about doing it properly – to the point where we’re often over sensitive about criticism and a little too precious about how much it matters.
It’s difficult to ascertain how much of this thought process is visible to our readers. Should those of us who write about games let our personal struggles with our craft go on behind the metaphorical curtain or should we simply concentrate on giving our audiences the best possible coverage of videogames that we can? Would it be better to be more open and honest about the processes and the motives behind them or is it more important to keep up with the closely stewarded news cycle?
Do you care about this? Should you?
Sympozium
I believe this sort of stuff is the reason I’ve become such a daily user of Thesixthaxis. The comments aren’t flooded with idiots (though certain do confuse me… like a certain person Steven often rages about on twitter I suppose seems to have a disturbing Sony Fetish :D lol..), there’s not much spam, honest balanced writing, Tuffcub articles…, a nice look at indie games lovely to see some articles about them and a great community. Been on many sites and they easily pale in comparison towards TSA sometimes they’re just too negative or maybe the content just isn’t great. Then reviews.. meh, not a fan of RE but it certainly doesn’t deserve the bad reception RE6 is bound to be a good game I hear people like it so thats good enough for me. Dragon Age 2 is often example often raged upon others… but haven’t played it so it could be nice to play.
Sympozium
behold.. the terrifying wall of text. How it was created no man will never know…. Christ looks terrible :/ oops
LewisDenby
It’s not just games journalism where reporters rely heavily on press releases and media events to get their stories. It’s music, it’s sports… heck, it’s mainstream news publications. It’s frickin’ Al Jazeera. The speed at which news moves these days absolutely demands it. We need a way of processing leads quickly, because these days our lead times are nonexistent. Our readers demand instant news. It’s just the way it is now.
There’s still room for in-depth investigative journalism, and there’s still room for hunting down stories the traditional way. It’s something I actively encourage at BeefJack, because actually, in this perpetual race to be “FIRST!”, sometimes that’s not what actually works the best when you study the data. Sometimes, the best story – even if it’s just a better version of the story Site X posted the day before – is what triumphs.
(Fascinating tidbit of information: John Walker from Rock, Paper, Shotgun revealed in a panel last week that they’ve discovered they get LESS traffic from publishing reviews pre-release than they do publishing post-release. I know this is only tangentially related, but interesting nonetheless.)
Anyway, I absolutely think what we do is journalism. It’s just modern journalism. Jobs move as society does, and we’re now in a position where our role is wide-ranging and hugely accessible. Journalism, literally, is the recording of events for public consumption. How we get there – and whether it’s the right way or the best way to get there – is another matter. And pretending that any problems are isolated to the games media is shortsighted.
csreynolds2012
I’ve been an unregistered follower of TSA since 2009 (I used to work alongside Gamoc at PS3Vault years ago), but today I finally decided to sign up – inspired by what Peter had to say in this article.
As a writer myself, I agree that reviews should be truthful, objective appraisals or criticisms that are only slightly coloured by opinion and/or experience. I personally strive to critique videogames in this manner. Ok, so sometimes my work doesn’t pull in the same volume of views as the more controversial or hyperbolic pieces out there, but I prefer being safe in the knowledge that I’m not manipulating or misleading our audience.
I read work from the TSA team because it reminds me that there are still writers in this industry that do the right thing by their readers, offering accurate, intelligent material in favour of sensational, imprecise, poorly edited ‘news’ designed solely to boost site traffic.
People should care about the processes and considerations involved in writing about games. I do.
Keep inspiring.
Best,
Craig Reynolds of The Paranoid Gamer
LewisDenby
“As a writer myself, I agree that reviews should be truthful, objective appraisals or criticisms that are only slightly coloured by opinion and/or experience.”
What, you think they should be fact sheets? You seem to misunderstand the nature of criticism.
csreynolds2012
Did I write “reviews should be fact sheets”?
I was merely trying to say that the successes and failures of a game should be conveyed with truth and objectivity that is only influenced by opinion and experience, not overruled by it. E.g. I would prefer say “some may find Game X’s level of difficulty challenging because [justification]” than “Game X is too difficult [begin listing reasons]”. The former is both true and objective, however it is clearly coloured by opinion and experience. The latter is biased.
Apologies if that did not come across clearly.
LewisDenby
It didn’t come across like that, no, but fair play. I’d argue, though, that a successful critic will manage the reader’s expectations of where they’re approaching the game from, without having to spell things out like that. In other words, the best critics understand their audience, and subtly communicate how they relate to them. But maybe that’s less relevant in the age of Metacritic, where everyone looks at everyone’s scores? I don’t know. Interesting.
csreynolds2012
Fair enough.
You’re right; a successful critic does understand his/her audience, and know how to write appropriately. However, experience has taught me that sometimes people outside your target readership will come across your work – be it by accident, recommendation or word of mouth – and for that reason I feel it’s important to make it accessible. I would rather spell a few things out to cater for a wider audience than risk alienating any new readers, but that’s just my approach. It is by no means gospel.
Thanks for your comments Lewis :-)
MayContainEvil
Keep up your navel gazing, as it turns out articles about your navel are strangely appealing. O_o
Seriously though, keep up the good work. I always get the feeling you guys care more about the standards of what you produce than other gaming sites and that really is why I come here.
That, and the hilarity of your podcasts.
Sitorimon
As a fellow writer, one thing I have purposely left out my own blog, and will still leave behind when my videos launch next week is a score. One day’s 6 is another’s 7 is someone else’s 4. I prefer to keep my prose informative, generalistic without giving away spoilers and more about how I enjoyed the experience etc. I enjoy reading the reviews here as they stand on their own two feet and are nicely based opinions and I can see how you’ve drawn the conclusions you’ve had. As soon as someone says “its great” and doesn’t elaborate, I can’t then understand why etc. Tis nuts :) Keep doing what you do and as long as you’re happy, I think your love of what you do will always shine through