260: Kieron Gillen Post Manifesto

[CitySquirrel]

...it's kind of surprising how difficult this always is, you know?

If you review a book. What do you do? Do you think: "hmm, yes, Austen recently appealed to 14 year old girls with this film version, I hear, so let's review the game as if 14 year old girls read it.

Book, game, and film? I'll assume by "game" you meant book.

And then adopt a style that masks my opinion as fact, take the assumed audience's side by seeking into their heads - and then trashing it to bits for not being soppily romantic enough like the film, and lacking action. Because as a reviewer, we must make a judgement call on how much the book really appeals to the market, except we must do it in a really circumspect manner"?

Also, I'll assume "seeking" is "sneaking". So, after reading this a few times it seems to be that you are saying that reviewers should not write what they think their audience wants to hear... i.e., they should not assume they are writing for an audience of RPG fanboys who want a complex leveling system in the new Bioware game just because a bunch of people liked it in the last Bioware game. They should write for a neutral audience indifferent to the leveling system, and only mention it in that it is or isn't complex. I'm not really sure how any writing style can make ones opinion seem like fact... "I liked xyz" or "I didn't like xyz" will always be opinions, even if you leave off the "I liked" and just say "the xyz was great / terrible".

Thing is, it's not a problem being subjective. But you have to be able to describe where your subjectivity comes from. So that it's possible to see your subjectivity colouring the review - that's what makes it worth reading.

Now we are talking about subjectivity, which is what my original post was about. You are saying it is okay to say that you enjoyed the game, or things about it, but that it is important to note why or in what context you enjoyed them. For example, "I really enjoyed Two Worlds because I enjoy hack and slash combat, which Two Worlds is filled with."

Of course - some people are extremely good at getting people on their message without any explanation - they could invoke the right words, the right style and flair, and make the reader understand where they come from very easily. Many writers and critics do that well in any genre.

But you have to be aware of it. Or else you end up with what we have in gaming journalism - people who have learned the "code", and are only writing to a very specific type of gamer audience. That's what Gillen did, and that's what some of the hype-journalism in Gamespot and IGN does as well. And the product is a type of reviewing that tries to cover up what it is you're saying, rather than actually explain. I've thought of christians reviewing the bible to their local mission many times when reading many reviews because of that.

"Real time strategy". Could just as well be a Greek proverb about cabbage. Of course, for gamers, it instantly invokes an image of small tanks milling around a resource gathering vehicle - but anyone else won't understand what in the world this is about. Much less why they should be interested.

Now it seems that you are criticizing reviewers for writing to an audience of gamers and using jargon that only gamers could know. I'm not sure how this is an attempt to "cover up what it is that you're saying", however. Using the phrase "real time strategy" is attempting to cover up "small tanks milling around a resource gathering vehicle"? Furthermore, it seems you are suggesting that reviewers should be writing game reviews for non gaming audiences. (As an aside, I have no idea what you mean about "christians reviewing the bible". Do you mean preaching? Do people actually review the bible in the way one reviews a game? Are you saying that most reviewers come off as preachers?)

So is the solution to switch to a different and more malleable audience of fanboys? Or is it to write.. you know, properly..? Just asking.

I'm not sure how "more malleable audience of fanboys" fits in to this whole scenario you have concocted. More malleable than who? Your original terrible game reviewer was writing reviews analogous with your example of a book review, and was as fault for writing to fanboys. Why would he/she switch? I'll assume this followed the comment about cabbage, in which case the supposed reviewer you are speaking of here wrote a failed review designed for FTS fanboys but posted it on the "Modern Warfare Players who Have Never Touched a Different Game Ever" message board. Or MWPHNTDGE, for those who knows the jargon.

You express surprise at how hard this is to understand, but for someone so concerned with good writing you seem inclined to write with long complex analogies rather than just stating your point and make it very hard to follow your argument when one must stop to decipher what various words were supposed to be.

On a final note, I wonder if you are conflating the function of a reviewer and a critic. A reviewer should say what qualities a game, movie, or book has and maybe under what criteria one may like it. For example, "you will enjoy Two Worlds if you really like being able to customize your character however you see fit". A critic of games might instead say that "Two Worlds lacks a story with any amount of depth necessary to draw a fan of fantasy into its narrative."

Sorry if this sends you a dozen messages saying you were quoted.

 

[NSGrendel]

NGJ isn't about games. It's about the writer. System-J above neatly summarises almost everything I would like to say about the subject.

I may be wrong, but I believe KG was the writer who once wrote "deeper than a Woody Allen movie set on a submarine" (it might have been John Whatisface, perhaps Walker?). This sort of quip was why people used to buy PCG. We wanted incisive humour and a review of a bunch of equations that allowed you to pull people's intestines out of their eyes. Instead, we ended up with a monthly list of reasons why the reviewer should be given a job at Lionhead Studios as a bell-end cosy for Pete Molyneux.

A games journo's work can never be compared to the output of someone who spends 5 years living in a ditch in Somalia covering a genocide, regardless of how many times you use the words "Faustian" and "juxtaposition". This desperate desire to follow in the footsteps of Thompson and Capote, penned by anaemic pussys who couldn't challenge a spastic, thalidomide victim to an arm-wrestling contest totally de-railed the progression of the format.

It's late. I'm tired. I've drunk a great deal. Let me summarise.

NGJ = pretentious onanistic bullshit for postgrads who were educated beyond their ability to think.

If he was THAT good at the deconstruction of games and cared that much about them as a medium, he'd have made a half decent one by now rather than wanking into the pocket of Warren Spector, a guy whose sole meaningful claim to fame is coming up with the highly original idea of writing a comic about realistic superheroes. Of course, Mr Spector's claim presumes you ignore Alan Moore, Frank Miller, or John Smith, who wrote "The New Statesman" (just like "The Authority" but for people with a post-kindergarten grasp of realpolitik AND 14 FUCKING YEARS EARLIER).

Instead, what do we have half a decade later? A picture of a twat in a waistcoat who judging by his wikipedia entry has decided that being a giant fucking schill who will dry hump any medium best demonstrates his artistic integrity.

Plenty of people can write amusing copy. Why are we giving points to someone whose biggest claim to fame is writing some vaguely amusing shit back when the US still thought George W Bush was a good idea?

 

[nipsen]

So, after reading this a few times it seems to be that you are saying that reviewers should not write what they think their audience wants to hear... i.e., they should not assume they are writing for an audience of RPG fanboys who want a complex leveling system in the new Bioware game just because a bunch of people liked it in the last Bioware game. They should write for a neutral audience indifferent to the leveling system, and only mention it in that it is or isn't complex.

..What I said was that you should write clearly, and explain your approach. Any kind could work.

What I criticised were reviews that either avoid explaining the approach altogether, or the kind that literally says: "but fans of x will enjoy it". It's useless. It tells you nothing, except suggest that you should trust the reviewer to tell you if the game is "good" or "bad".

Then, of course, it's the phenomena journalism we know from other areas as well. The kind of journalism that establishes what's good and bad depending on what the majority (seems to) like at any time. It really is a shame to even write that way, never mind defending it as well.

But that's what Gillen did. Going for a style that can tip either way into praise or disgust depending on the author's mood (and the response of the fans) at the time.

Of course - if Gillen wants to defend that rather than offer "exclusive interviews", then by all means, that might be a good discussion. But that's not his point with any of this, now is it?

 

[CitySquirrel]

..What I said was that you should write clearly, and explain your approach. Any kind could work.

What I criticised were reviews that either avoid explaining the approach altogether, or the kind that literally says: "but fans of x will enjoy it". It's useless. It tells you nothing, except suggest that you should trust the reviewer to tell you if the game is "good" or "bad".

Alright, I understand what you mean. Thank you.

 

[Dhatz]

i have to write this herea and now: it is the most important thing what we mean and not how or what we say, expecially in games, failure in this gets us to alpha protocol(as you ain't know shit where youre heading). another deadly ilness is characters that don't act like people but in fact they ARE puppets. Protagonist's thoughts and reactions are left out of the modern crap cames. remember the face in wolf 3D?

 

[ImpostorZim]

Damn... When you put it like that (the whole sunset thing), videogames really do have infinite possibilities for the gamer, that is, if developers are willing to continue making creative and interesting games. I see that there are some games that really make this possible. One great example being TES IV: Oblivion. No matter who you are, your experience will be completely new and different to whoever else plays it. That's just amazing..

 

[Li Mu]

Anyone know what Kieron Gillen is up to now? I haven't bought PCGUK in a while but I haven't seen him contributing for years. I know he wrote a graphic novel, but other than that he seems to have vanished off the(at least my) radar.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

He's over at Marvel writing Uncanny X-Men