The Ebert of Videogames
When will games get their intelligent, high minded, accessible reviewer?
Read Full Article
When will games get their intelligent, high minded, accessible reviewer?
Read Full Article
The Ebert of Videogames
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
They're not exactly Ebert, but the crew at Extra Credits on Penny Arcade (late of the Escapist) does a pretty good job of mixing high-minded rumination with accessibility. The real problem is going to be the Balkanization of popular culture in today's world - even Ebert couldn't be Ebert if he were just starting out today.
This guy makes a few comments on the need for academic types in gaming.
And yeah what craddoke said, maybe a singular voice like Ebert just can't reach prominence the way Ebert did back in the day today. Maybe games will never be accepted by the old school guys as "art" because the thinking of those people are from a different time. What we need to do is just accept for ourselves that gaming is important and can be art... and wait for all the old critics to die off (okay maybe that last bit was distasteful), but an academic changing of the guard has to happen sometime.
And yeah what craddoke said, maybe a singular voice like Ebert just can't reach prominence the way Ebert did back in the day today. Maybe games will never be accepted by the old school guys as "art" because the thinking of those people are from a different time. What we need to do is just accept for ourselves that gaming is important and can be art... and wait for all the old critics to die off (okay maybe that last bit was distasteful), but an academic changing of the guard has to happen sometime.
While I don't think there will be an Ebert-figure any time soon, I think the simplest thing that game reviewers can replicate is the dynamic he shared with Gene Siskel in the Siskel & Ebert show.
That's why I'm disappointed in the "Jim & Yahtzee's Rhymedown Spectacular". I would rather see Jim and Yahtzee review a game side-by-side, bouncing opinions off of each other rather than the typical review formula of one guy or girl gives his opinion and the reader/watcher has to take it or leave it.
That's why I'm disappointed in the "Jim & Yahtzee's Rhymedown Spectacular". I would rather see Jim and Yahtzee review a game side-by-side, bouncing opinions off of each other rather than the typical review formula of one guy or girl gives his opinion and the reader/watcher has to take it or leave it.
I think you have a very different media landscape, too, and it's worth considering how long film existed as media before someone of Ebert's caliber came along--and how long Ebert WORKED for it.
Jim has thoughtful, nuanced opinions. Yahtzee kinda trolls people, getting them worked up and excited with emotional -- not rational -- complaints, and they like being trolled. (That's not a jab at Yahtzee, people enjoy his shows, but I don't think even he would call them reviews as such.)Mahoshonen said:
Having them review together is either a great idea, or a terrible one.
Though I don't think it would have a Siskel and Ebert dynamic.
That is a pretty good point. Ebert was the result of his time, as evidenced because he is nowhere the first (probably Pauline Kael could be attributed that title) nor the last to use that style to "popularize" movie analysis, however, due to his TV show and, later, his web page, he gained international popularity in a circle that is usually relegated to regional popularity.craddoke said:
Now, however, the field is full of players. No one can claim the title of Ebert because there are hundred of thousands of aspiring; and its the same with video games critics. I would say Extra Credits or Errant Signal are the closest we can get, but they have a hard time differentiating themselves since YouTube critics are a dime a dozen.
I've missed Experienced Points these last few weeks. a great article, as always. except for the pluralisation of Beer's surname. seriously, what's up with that?
Whoops! My bad. I think I was confusing it with the surname "DeBeers".Johny_X2 said:
I'll send in a correction. Thanks for letting me know.
Extra credits only reaches a tiny part of the numbers gamers and nothing of the world beyond gamers. Extra credits has no main stream media presence The truth here is that gaming is a minority thing, I know that the budgets of AAA games have gone up massively but they are still smaller than your average summer blockbuster. Look at the price point, the cost of entry into a cinema is far lower than the launch price of AAA game. This is because of the simple reason more people go to the movies than game.craddoke said:
10 to 15 years time gaming might be become more mainstream but at the moment the number of people interested gaming is to small for it to get mainstream critics.
I nominate thee, Shamus. Now, to do a little fundraising, who's up for a visit to the local bank?
I disagree that Yahtzee (only) gets people worked up with non-rational complaints: he's really more often than not quite precise in what makes him dislike/hate/want to kill a game. Of course it is a bit hyperbolical, but nearly always quite well-founded throughout.Jumwa said:
I'd say that if it wasn't for the medium (videos on the internet) and the language, his work as a video game critic in Zero Puntuation could well be close to that of Ebert as a film critic. Extra Punctuation has the advantage of being text only, but is often heavily dependent on the vid that preceded it.
As for people outside gaming accessing those critics: I watched Yahtzee's vids regularly way before I started playing regularly, and they did inform my opinion on the medium as a whole - to the point where I'd say it played a positive role in me getting my actual job. Which has nothing to do directly with videogames, but for which a discussion of what is art in a "new technologies" environment is very relevant.
There already is a Roger Ebert of video games. It's me.
Don't believe me? ...ahem...
Movies can never be art!
...lol
Don't believe me? ...ahem...
Movies can never be art!
...lol
I think if you could get the Extra Credits guys to work with Yahtzee, that would be the closest we could come to this with the people we currently have. Yahtzee's wit and critique mixed with Extra Credits' deeper analysis and generally more positive outlook would be fair and balanced while also being very entertaining.
I think in this day and age, that sort of public appeal would only come if the person already had a wider profile. So if a singer or actor started writing witty and insightful articles on the intellectual side of gaming, you will have the sort of thing that will draw non-gamers...maybe someone like Vin Diesel.
The major barrier is that even though gaming has become quite pervasive, there is still generally a social gulf between "hardcore gamers", and "casual gamers" and non-gamers; basically those who have an interest in gaming beyond just when they are busy playing, and the rest who aren't interested in the topic beyond when they are sitting playing.
I also don't think we have any games with broad enough appeal. The games that are widely known by people with different backgrounds don't have any real depth to discuss - you're looking at something like Angry Birds. It's not just about story or gameplay. You need the whole package.
The major barrier is that even though gaming has become quite pervasive, there is still generally a social gulf between "hardcore gamers", and "casual gamers" and non-gamers; basically those who have an interest in gaming beyond just when they are busy playing, and the rest who aren't interested in the topic beyond when they are sitting playing.
I also don't think we have any games with broad enough appeal. The games that are widely known by people with different backgrounds don't have any real depth to discuss - you're looking at something like Angry Birds. It's not just about story or gameplay. You need the whole package.
This is going to sound harsh, but it's a pet-peeve of mine so here goes...
I interact with a fair number of "artists". Of these, I'd say maybe 5% deserve compensation for their work; they generate product of sufficient quality (concept and execution in tandem) to expect payment. You know how many think they deserve compensation for their work? Here's a hint: all of them.
If someone does something and gets paid for it, you are not entitled to be paid for doing something similar - not if your product isn't up to snuff. Now in entertainment, "quality" is a little hazy. It can refer to the producer's charisma/fame more than the product itself, which is confusing for all of the highly intelligent games journalists cranking out well-crafted criticism on a daily basis. But the fact remains: their product isn't something people want to buy, and there's nothing they can do to change this short of changing their product.
There's just a certain ratio of people who get to do what they love for a living, and people seem mad that this ratio isn't changing over time with the prevalence of higher learning, college degrees, etc. You could even go so far as to call "game criticism" a profession, but that doesn't mean everyone who trains for it gets to do it. You really need to be a celebrity, in your own way, to pull it off. Even then, with the highly fractured nature of entertainment today, you won't have the sort of broad appeal enjoyed by critics of previous generations - the ones who worked with film and literature when those were essentially the only games in town.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I couldn't care less that your average video game blogger can't turn the hobby he enjoys into a sustainable profession. This fate befalls most everyone in life, and a lot of them are doing more important things than talking about video games.
I interact with a fair number of "artists". Of these, I'd say maybe 5% deserve compensation for their work; they generate product of sufficient quality (concept and execution in tandem) to expect payment. You know how many think they deserve compensation for their work? Here's a hint: all of them.
If someone does something and gets paid for it, you are not entitled to be paid for doing something similar - not if your product isn't up to snuff. Now in entertainment, "quality" is a little hazy. It can refer to the producer's charisma/fame more than the product itself, which is confusing for all of the highly intelligent games journalists cranking out well-crafted criticism on a daily basis. But the fact remains: their product isn't something people want to buy, and there's nothing they can do to change this short of changing their product.
There's just a certain ratio of people who get to do what they love for a living, and people seem mad that this ratio isn't changing over time with the prevalence of higher learning, college degrees, etc. You could even go so far as to call "game criticism" a profession, but that doesn't mean everyone who trains for it gets to do it. You really need to be a celebrity, in your own way, to pull it off. Even then, with the highly fractured nature of entertainment today, you won't have the sort of broad appeal enjoyed by critics of previous generations - the ones who worked with film and literature when those were essentially the only games in town.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I couldn't care less that your average video game blogger can't turn the hobby he enjoys into a sustainable profession. This fate befalls most everyone in life, and a lot of them are doing more important things than talking about video games.
I don't think that there will ever BE an 'Ebert' for the Video Games world simply because of the diversity and availability of numerous other voices. The internet can give you hundreds of reviews of a game in a few seconds, each one by a different person with a different set of standards. Ebert was a dying presence with the advent of the internet, his prominence came from being a notable member of a select few (or rather notable half of a talented pair). You don't have that limited selection with Games reviewers.
Something to consider is that Leonard Maltin, Ebert and Siskel all were getting their film-review starts in roughly the 1970s. I'm not quibbling specifics. The point is they gained an audience back when people were only just starting to be given more variety in their sit-com entertainment, the big shows being All in the Family, the Jeffersons, and MASH (things like that). Another big thing, though fading out back then, were variety shows. The popularity of variety shows was why someone tried doing that horrible Star Wars Holiday Special.
Siskel & Ebert, with their weekly half-hour film review show, Sneak Previews, was the equivalent of a sit-com episode that also provided information (i.e., entertainment news) and a bit of variety (i.e., it was hit-and-miss whether you'd care for a given review, but just wait a few minutes for them to move onto the next review). Keep in mind they interspersed their podcast-like talk-talk with video clips from the film they were reviewing, otherwise even back then it would have felt dry.
I think Maltin's film reviews on television came later in the early '80s, but I never followed that. But his main thing was the film dictionary he published back before the Internet. Just keep in mind that his dictionary was just as entertaining to look through as...a dictionary. It was a good resource if you wanted to get a quick film rating and synopsis.
So these days there are a handful of knowledgeable film reviewers, but most people are only so motivated as to type in a few keywords into a search engine field and just go with whatever comes up. I've never seen Internet film reviewers actually advertise and promote themselves, such that they might become more mainstream. Film reviewers just seem to add their link the the reviews section of IMDB and then cross their fingers.
It's the same deal with respect to game reviews. You're providing some entertainment, a bit of eye candy, and some information. But the game reviewers just go by word of mouth, so for casual gamer (i.e, the big majority) they again just type a few keywords into a search engine field instead of going to that "well regarded" game reviewer they heard about.
Siskel & Ebert, with their weekly half-hour film review show, Sneak Previews, was the equivalent of a sit-com episode that also provided information (i.e., entertainment news) and a bit of variety (i.e., it was hit-and-miss whether you'd care for a given review, but just wait a few minutes for them to move onto the next review). Keep in mind they interspersed their podcast-like talk-talk with video clips from the film they were reviewing, otherwise even back then it would have felt dry.
I think Maltin's film reviews on television came later in the early '80s, but I never followed that. But his main thing was the film dictionary he published back before the Internet. Just keep in mind that his dictionary was just as entertaining to look through as...a dictionary. It was a good resource if you wanted to get a quick film rating and synopsis.
So these days there are a handful of knowledgeable film reviewers, but most people are only so motivated as to type in a few keywords into a search engine field and just go with whatever comes up. I've never seen Internet film reviewers actually advertise and promote themselves, such that they might become more mainstream. Film reviewers just seem to add their link the the reviews section of IMDB and then cross their fingers.
It's the same deal with respect to game reviews. You're providing some entertainment, a bit of eye candy, and some information. But the game reviewers just go by word of mouth, so for casual gamer (i.e, the big majority) they again just type a few keywords into a search engine field instead of going to that "well regarded" game reviewer they heard about.