Ben There, Dan That Dev: All Journalists Should Make a Game

[John Funk]

Ben There, Dan That Dev: All Journalists Should Make a Game

Ben There, Dan That developer Dan Marshall led the dual life of a game journalist and an indie developer - and he thinks that all other game journalists should be forced to make games of their own.

When Dan Marshall was developing his first game, Gibbage, he told Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=25568], he "wound up doing a 10-part series" for gaming mag PCZone. This experience, says Marshall, gave him a better perspective on how being a developer worked:

[blockquote][I suddenly had] to design gameplay elements, making sound effects, and balancing weapons and stuff... As a gamer, I always assumed that sort of thing was relatively simple, so it was a fairly harsh lesson.

Off the back of those articles, I wound up doing some reviews for PCZone. It's really interesting, because as a developer I think you're slightly more understanding of the process involved, but as a gamer you know whether or not you're having a good time.[/blockquote]

That experience, says Marshall, is one that he thinks every other journalist in the biz should go through. "I think all games journos should be forced to make a game somehow, see how they get on. It gives you a more rounded perspective."

I'd like to make a game, Dan. I don't know if I'd be any good at it... but it'd be cool.

(Via Joystiq [http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/12/zombie-cows-marshall-all-journos-should-have-to-make-a-game/])

Permalink

 

[Swaki]

i bought 2 of the games of steam and they are kinda okay and funny, and i think hes right its a great way to get some inside knowledge of the industry your reporting, plus it would be more than awesome for us gamers to try out all the games of our favorite reporters and reviewers.

 

[hamster mk 4]

I totally agree with Dan Marshall sentiment. Yahtzee has put out several games and while he doesn't harp on them, it does lend him some extra credibility in my eyes. He has walked the walk. Game development tools are relatively cheep if you know where to look. The rest is time and brain power investment. Even making a simple pong or tetris clone will give you some insight. Maybe even more than grinding out an extra few levels in WoW.

 

[Russ Pitts]

While I appreciate the sentiment, I can't exactly agree with it. I wouldn't necessarily say that anyone who has never made a game should be considered unqualified to write about them. That strikes me as the kind of elitist gibberish spouted by developers with surging insecurities.

I've never actually built a boat, for example, but I know that when I go out in one and it sinks, then it was probably a bad boat. Am I qualified to write about games? That depends on what I'm writing about them. While I would probably not be serving the audience very well by writing what i thought about individual developers' contributions, or how well a certain thing was drawn or coded, I feel perfectly qualified to say whether or not a game is enjoyable.

In fact, I would turn the argument back on Dan and suggest that if more developers were able to think like consumers when developing games, spending careful time with them to determine whether or not they're "fun" outside of the limited context of "I made this!" then there would probably be fewer shit games.

 

[DazZ.]

Played "Ben There, Dan That" and can confirm it is funny.

For this reason alone and with no other thoughts I agree with him.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Developers already get a lot of slack for how hard they work and for having interesting ideas. I think some of them need to be told more that their ideas may be nice at a conceptual level but are not that interesting in practice. They should also be reminded that other people work harder at jobs they hate and they are not forced to work that hard.

 

[Susan Arendt]

While I appreciate the sentiment, I can't exactly agree with it. I wouldn't necessarily say that anyone who has never made a game should be considered unqualified to write about them. That strikes me as the kind of elitist gibberish spouted by developers with surging insecurities.

I've never actually built a boat, for example, but I know that when I go out in one and it sinks, then it was probably a bad boat. Am I qualified to write about games? That depends on what I'm writing about them. While I would probably not be serving the audience very well by writing what i thought about individual developers' contributions, or how well a certain thing was drawn or coded, I feel perfectly qualified to say whether or not a game is enjoyable.

In fact, I would turn the argument back on Dan and suggest that if more developers were able to think like consumers when developing games, spending careful time with them to determine whether or not they're "fun" outside of the limited context of "I made this!" then there would probably be fewer shit games.

I'm with Russ on this one. When I review a game, it's with the consumer in mind. Is this a fun experience, or isn't it? Whether or not I've ever made a game has no bearing on that fact. It might affect whether or not I can appreciate a game on a level other than strict enjoyability, but I don't need to know how something was made in order to enjoy it or see its flaws.

 

[hamster mk 4]

While the experience of building a boat is not a prerequisite for writing disparaging articles about boats that sink, it does come in handy if you ever want to offer advice on how to build a better boat.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It didn't feel right putting down grumbling devs so I started struggling to think of a way that developing a game can make you more able as a reviewer.

I have developed a 2d game with that had random bullet patterns to dodge. Does that make me more able to review a Kenta Cho doujin shoot 'em up than a reviewer who has played these games more than me? I don't think so as the game either gets the right bullet hell neurons firing or it doesn't. What matters is the experience of playing the game. If anything, the game press might be overly reverent of programmer tech like BulletML because it twangs the right geek cred chords more than because it is an impressive achievement.

 

[Nutcase]

Completely marginal suggestion, and downright laughable at a time when the average gaming journalist does not even understand what games they are and aren't capable of reviewing.

 

[Ancientgamer]

While I appreciate the sentiment, I can't exactly agree with it. I wouldn't necessarily say that anyone who has never made a game should be considered unqualified to write about them. That strikes me as the kind of elitist gibberish spouted by developers with surging insecurities.

I've never actually built a boat, for example, but I know that when I go out in one and it sinks, then it was probably a bad boat. Am I qualified to write about games? That depends on what I'm writing about them. While I would probably not be serving the audience very well by writing what i thought about individual developers' contributions, or how well a certain thing was drawn or coded, I feel perfectly qualified to say whether or not a game is enjoyable.

In fact, I would turn the argument back on Dan and suggest that if more developers were able to think like consumers when developing games, spending careful time with them to determine whether or not they're "fun" outside of the limited context of "I made this!" then there would probably be fewer shit games.

I'm with Russ on this one. When I review a game, it's with the consumer in mind. Is this a fun experience, or isn't it? Whether or not I've ever made a game has no bearing on that fact. It might affect whether or not I can appreciate a game on a level other than strict enjoyability, but I don't need to know how something was made in order to enjoy it or see its flaws.

I don't think he's saying that one must have developed a game to be a legitiment journalist. Only that it gives a more encompassing and well rounded understanding, even if you're looking at it from mostly a consumer point of view.

After all, I don't think you can say that knowledge can ever be a bad or unimportant thing, especially if it's directly related to your area of expertise.

 

[Russ Pitts]

While the experience of building a boat is not a prerequisite for writing disparaging articles about boats that sink, it does come in handy if you ever want to offer advice on how to build a better boat.

I absolutely agree. But criticism and advice are separate things. One need not be present in order for the other to have value.

 

[Susan Arendt]

While the experience of building a boat is not a prerequisite for writing disparaging articles about boats that sink, it does come in handy if you ever want to offer advice on how to build a better boat.

But it's not a reviewer's job to offer advice on how to fix a game, merely to point out a game's issues. Of course, sometimes those fixes are obvious -- if the voice acting is lousy, for example, you might want to hire better actors. But I don't need to know the first thing about coding AI to suggest that smarter enemies would make for a more fun game experience.

 

[LadyZephyr]

You don't have to make games to know when you've got a good one playing, mi amiko. This smacks hard of the whole "well, if you think you could do better, YOU TRY IT" childish argument.

 

[Susan Arendt]

After all, I don't think you can say that knowledge can ever be a bad or unimportant thing, especially if it's directly related to your area of expertise.

No, more knowledge is never a bad thing. And for the record, I've written two games. Granted, two very tiny text adventures, but still. Games!

 

[hypothetical fact]

The reviewer needs to identify with the consumer not the producer. Having more reviewers make games would just open the door for "this was a well scripted event." or "the trees move very realistically in the wind, we can see this developer cares." we already have enough reviewers blinded by publisher dollars, we don't need any more giving out sympathy votes for well utilising a game engine.

 

[Disembodied_Dave]

While I appreciate the sentiment, I can't exactly agree with it. I wouldn't necessarily say that anyone who has never made a game should be considered unqualified to write about them. That strikes me as the kind of elitist gibberish spouted by developers with surging insecurities.

I've never actually built a boat, for example, but I know that when I go out in one and it sinks, then it was probably a bad boat. Am I qualified to write about games? That depends on what I'm writing about them. While I would probably not be serving the audience very well by writing what i thought about individual developers' contributions, or how well a certain thing was drawn or coded, I feel perfectly qualified to say whether or not a game is enjoyable.

In fact, I would turn the argument back on Dan and suggest that if more developers were able to think like consumers when developing games, spending careful time with them to determine whether or not they're "fun" outside of the limited context of "I made this!" then there would probably be fewer shit games.

I'm with Russ on this one. When I review a game, it's with the consumer in mind. Is this a fun experience, or isn't it? Whether or not I've ever made a game has no bearing on that fact. It might affect whether or not I can appreciate a game on a level other than strict enjoyability, but I don't need to know how something was made in order to enjoy it or see its flaws.

I have to disagree somewhat.

As someone who composes and plays music, I don't think "will the people listening to this find it enjoyable," as much as I think "how well will the performer interpret these notes." Perhaps one could argue that Programmer = Composer, Computer/system = Performer, and Gamer = Listener, but I think that's selling gamers a little short.
Now one doesn't need to understand counter point to enjoy Mozart or the particular complexities of Jazz theory to dig some Miles Davis, but it's guaranteed that if someone is playing an instrument they picked up some ideas regardless if their know the terminology.
It is the same with someone who has regularly played games. You may not know all the ins and outs of programing lingo, but you certainly have the general understanding and thought processes. It's just unrefined.


Also, it's never a bad thing to learn a bit more about something, y'know. No such thing as "useless information" and all.

 

[squid5580]

What exactly would that prove? It seems to me he is asking for lienancy (I am sure I misspelled that word) from the people who should never ever give it to developers. I am all for a reviewer saying "it was a brilliant concept but it failed for whatever reason" (just look at most CodeMaster games) they have brilliant ideas but thier games fail because the transition from paper to console doesn't work for them. So if every journalist built games then they could tell us the big sob story about how hard it is to make games. Then give out 9s and 10s like chocolate covered eggs at Easter. And I have no doubt in my mind that building a game is hard. Although for an industry that shells out millions of dollars per game it should be hard. And the very last thing I ever want to hear after shelling out 59 - 69 bucks for a game is "it is OK the gameplay sucked and it was full of bugs and glitches because making games is hard". Especially in this day that if you can't make a full retail game (and lets face it alot of these bigger companies can't but don't mind taking in our 60 bucks a pop) can build a game to thier skill level and put them in the arcade (XBL or PSN), put them on Steam, or the Iphone and still make money.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

The reviewer needs to identify with the consumer not the producer. Having more reviewers make games would just open the door for "this was a well scripted event." or "the trees move very realistically in the wind, we can see this developer cares." we already have enough reviewers blinded by publisher dollars, we don't need any more giving out sympathy votes for well utilising a game engine.

Right on. This problem has already infected the movie critic scene, where everything must be about artistic integrity and not whether or not the movie was a good watch.