The Evolution of Games Journalism

[The Wooster]

Funny thing is that I actually considered making a topic on this very...well...topic. Basically pretty much exactly what this comic talked about: how games (or at least reporting on games) seems to have changed from talking about graphics and how many bits a new system has and such to "That game is racist, sexist, gender-biased, homophobic, and anti-Semitic!" I was going to ask when/why this change occurred, but couldn't really settle on how I wanted my OP to be worded. Or well, at least this comic captures my sentiments.

It's been happening for years, and it's largely because games are becoming a more narrative-driven medium. Notice how more articles about movies talk about story/pacing/message than the actual shot-to-shot movie-buff stuff?

 

[Deadcyde]

It's more frightening because it's beginning to convince even gamers like yourselves to forget that it's just a damn game.

Seriously, I actually saw Rock paper shotgun debates about the asylum in outlast being a misleading representation of real mental health care facilities..

What the proper fuck.

IT'S A GAME!!! Whether it is or isn't a realistic portrayal it is still a game and therefore -not reality-

Seriously. *shakes head*

 

[wAriot]

It's more frightening because it's beginning to convince even gamers like yourselves to forget that it's just a damn game.

Seriously, I actually saw Rock paper shotgun debates about the asylum in outlast being a misleading representation of real mental health care facilities.

Well, discussing these kind of things isn't necessarily something bad, but I think people are getting a bit overboard with it. I don't think every game is supposed to be discussed this way; I mean, I honestly doubt that anyone is worried about the political/racial/sexual/etc consequences that the "The Expendables" movies had.

 

[Deadcyde]

It's more frightening because it's beginning to convince even gamers like yourselves to forget that it's just a damn game.

Seriously, I actually saw Rock paper shotgun debates about the asylum in outlast being a misleading representation of real mental health care facilities.

Well, discussing these kind of things isn't necessarily something bad, but I think people are getting a bit overboard with it. I don't think every game is supposed to be discussed this way; I mean, I honestly doubt that anyone is worried about the political/racial/sexual/etc consequences that the "The Expendables" movies had.

the disturbing thing is there is people that care about "the political/racial/sexual/etc consequences that the "The Expendables" movies had" and that it's becoming more and more of a trend.

 

[Thedutchjelle]

I love the beginning of the Kotaku logo in the last panel.

So I wasn't the only one who noticed that (EDIT: Commented before seeing the other 2 pages of comments. More people pointed it out). Is there a specific game review they put up that led to the inclusion of them in this comic?

I actually like Kotaku to be honest. It has nice articles to read and less ads all in my face. It lacks a forum though.. so for that I come here.

 

[Norithics]

It's funny how nostalgia goggles make us love the first one so much, despite the fact that it was blatant commercial propaganda with no actual content. : )

 

[Jumwa]

That has always seemed like something of a contradiction to me. Maybe not contradiction... kind of like hypocrisy but not quite.

If something is or has a Racist/Sexist/[insert]ist undertone or message intentional or not is it really "OK" to support? If the offence is so minor that you still want to enjoy the game I question how truly [insert]ist it really is.

TLDR: If someone says a game is Racist or Sexist but supports it anyway the problem of Racism and Sexism is theirs not the games.

That's a bizarrely all or nothing attitude. Either a game is perfect or something to reject entirely.

Can you not see how ridiculous a scenario you've set up? You can criticize something, find issues with it, and still enjoy the overall experience. We all do it all the time, some just pretend not to.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

The middle panel guy isn't Yahtzee, nor is it anyone else. He's an amalgamation of every "angry nerd ranting on the internet" person: the hat is Yahtzee, the suit Nostagia Critic, the couch Linkara, the face Brad Jones. Well played, Grey.

 

[VanQ]

I can more or less get behind this comic, to be honest. Though I felt it was very close to being 100% accurate, I felt there was a slight change needed to really nail it.

Spoiler

What font does he use in these comics? Blambot Casual was the closest font I have that I could find but it's still a bit off. Yes, I'm aware that I'm terrible at photoshop. That was a grand total of 5 minutes worth of work though.

 

[The Material Sheep]

Funny thing is that I actually considered making a topic on this very...well...topic. Basically pretty much exactly what this comic talked about: how games (or at least reporting on games) seems to have changed from talking about graphics and how many bits a new system has and such to "That game is racist, sexist, gender-biased, homophobic, and anti-Semitic!" I was going to ask when/why this change occurred, but couldn't really settle on how I wanted my OP to be worded. Or well, at least this comic captures my sentiments.

It's been happening for years, and it's largely because games are becoming a more narrative-driven medium. Notice how more articles about movies talk about story/pacing/message than the actual shot-to-shot movie-buff stuff?

To a degree, but even then is our games journalism really talking about that much these days? Is it not more knee jerk reactions to the slightest hint of something that might be a sensitive subject, than honest criticism of the craft? I mean it's definitely an improvement over the marketing pretending to be journalism that use to go on, but its still not a good place.

 

[RJ 17]

Funny thing is that I actually considered making a topic on this very...well...topic. Basically pretty much exactly what this comic talked about: how games (or at least reporting on games) seems to have changed from talking about graphics and how many bits a new system has and such to "That game is racist, sexist, gender-biased, homophobic, and anti-Semitic!" I was going to ask when/why this change occurred, but couldn't really settle on how I wanted my OP to be worded. Or well, at least this comic captures my sentiments.

It's been happening for years, and it's largely because games are becoming a more narrative-driven medium. Notice how more articles about movies talk about story/pacing/message than the actual shot-to-shot movie-buff stuff?

That's true. More games are coming out these days that focus (or at least try to focus) on the story-bits. And when your focus is story, it's fair game to break down that story like any other story: pulling out themes of racism, homophobia, class-disparity, etc.

Still, I miss the simpler times of the Bit Wars...everyone seemed so happy back in those days. Guess that's pretty much right where you're 90's Game Journalism Guy came from.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's more frightening because it's beginning to convince even gamers like yourselves to forget that it's just a damn game.

People should all have the same values.

[Is there a specific game review they put up that led to the inclusion of them in this comic?

If I'm remembering right, Kotaku's the home of that woman who got hate and animosity from the internet for an article comparing online video games to rape. An article, I'd add, she didn't write, but got hate for anyway. Because fact checking? What's that?

I'd never seen things about Kotaku being "social justice warriors" before that point, but afterward, they were the feminist/black/gay agenda site.

Maybe there's truth to it, but I'm skeptical because of that.

It's funny how nostalgia goggles make us love the first one so much, despite the fact that it was blatant commercial propaganda with no actual content. : )

Not only that, but when it happens today, "we" shit all over it.

But yeah. These were the guys who tried to sell you Dick Tracy and Battletoads types of games. Broken, frustrating, or just plain crap. And people pine for that? Reeeeeally?

On the plus side, with publishers stonewalling critics who say bad things about their games, we're nearly back to an era like that. Maybe the next Ride to Hell will get rave reviews.

 

[Synthetica]

The 20s will be "That game you don't like is smart."

More like "That game you like is too hard so it's bad."

2030's: "That game you like isn't a movie, so it's bad."

 

[Deadcyde]

2030's will be "still no flying cars, so here's call of duty 50: feminist riot wars"

 

[wulf3n]

That's a bizarrely all or nothing attitude. Either a game is perfect or something to reject entirely.

Can you not see how ridiculous a scenario you've set up? You can criticize something, find issues with it, and still enjoy the overall experience. We all do it all the time, some just pretend not to.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. It wasn't that if a game has a single bad element it should be disregarded, but rather if a game has any racist or other ist element and that is something said person passes them self off as being against, how can they, in good conscience continue playing the game.

When talking about standard criticisms such as bad voice acting, poorly mapped controls etc, you're right it's a crazy position, but those are different to instances of racism etc. The difference being bad voice acting and issues of that ilk don't hurt anything but the game where as instances bigoted mechanics or narrative elements have the potential to cause real harm.

So I can only assume it boils down to:

a) The instances of racism etc are so minor/forced that it's arguably not even there.

or

b) Said person isn't really as progressive as they make themselves out to be.

NOTE: Said person is not you. This is just a common opinion I've seen here on the Escapist that I've always found odd.

 

[wAriot]

The difference being bad voice acting and issues of that ilk don't hurt anything but the game where as instances bigoted mechanics or narrative elements have the potential to cause real harm.

I don't think this has ever been proven. It sounds like the "video games make people violent" argument, which everyone with more than two neurons laughs at.

 

[wulf3n]

The difference being bad voice acting and issues of that ilk don't hurt anything but the game where as instances bigoted mechanics or narrative elements have the potential to cause real harm.

I don't think this has ever been proven. It sounds like the "video games make people violent" argument, which everyone with more than two neurons laughs at.

Harm is a very generic term, if someone were to get upset by said game then it would arguably have caused "harm". Which is essentially how I was using it.

 

[wAriot]

Harm is a very generic term, if someone were to get upset by said game then it would arguably have caused "harm". Which is essentially how I was using it.

By that definition every game ever (or, for that matter, almost every thing ever) causes harm.
There are degrees for the damage it can cause, and being upset/offended by it is in the lower tiers.

 

[wulf3n]

By that definition every game ever (or, for that matter, almost every thing ever) causes harm.
There are degrees for the damage it can cause, and being upset/offended by it is in the lower tiers.

No argument their.

I think you misunderstand my position. I'm not saying I think games are overly harmful, nor that racist and other ist games are any more so.

What I'm questioning is the logic behind those that do think that but continue to play the game anyway.

If they believe games can be harmful and said game contains elements that are harmful how can there be any justification to support it?

 

[ShakerSilver]

This is the most respected video game journalist in the world.

This is the future you chose.