The Evolution of Games Journalism

[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.

 

[Jumwa]

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.

It is a very similar circumstance though. Racism or discrimination comes in all sorts of varieties, and not everything is on the scale of Holocaust denial to be shunned at all costs.

As Jim Sterling laid out in his video, every issue will call for a different level of response depending on the views of the individual. I don't think you can boil this down to such a simple dichotomy.

If you simply rejected everything that was the least bit problematic you'd also exclude yourself from making any meaningful contributions to the topic. Besides, not everyone is going to be aware of issues with things BEFORE they purchase it.

 

[wulf3n]

It is a very similar circumstance though. Racism or discrimination comes in all sorts of varieties, and not everything is on the scale of Holocaust denial to be shunned at all costs.

Exactly, if you're still willing to play the game regardless of its perceived ism then it was obviously so slight that it means nothing to the point where why even bring it up? It's rarely to explore what it means to be "ist". It's generally brought up for the sake of bringing it up.

As Jim Sterling laid out in his video, every issue will call for a different level of response depending on the views of the individual. I don't think you can boil this down to such a simple dichotomy.

Yes, and if the individual believes the ism is bad then how can they in good conscience support a game that has/is said ism?

If you simply rejected everything that was the least bit problematic you'd also exclude yourself from making any meaningful contributions to the topic.

Meaningful contributions aren't being made in the first place, wether or not said person excludes them self or doesn't.

Besides, not everyone is going to be aware of issues with things BEFORE they purchase it.

Isn't that what reviews are for

 

[rbstewart7263]

Saying a game is racist isn't automatically wrong, racism is hardly an uncommon thing.

Spoiler: Some good stuff. Maybe read it, maybe don't.

Right. Jim Sterling has done a Jimquisition about how you can still enjoy problematic culture. Acknowledging problems with what you love doesn't mean you have to stop enjoying them.

I like the comic, but I think people will take the wrong lessons from it. As I see it, it's the process of gamers and game culture growing up.

At first it's all unquestioning optimism, then when you grow up a bit and start to see flaws you react far too negatively. Then later on you start to strike a balance where you can recognize and discuss the flaws with what you enjoy while still enjoying it, and heck, even deriving value out of discussing those flaws.

Many of my favourite authors were racists and misogynists, but I still love the work. And far from ruining the works, it has led to some enlightening and amusing discussions.

Spoiler: You saw it!

This. THIS is what should be taken away from the comic.

People often complain about games journalism not being "real journalism". Well, to be "real journalism" it means that they have to "be real".

By that, I mean if they think/feel something about a game/the gaming community, they have to tell the public about it.

These things could be positive, negative, or a bit of both.

To continue with a recent example;
When Jim Sterling talked about how he loves Dynasty Warriors.
When he called out people for harassment.
And when he talked about the power the community has when they work together, and get mad.

We can all still love games, but unconditional love is for pets and children.
[sub](By that I mean we can unconditionally love our pets/children, not that unconditional love can only come from them.)[/sub]

We have to be able to talk about the imperfections in our games. Because no game is perfect.

[sub]Except for [insert your favorite game here]. That one is perfect.[/sub]
;p

Spoiler: You wrote it!

well yes but often those racism and sexism accusations dont hold merit and are justt there for page views or to be reactionary. just look at the recent news where the last of us dev did a post analysis of her game in response to the new york times calling it sexist. also the tomb raider scandal and kotaku are fine examples. its not all valiant level headed feminists vs evil misogynist trolls like some would have you think. there's more layers to it and not alot of people care to see that.

Spoiler: Blah Blah Blah. You saw it last time!

I did see the articles about The Last of Us, and I have to say that your summary of them is very inaccurate.

The first article from Chris Suellentrop was mostly a positive review, that made some good points about a few old tropes used in the game.

And the article from Alexandria Neonakis was a rebuttal to Chris's points. For one, pointing out how much Ellie grew during the game.

In short, it was a public, and polite argument. Just what the topic needs/deserves.

As you said, "It's not all valiant level headed feminists vs evil misogynist trolls...there's more layers to it..."

As for the Kotaku bit? I can't comment as I have not been to Kotaku. Hear a lot about them though.

Spoiler: Some more neat stuff.

I was almost quick with saying that you were right until I took a look at his review. first heres how the escapist characterizes the review.

.http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.818827-The-New-York-Times-Criticizes-The-Last-of-Us-for-Having-a-Male-Protagonist

"The New York Times reviewed The Last of Us today, and while reviewer Chris Suellentrop praises the game's storytelling, much of the review is a criticism of how the game has a male protagonist. While the title I gave this post is probably going to cause trouble, it's also accurate."

alright now lets see how that characterization matches to the review. first we have the header to the article.

In the Same Boat, but Not Equals
In the Video Game The Last of Us, Survival Favors the Man

alright so thats the first thing he points out. fine. lets continue on with some of the gender things he has to say.

"This being a video game, we already know it?s not really about Sarah. She?s not pictured on the box, for one thing. And yet, for a few fleeting minutes, I really did think I was going to play something different, a game that would transport me into the life of someone very unlike me, using what Austin Grossman in his new novel, ?You,? calls the medium?s ?physical link into the world of the fiction"

not too too bad but not terribly positive.

"the Last of Us, in its defense, is neither crude nor unsophisticated. Rather, its artfulness and its intelligence make its treatment of women all the more frustrating. In the game?s resistance to allowing the player, for much of the story, to control ? or, to use a more accurate word, to inhabit ? Ellie, The Last of Us casts her in a secondary, subordinate role. "

thats actually some well written criticism there imo.

other than that he does actually say alot of half positive negative things. he praises ellie in the since that he wishes that joel would die so that he can play her. he also brings mention of microsoft and how of all its games couldnt bring itself to have one female protagonist in one of its thirteen games shown at e3.Im not sure if hes trying to write a review or if hes trying to do so while also bring to light for nyt readers some of the things going on in the gaming sphere which is fair. I imagine that this is his only slot to talk about things that he reads about on more game related websites.

overall I felt the review was unbalanced in its attempt to critique the gaming sphere while also critique the game. I dont really see what relevance microsofts man loving presence at e3 really has that matters in the context of this game and with its representation of females. its not quite the same as the debate over orsons amazing enders game vs his homophobic viewpoints. those two have more ties than a ps3 exclusive has with a microsoft e3 presentation.

so yeah his reviews not bad though. rough and loses sight alot but not bad. in truth though im gonna disagree and say that his review wasnt that positive. it just wasnt that negative.

though I will agree with you that I dont think his review had to do with page views and you are right about that. I think hes more just overly passioned having just watched anitas tropes series and that spilled into his review in not the most constructive of ways which is fine. hes human and all that.

also apologies for the rambling I gotta hit the road soon. ta ta.

Bah! Don't worry about it. It's what the comments are for.

Also, I agree that the review got off track a few times.

Plus, you caught onto what Alexandria Neonakis brought up in the rebuttal. That Chris talked a lot about Joel, but commented little about the good things that Ellie did.

May the road be good to you, and may you have a great new year. =w= b (<- Thumbs up face)

ah thank you sir the ride was super cold and I damn near hit hypothermia a few times but I survived also thanks for being nice and reasonable and all that. also look here people! two people in a gaming forum had a decent congenial discussion about gender. tips hat.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

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.

And went from praising Japan to being **** Japan, you creeper of a country.

 

[Something Amyss]

I notice a few people making the racism/sexism thing out to be a single issue deal when the people who get lambasted for bringing it up rarely do so. It seems like if you so much as tangentially mention skin colour or sex, you'll be portrayed as hating a game as racist or sexist. Whether your other arguments are solid and supported, you are now against the game for SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR reasons, even if you give the game a good score.

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

This is the future you chose.

Screw that! I voted for Fresca and corn chips guy over him.

 

[Jumwa]

Exactly, if you're still willing to play the game regardless of its perceived ism then it was obviously so slight that it means nothing to the point where why even bring it up? It's rarely to explore what it means to be "ist". It's generally brought up for the sake of bringing it up.

Why bring up your belief that they shouldn't be talking about it?

Complaining about other peoples issues with the game, saying they're too minor to matter, seems to me to be an even more petty non-issue than the original one could possibly be.

 

[wulf3n]

Why bring up your belief that they shouldn't be talking about it?

It is not my belief that they shouldn't be talking about it. I simply question that the "belief" a game is [insert]ist is genuine if it bothers someone so little that it won't prevent them from playing the game, yet they still feel the need to bring it up just for the sake of bringing it up.

Complaining about other peoples issues with the game, saying they're too minor to matter, seems to me to be an even more petty non-issue than the original one could possibly be.

It is. Good thing that's not what I'm saying isn't it.

 

[The Material Sheep]

I notice a few people making the racism/sexism thing out to be a single issue deal when the people who get lambasted for bringing it up rarely do so. It seems like if you so much as tangentially mention skin colour or sex, you'll be portrayed as hating a game as racist or sexist. Whether your other arguments are solid and supported, you are now against the game for SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR reasons, even if you give the game a good score.

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

This is the future you chose.

Screw that! I voted for Fresca and corn chips guy over him.

Its not so much the bringing up said things, it's the petty and shallow reasoning behind it a lot of the time. Where it seems like writers bring it up only to come off as being more thoughtful then they actually are. I've never been in the crowd that raged at writers who bring that stuff up. I've been the type to shake my head and sigh, when I find their reasoning for doing so is fairly shallow.


Also certain writers seem to make it job to find various racial or sex based "criticisms" where ever they look.

 

[Gigano]

A logical consequence of articles being less about the game - How it looks, how it sounds, how it plays, how its paced etc. - and more about the "Journalist"'s own personal and political opinions, and how much it's (mis)understood to cater to that.

Anyway, since fiction - being by definition fictitious - isn't real, it can never entail any real problem. Except perhaps for those who can't distinguish between the two, but then that's their own personal problem.

 

[ClockworkUniverse]

A logical consequence of articles being less about the game - How it looks, how it sounds, how it plays, how its paced etc. - and more about the "Journalist"'s own personal and political opinions, and how much it's (mis)understood to cater to that.

So you want more non-opinion based reviews? Because "how it looks, how it sounds, how it plays, how it's paced, etc." are all opinions. Unless you just want journalists to tell you how many polygons are on the screen at a given moment and the length of a playthrough (wait no that varies based on who's playing), which I guess would be a valid non-opinion-based review.

Anyway, since fiction - being by definition fictitious - isn't real, it can never entail any real problem. Except perhaps for those who can't distinguish between the two, but then that's their own personal problem.

I...really, really want to reply to this, but I honestly can't think of a way of doing so at the moment without sounding horribly sarcastic and/or condescending.

 

[Hagi]

Please don't tell me we've got 7 more years of this ahead of us...

I mean I generally agree that gaming, as a whole, has a serious lack of diversity to the point where I think one of the greatest things that could happen would be a Twilight of video gaming to really hammer home the point that nowadays just about everyone is gaming to the publishers. Not to mention the treatment some female developers get being utterly and completely abhorrent.

But god... I'm freaking tired of all the negativity. Right now all that it's accomplishing is that I'm feeling myself care less and less about any potential issues.

At least, considering the 00s were the opposite of the 90s, I can maybe look forward to the 20s being the decade of positive examples? That'd be cool...

 

[Gigano]

...
So you want more non-opinion based reviews? Because "how it looks, how it sounds, how it plays, how it's paced, etc." are all opinions. Unless you just want journalists to tell you how many polygons are on the screen at a given moment and the length of a playthrough (wait no that varies based on who's playing), which I guess would be a valid non-opinion-based review.

No, I want opinions which are about the game itself.

I...really, really want to reply to this, but I honestly can't think of a way of doing so at the moment without sounding horribly sarcastic and/or condescending.

I'm sure you can find plenty of inspiration from various "violent video games are bad"-articles.

 

[Westaway]

People often complain about games journalism not being "real journalism". Well, to be "real journalism" it means that they have to "be real".

People often complain about games journalism not being "real journalism", because many "game journalists" aren't actual journalists, just some guys and girls that write more or less well and, from time to time, play video games.

Isn't that, and telling us things we should know/otherwise wouldn't know all that is needed to be a games journalist?

If not, then what else is needed?

Or if you're going off the definition;
"a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium."
Then I still don't see what's missing.

Attending a University
Not being payed off
Having something intelligent to say
Knowing about what you're writing about
Knowing the history of journalism
General aptitude and knowledge of language + literature

I'd say those would be good places to start to be a good journalist. I can't say I've ever read an article by a "gamer journalist" that sounded like the writer had read a book in the past three years besides Game of Thrones.

 

[Gary Thompson]

What will the 20's be like?

 

[Lieju]

It is not my belief that they shouldn't be talking about it. I simply question that the "belief" a game is [insert]ist is genuine if it bothers someone so little that it won't prevent them from playing the game, yet they still feel the need to bring it up just for the sake of bringing it up.

What, if a mostly enjoyable game has qualities you dislike, you shouldn't mention them or discuss them?

Let's say a game you like has a really bad escort-mission, are you not allowed to mention it in a review, for example?
Are you only allowed to love everything in a game, or hate it with a passion and never play it because it makes you physically ill?