"How to Become a Better Videogame Journalist"

[Tommy Gun]

You guys are taking me a little too literally. Obviously what I said can't be applied to EVERY movie, I was trying to simplify. "A scanner darkly" definitely falls under "graphics/special effects" which is not what I was talking about. I didn't want to write a five page article on the subject, but I guess trying to condense it down into a paragraph wasn't a good idea.

Direction, writing, and acting are all seperate areas just as sound, graphics, and gameplay are.

I didn't say they weren't. In fact, that was my whole point--they're different areas but they aren't all discussed in EVERY movie review. Movie reviews mostly focus on plot, with the other things thrown in when they're important. Let me explain further....

Yes, sound editting and film scores are completely irrelevant.

First of all, I didn't say they were irrelevant, I said they're not discussed in every review. Do you remember all those Ebert reviews where he went on about sound editing? Me neither.

I must have been completely crazy then when I complained that the sound balance in LoTR really pissed me off

That's a problem, so that would be discussed, although I bet very few reviews would actually mention it (maybe because it was a problem with your theater, but even so). I don't know which LotR you were talking about, but for instance, take a look at Ebert's review of Fellowship. The only place where he even mentions sound is in two places. Once here:

The chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-Dum" provides the basis for perhaps the most sensational action scene in the film, in which Gandalf the wizard stands on an unstable rock bridge over a chasm, and must engage in a deadly swordfight with the monstrous Balrog. This is an exciting scene, done with state-of-the-art special effects and sound that shakes the theater.

That was referring to a single scene, mentioned in passing only to describe the excitement. Then here:

and here they tower like Norse gods and goddesses, accompanied by so much dramatic sound and lighting that it's a wonder they can think to speak, with all the distractions.

Being a fantasy movie, effects and makeup should be discussed a lot, and even those aren't mentioned much at all in that review. The bulk of the review talks about the plot, and *drumroll* how the movie/book makes Ebert feel.

Of course you NEED all of those things (sound, visual effects, acting, etc.) but they don't all have to go into a review, unless something really stands out for good or bad. Game reviews basically always mention every different part, for good reason; games are different. Sound has to be organic since it can't just be mixed ahead of time. Graphics can vary wildly, and while I don't care that much, many people do, so they're discussed in pretty much every review.

I wasn't talking about movies like A Scanner Darkly, I was mostly talking about mainstream movies (as in something like Die Hard, or whatever horror movie, etc.) vs. mainstream games (Madden, Need for Speed, etc.). A Scanner Darkly deserves a different type of review just like ICO deserves something different. I'm still going back to the whole "how does it make you feel?" thing--Madden doesn't make me feel anything, ICO does, not just because of the plot but the whole presentation, from camera angles to lighting and effects.

But as for mainstream, you wouldn't expect to read a lot about the effects in Die Hard, would you? What about sound? But in a mainstream game review, say Madden, you will be reading about graphics, and sound, and control, and everything else.

As I said, once we reach a level where all that stuff in generally decent and people stop caring about graphics, and games really focus on being artistic, reviews will change.

Would hearing about the film score make people less likely to go see [whatever] movie? (No.) What about learning what soundtrack is in "Lumines 2"? (Yes.) You also spend a lot less time seeing a movie than you do playing a game.

I'm tired of trying to explain this, and it would probably take many more words to explain what I mean, so I'm going to stop.

[SpiderMonkey]

I'm not sure it justifies its own thread, but it seems, as ever, Kieron Gillen is stepping up to the challenge of improving Video game journalism. This time, it's that essential opening paragraph that is feeling his innovative wrath. Actually scratch that, the only thing I really have to say is LOLWTF?

Before we get down to the hardcore analysis of the first expansion pack for one of the best PC games of last year, I've a little information of public interest I feel compelled to disseminate. From what I understand - from many earnest and slightly breathless witnesses with red cheeks and tingling groins - fellow Eurogamer writer James Rossignol is a phenomenal lover. Peerless in all techniques, Rossignol is - apparently - the man for all your orgasmic needs.

[andreadst]

I'm not sure it justifies its own thread, but it seems, as ever, Kieron Gillen is stepping up to the challenge of improving Video game journalism. This time, it's that essential opening paragraph that is feeling his innovative wrath. Actually scratch that, the only thing I really have to say is LOLWTF?

agreed, WTF?!?

[MrHoatzin]

Kieron Gillen is my pop idol. His Fable review is one of the best pieces of writing-on-games ever. I want to have his children.

[Marek]

Gillen is a very good writer and it's unfortunate that the NGJ thing got misinterpreted so badly and bit him in the ass.

[Fantatier]

Nice article, but I like the style of writing on "Idle Thumbs" and I don't think that you guys made something wrong.

Greets, Fantatier

[SpiderMonkey]

Gillen is a very good writer and it's unfortunate that the NGJ thing got misinterpreted so badly and bit him in the ass.

I dunno if you say that because you felt I implied I thought Gillen was an ass. I quite like his writing (though its self-consciousness sometimes grates), and was just laughing at the in-joke gone wrong.

[Marek]

It was just a general statement in support of Kieron Gillen.