"How to Become a Better Videogame Journalist"

[SpiderMonkey]

Having a vocabulary that'd make Michael Crichton blush is no good if you're writing for twelve year olds. However, using flashy words that'll cause your readers to scratch their heads just isn't that great an idea unless you cater to a very well-read audience. Besides, you're talking about video games. Lots of people just want to know whether something's good or bad, so just spit it out.

Guys! You're doing it wrong! Video game journalism isn't dumbed down enough!

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13362&page=1

[Wrestlevania]

Guys! You're doing it wrong! Video game journalism isn't dumbed down enough!

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13362&page=1

The author sights Digg (henceforth renamed as Dikk) as a good source of inspiration.

I'm sorry, but the amount of retarded user-submitted shit over there makes me embarrassed to speak English in the first place, nevermind to wax lyrical about some game or other which the knuckle-dragging membership deem fitting of 'praise'.

I wouldn't be able to type anything anyway for the resultant convulsions of having to trawl through such vast mounds of crap.

[Thrik]

Spider, the ability to speak (or write) does not make you intelligent. ;

His points are valid. While I'm no fan of shit writing, I'm also no fan of writers who clearly go well out of their way to pack in fancy words and adhere to every English rule ever written. This usually results in excessively long sentences and paragraphs, and boring text.

The overall goal of writing is to communicate. If you use words that a large part of the audience needs to consult a dictionary to understand, you've failed as a writer. The same applies to writing ten paragraphs that each equal a full 800x600 screen in height.

But then, if you enjoy only having an audience of about 20 people and somehow think writing clearly and concisely makes you dumb, by all means ignore the article. ¬¬

[Aussie Ben]

Oh come on, using fancy words is fun, look:

In that's SO Raven 2: Supernatural Style, A2M has forgone the perfume for pies. That's right; Raven is now armed with cream pies, complete with the cherry. The game's subtitle alludes to fashion of a phantasmagorical nature, and this is indeed the case. In addition to her pernicious pastries, Raven fleeces a flock of frippery -- in other words, she steals clothes. When Raven switches into the "borrowed" outfit, there is a whirlwind of purple and pink, and voila -- the crime is complete.

Reviewing shit games was a real highlight for me. I also reccommend using haiku.

[Roderick]

Haiku's are awesome!

[SpiderMonkey]

Spider, the ability to speak (or write) does not make you intelligent.

I'm not sure what's up with the trigger happy use of the flamethrower, but anyway ...

What you say is all fine and dandy and I wasn't arguing against that, because I didn't really feel that was what he was actually saying. The quote annoyed me for two reasons:

1) He's using his game review article as a platform to attack movie reviews. Or at least, he seems to think game reviews suffer as badly as that Sixth Sense ramble. I've never seen a game review as opaque as that quote. (Though perhaps Ben's links suggest I should read more game reviews.)

2) His last sentence quoted says to me "the way you should be improving your game reviews is by making them more like buyer's guides." Which runs counter to most opinions I've read on "Video game journalism is shit", and counter to my own opinion.

Hence my conclusion that he was saying "game reviews are too complex the way they are now, they need to be more simple and more like buyer's guides". AKA "game reviews need to be dumbed down".

[Tommy Gun]

Two weeks ago (I think) GameSpot's podcast, The Hotspot, discussed this. They mentioned how people say their reviews should be answering the question, "how does the game make you FEEL?" It was funny, and they talked about how their reviews SHOULD just be buyer's guides, basically, because that's why people read them. I totally agree with that. If you want a different type of review, that's what the indie sites are for, and forums, and whatever.

As far as vocabulary is concerned, here's a fun game: next time you read a review on a big site (gamespot, ign, etc.), chug a beer every time they use the word "myriad." If you want to get really drunk, go back and read the old Dreamcast reviews on IGN--they use it at least once in 90% of the reviews.

[Marek]

Reviews that explain how the game feels and how it's experienced should not be limited to just indie sites. Major movie reviewers do the same thing. Roger Ebert is practically the anti-GameSpot.

[Wrestlevania]

GameDaily[/url]]"]It usually takes a few different pairs of eyes to tell people just how bad they are. For example, check out this sentence, taken from a recently-published article about Capcom's Dead Rising:

After all, who doesn't enjoy running over 50 zombies with a lawnmower? Nobody. Except communists.

Wow Mr. Journalist! Way to keep up with 1980s humor! Those three sentences are not only poorly strung together, but the end result is mildly offensive. I'm not defending communism, but I'd like to think that a few communists enjoy running over zombies with lawnmowers just fine.

This guy's directly advocating bland "supermarket" writing, and I'm not happy about that at all. His colourless attempt at irony (above) makes for painfully constipated reading--it's just so fucking dull and dispassionate.

Give me total engagement and enthusiasm of the niche over the blank-faced indifference of the masses any day of the week.

[Thrik]

Hee Spider, it was a Star Wars quote. I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek.

His points still remain sound though. I agree with you in saying that reviews shouldn't just become soulless buyer's guides, but they certainly don't need to be as long-winded and generally tiresome to read as they tend to be — not to mention the piss poor humour that writers try to use at times. With less superfluous padding words and more focused reviewing they could be infinitely more entertaining.

It is not rare to find writers who think that it is a clever idea to make sure that they use every single technically appropriate word like I have done in this sentence, which makes a review an absolute horror to read.

I think it's worth pointing out at this point that I'm not really complaining about the most well known sites such as IGN and GameSpot, but instead the many smaller entities out there that could provide entertaining reading material if they didn't fill their reviews with so much bollocks.

[elmuerte]

Text should be to the point without too much use of expensive and/or buzzwords. Online articles that span multiple pages should be burned (unless it's a very long article). Screw banner impressions. If you want be to turn of my ad-block you shouldn't force me to view a lot of ads.

Also articles should be well constructed, if the first paragraph doesn't capture my interest I will not read the rest.

[Aussie Ben]

As far as vocabulary is concerned, here's a fun game: next time you read a review on a big site (gamespot, ign, etc.), chug a beer every time they use the word "myriad."

Another fun one to look for is "mixed bag". That's a real cop out. I used to use that when writing early reviews, and my editor pointed it out - I was shocked at how often I used it when I couldn't think of a way to describe something. From then on, I made a conscious effort not to use it, because, let's face it - what the hell does it actually mean, anyway?

[n0wak]

Another fun one to look for is "mixed bag". That's a real cop out. I used to use that when writing early reviews, and my editor pointed it out - I was shocked at how often I used it when I couldn't think of a way to describe something. From then on, I made a conscious effort not to use it, because, let's face it - what the hell does it actually mean, anyway?

Hmmm

[Roderick]

I guess it's a "bag" which is "mixed".

[MrHoatzin]

A potpourri of :tup:s and :tdown:s, as it were.

[Marek]

"The graphics are really a potpourri of thumbs..."

Yeah, I can see that work.

Dude.

[steak-flavored gum]

quite frankly, i would be more than happy to read lengthy reviews that are able to transcend their function as "buyer's guides" on some level, but when you get right down to it, as buffa points out, a game review doesn't actually always need to be all that lengthy to indicate whether you might want to check it out or not. specifically with regards to internet reviews, all the technical information and specifications of a game is already easily accessible on the web, and this information may be accessed from any number of gaming news websites that also link to reviews. further than buffa goes: if one is not going to bother with making a review an interesting experience on its own and rather a purely functional work, then why not just include the bare minimum with perhaps a link or two for those readers who aren't already familiar with the product being reviewed? personally, when i am interested in consulting reviews to determine whether i should buy a game or not, i have already done my research and i know quite a bit about the game in question; i am not reading the review to see a list of the features i'm already aware of. more often than not, i either end up skimming through reviews (possibly missing some of the bits i'm interested to read) or even going straight to the end for a summary or breakdown of score (an awful way to decide about a game) and as such, a review more tailored to my specific need would probably be much more efficient and useful.

my interest in the more extended review i first mentioned lies not necessarily in the function of the more traditional review - i might read this because i am interested in the review in and of itself, almost separate from the game it discusses. it's something like wanting to read an academic paper on a piece of music not just to decide whether it is worthy of a listening, not only to gain higher-level insight on that music, but for the joy of simply reading such higher-level insight written in a satisfactory fashion. nobody wants to read a pitchfork-esque piece that wallows in self-importance but offers no actual interesting synthesis, but at the same time it's a mistake to write off a review that shoots above the least-common-denominator demographic for the product it discusses, as i believe buffa mistakenly does. indie-type review sites correctly recognize that there is more than enough room for multiple sorts of Video game journalism, but perhaps the reason why buffa isn't convinced is that they're not going far enough. there is a unique opportunity in gaming to write material that in a way might be said to cater to the same refined interests of academic writing in a relativistic sense, but in a way that i think more than just ivory tower residents would be excited to read, simply due to the immediate accessibility of the subject matter. there seems to be plenty of room for engaging ‘armchair philosophy’-type discourse here that escapes irrelevance.

or maybe the cherry pie that my stomach was enjoying came out onto the screen as a steaming pile of bullshit?

[Thrik]

There's no doubt a market for that, but I'd personally rather see material written to be read for the sake of being read in articles not specific to one game. In other words, not reviews and previews but instead general features about the industry like Thumbs is (was?) known for.

If I'm reading a review then like you say, chances are I know a lot about the game already and just want to know what's good and bad about it before making a decision. That's not to say I'd be happy with a great big pros/cons list, but I do like a minimum of fluff.

[MrHoatzin]

"The graphics are really a potpourri of thumbs..."

Yeah, I can see that work.

Dude.

You can stick with the "mixed bag" if you're afraid to embrace the "thumb potpourri". You know as well as I that it is the future.

[Roderick]

Wait, wait, I thought we had already decided on the future-proof opinion on the ways articles are written that 'they're all good, valid and necessary'? Every now and then some self-righteous schmuck will read a few too many of this or that kind of review, whips himself up into a frenzy and starts writing a leaflet propagandizing the reverse. So what, if they don't want to see things on a larger scale, let them, but I thought we had already passed this discussion.

[hermes]

Having a vocabulary that'd make Michael Crichton blush is no good if you're writing for twelve year olds. However, using flashy words that'll cause your readers to scratch their heads just isn't that great an idea unless you cater to a very well-read audience. Besides, you're talking about video games. Lots of people just want to know whether something's good or bad, so just spit it out.

And who the fuck uses Michael Crichton as an example of great literature. I mean seriously ... That says much of the authors literary dispositions...

[Wrestlevania]

And who the fuck uses Michael Crichton as an example of great literature. I mean seriously ... That says much of the authors literary dispositions...

Exactly - it's his "supermarket writing" style coming through again; "appeal to the lowest common denominator," and most knuckle-draggers may vaguely recall the name 'Michael Crichton' because of chuff like Jurassic Park, etc.

What he's trying to get out - and making a complete fucking two-page hash of it - is this:

Ensure that you provide the necessary literary 'hooks' so that the widest possible audience will understand quite what you're banging on about.

Not the snappiest of idioms, but you get the point (I hope!). And by 'hooks' I mean 'key/universal references'.

It's not hard, really. It's just he seems to have column inches - and, as someone else quite rightly pointed out, a banner impressions quota - to fill. Job done IMHO, so I suppose he's not a total idiot...

[Tommy Gun]

Hmmm

I win!

gamespot/myriad = 16,700! Holy....

IGN/myriad, dreamcast = 644 (how many Dreamcast games have been made?)

Back to the original discussion in regards to movie reviews: movies are different. You don't need to discuss sound, because it's almost always good and basically unnoticeable. You don't have to discuss graphics, because there are none, save for special effects, which are usually fine, although sometimes horrible (Ultra Violet). There is no *control* in movies, there is no gameplay. Really the only thing that needs discussing is the PLOT. Therefore, it makes sense to write movie reviews from an artistic point. Game reviews, for the mainstream, not so much. Once we reach a point where graphics and sound and control no longer matter (because they're always good), and games really because artistic, absolutely. There are very few games out that I would really want to read an "artistic review" on--ICO is one.

Specialized reviews, on the other hand, make sense. I like the fact that because there are big sites that cover all the standard bases, I can focus on one specific part of a game, or write every review in a different way if I feel like it.

This all is, however, not to say that standard game reviews have to be boring and bland.

[Redwall]

Really the only thing that needs discussing is the PLOT

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

[n0wak]

Yeah. I also have to call bullshit.

You don't need to discuss sound, because it's almost always good and basically unnoticeable.

Yes, sound editting and film scores are completely irrelevant. I must have been completely crazy then when I complained that the sound balance in LoTR really pissed me off -- the fucking background score overwhelmed the dialogue. I didn't like that movie.

You don't have to discuss graphics, because there are none, save for special effects, which are usually fine, although sometimes horrible (Ultra Violet).

Yes, because visually speaking, "A Scanner Darkly" is identical to "Lawrence of Arabia" which is identical to "Pi". You need to stop thinking of graphics as polygons and visual effects and start looking at them as visual presentation (which includes style and art direction and a little thing called cinematography). If you think these things are irrelevant, then I don't want to watch the movies that you are watch.

Reviewing a movie just on plot is like reviewing a full-course meal by just looking at the menu.

You're right about the lack of control -- and really, that element (more than anything else) is what games should be primarily judged on.