shawn elliott likes it when you watch

[Doug Erickson]

http://shawnelliott.blogspot.com/2008/12/commencing-countdown.html

Could there be a more masturbatory use of several reasonably talented writers' time than this? <go, go click the link>

A SYMPOSIUM? (Admittedly an email one.) The Michael Walbridge Q/A link (http://etelmik.blogspot.com/2008/12/shawn-elliotts-questions.html) was the predictable, knee-jerk and intellectually dishonest defense of bad reviewing practices that we've come to expect from an industry that time and time again demonstrates that it DOESN'T REALLY PLAY THE GAMES IT REVIEWS FOR VERY LONG IF AT ALL, on top of the other monumental failings including I AM AN ELEVATED FANBOY WITHOUT ANY REAL WRITING CREDENTIALS and NOSTALGIA TWEAKS GET YOU 2 EXTRA POINTS ON THE SCORE.

Speaking of which, I have yet to see "games journalism" industry really EVOLVE many of these writers; the claptrap they write is the largely the same as it was seven years ago, only now it's fed by a sublimated knowledge of PR and the attendant cynicism it encourages. And while I know what I'm getting into here: who the hell's Shawn Elliott? (Rhetorical, chumps; and yes, "who the hell am I?" Not starting a "symposium," I am.)

I suppose this is just some sort of advanced new blog cross-linking scheme to pump hits, since it seems games blogging is the new way for displaced "games journalists" to keep their foot in the door, as it were, but MAN: I thought we had GAF for the industry circle jerks.

How about you motherfuckers cut the navel-gazing and start writing about GAMES again. Taking alook at Tom's last two lists -- the disappointing and overrated games ones -- y'all sure fed me a lazy line of horseshit this year. The ludicrous claims of GTA4's Oscar-worthiness alone should have you all scrambling to get your Film degrees refreshed.

Oh, this should be fun.

[MSUSteve]

I admit that I like how you're brave enough to come in here and take a big dump all over Shawn Elliott and games journalists in general. I think we might be able to have a good discussion, despite the insanely negative tone you adopt, your prematurely defensive insults, and the final line "Oh this should be fun," which clearly shows that you realize you're trolling. Despite all that, a discussion about said "navel gazing" could be interesting.

First, I think targeting Shawn Elliott in the same post where you slam games journalists for writing claptrap is pretty misguided. You're railing for the same things that Shawn always did. Many times on GFW Radio he pointed out how bad and stale games journalism was in many respects and called for more in depth, interesting discussion about games. He also specifically called out a lot of GTAIV reviews as being nothing but insane hyperbole. He's hardly the poster boy for what you claim to dislike in games journalism.

Secondly, the symposium he's participating in seems to be setup to directly address a lot of what you seem to hate. You're saying you want journalists to talk about games in a thoughtful way and yet, you hate that Shawn Elliott and others are doing an email symposium to...talk about games in a thoughtful way. Huh?

As for your claim that reviewers don't play the games they review for long, if at all, I'd love to see some facts that support that. I can't imagine how you could just toss that out there. I suspect your statement is patently false.

All that said, I certainly agree that a lot of those writing about games do a pretty shoddy job of it. I'd point to Jeff Haynes' Metal Gear Solid 4 review as a good example of what I can't stand. Brian Crecente's review of GTAIV was also pretty terrible. For a recent example, I'll go with James Mielke's preview of the upcoming Watchmen games. It reads like a PR release.

But damn man, I really can't understand what you're getting at by attacking Elliott and his cohorts for trying to have a considered and thoughtful discussion about games and game journalism.

[metta]

I get the feeling that Mr. Erickson would be fine with Shawn's initiative if he, Shawn, hadn't used the word symposium to describe it.

Which, I guess means Mr. Erickson either finds the word too close to poesy, which sounds a bit fey to him, or (and this is more likely) he swallowed the anti-education/anti-intellectual pill that folks these days are handing out like M&Ms. Maybe Mr. Erickson thinks film degrees and words like 'symposium' are unmasculine or high-falutin.

How delicious!

[KieronGillen]

Could there be a more masturbatory use of several reasonably talented writers' time than this?

Yes. Masturbation, for one.

KG

[mittens]

I really don't understand this reaction (my thoughts (http://www.polycat.net/1464/the-death-of-the-death-of-game-criticism/)). It seems like there's been a number of these sorts of reactions to writers who want to attempt to write more intelligently about games.

What is so circle-jerking about people that talk about games beyond reviews? Is this a bad thing or something?

[Bahimiron]

And while I know what I'm getting into here: who the hell's Shawn Elliott?

I realize you said that this is rhetorical, but given other statements in your original post, I get the genuine impression that you don't know the answer to this question.

[noun]

Because we've gotten to the point where the personalities writing about the games are more interesting than the games themselves. The vast majority of games fall into the shooter/action/adventure template, and worse, many of them license the same engine so they all look the same as well as play the same. Innovative games are few and far between, and after a while you run out of adjectives reviewing the same game over and over again. At least they found something to do with their time.

[Eric Majkut]

Shawn Elliott is a big jerk! How could he have left me out of the symposium? :`[

[Etelmik]

I'll be the first to admit I need an editor, but I have to agree with everyone else and say your post is very confusing.

Oh, except the part about Tom. That was pretty clear.

[tromik]

I put far more trust into the review opinions of the people on that participant list than I do into any metascore or industry average.

[steve]

You're railing for the same things that Shawn always did. Many times on GFW Radio he pointed out how bad and stale games journalism was in many respects and called for more in depth, interesting discussion about games. He also specifically called out a lot of GTAIV reviews as being nothing but insane hyperbole. He's hardly the poster boy for what you claim to dislike in games journalism.
Did he spend as much time working on deep, interesting game discussions at 1UP as he did lamenting the lack thereof elsewhere? Maybe he did; I'm not that familiar with his work.

It seems like it's trendy to complain that no one is doing these kinds of "big, serious, critical" types of articles, and it often comes from the very people who could be producing these kinds of pieces. But instead of navel gazing about the whys (or why nots), why not spend some of that time actually writing the damn things? If you're a full-time staff member somewhere, nothing's stopping you from writing that think-piece on the side. Post it, and see what kind of traffic it gets. Most people think there's little audience for this kind of article, and maybe they're right. But who knows? Try it.

And if you're a freelancer, you can do the legwork and pitch a finished article. If no one wants it, you can always post it to your blog and revel in the adulation of the 10 people who also say we need these kinds of articles but can't be bothered to write the things in the first place.

[Etelmik]

And if you're a freelancer, you can do the legwork and pitch a finished article. If no one wants it, you can always post it to your blog and revel in the adulation of the 10 people who also say we need these kinds of articles but can't be bothered to write the things in the first place.

You mean these 10 (http://shawnelliott.blogspot.com/2008/12/commencing-countdown.html)?

[DavidKaye]

Did he spend as much time working on deep, interesting game discussions at 1UP as he did lamenting the lack thereof elsewhere?

You clearly never listened to GFW Radio.

[MSUSteve]

Did he spend as much time working on deep, interesting game discussions at 1UP as he did lamenting the lack thereof elsewhere? Maybe he did; I'm not that familiar with his work.
In my opinion his thoughts, both on the GFW Podcast and in the GFW (and later EGM) features he worked on were always very interesting. His thoughts and reviews never got mired in discussion of the basic mechanics of a game, but instead tried to get deeper into what made a game good (or bad). He really had a unique way of looking and at breaking down games and his voice has been sorely missed.

[Foxstab]

<massive diss of respected game journalists in qt3>

http://www.twohotpeppers.com/images/450/Beer,%20Popcorn%20&%20Peanuts_450.jpg
(free on me)

ShowTime!

[Jeff Green]

Did he spend as much time working on deep, interesting game discussions at 1UP as he did lamenting the lack thereof elsewhere? Maybe he did; I'm not that familiar with his work.


Yes, he did.

[noun]

Welcome to our newest member, ShawnElliott

Now it's going to get interesting.

[Doug Erickson]

All this hemming and hawing has produced very little of substance, save the elevation of dubious personalities and this long-running yet predominantly silly meta-discussion of the "games journalism industry".

The reason I started this thread was because the questions posed illustrated NONE of the problems currently plaguing games reviewing, but instead allowed for pseudo-intellectual defenses of the chronically poor reviewing standards seen across ALL publications out there, a few blogs and small sites notwithstanding.

I cannot count the number of reviews I've read where it was patently obvious that a reviewer played no more than a couple hours of a game at best, or had a clear agenda -- be it fueled by nostalgia or by PR flackery -- when penning it. Likewise, the number of reviews in magazines and on major sites where the game is not evaluated against the intent of the designers and the execution thereof, but rather against the reviewer's mythical expectations for the genre/series, is also pretty fuckin' huge.

I know who Shawn Elliot is, although I avoid most gaming podcasts not featuring Jeff Green because most of the podcasters sound like the average gaming types I frequently hang out with, minus the personality. His reviews aren't any credibly different from the norm, despite the fact that he makes some effort to suggest that they might be on 1UP and on his blog.

I do think there are some strong voices out there (avert your eyes, Tom), like Tom and N'Gai, but the questions asked in this symposium doesn't ask the hard and presumptuous questions, like "why the hell don't you guys play the games you review"? (And yes, I *know* that playing very little of the average, unanticipated game is the NORM -- how many credible reviews of a dungeon crawler or Dynasty Warriors entry have been written? Answer: so very few!

[Mordrak]

Maybe if he should have called it something like a "Raging Review Throwdown" or a "Critics' Cage Match." Sunday, Sunday, SUNDAY!!!

[Skorin]

Now it's going to get interesting.

He already has an account. (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/member.php?u=3875) I don't know why he'd make a second.

[Cubit]

Welcome to our newest member, ShawnElliott


Now it's going to get interesting.

Hell, I thought you were kidding.

[Foxstab]

Maybe he feels like flaming the one who felt like flaming him and doesn't feel like having his prime banned?

Eitherway, free servings, tab's on me.

[Bahimiron]

You clearly never listened to GFW Radio.

Or read the last two year's worth of CGWs or read GFW magazine.


although I avoid most gaming podcasts not featuring Jeff Green

You realize that Shawn was on the historically most Jeff Greeningest podcast available, right?

[Rossignol]

the questions asked in this symposium doesn't ask the hard and presumptuous questions, like "why the hell don't you guys play the games you review"?

Why would Mr Elliot assume that the people on this list do not play the games they review?

[MSUSteve]

I cannot count the number of reviews I've read where it was patently obvious that a reviewer played no more than a couple hours of a game at best,

Of course reviews have been written where the reviewer has played less than the entire game, but I just don't buy your assertion that countless reviews are written where the reviewer has played only two hours of a game. Still, would your question, as posed, be interesting to answer and discuss. Let me try it out:

Doug: Should reviewers play the whole game before assigning a review score?

Everyone: Yes.

Riveting.


or had a clear agenda -- be it fueled by nostalgia or by PR flackery -- when penning it.

Now this is interesting! I share your observation that a lot of reviews seem to quote directly from PR sheets. But don't these symposium questions ask exactly what you're talking about?




Question 1: How much is on our minds before we begin playing any given game for review purposes? Will we imagine a range of probable scores that a heavily marketed, highly budgeted, and hugely anticipated game will get? What when the game is branded “budget” or is the work of a lesser-known, less-storied studio? If so, how closely have actual scores correlated with our assumptions?

Question 5: Review writing carries real consequence, especially among members of the enthusiast press. Once-warm PR people and game producers can become cold upon our publication of undesirable review scores, diminishing or eliminating our ability to secure subsequent interviews and access. Postmortem discussions and exclusive looks at the publisher and/or developer's forthcoming products are less likely. Conversely, a few publishers will permit us to post reviews before competitors, provided our review scores are favorable. Do such pressures produce a subliminal background or even enter our thoughts as we write reviews and assign scores?


Likewise, the number of reviews in magazines and on major sites where the game is not evaluated against the intent of the designers and the execution thereof, but rather against the reviewer's mythical expectations for the genre/series, is also pretty fuckin' huge.

This is also something that drives me nuts. I hate reading a review of a game that spends more time lamenting that the game isn't something it was never intended to be, instead of discussing what it is. I hope the answers to the symposium questions address this. Of course we have no idea what most of the questions are even going to be, so it's a little premature to say that this won't be addressed, isn't it?

[Jeff Green]

FYI: Just talked to Shawn--he had to create a new account because he forgot his password on the old one, which was linked to his old, now-dead ZD email addy.

[steve]

You clearly never listened to GFW Radio.
No, I never did. So it's possible I've missed all of his insight, which makes me wonder if I'm not paying enough attention (possible) or that people aren't doing a very good job calling these types of articles out when they do appear.

[unbongwah]

http://www.blogitude.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/asshat.jpg

[Brian Seiler]

No, I never did. So it's possible I've missed all of his insight, which makes me wonder if I'm not paying enough attention (possible) or that people aren't doing a very good job calling these types of articles out when they do appear.

Articles, I'm not sure. I came to GFW Radio about three months before the magazine was canceled (I was totally going to send in my card that month), so my exposure to his specific broader catalog is somewhat limited, but I always really appreciated the things in that vein that I did find from him (and I can think of some things on his ZD Blog). I will freely admit that I am prejudiced against haughty intellectual discussion about video games on account of most of them don't deserve that kind of attention and analysis, but I never felt like Shawn was going over that invisible line in my head the same way that, for example, some of the recent blog discussion about reviewers penalizing innovation in games has. I'm kind of looking forward to the upcoming symposium.

Then again, I'm just the sort of crazy apologist that will sit here and say with a straight face that you shouldn't reasonably expect a game reviewer to play through every single individual campaign in the latest Dynasty Warriors before he pronounces it more of the same and gives it a fat C, so maybe my opinion doesn't count. I have weird ideas about how game review should work - that's probably why I stopped doing it altogether before I even got properly started.

[Nezz]

I'm just the sort of crazy apologist that will sit here and say with a straight face that you shouldn't reasonably expect a game reviewer to play through every single individual campaign in the latest Dynasty Warriors before he pronounces it more of the same and gives it a fat C
Funny that you would pick that as an example. Lately, the 'Warriors' series has occupied my time and my thoughts more than I ever thought it deserved, based on what I had read about it. The unapologetic Romanticism of its setting, the way it represents the ebb and flow of battles... so many unique and fascinating aspects about it.

And yes, now that you mention it, I do think it's very difficult to judge Dynasty Warriors 6 correctly without playing every single individual campaign. I'd have to think more about it to put my finger on exactly why that would be; but I don't want to interrupt the flame fest any further. :)

[Doug Erickson]

I don't remember Shawn from any of the 1UP-related podcasts, for sure -- Jeff aside, they all sound like the same reedy voices and largely unmemorable personalities to me. You could interchange 9/10ths of the 1UP staff in those podcasts and I wouldn't miss a one. In fact, I think I mixed him and Shane Bettenhausen up most of the time, the rare exception being the painful Denis Dyack Too Human release interview, where Shawn was merely the less pandering and verbally anemic of the two non-Dyack participants.

That said, this isn't supposed to be an indictment of Shawn -- hey, if he's great, I'll take your word for it in the interests of furthering this discussion -- but rather a nasty little complaint about the sort of wankery I see on the 1UP (current and former) editors' blogs, and among the new games journalism set in general. Do movie critics go on and on about their processes and editorial shortcomings? Do Owen Gliebermann and Roger Ebert wring their hands over poor reviewing standards for movies? Does anyone even CARE what Gene Shalit thinks?

Cut the woeful self-recriminations and start setting better examples in your reviews, period. Play the damn games. Talk about the damn games. When Tim Rogers is doing a better job than the current lot of "major editorial voices" out there, it's a sad day in the "games journalism" community.

[MrAngryFace]

Articles, I'm not sure. I came to GFW Radio about three months before the magazine was canceled (I was totally going to send in my card that month), so my exposure to his specific broader catalog is somewhat limited, but I always really appreciated the things in that vein that I did find from him (and I can think of some things on his ZD Blog). I will freely admit that I am prejudiced against haughty intellectual discussion about video games on account of most of them don't deserve that kind of attention and analysis, but I never felt like Shawn was going over that invisible line in my head the same way that, for example, some of the recent blog discussion about reviewers penalizing innovation in games has. I'm kind of looking forward to the upcoming symposium.

Then again, I'm just the sort of crazy apologist that will sit here and say with a straight face that you shouldn't reasonably expect a game reviewer to play through every single individual campaign in the latest Dynasty Warriors before he pronounces it more of the same and gives it a fat C, so maybe my opinion doesn't count. I have weird ideas about how game review should work - that's probably why I stopped doing it altogether before I even got properly started.

I would agree on the Dynasty Warriors point IF reviewers even did that much. I've seen several DW reviews where the reviewer used the space to create some story about being given the game for review and being unhappy about it. I KNOW the DW games have their issues, but they clearly have an audience, review for them. Even the best review in the world will not shift such an old series into a larger demographic, so what's the problem assigning the review to someone who might actually like the series a little?

[madkevin]

Do Owen Gliebermann and Roger Ebert wring their hands over poor reviewing standards for movies?

Roger Ebert? Yes. Yes he does (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/death_to_film_critics_long_liv.html).

[Doug Erickson]

Articles, I'm not sure. I came to GFW Radio about three months before the magazine was canceled (I was totally going to send in my card that month), so my exposure to his specific broader catalog is somewhat limited, but I always really appreciated the things in that vein that I did find from him (and I can think of some things on his ZD Blog). I will freely admit that I am prejudiced against haughty intellectual discussion about video games on account of most of them don't deserve that kind of attention and analysis, but I never felt like Shawn was going over that invisible line in my head the same way that, for example, some of the recent blog discussion about reviewers penalizing innovation in games has. I'm kind of looking forward to the upcoming symposium.

Then again, I'm just the sort of crazy apologist that will sit here and say with a straight face that you shouldn't reasonably expect a game reviewer to play through every single individual campaign in the latest Dynasty Warriors before he pronounces it more of the same and gives it a fat C, so maybe my opinion doesn't count. I have weird ideas about how game review should work - that's probably why I stopped doing it altogether before I even got properly started.

I would be ever so fine with ANY reviewer actually playing through the majority of a DW game and giving it a C, if that is what they actually did. If I see a magazine or major site review give a Dynasty Warriors release the same critical attention that a Madden yearly release gets, I will choggle my pants so hard Gary Whitta himself will turn the internet trademark over to me.

[Doug Erickson]

Roger Ebert? Yes. Yes he does (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/death_to_film_critics_long_liv.html).

That's a direct attack on AP standards, not a hand-wringing "symposium". Try again?

[Etelmik]

That is not the first time Ebert has brought the topic up in recent months.

You don't find him to be "hand-wringing?" It sounds like the definition of "hand-wringing" is highly important to you; mind clarifying?

[Bahimiron]

I don't remember Shawn from any of the 1UP-related podcasts, for sure -- Jeff aside, they all sound like the same reedy voices and largely unmemorable personalities to me. You could interchange 9/10ths of the 1UP staff in those podcasts and I wouldn't miss a one. In fact, I think I mixed him and Shane Bettenhausen up most of the time

I'm not sure I need to read anything you ever say again.

[Doug Erickson]

Massive apologies for not manufacturing celebrity distinctions around videogame fans. I'll keep that in mind should I ever decide to make a career change and barrel headlong into the world of internet fame!

[mono]

It would have been a good idea to know who you were talking about before creating, essentially, a strawman thread. Elliot was often guilty of inspiring too much Inside Baseball talk about the review process on GfW podcasts, but he then attempted to critically apply the group insights to his own writing. Confusing Elliot and Bettenhausen is absurd.

You're sounding like a self-taught high school dropout with a chip on his shoulder against folks who use fancy words. It's certainly a meta topic though. Navel gazing about perceived navel gazing.

[Doug Erickson]

That is not the first time Ebert has brought the topic up in recent months.

You don't find him to be "hand-wringing?" It sounds like the definition of "hand-wringing" is highly important to you; mind clarifying?

Certainly! He knows his own mind, and isn't looking to the community for validation. He practices what he preaches, and is offering commentary for the puposes of elucidation, not justification. You REALLY think Roger Ebert cares what the community thinks of his critical style?

[DavidKaye]

Wow. I don't know how much managed to get to 2,000 posts without distinguishing yourself as a massive douche before now. Good effort, though.

[madkevin]

That's a direct attack on AP standards, not a hand-wringing "symposium". Try again?

That's not what you asked. You asked if Roger Ebert complained about poor reviewing standards. Answer: Yes.

Also: what's with the quotes? I get that you don't like the word, but Elliot is using it correctly.

[Hugin]

Do movie critics go on and on about their processes and editorial shortcomings? Do Owen Gliebermann and Roger Ebert wring their hands over poor reviewing standards for movies? Does anyone even CARE what Gene Shalit thinks?

Seriously?

Er...discussion of the state of film criticism has been a perennial topic of discussion by film critics and everyone else involved with film for decades, and film, film related academics, and film criticism are a significantly more mature field than their equivalent in video games. See also self examination of criticism/philosophy/editorial ethics or quality and quality in music writing, news journalism, sports, food, wine, theater, any industry that can manage to generate a distinct class of commentators/observers/critics.

[Doug Erickson]

I like the word just fine. It conjures the image of great minds meeting in Greece, ruminating about matters political and philosophical over amphorae of the finest vintages.

I am also a fan of irony.

The quotes are for the literal-minded, of course. Never let it be said I am without consideration for my fellow anti-elitist videogaming proletarians! Who's up for a game of Wii Fit?

[quatoria]

Then again, I'm just the sort of crazy apologist that will sit here and say with a straight face that you shouldn't reasonably expect a game reviewer to play through every single individual campaign in the latest Dynasty Warriors before he pronounces it more of the same and gives it a fat C, so maybe my opinion doesn't count. I have weird ideas about how game review should work - that's probably why I stopped doing it altogether before I even got properly started.

That's funny, because failing to play the game with any thoroughness is exactly why the majority of all DW6 and Bladestorm reviews utterly missed the mark in both a factual and an editorial sense. They expected more of the same from Koei, and when they got something different, instead, it's obvious that a lot of writers just went ahead and ran with the "more of the same, c" story they'd already written in their heads - exactly like you apparently would have.

[mono]

I like the word just fine. It conjures the image of great minds meeting in Greece, ruminating about matters political and philosophical over amphorae of the finest vintages.

I am also a fan of irony...

Amphorae are wine jugs, not wine itself. It's like suggesting my coffee mug is a fine brew.

[Hugin]

I like the word just fine. It conjures the image of great minds meeting in Greece, ruminating about matters political and philosophical over amphorae of the finest vintages.

If your major exposure to the word comes from Wikipedia I guess.

For people from an academic background it's a lot more mundane and unthreatening a word, no worse than seminar or convention or conference.

[Godmil]

After realising I was reading Doug's posts in my head with a kind of 'Ralphie' voice, it occured to me that this thread is a lot funnier if you think of Doug as an alt account for Shawn.

[Doug Erickson]

Amphorae are wine jugs, not wine itself. It's like suggesting my coffee mug is a fine brew.

"mugs of the finest local brews"

"Vintages" is a perfectly acceptably term when used to refer to wine. I should know!

Really, if you wanna try and lecture me about grammar or usage, keep it to PM.

[Bahimiron]

Massive apologies for not manufacturing celebrity distinctions around videogame fans.

That's not really what I'm on about. It's that if a guy says he's listened to the CGW/GFW podcast and honestly can't pick out Shawn Elliott from the crowd, he clearly wasn't paying that much attention to what was being said at all.

I like Sean Molloy and Ryan Scott, didn't much care for Darren, but I wouldn't have really blamed a guy for confusing the two. I mean, their voices were pretty different as were their gaming tendencies, but they were both pretty laid back and didn't often get into heated discussions with anyone or lay out a lot of hard opinions. I could see people not really being able to tell them apart from one another and the same goes for guys like Jeremy Parish or Nick Suttner or even Matt Chandranait.

But if you've listened to the 1up podcasts with any regularity, especially 1up Yours or the classic GFW Radio, and you're going to tell me that you couldn't pick out guys like Luke Smith or Shane Bettenhausen or Shawn Elliott, guys with really strong personalities and a lot to say and a tendency to dominate the conversation (even to the detriment of the show, at times) then you either weren't listening or are a liar. I donno which one you are, guy, but you're not really worth paying any more attention to.

[metta]

Wow. I don't know how much managed to get to 2,000 posts without distinguishing yourself as a massive douche before now. Good effort, though.

I wondered exactly the same thing. He's been here since 2002 and only now goes nova.

I guess the silicon chip inside his head, etc...

[Doug Erickson]

If your major exposure to the word comes from Wikipedia I guess.

For people from an academic background it's a lot more mundane and unthreatening a word, no worse than seminar or convention or conference.

...oooor if you're a humorless QT3 twat distressed over perceived blemishes on their golden calves, as it were.

[Etelmik]

He knows his own mind, and isn't looking to the community for validation. He practices what he preaches, and is offering commentary for the puposes of elucidation, not justification. You REALLY think Roger Ebert cares what the community thinks of his critical style?

I guess I'm giving you more of a chance because I really want to know why this bothers you so much, and to me you're not being very clear.

So you're saying that Shawn Elliott and the ten reviewers he's doing this whatever-you-want-call-it don't know their own minds, look for validation, never practice what they preach, and not just justifying themselves?

As for Ebert, the amount of time he puts into responding to comments about what film criticism ought to be (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/eberts_little_rule_book.html) and the humility ("How many of these have you broken?" Ebert: It's been a long, strange trip) makes me think that he does care, but I'm guessing that wasn't as big a point for you.

Look, I can't speak for any of those people, but let me tell you why I like the idea. I like the idea because with music, books, movies, or (it seems) just about anything else, you can end up having a variety of conversations about them; they can be childish, they can be simple "this is what I like what do you like" kind of conversations, and they can be critical and intelligent conversations. The latter type doesn't exist for games to the point where you could talk about it like that with a new person you've met who plays games; talking about games critically is extremely...oh, how do I put it...unpublic.

Most published games writing doesn't give room for that. They're trying to figure out why and perhaps what to do about it. Why does that bother you? Do any of those 10 writers not write enough for you? They spend plenty of time talking about the damn games--the only possible exception is Hsu, and even he wrote a few items for Crispy recently.

[Hugin]

...oooor if you're a humorless QT3 twat distressed over perceived blemishes on their golden calves, as it were.

What golden calf am I distressed about, exactly?

[Doug Erickson]

That's not really what I'm on about. It's that if a guy says he's listened to the CGW/GFW podcast and honestly can't pick out Shawn Elliott from the crowd, he clearly wasn't paying that much attention to what was being said at all.

I like Sean Molloy and Ryan Scott, didn't much care for Darren, but I wouldn't have really blamed a guy for confusing the two. I mean, their voices were pretty different as were their gaming tendencies, but they were both pretty laid back and didn't often get into heated discussions with anyone or lay out a lot of hard opinions. I could see people not really being able to tell them apart from one another and the same goes for guys like Jeremy Parish or Nick Suttner or even Matt Chandranait.

But if you've listened to the 1up podcasts with any regularity, especially 1up Yours or the classic GFW Radio, and you're going to tell me that you couldn't pick out guys like Luke Smith or Shane Bettenhausen or Shawn Elliott, guys with really strong personalities and a lot to say and a tendency to dominate the conversation (even to the detriment of the show, at times) then you either weren't listening or are a liar. I donno which one you are, guy, but you're not really worth paying any more attention to.

How about a guy who didn't find said "strong personalities" saying anything terribly interesting, and fast-forwarded to the bits that WERE interesting?

[Doug Erickson]

What golden calf am I distressed about, exactly?

Well, you're certainly distressed, and this is a thread about the folks that are generally regarded as the critical voices for and of this hobby. Do the math?

[Bahimiron]

How about a guy who didn't find said "strong personalities" saying anything terribly interesting, and fast-forwarded to the bits that WERE interesting?

So you just listened to Jeff and never listened to the responses.

Were you pantsless at the time?

Should Jeff be terrified?

(Jeff, you should be terrified.)

[Etelmik]

It's interesting that you like Jeff, but no one else. Yet Jeff is here in the forum sticking up for the very guy you're attacking.

You'll listen to what he says, but not what he writes (http://jeff-greenspeak.blogspot.com/2008/09/shawn-elliott.html), eh?

[Doug Erickson]

I'm actually a LITTLE concerned that y'all find these podcasts so memorable. They aren't exactly This American Life (or even Kevin Smith) -- they're background noise, by and large!

As for Jeff, I don't necessarily agree with him -- liking his style of delivery and agreeing with him wholesale are two very different things. I've fast-forwarded through plenty of Jeff's chatter, too.

Seriously, though, this thread has become a referendum on Shawn Elliott fandom. If we're gonna go down that sad and sticky path, what's the appeal? Seriously! Link me to an awesome article he's penned or sumthin'.

[checker]

The reason I started this thread was because the questions posed illustrated NONE of the problems currently plaguing games reviewing...

I'll bite: what are the problems currently plaguing games reviewing?

You mentioned "reviewer didn't play the game all the way through", which I actually don't think even makes it onto my top 10 list of problems with game reviewing, assuming the reviewer actually played the game honestly for a "reasonable" amount of time, where "reasonable" is dependent on the game and the reviewer. But, I'm not a hard core gamer, so I don't value the completionist thing very much.

Anyway, what are peoples' lists?

Chris

[nlanza]

What golden calf am I distressed about, exactly?

Your left one. If that blemish changes color or shape, see a dermatologist.

[MSUSteve]

Doug, as someone who appears to be calling for some kind of reform in the way games are discussed and reviewed, I'm not understanding why you're railing so hard against the symposium proposed to discuss these very issues. Clearly you find the idea that the reviewers/editors of popular websites and magazines are somehow celebrities to be distasteful, though I'm really not sure why. These game journalists speak for themselves, of course, and their opinions are not inherently better than any non-journalist's. But they have a louder voice and so it's easy to discuss games by jumping off from references to their reviews and articles, which most people can dig up and be familiar with. I don't see any problem with that.

[Bahimiron]

You're missing the point so hard now that I can only assume you're a troll, guy.

Though for the record, I can tell my Ira Glass from my David Bloomberg from my Scott Mosier from my David Sedaris from my Walter Flanagan. I'd hardly call myself a bigtime David Bloomberg fanboy. It's just one of those things that happens when you actually listen to these podcasts and don't just claim you do so you don't lose credibility on an internet forum when you decide to pointlessly attack someone with whom's work you are woefully unfamiliar.

Edit: I should add that though I'm pretty sure the OP is a giant troll, I still appreciate this thread. I had no clue that Shawn Elliott was doing something like this, and I really look forward to seeing guys like N'gai, Dan Hsu, Stephen Totilo and our own Tom Chick discussing these issues. I'm just surprised that Jeff Green isn't on the list, though I can understand why. Except for Shawn himself, everyone else on the list is still active in games journalism, not game design.

[Hugin]

Well, you're certainly distressed, and this is a thread about the folks that are generally regarded as the critical voices for and of this hobby. Do the math?

Well, no.

I'm not BFFs with any of the people you directly or indirectly criticize, certainly not with Shawn Elliot. I assume they've been subject to poorly thought out web forum attacks before and hardly need defending.

I just think you've said some factually incorrect things that make it seem like you aren't very knowledgeable about things like film criticism, i.e.:

"X should be more like Y, because they don't do such and such over at Y", when there's a mountain of history of Y doing such a thing (in this case criticism of criticism or editorializing about the editorial side in various media).

By the way, generally, if you make an agressive/edgy/hard hitting/iconoclastic attack on a web forum, then find yourself criticizing others for a lack of a sense of humor or sense of irony, you're probably just either losing the argument or being a dick.

[MSUSteve]

I'm actually a LITTLE concerned that y'all find these podcasts so memorable. They aren't exactly This American Life (or even Kevin Smith) -- they're background noise, by and large!
See, I don't understand what you're doing, except being a troll. I mean, you come to a forum dedicated to a hobby. The forum is filled with people that love said hobby and take time out of their days to discuss that hobby. Podcasts dedicated to discussion of same loved hobby are available and, lo and behold, the people that populate this forum enjoy them and the discussion. You then tell these people, who have gathered together to discuss something they enjoy, that podcasts about that something are background noise. I mean, that might be the case to people that don't enjoy videogames, but you're not exactly preaching to that crowd. I really wish I could understand what you were driving at except causing a lot of consternation for no reason.

[BlueJackalope]

Seriously, though, this thread has become a referendum on Shawn Elliott fandom. If we're gonna go down that sad and sticky path, what's the appeal? Seriously! Link me to an awesome article he's penned or sumthin'.

Probably because you've gone about this in the most dickish way possible. If you didn't want this to be about Elliot you should have kept his name off the thread title. Unless this is your idea of a clever troll. Good luck with that.

I'm still confused about what your point is supposed to be.

Writers shouldn't talk about game journalism?

Game writing should consist of playing the game to the end and then listing the features?

Help me out champ.

[Brian Seiler]

Anyway, what are peoples' lists?

Chris

I'm on board:

1. Confusion between objective and subjective areas of criticism. Video game reviews are neither completely objective nor completely subjective. Video games aren't like painting - you can definitely fail in some clear functional ways, as in the current GTA on PC problems. The problem arises when a reviewer fails to distinguish his personal issues from things that will be an issue for any player.

2. Improperly informed expectations. I'm a coder - I make business programs. I studied things like AI and graphics on my way to getting the CS degree that got me this job in the first place. I've seen reviewers express expectations for a game that, as a coder, I find utterly ridiculous, usually around things like AI. The problem only gets worse in the broader gaming community, where people don't understand just how difficult it is to actually do a game. I have nothing but respect for the people who actually sling code in that area, and when I see that sort of thing pop up it makes me very, very sad.

3. Superlativism. This is kind of a product of the internet, and it baffles the hell out of me. Reviewers seem to clamber over one another in the race to lay the choicest smack or perform the finest fellatio for any game of significant notice.

Those are my chief three. I guess that my perfect reviews are boring and horrible, and Lord knows that I read the very crap that I complain about here, but I know that any time I kvetch about the quality of reviews (and it's not that common for me), those are my chief complaints.

[Robert Sharp]

Shawn should make it through the vetting process in about 6 months. And THEN it's on!

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Shawn should make it through the vetting process in about 6 months. And THEN it's on!

Shawn already had an account. (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/member.php?u=3875)

Anyway, as tired as I am of the debates over reviewing, and as sympathetic as I am to Steve's point that it's better to just do it then to debate it, I am looking forward to watching this discussion, mostly because of some of the talent involved. I wonder if anybody there will defend the status quo, though?

Troy

[Doug Erickson]

Doug, as someone who appears to be calling for some kind of reform in the way games are discussed and reviewed, I'm not understanding why you're railing so hard against the symposium proposed to discuss these very issues. Clearly you find the idea that the reviewers/editors of popular websites and magazines are somehow celebrities to be distasteful, though I'm really not sure why. These game journalists speak for themselves, of course, and their opinions are not inherently better than any non-journalist's. But they have a louder voice and so it's easy to discuss games by jumping off from references to their reviews and articles, which most people can dig up and be familiar with. I don't see any problem with that.

Because I've SEEN countless cases that contradict the answers they're giving. I know how the business works. I know the length of time and the environment they have to write these reviews in. I am quite capable of perceiving the massive disconnect between the ridiculous write-ups found on magazines and web sites today, and the evasive, intellectually dishonest answers being proferred.

If they're gonna do it: be honest. Don't bitch about the scoring systems, or the aggregation sites, or the presence of PR. Admit that you have roughly two hours to spend with Dungeon Crawler X7 or World War 2 Ad Nauseum: Hitler's Revenge in between podcast recording sessions and press junket write-ups and the usual program planning and bureaucratic necessity that is part of the editorial role. Admit that you favor the big-name games and the nostalgia tweaks, and that you're largely incapable of separating hype and false expectations and nostalgia and personal history within the hobby from the actual design goals of any given game. Make an effort to really understand the audience for ANY game, and ALWAYS evaluate execution over expectations. Do your READERS a favor and do the serious hard time THINKING ABOUT EACH AND EVERY GAME, not just the ones that pander to your tastes. Dissect. Compare and contrast. Evaluate. I don't see this in the majority of reviews out there (although there are a few notable exceptions I'd point out if I didn't want to look like an asskisser around here). You can call game reviewing an art, and I'd agree that it's very subjective, but it's also a science -- there's a math under the hood: a matrix of timings and ratios and measures and principles. Give your readers the tools to evaluate the game alongside you.

You tread a very fine line between technical writing and creative writing. Don't let the latter win out over the former, even if it means you get a bit drier and your celebrity status withers at first.

That said, have you guys even picked up an EGM lately? Or GameInformer? Or play? Or read Gamespot recently? The state of reviewing is in awful, awful shape. I get the best impressions and reviews from forums like this, where I *know* folks not named wumpus have given these games a fair runabout beyond kicking the tires and peering myopically under the hood for texture pop-in. Why can't reviewing encapsulate the experience and thoughtfulness that goes into reviews on forums, only better and in less words? What's stopping them?

I'd venture it's because they don't really like the games they review that much, but they sure do love their sense of industry participation. I don't care if the questions in a "symposium" are leading, but it's gotta be asked: why is the shit that gets written so damn inaccurate when it comes to the basics of any B-list game?

To me, this "symposium" is nothing more than the inmates complaining about the asylum. Get some folks from other journalistic venues to page through a GameInformer or a 1UP blog or a play spread and have THEM make suggestions. Send yer shiz to Roger Ebert (I can only imagine his response).

(And lest anyone say "why don't you go review if you think you can do it better" please, PLEASE, shut your useless craw. I am not suggesting I am better than Shawn or Jeff or Tom or Stephen or whoever. I'm just a guy sick of not being able to trust the larger body of published reviews I read.)

[Jeff Green]

I've fast-forwarded through plenty of Jeff's chatter, too.


Now you've gone too far.

[Bahimiron]

Why can't reviewing encapsulate the experience and thoughtfulness that goes into reviews on forums, only better and in less words? What's stopping them?

This is a great question. Someone should really get together a gathering of some of the best and brightest in games journalism and ask them.

[Cubit]

Shawn already had an account. (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/member.php?u=3875)

I think Jeff said earlier in the thread that Shawn had to make a new account because he forgot the old pw or something.

[Doug Erickson]

See, I don't understand what you're doing, except being a troll. I mean, you come to a forum dedicated to a hobby. The forum is filled with people that love said hobby and take time out of their days to discuss that hobby. Podcasts dedicated to discussion of same loved hobby are available and, lo and behold, the people that populate this forum enjoy them and the discussion. You then tell these people, who have gathered together to discuss something they enjoy, that podcasts about that something are background noise. I mean, that might be the case to people that don't enjoy videogames, but you're not exactly preaching to that crowd. I really wish I could understand what you were driving at except causing a lot of consternation for no reason.


Oh, I'm pretty sure I know the QT3 audience quite well by now. I'm surprised no-one's brought up the obvious, and in that same vein, I'm thankful that you haven't.

[Doug Erickson]

Now you've gone too far.

If it makes you feel any better, I've fast-forwarded through Ira Glass, David Sedaris, Luke Burbank, and Terry Gross, too.

No, that probably doesn't help. :(

[Doug Erickson]

This is a great question. Someone should really get together a gathering of some of the best and brightest in games journalism and ask them.

like I said, let's ask the inmates why the asylum sucks!

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I think Jeff said earlier in the thread that Shawn had to make a new account because he forgot the old pw or something.

Man, how did I miss that.

The pw is probably something simple to. Like Compofheroes11.

Troy

[Etelmik]

Its agreed that that's what most game writing has come to. I actually agree with you. But these writers are, on the whole, not associated with the publications you name and you said you like Tom and N'gai.

But the questions haven't even been asked yet! Why not wait and THEN call bullshit as you see it?

And I realize you are on a delicate wire; naming names isn't a fair thing to ask, so I won't. I do think it's fair to ask if you have a problem with those ten writers, or the group as a whole. To me, they don't seem to fit the (accurate, IMO) mold you describe as the majority of games writing.

[Doug Erickson]

I called out Tom* and N'Gai as writers I don't have a problem with, and I'm largely okay with the Gamasutra set as well. Stephen's fine, too, and I think he really tries to give even the most obviously busted games a fair and thorough shake free from prejudice. The rest? Is it important that I call out who I think is crap for the purposes of this discussion?

*Except when Tom reviews RTS games. However, Tom (again, avert your eyes, dude) is a writer whose opinions I always have an extremely polarized reaction to, and I consider that a great thing -- it makes me think (even if it's about the role of attack-move in RTS games that don't need it). When we agree, it's like he read my mind. When we don't, my reaction is to reconsider my stance and do my own full-on evaluation. It's when writers regularly leave me disaffected or rolling my eyes that I become concerned with the larger state of affairs in the publications I read.

[Etelmik]

Is it important that I call out who I think is crap for the purposes of this discussion?

I don't really know. Actually, I've an idea. If you're willing, message me. I'd like to hear, but again, I am being sincere when I say it's not fair to ask it (or at the very least, very demanding).

As for the set you say you like, well, I guess it seemed like you were saying they were shitty, you know? It got beyond Ziff/1Up/EGM.

[Dave Long]

Eh, I totally get what Doug's getting at. I'd much rather see everyone simply try harder, play longer, and decide that their game writing matters more than they think it does, without turning themselves into a pompous ass.

But most of these guys at the review mills like Gamestop don't have time for that. Those of us that do this freelance (and sometimes as a second job) do have the time, but people rarely seem to give a shit about the work we do, and often the people on the inside at the big sites and mags aren't interested in paying the freelance pay rates. Much cheaper to have the guy on staff cover fifteen games instead of just ten while farming out the rest.

This symposium is the kind of thing that should be done over beers at a table in a bar, not in the public eye. Most readers don't care, and the ones that do will be out there looking for all the places you contradicted yourself as soon as they get done listening to what you say.

[Mike Pugliese]

It's when writers regularly leave me disaffected or rolling my eyes that I become concerned with the larger state of affairs in the publications I read.

Maybe it's just logic getting the best of me, but wouldn't this be enough reason to seek out alternate publications more in line with your preferences? With the industry as big as it is now, there's bound to be something out there that accommodates whatever it is you're looking for.

[BlueJackalope]

This symposium is the kind of thing that should be done over beers at a table in a bar, not in the public eye. Most readers don't care, and the ones that do will be out there looking for all the places you contradicted yourself as soon as they get done listening to what you say.

The ones that don't care wont read it. Or is Elliot's blog now required reading?

I don't get the animosity towards the attempt. Why not wait until you see what comes of it?

[Squee]

I sort of agree with Doug. I don't particularly trust ANY reviews any more, and I only read PC Gamer and EGM because I find free subscriptions and they're alright toilet reading. I don't agree with them 90% of the time, and actively get irritated at PC Gamer, but what the hell. And as for online reviews, I pretty much only watch video reviews any more so I can get some theoretically less staged footage of a game to base my own opinion on. Though I do like Tom's reviews fairly well. I don't agree with him all the time naturally, but I think it's more just because our tastes are different than because he likes to glom on to the newest game. He's also much better about pointing out flaws like in his GTA4 review than most other reviewers, which I respect.

Eh. Don't really want to bother posting much. Mostly just mentioning I'm another disgruntled gamer who doesn't read much in the way of "Gaming journalism" any more. Except The Brodeo and CGW/GFW. I actually enjoyed those. And now Jeff Green's working on The Sims 3, and surely his daughter will review it for 1UP as in previous Sims games and give it a perfect score. I'M ON TO YOU, GREEN!

[Doug Erickson]

I don't really know. Actually, I've an idea. If you're willing, message me. I'd like to hear, but again, I am being sincere when I say it's not fair to ask it (or at the very least, very demanding).

As for the set you say you like, well, I guess it seemed like you were saying they were shitty, you know? It got beyond Ziff/1Up/EGM.

So now I'm confused: are you saying that we should treat The Holy Ten as separate from the industry they are commenting on? Because as a consumer, I don't care whose name is on the byline, and this "symposium" purports to speak for the whole biz. Worse, I sorely doubt the IGN crowd is even listening.

Lastly, despite my obstreperous style, I sleep just fine at night with all this crappy videogaming journalism goin' on, so it seems kinda inane to witch hunt. I'd rather talk about WHAT SUCKS rather than WHO SUCKS, and the fact that we headed down this little branch of the delta makes me think that I'm right to call shenanigans on the celebrity wank suggested by this symposium effort. (The thread title was a little entendre on behalf of the fact that this symposium is a public circle jerk, rather than a quiet collusion of great minds. Seriously, the only folks who are going to pay attention are the forum voyeurs.)

[Gendal]

So lets get this straight. You are bitching about game writers getting together to discuss the problems with reviews because you think outside of two they are all wankers and can't learn anything from a discussion. They should just magically stop producing garbage and output what you consider is good, because god damn, it's so obvious.

Also we can't forget to throw in a conspiracy where it's just another grab for revenue from page views.

[Cubit]

what causes a seemingly sane veteran qt3 poster to start a thread such as this?

[Etelmik]

So now I'm confused: are you saying that we should treat The Holy Ten as separate from the industry they are commenting on?

Oh, give me a break; I don't deserve that kind of sarcasm.

There are two highly-related sub-topics in this thread: the content and the people who create it. You said earlier that games writing is done by people who don't play the games enough or do them enough service, and criticized most games writing as worthless.

I thought that was irrelevant, since the ten people in this symposium seem not to be guilty of your charges, but then again, maybe you think they do. That's why I asked those questions. Considering all of you've said, your opinion of the people in the symposium seems relevant to the discussion, just as your opinion of Elliott is. Just saying.

[Doug Erickson]

So lets get this straight. You are bitching about game writers getting together to discuss the problems with reviews in a public venue because you think outside of two they are all wankers often use their blogs to excuse the failings of the industry and can't learn anything from a discussionbe intellectually honest with their readers, so far. They should just magically stop producing garbageadmit their preferences and work styles, and seek advice from outside their own narrow cloister. You'd like to see them output what you consider is good, because god damn, it's so obvious, but you'd settle for better consistency of reviews for games of all stripes.

Also we can't forget to throw in a conspiracy where it's just another grab for revenue from page views.

Ehhh. C-. Do your homework and read the complete thread.

[Doug Erickson]

Oh, give me a break; I don't deserve that kind of sarcasm.

There are two highly-related sub-topics in this thread: the content and the people who create it. You said earlier that games writing is done by people who don't play the games enough or do them enough service, and criticized most games writing as worthless.

I thought that was irrelevant, since the ten people in this symposium seem not to be guilty of your charges, but then again, maybe you think they do. That's why I asked those questions. Considering all of you've said, your opinion of the people in the symposium seems relevant to the discussion, just as your opinion of Elliott is. Just saying.

Deserves ain't got nothin' to do with it.

They are purporting to speak for the industry as a whole. I'd prefer they not recuse themselves from the criticisms -- and I don't think they are, if Shawn's initial post is anything to go on -- and I'm not gonna draw arbitrary distinctions.

[Doug Erickson]

what causes a seemingly sane veteran qt3 poster to start a thread such as this?

Review my post history, homes. I always get testy in these NGJ threads, and I don't aim to stop. Do you read GAF?

[Cubit]

Do you read GAF?

you couldn't pay me enough

[EviLore]

you couldn't pay me enough

You're special. Have a gold star.

[MSUSteve]

That said, have you guys even picked up an EGM lately? Or GameInformer? Or play? Or read Gamespot recently? The state of reviewing is in awful, awful shape. I get the best impressions and reviews from forums like this, where I *know* folks not named wumpus have given these games a fair runabout beyond kicking the tires and peering myopically under the hood for texture pop-in. Why can't reviewing encapsulate the experience and thoughtfulness that goes into reviews on forums, only better and in less words? What's stopping them?

I think the above is correct in a lot of cases, though I'm not willing to throw everyone under that bus. Every site has people I like and think do a good job and others that I don't appreciate as much. Those that mail it in or dismiss a game solely based on its "kiddie" graphics are entitled to their opinions, but I'm also smart enough to seek out opinions from those that I respect more. Also, if I may ninja edit a little, I'd point to EuroGamer as consistently having excellent reviews. Even where I don't necessarily agree, I love the way they go about reviewing games.


I'd venture it's because they don't really like the games they review that much, but they sure do love their sense of industry participation. I don't care if the questions in a "symposium" are leading, but it's gotta be asked: why is the shit that gets written so damn inaccurate when it comes to the basics of any B-list game?

I know it's tough to dig stuff like this up sometimes, but I'd love some concrete examples of what you're talking about. It seems you're very riled up about so-called non-AAA games not getting a fair shake. I'd legitimately be interested in a couple of example games that you think got boned by the games press. Personally, I read a lot of this stuff, and while most isn't Shakespeare, I find what the reviews say about any particular game to be overwhelmingly accurate. Yeah, there are always the missed bugs and the oversights, but in my opinion and to my recollection, there aren't these massive review blunders and inaccuracies happening on anywhere near the scale you seem to be suggesting.


To me, this "symposium" is nothing more than the inmates complaining about the asylum. Get some folks from other journalistic venues to page through a GameInformer or a 1UP blog or a play spread and have THEM make suggestions. Send yer shiz to Roger Ebert (I can only imagine his response).

I guess that's one way of looking at it, though I'm not sure how you expect there to be any legitimate discussion of the "way it is" without engaging those that have either worked in the games press in the past or continue to do so now.

[Gendal]

Ehhh. C-. Do your homework and read the complete thread.
I did read the entire thread but you still come across as consistently incomprehensible. The hack job on my post was the most extreme example yet, even after I deciphered the broken strikethrough attempts.

[steve]

This is a great question. Someone should really get together a gathering of some of the best and brightest in games journalism and ask them.
I'd rather those ten people sit around and discuss the state of games, or specific games, than the state of game journalism. That would have more value to more people, and be a better use of their brainpower and superior analytical skills.

If you gathered 10 journalists together and said, "What is wrong with journalism?" The result may be an awesome list of things, but what next? Does every news institution suddenly change its policies? Few (if any) of these people are in positions to make changes and improve the level of discourse.

Offhand, I can't think of 10 film critics whose work I admire. If these 10 are doing all of the things they propose that all of the IGNs of the world should be doing---and honestly, isn't this really just a symposium about how much the big commercial successful sites suck?---aren't we doing OK?

[Matthew Gallant]

"The bottom line is it’s better to have ten good writers that require very little editing than ten awful ones."

–Chris Buffa, game writer

[DoomMunky]

What's great is that here we have 10 people who enjoy a fairly prestigious position in the game industry setting out to discuss the issues they have faced in that industry, and ol' Clever Doug here has a problem with the WAY they go about talking about it.

It fucking annoys me SO MUCH when a jackass like Douggie here has a problem with something and then criticizes other people for not addressing that problem in exactly the way he thinks they should.

Everybody is addressing it in their own way, man. Just like you're addressing it by being a frothing idiot, and I'm getting angry with you for it.

It's ironic. Like rain. On your wedding day.

[Doug Erickson]

Gawrsh, Sandy Vagina: I'm sorry I made a post regarding my opinion on a web forum dedicated to industry opinions! Maybe I should have held a symposium!

[Doug Erickson]

"The bottom line is it’s better to have ten good writers that require very little editing than ten awful ones."

–Chris Buffa, game writer

oh my.

[EviLore]

YOU'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 2002! YOU WERE ONCE A RESPECTABLE MEMBER, I WOULD WAGER! BUT YOU'VE THROWN THAT ALL AWAY WITH THIS DESPICABLY INFLAMMATORY THREAD DOUG ERICKSON! THIS IS AN AFFRONT TO MY REFINED SENSIBILITIES!

Man.

[Doug Erickson]

everywhere i go, people talkin' about me and not my message. am i an anti-celebrity yet?

[KieronGillen]

To me, this "symposium" is nothing more than the inmates complaining about the asylum. Get some folks from other journalistic venues to page through a GameInformer or a 1UP blog or a play spread and have THEM make suggestions. Send yer shiz to Roger Ebert (I can only imagine his response).


Christ, Harry Allen's on the fucking thing. You're not even paying attention before calling us tossers.



Seriously, the only folks who are going to pay attention are the forum voyeurs.


And each other.

I'm not doing this for you. I'm doing this to bash heads with some people whose work I like and see if I can learn something. As Dave says, this is the sort of thing we should talk over in bars... but the bars we work in are all over the world. We believe different things. There's some absolute fundamentals which are different between different areas of games writing. We've picked up different things, made different observations, got pig sick with different phenomena. I know mine, and have chewed them to death. I want to know what everyone else has, because I'm not arrogant to believe that I know everything.

Much like a manifesto I wrote a few years ago, it's not primarily directed at the games consumer. In fact, I think doing it in public may be counter-productive - because it feeds the cynicism of people like you, Doug. But doing it in public is the only way that the dialogue can actually reach any of our peers who'd be interested in reading it and applying it to their own thinking.

Or that's my take on it anyway.

Fundamentally: this isn't about you, man. Let us get on with it and maybe eventually it'll lead to some stuff you'll like. Which is, I suppose, the sickening thing about this. If games journalism improves, it only makes life a little better for people like you. You win.

Which is a bit depressing.

KG

[Doug Erickson]

While I hate to be a bit specious here (no I don't), there ARE other venues then public blogs with comment invitations.

That's not to say you SHOULDN'T use a blog, but don't act disingenuous: you KNEW there'd be people like me remarking on your collective self-distinguishment and presumption. In fact, I'd venture you WANTED the discussion to be completely public. Or you were just completely unaware of everything from closed forums to email distribution lists to MySpace groups to IRC channels to naughty naughty Second Life rooms.

OR even worse: you thought you'd go unchallenged. I know you didn't think that. Did you?

EDIT: As for my cynicism, have you read any reviews lately? Or do you deliberately confine your reading to your circle of fellows? Oh man, I promise not to extend that remark into metaphor.

[botherer]

The real question here is: how do you fast-forward through a podcast to find the interesting bits?

I've long found this a mystery. I mean, with video you can at least scan through and see things that will make you stop. But how does someone know when to start listening again to something audio? How do you know you didn't miss a great thought?

It seems to me that you'd have to be astonishingly arrogant to think fast-forwarding through a podcast is an effective means to find interesting bits. I can't think what other sort of person would think it possible.

JW

[KieronGillen]

Hey, isn't my party. I didn't decide the furnishings. I just told you why I decided to turn up.

But you miss what I actually said - doing it totally privately would mean than no-one other than the 10 could get something from it. Yeah, gawkers come by. But so do other games journalists - or people interested in games writing in a way more useful than just putting quotation marks around the phrase. They're the real audience for this shit. This is the equivalent of a GDC presentation about AI routines. You shouldn't give a damn.

KG

[Doug Erickson]

Oddly, I give quite a damn about GDC programming presentations. Are you extending your presumptions to intended audiences, now?

[DavidKaye]

Please, someone post some GIFs and save us from this aggravating troll. Where's Adree when you need him?

[KieronGillen]

You know, this is what I get for treating you as an adult. An adult I don't like, admittedly, but an adult nevertheless.



Are you extending your presumptions to intended audiences, now?


I extended my presumptions to your mum.

KG

[Dave Long]

Am I the only one amused by the fact that everyone here is acting like Doug is just some moron, when in reality he's had his own reviews appear in print and has proven himself many times to be a damn good writer?

Oops... I guess I just broke the thread... :)

[Doug Erickson]

The real question here is: how do you fast-forward through a podcast to find the interesting bits?

I've long found this a mystery. I mean, with video you can at least scan through and see things that will make you stop. But how does someone know when to start listening again to something audio? How do you know you didn't miss a great thought?

It seems to me that you'd have to be astonishingly arrogant to think fast-forwarding through a podcast is an effective means to find interesting bits. I can't think what other sort of person would think it possible.

JW

Oh, how very coy! They almost always list the topics of discussion on the download page. If I must be completely specific, I also rewind a fair bit. And click around on the little time bar. Istart the "fast-forward" when it gets boring, and arbitrarily stop until until becomes interesting again. The basic rules are: 1) wait for the nasally geek to stop rambling about arbitrary j- trivia or shit I already know; 2) skip the blowjob interviews unless I'm really, REALLY interested in the interviewee; and 3) stop when they actually start talking about GAMES -- specifically the ones I want to buy or have bought. Pretty simple, actually.

Haven't heard a great thought -- whatever that is -- yet on a gaming podcast, although I've occasionally picked up some real passion for the hobby underneath the nervous, didactic banter and buddy-buddy goofing.

Then again, I just load up a bunch of podcasts in the ol' MP3 player and let them spool on in the evenings. I'm not hanging on every word. Why would I?

[Doug Erickson]

Am I the only one amused by the fact that everyone here is acting like Doug is just some moron, when in reality he's had his own reviews appear in print and has proven himself many times to be a damn good writer?

Oops... I guess I just broke the thread... :)

Argh. Well, that's over!

[Doug Erickson]

You know, this is what I get for treating you as an adult. An adult I don't like, admittedly, but an adult nevertheless.



I extended my presumptions to your mum.

KG

I'm a veritable font of pat, convenient responses if you need a few here. Just PM me for a lifeline.

[botherer]

I think there's a more specific reason why everyone here is acting like Doug is a moron...

JW

[EviLore]

Am I the only one amused by the fact that everyone here is acting like Doug is just some moron, when in reality he's had his own reviews appear in print and has proven himself many times to be a damn good writer?

Oops... I guess I just broke the thread... :)

May as well mention Kohan while you're at it to really get this thread going!

[Dave Long]

May as well mention Kohan while you're at it to really get this thread going!
I believe you mean Kohan II, amirite?!

[Gabe Lewis]

Oh, how very coy! They almost always list the topics of discussion on the download page. If I must be completely specific, I also rewind a fair bit. And click around on the little time bar. Istart the "fast-forward" when it gets boring, and arbitrarily stop until until becomes interesting again. The basic rules are: 1) wait for the nasally geek to stop rambling about arbitrary j- trivia or shit I already know; 2) skip the blowjob interviews unless I'm really, REALLY interested in the interviewee; and 3) stop when they actually start talking about GAMES -- specifically the ones I want to buy or have bought. Pretty simple, actually.

Haven't heard a great thought -- whatever that is -- yet on a gaming podcast, although I've occasionally picked up some real passion for the hobby underneath the nervous, didactic banter and buddy-buddy goofing.

Then again, I just load up a bunch of podcasts in the ol' MP3 player and let them spool on in the evenings. I'm not hanging on every word. Why would I?

This, incidentally, is how I read books. I skip all that "dialogue" jibby-jabby, rip out pages with that "narrative" flim-flam and skip straight to the part where they tell me it was all a dream, or the dog turns out to be their alter-ego or something.

This, I find, is one step above using them as toilet paper. Which, occasionally, I still do.

[EviLore]

I believe you mean Kohan II, amirite?!

That-which-must-not-be-named has been uttered. *shudder* *hugs copy of Ahriman's Gift*

[KieronGillen]

The real question here is: how do you manage to insert your whole cock up your own anus?

I've long found this a mystery. I mean, with soft-cock it's easy enough to insert a bit into yourself then stop. But how does someone manage to get their whole cock up their own anus? And how does someone know when they've got the whole cock in? How do you know you're not missing a great half-inch?

It seems to me that you'd have to be astonishingly arrogant to think just by inserting your cock up your own anus would be an effective means of inserting your whole cock up your anus. I can't think what other sort of person would think it possible.

KG

[mittens]

Am I the only one amused by the fact that everyone here is acting like Doug is just some moron, when in reality he's had his own reviews appear in print and has proven himself many times to be a damn good writer?

Oops... I guess I just broke the thread... :)
I like that a person's work speaks for their knowledge in the industry, but I'm also of a mind that people should conduct themselves on forums in a way that reflects their knowledge. I don't really care if someone is proven or not if they can't show the same thing through their discourse (especially given the topic at hand).

This thread just seems like one person conducting a circular discourse about nothing when, really, the original post was a good springboard into the goals of Shawn Elliott's symposium and why or why not such things should be encouraged.

I like Shawn Elliott's ideas and while talking about games journalism may be, ultimately, pointless or silly it's still an interesting topic to talk about.

[Doug Erickson]

The real question here is: how do you manage to insert your whole cock up your own anus?

I've long found this a mystery. I mean, with soft-cock it's easy enough to insert a bit into yourself then stop. But how does someone manage to get their whole cock up their own anus? And how does someone know when they've got the whole cock in? How do you know you're not missing a great half-inch?

It seems to me that you'd have to be astonishingly arrogant to think just by inserting your cock up your own anus would be an effective means of inserting your whole cock up your anus. I can't think what other sort of person would think it possible.

KG

Have an enormous member, of course. You're British! You should be better at this!

[Doug Erickson]

This, incidentally, is how I read books. I skip all that "dialogue" jibby-jabby, rip out pages with that "narrative" flim-flam and skip straight to the part where they tell me it was all a dream, or the dog turns out to be their alter-ego or something.

This, I find, is one step above using them as toilet paper. Which, occasionally, I still do.

You heard it here, folks: gaming podcasts, the new replacement for literature.

[Gabe Lewis]

EDIT: I was just pointing out how useless your opinions on podcasts are. Not comparing them to literature.

[MSUSteve]

Am I the only one amused by the fact that everyone here is acting like Doug is just some moron, when in reality he's had his own reviews appear in print and has proven himself many times to be a damn good writer?

Oops... I guess I just broke the thread... :)
He's obviously a good writer. He's just not making a lot of sense and is being needlessly inflammatory. There are some valuable nuggets buried in all the trolling, I just wish we could cut out all the other BS.

[Doug Erickson]

Well, I'm not asking anybody to take my opinion on literature with anything resembling seriousness.

And I am? Perhaps I should have added a few more "motherfuckers" to help you along? What's happened to this place?

[Tom Chick]

Don't misconstrue this, but I sort of agree with Doug and Steve. Shawn's symposium is a fairly rarefied exercise in hi-falutin' wankery, which is sort of Shawn's forte. I doubt he'd deny it. Yeah, we should all probably be talking about how much Far Cry 2 rocks, which of us dumbasses are always shooting the witch in L4D, and why no one remembers that Sins of a Solar Empire is a 2008 game. But we'll probably get around to that stuff at some other time and place. Until then, think of this is a sort of written podcast and feel free to fast forward over it if the wankery gets too hi-falutin'.

Also, if you want to really get to Doug, just bring up Nintendogs. Check this out: Hey, Doug, how about that Nintendogs game? What else are you playing on your DS these days? Who would win in a fight between Kirby and your own personal Nintendog?

-Tom

[botherer]

I don't believe Douglas has ever invited Auntie Irony around for tea.

[Doug Erickson]

Oh, you didn't go there. Nintendo Dogs is my weak point. I might was well roll over and have Kaz Hirai scream at me.

[Doug Erickson]

I don't believe Douglas has ever invited Auntie Irony around for tea.


To the contrary; I'm incestuously straddling her right now. Jesus!

[Gabe Lewis]

And I am? Perhaps I should have added a few more "motherfuckers" to help you along? What's happened to this place?

If it makes you feel better, I realized how little sense that made a couple seconds afterword and tried to Ninja edit, but was out Ninja'd.

[Dave Long]

Also, if you want to really get to Doug, just bring up Nintendogs. Check this out: Hey, Doug, how about that Nintendogs game? What else are you playing on your DS these days? Who would win in a fight between Kirby and your own personal Nintendog?

-Tom
http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/items/assist/images/assist01/assist01_070702e-l.jpg

[Doug Erickson]

aw, it's adorable

[EviLore]

how much Far Cry 2 rocks

I drive 10 yards. I encounter military checkpoint. I kill all enemies at military checkpoint. I drive 10 yards. I encounter military checkpoint. In frustration, I attempt to bypass military checkpoint. Jeeps. Jeeps. JEEPS.

x 50 hours.

[Doug Erickson]

killing duders at checkpoints hasn't become old yet. in an astounding display of hypocrisy after years of excoriating the goal of "immersion" in videogaming, i am going to admit that the reason i adore far cry 2's forest despite its often crooked flora is because IT IMMERSES ME. it's so amazingly consistent in the execution of its -- i'm gonna say it -- paradigm that i can't help but be drawn in. oh god.

oh, and the overall lighting model implementation is so dreamy. this is why i should be forbidden to review anything. i'll give you 10 out of 10 for decent volumetric explosions and particle effects.

[mittens]

I drive 10 yards. I encounter military checkpoint. I kill all enemies at military checkpoint. I drive 10 yards. I encounter military checkpoint. In frustration, I attempt to bypass military checkpoint. Jeeps. Jeeps. JEEPS.

x 50 hours.
It's so fucking amazing.

[Dave Long]

aw, it's adorable
Kirby would kick its ass.

[JZigish]

I have to say my opinion of this symposium has been lowered slightly by how much troll feeding is going on here :)

Can someone explain this concept using a cat?

[seventimessix]

Kirby would kick its ass.

Why would Kirby kick its ass when he could eat it and steal its powers?

[Doug Erickson]

Sure, I'll bring it back on track. Game reviewing has a long, hard road cleaning up its most basic problems -- see: the thread on the IGN football manager review -- and the generally negative, disaffected impression many folks have of it. This root problem needs to be addressed before it starts to put on togas and wax dissertative over whether or not scoring systems are problematic or if the collusion between PR and publishers is too apparent. How about you learn to write about GAMES credibly, first? Give us some examples! At least THEN you're still talking about games, and not the processes. Perhaps Shawn should use his blog to pen reviews of current games from genres he might never typically play, and show us how research and an investment in the needs of his audience might transform the typical two-hour "gotta do it cuz the boss said so" blow-off review into something interesting and insightful. First up: Nightmare of Druaga PS2!

Totally pompous aside: I don't think many reviewers are willing to -- or even CAN -- invest themselves into spending the time they need with a game in which they aren't REALLY interested, in order to review it in a credible and nuanced fashion. It's fuckin' thankless, for starters. But it's the honest thing to do. It's okay to walk out, of course, as long as you say so -- after all, Ebert couldn't sit through Caligula, and that's only three-ish hours. The only reason I can explain the glut of ill-considered reviews across most magazines and websites that isn't specifically an accusation of nostalgia or manufactured fanboyish naivete (see: play magazine) is that they simply don't try to properly evaluate games that don't diddle their personal fanboy nubbins. Maybe a few like Shawn do (I'm just using him as a proxy), but if we're speaking for all of reviewdom here, THIS is the #1 problem that needs to be addressed. Fixing it pushes all the other issues off the table, because it keeps reviewers honest. THIS is the pink elephant in the very small room, and it doesn't take the pretend-play of a public symposium to grant the space needed to capriciously skirt it.

[EviLore]

killing duders at checkpoints hasn't become old yet. in an astounding display of hypocrisy after years of excoriating the goal of "immersion" in videogaming, i am going to admit that the reason i adore far cry 2's forest despite its often crooked flora is because IT IMMERSES ME. it's so amazingly consistent in the execution of its -- i'm gonna say it -- paradigm that i can't help but be drawn in. oh god.

Space alien, sir, you really must do a better job with your whole body snatching secret alien replacement scheme.

Anyway...really? I didn't think much of Far Cry 2's game world. As I said on my horrible forum that has no intellectual value and is stupid and scary andandandand *looks up post*


Far Cry 2 was designed by Sarah Palin. A thousand roads leading nowhere, with military checkpoints every 100 feet to prevent you from getting there.

There really is no sense or value to the game world's large space overall, except maybe for the sake of the different types of environments that get to be spread out vaguely more realistically than you'd normally expect. That's pretty thin, though, isn't it? The extremely repetitive missions and the excruciating military checkpoints you need to handle to complete them (among other problems) really place it as the worst game I've bought this year. But that might not be readily apparent. Given 10 hours or 15 hours or 20 hours into the 50 hours of military checkpoints, though, and it's hard to see that not taking its toll even if you're frightfully casual gamer immersed right now.

[Hugin]

Am I the only one amused by the fact that everyone here is acting like Doug is just some moron, when in reality he's had his own reviews appear in print and has proven himself many times to be a damn good writer?

Oops... I guess I just broke the thread... :)

He may be a good writer (I'm unfamiliar with his work), but his comment about film was legitimately, well, deeply stupid and wrong.

My favorite parts of the Far Cry map were the edges where you could drive and admire the scenery without encountering a ton of jeep patrols and checkpoints. I still want them to add dinosaurs and make a Lost World/Trespasser game.

[MSUSteve]

There really is no sense or value to the game world's large space overall, except maybe for the sake of the different types of environments that get to be spread out vaguely more realistically than you'd normally expect. That's pretty thin, though, isn't it? The extremely repetitive missions and the excruciating military checkpoints you need to handle to complete them (among other problems) really place it as the worst game I've bought this year. But that might not be readily apparent. Given 10 hours or 15 hours or 20 hours into the 50 hours of military checkpoints, though, and it's hard to see that not taking its toll even if you're frightfully casual gamer immersed right now.
I respectfully disagree. I'm around 75% done with Far Cry 2 (according to the convenient percentage done indicator found in game) and I'm still really really enjoying it. I think that FC2 is one of the most polarizing games of the year though. It seems that people either love it or hate it. People either focus on the checkpoints as an impediment to their enjoyment, or they enjoy the impediments that are the checkpoints. Both views are equally valid and well supported in my mind, which makes the discussion more interesting. It doesn't break down to two camps of fanboys going nuts at each other, but instead exemplifies two different, but reasonable reactions to the exact same stimulus.

As for the guard posts themselves, it's not hard to always be driving an assault truck. As you roll up on a checkpoint, simply pop into the turret and mow down the guys at the post. It takes less than two minutes to do so and you don't even have to get out of the truck. Also, and I know it was hyperbole, the guard posts aren't every ten yards. They're nowhere near as frequent as people say, but you will inevitably run across at least one on your way somewhere. This can be limited pretty effectively by using the buses as well.

[Doug Erickson]

Seriously?

Er...discussion of the state of film criticism has been a perennial topic of discussion by film critics and everyone else involved with film for decades, and film, film related academics, and film criticism are a significantly more mature field than their equivalent in video games. See also self examination of criticism/philosophy/editorial ethics or quality and quality in music writing, news journalism, sports, food, wine, theater, any industry that can manage to generate a distinct class of commentators/observers/critics.

Really? Do they hold public symposiums in the blogosphere and invite their fans to be the pivot man; or is it, dare i suggest, a more academic and closed engagement, appropriate for the rarefied language of the knowledgeable? 'cuz that's the distinction that drives my point, senor.

(In all honesty, Slate does this to some extent with its public dialogues between critics, but it's tightly controlled and focused, usually with a single concrete purpose -- and has a great sense of eye-winking humor about the whole self-aggrandizing affair, which lets us all in on the bigger joke. It's also an exception.)

[Hugin]

Really? Do they hold public symposiums in the blogosphere and invite their fans to be the pivot man; or is it, dare i suggest, a more academic and closed engagement, appropriate for the rarefied language of the knowledgeable? 'cuz that's the distinction that drives my point, senor.

(In all honesty, Slate does this to some extent with its public dialogues between critics, but it's tightly controlled and focused, usually with a single concrete purpose -- and has a great sense of eye-winking humor about the whole self-aggrandizing affair, which lets us all in on the bigger joke. It's also an exception.)

Wow, watch those goalposts move.

[metta]

Am I the only one amused by the fact that everyone here is acting like Doug is just some moron, when in reality he's had his own reviews appear in print and has proven himself many times to be a damn good writer?



This pompous arse is a professional game writer? A game reviewer? Like the guys that were invited to the symp ohhh... I see.

Well, that explains why he suddenly went off the deep end.

[MSUSteve]

Really? Do they hold public symposiums in the blogosphere and invite their fans to be the pivot man; or is it, dare i suggest, a more academic and closed engagement, appropriate for the rarefied language of the knowledgeable? 'cuz that's the distinction that drives my point, senor.
Well the symposium itself is only open to the public inasmuch as the responses by the participants are viewable. The public isn't participating in the discussion itself, except as we all do everyday via message boards, blogs, etc. Are you suggesting that for a "symposium" to be worth it, it has to be a closed off session where the unwashed masses are summarily excluded because they don't know the proper angle at which to extend their pinkies while sipping their wine?

I keep trying to understand what you're driving at, but you're all over the place. I mean, you go from ripping on podcasting to saying reviewers play games for only two hours to railing on the cult of game press celebrity. I can tell you're angry, but I really can't figure out what it's all about. I asked some posts back for concrete examples of so-called B-level games that you felt were treated unfairly and you blew past it to focus on base trolling. I keep trying to engage in meaningful discussion, but you just continue to hurl insults and act like a jackass. It's too bad because I'm interested in what your point actually is.

[Doug Erickson]

I'm a professional game writer what? Holy shit! So much for all those Computer Science classes!

Then again, anything beats trying to get these XmlSchema classes to validate my shitty XSD work, so HERE NGJ I COME! Will there be a pay cut?

[Bahimiron]

Am I the only one amused by the fact that everyone here is acting like Doug is just some moron, when in reality he's had his own reviews appear in print and has proven himself many times to be a damn good writer?

He's not proving it here.

[Doug Erickson]

Well the symposium itself is only open to the public inasmuch as the responses by the participants are viewable. The public isn't participating in the discussion itself, except as we all do everyday via message boards, blogs, etc. Are you suggesting that for a "symposium" to be worth it, it has to be a closed off session where the unwashed masses are summarily excluded because they don't know the proper angle at which to extend their pinkies while sipping their wine?

I keep trying to understand what you're driving at, but you're all over the place. I mean, you go from ripping on podcasting to saying reviewers play games for only two hours to railing on the cult of game press celebrity. I can tell you're angry, but I really can't figure out what it's all about. I asked some posts back for concrete examples of so-called B-level games that you felt were treated unfairly and you blew past it to focus on base trolling. I keep trying to engage in meaningful discussion, but you just continue to hurl insults and act like a jackass. It's too bad because I'm interested in what your point actually is.

I'm just responding to individual complaints, which are all over the place, and ranging from OMG YOU DON'T KNOW WHO SHAWN ELLIOTT IS to WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO CRITICISE to HAW YOU DON'T KNOW FILM to various semantic and prosaic nitpicks. I'll leave it to you to thread the whole exercise together. Some folks have managed to do so, it seems, and your crazy patriarchal god bless 'em for it. I'm sure if you use my larger posts in this thread as a guide you'll have no problems.

As for games that get poorly reviewed? Dude, I'm multitasking here. I don't read EVERY post. Here's a little starting list: the Dynasty Warriors games. Turn-based dungeon crawlers and roguelikes. Strategy RPGs. Military and flight simulators. Wargames. Football manager titles, apparently. On the other end of the spectrum, big budget games like MGS4, FF12, and GTA4. You name a game, I can find five reviews that just didn't get it, for good or ill.

[Cubit]

i think you would come off a lot better if you stopped responding to each individual complaint and actually laid out what your point is. i am among the people who fail to fully understand what the hell you are talking about.

[Jason McMaster]

Much like a manifesto I wrote a few years ago, it's not primarily directed at the games consumer. In fact, I think doing it in public may be counter-productive - because it feeds the cynicism of people like you, Doug. But doing it in public is the only way that the dialogue can actually reach any of our peers who'd be interested in reading it and applying it to their own thinking.

Or that's my take on it anyway.

Fundamentally: this isn't about you, man. Let us get on with it and maybe eventually it'll lead to some stuff you'll like. Which is, I suppose, the sickening thing about this. If games journalism improves, it only makes life a little better for people like you. You win.

Which is a bit depressing.

KG

So, I guess all the other writers out there, we're... standing on the shoulders of giants?

Wow.

[Doug Erickson]

<link to first post here>

[MSUSteve]

I've been with this thread since you started it and the only consistent thing about your posts is their inconsistency. I guess I'm just too dumb to mine the nuggets of wisdom from the extreme bombast. If I had to summarize what you seem to be saying purely from memory and without reviewing every post it'd go something like this:

1. Reviewers play games for 2 hours or less.

2. You hate individual game reviewers achieving any level of "internet fame" and react strongly to what you perceive to be their arrogance for attempting to (in your view) speak for an entire industry.

3. Game reviewers are in bed with publishers and PR and write terrible, misleading, tripe as a result.

4. You regard podcasts as audio toilet paper.

5. You hate the idea of the proposed symposium (and the word symposium) that seems to be organized to discuss the very things that you profess to be railing against, yet when confronted with this fact you state that people from OUTSIDE the games press or with no games press experience should be the ones discussing the problems you see in the games press.

6. Any "symposium" convened to discuss these issues should be behind closed doors to make it more official, important, and "academic". Having it in the "blogosphere" debases it. Also, game reviewers need to be more open and honest with their audience.

7. Game reviewers give preferential treatment/scores to games perceived as AAA titles and bag unnecessarily on B-level games (that they only play for two hours, of course). Moreover, game reviewers can't work past their own personal preferences to find value in games they are disposed to like.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

So, I guess all the other writers out there, we're... standing on the shoulders of giants?

Wow.

By "people like you" I think Gillen's talking about gamers who like interesting reviews, not other writers. Though some of us could certainly stand to learn a little.

Troy

[alexlitel]

Most readers don't care, and the ones that do will be out there looking for all the places you contradicted yourself as soon as they get done listening to what you say.Elliot has more than twice the Blogger followers of Robert Reich.


between different areas of games writing.How many are there again?

[Jason McMaster]

By "people like you" I think Gillen's talking about gamers who like interesting reviews, not other writers. Though some of us could certainly stand to learn a little.

Troy

Was that a sick burn?

PS: I said that because Doug IS a writer. I might have misread it then.

[Lh'owon]

oh, and the overall lighting model implementation is so dreamy. this is why i should be forbidden to review anything. i'll give you 10 out of 10 for decent volumetric explosions and particle effects.

Well a good review would say something perceptive about how volumetric explosions and particle effects contribute to creating an experience which engages and sustains the player, while in no direct way influencing the gameplay. Perhaps you could get really wanky and throw a "transcends" in there and consider what this sort of approach to games means for game design – if players are getting a significant portion of their enjoyment from elements that aren't strictly gameplay, perhaps creating immersive worlds should be a priority. That would be the sort of thing which would make a good, even excellent review. So in a sense it's good to score highly because of graphical effects, but only if they affect the player in the way FC2 does some of us.


This root problem needs to be addressed before it starts to put on togas and wax dissertative over whether or not scoring systems are problematic or if the collusion between PR and publishers is too apparent.

Yea, how dare some game journalists get together and talk about some of the issues with surrounding their profession. Not without JUST FIXING IT first, morons! You're basically asking for the entire standard of games criticism to be fixed by people who often have no control whatsoever over some of your basic problems, before they can even chat about stuff which interests them. The soccer manager game review, for one: I think it was John Walker who said he'd turn down any review he didn't feel qualified to write, so there's DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT for you.

I won't argue whether it's wankery or not, because frankly I don't care. If something insightful comes out of it then yay, if not, so what?


How about you learn to write about GAMES credibly, first? Give us some examples! At least THEN you're still talking about games, and not the processes.

So everything Kieron has written for RPS isn't credible to you? You don't think it elevates GAMES writing at all? You think his published reviews are part of the dreck that mires the already fetid pool that is games criticism?

If so, you're a bit of a tool frankly.

[Jason McMaster]

So everything Kieron has written for RPS isn't credible to you? You don't think it elevates GAMES writing at all? You think his published reviews are part of the dreck that mires the already fetid pool that is games criticism?

If so, you're a bit of a tool frankly.

He's a tool if he doesn't like RPS? tough crowd. Makes me a tool.

AS IF YOU PEOPLE DIDNT ALREADY THINK THAT WAKA WAKA

[Doug Erickson]

I wasn't addressing KG directly with that remark, inasmuch as said "symposium" isn't solely discussing the failings of the ten named participants.

[Doug Erickson]

I've been with this thread since you started it and the only consistent thing about your posts is their inconsistency. I guess I'm just too dumb to mine the nuggets of wisdom from the extreme bombast. If I had to summarize what you seem to be saying purely from memory and without reviewing every post it'd go something like this:

1. Reviewers play games for 2 hours or less.

2. You hate individual game reviewers achieving any level of "internet fame" and react strongly to what you perceive to be their arrogance for attempting to (in your view) speak for an entire industry.

3. Game reviewers are in bed with publishers and PR and write terrible, misleading, tripe as a result.

4. You regard podcasts as audio toilet paper.

5. You hate the idea of the proposed symposium (and the word symposium) that seems to be organized to discuss the very things that you profess to be railing against, yet when confronted with this fact you state that people from OUTSIDE the games press or with no games press experience should be the ones discussing the problems you see in the games press.

6. Any "symposium" convened to discuss these issues should be behind closed doors to make it more official, important, and "academic". Having it in the "blogosphere" debases it. Also, game reviewers need to be more open and honest with their audience.

7. Game reviewers give preferential treatment/scores to games perceived as AAA titles and bag unnecessarily on B-level games (that they only play for two hours, of course). Moreover, game reviewers can't work past their own personal preferences to find value in games they are disposed to like.

1. More specifically, they don't play the games long enough to form a credible opinion. This is demonstrated by any number of reviews that get the basic mechanics of less popular games wrong, or gloss over the long-term failings of popular games.

2. LOL WUT

3. LOL WUT

4. LOL WUT. This one might need some clarification, though -- I use podcasts as background noise, and I don't consider that a bad thing. I doubt Ira Glass would be offended that I don't hang on every word uttered in TAL. I probably shoulda ignored the podcast derail.

5. LOL WUT.

6. Yes.

7. Yes.

I'm not sure I'm the confused one, here~!

[EviLore]

So everything Kieron has written for RPS isn't credible to you?

Forget RPS, Warren Ellis pimps Kieron's stuff on his blog (http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=6820). Jealousy!

[Doug Erickson]

Isn't Ellis some kinda chaos magician or something? Like Order of the Hermetic Dawn Alister Crowley Qaballah-Gone-Wild magic? Fuck, I'd better make nice with KG post-haste -- wouldn't want my dick to get turned into a (very large) silverfish!

[Jason McMaster]

Wait, is Doug saying that Warren Ellis isn't credible?

FUCK THAT

[Lh'owon]

He's a tool if he doesn't like RPS? tough crowd. Makes me a tool.

AS IF YOU PEOPLE DIDNT ALREADY THINK THAT WAKA WAKA

I took his "How about you learn to write about GAMES credibly, first?" comment as "you guys, as of now, don't write about games with credibility". Which I thought was little harsh, considering I've read some good stuff by one of the participants, namely KG. You can certainly dislike RPS, just not all of KG's writing. That would make you a tool. Cause I said so.

[Bahimiron]

Isn't Ellis some kinda chaos magician or something?

If I pointed out that you're confusing Warren Ellis with Grant Morrison or Alan Moore, would you try to cover up your ignorance again by accusing me of being too obsessive about comic book writers?

[Tom Chick]

I once posted something about Warren Ellis working on Dead Space that required a picture. So naturally I just grabbed something off of the Internet. There: picture of Warren Ellis. But I had posted a picture of Warren Ellis, the guy from the Australian group Dirty Three who did the soundtrack to Assassination of Jesse James, which is all kinds of awesome. Now that's the kind of mistake a guy can get behind!

Doug, what did you name your Nintendog?

-Tom

[Jason McMaster]

If I pointed out that you're confusing Warren Ellis with Grant Morrison or Alan Moore, would you try to cover up your ignorance again by accusing me of being too obsessive about comic book writers?

It was a joke.

[Doug Erickson]

If I pointed out that you're confusing Warren Ellis with Grant Morrison or Alan Moore, would you try to cover up your ignorance again by accusing me of being too obsessive about comic book writers?

No, not in this case. I'm pretty ignorant of comic books.

[Jason McMaster]

I once posted something about Warren Ellis working on Dead Space that required a picture. So naturally I just grabbed something off of the Internet. There: picture of Warren Ellis. But I had posted a picture of Warren Ellis, the guy from the Australian group Dirty Three who did the soundtrack to Assassination of Jesse James, which is all kinds of awesome. Now that's the kind of mistake a guy can get behind!

Doug, what did you name your Nintendog?

-Tom

I'm praying for the day someone makes that mistake with my name. It's either going to be the most awesome issue of some gaming magazine or the most disappointing mistake in the history of THRASHER

[Doug Erickson]

I once posted something about Warren Ellis working on Dead Space that required a picture. So naturally I just grabbed something off of the Internet. There: picture of Warren Ellis. But I had posted a picture of Warren Ellis, the guy from the Australian group Dirty Three who did the soundtrack to Assassination of Jesse James, which is all kinds of awesome. Now that's the kind of mistake a guy can get behind!

Doug, what did you name your Nintendog?

-Tom

My daughter named HER Nintendo Dog "Grassy". There is also a cat named "Grassy" in Catz 2, which, for the record AND to give Dave an aneurysm, she liked better than Nintendo's DS opus.

I do not have a Nintendo Dog.

(yes I do, his name is "Alan Moore" :-] )

[Machfive]

People! People! Calm the fuck down, you are all ignoring the most INTERESTING question of all.

What's the over/under on how long it takes Tom to vet Shawn Elliott?

[checker]

I was kinda hoping people would list what they thought was wrong with game reviews and journalism and critique these days...

Naively,
Chris

[kentdog]

Would someone with a QT3 account please explain to Doug that only one section of the symposium addresses scores?

via Twitter

EDIT: Also via Twitter: http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5006/1172235001379yb5.jpg

[Bill Dungsroman]

Sure, I'll bring it back on track. Game reviewing has a long, hard road cleaning up its most basic problems -- see: the thread on the IGN football manager review

Aw COME ON, Doug. IGN. You don't call Lester Bangs out on the carpet because the dude who does the music reviews on a local campus paper only listens to the first 2 tracks before passing out from too many bong hits. You're too much forest and not enough trees is what I'm driving at here.



-- and the generally negative, disaffected impression many folks have of it.

Hahaha, you mean "you," but that's OK. Most gaming journalism is pretty terrible. More on that later!



This root problem needs to be addressed before it starts to put on togas and wax dissertative over whether or not scoring systems are problematic

They are. Quick -- whose fault is it? Think carefully.



or if the collusion between PR and publishers is too apparent.

This part was probably supposed to be worded differently. Publishers in collusion with their own PR departments! Why it's like oil barrel rate hikes and the Bush administration around here!



How about you learn to write about GAMES credibly, first? Give us some examples! At least THEN you're still talking about games, and not the processes.

"You." Who you? All gaming journalism you? Kieron Fucking Gillen you? Because if it's the latter, he's pretty much done that. If it's the former, then...well, you kinda just sound like a fartknocker.









Perhaps Shawn should use his blog to pen reviews of current games from genres he might never typically play, and show us how research and an investment in the needs of his audience might transform the typical two-hour "gotta do it cuz the boss said so" blow-off review into something interesting and insightful. First up: Nightmare of Druaga PS2!


http://i34.tinypic.com/2vdf995.jpg





Totally pompous aside: I don't think many reviewers are willing to -- or even CAN -- invest themselves into spending the time they need with a game in which they aren't REALLY interested, in order to review it in a credible and nuanced fashion. It's fuckin' thankless, for starters. But it's the honest thing to do. It's okay to walk out, of course, as long as you say so -- after all, Ebert couldn't sit through Caligula, and that's only three-ish hours. The only reason I can explain the glut of ill-considered reviews across most magazines and websites that isn't specifically an accusation of nostalgia or manufactured fanboyish naivete (see: play magazine) is that they simply don't try to properly evaluate games that don't diddle their personal fanboy nubbins.

Well see, there's this glut, right? Of journalists who are pretty lazy to begin with, OK. And you want they should...review games they don't even care for or about? And stop playing a few hours in as long as they admit it? Those ideas are some of those things that sound really boffo in your head like "All music should be free, man!" and "If two people meet and want to have sex, they should just totally be able to express that!" but in reality, it's a complete cock-up.

Also, it's sort of funny watching you complain about the symposium since it's as obvious as a pink elephant's ass-crack you're a big fan of pretentious twaddle, just not this particular instance or brand of pretentious twaddle. Is it because it wasn't your idea, or perhaps it was and they merely put it together first? I can dig that. I hate being beat to the punch on wankery specific to, and potentially capable of partially defining, my field of interest or expertise.









Maybe a few like Shawn do (I'm just using him as a proxy),

http://www.medicinefilms.com/flv/187958.jpg




but if we're speaking for all of reviewdom here, THIS is the #1 problem that needs to be addressed. Fixing it pushes all the other issues off the table, because it keeps reviewers honest. THIS is the pink elephant in the very small room, and it doesn't take the pretend-play of a public symposium to grant the space needed to capriciously skirt it.

Is the pink elephant standing on the dots that connect you lambasting Shawn Knight and the Pips for putting together a sympoconfereblogpodwebseminopanel of a sort in the potential interest of actually helping the field evolve or perhaps define itself with a modicum of professionalism, to you lambasting gaming journalism en toto for failing to attempt to do those very things?

Because really, at the root of it all, it just sounds to me like you're upset that they aren't doing it the way you want them to do it. I mean, sure, you're right about a lot of things in this thread, but I'm not sold on any of those things actually applying to your beef with the symposium, which from where I'm standing comes off like you not thinking enough of your own profession to consider it worthy of introverted discussion.






Oh, and one other thing: gaming journalism? Not as appreciably different, nor inferior, to other media journalism as you might think. Remember back when I said this:


Most gaming journalism is pretty terrible.

I secretly meant to say


Most journalism is pretty terrible.


And no, not just what's on the internet. Really Doug, if you think film criticism isn't rife with quote whores or C-team book reviewers don't skim to make their deadlines, well...pink elephant, Sugar Bumps.

[Dave Long]

My daughter named HER Nintendo Dog "Grassy". There is also a cat named "Grassy" in Catz 2, which, for the record AND to give Dave an aneurysm, she liked better than Nintendo's DS opus.

I do not have a Nintendo Dog.

(yes I do, his name is "Alan Moore" :-] )
I just got a shooting pain in my temple...

[Doug Erickson]

Well see, there's this glut, right? Of journalists who are pretty lazy to begin with, OK. And you want they should...review games they don't even care for or about? And stop playing a few hours in as long as they admit it? Those ideas are some of those things that sound really boffo in your head like "All music should be free, man!" and "If two people meet and want to have sex, they should just totally be able to express that!" but in reality, it's a complete cock-up.


Bill, do you think Roger Ebert sleeps through Pauly Shore movies, or gives them a the same shake he gives all movies? Just askin', is all.

Other than that, props for the old-school USENET-esque nostalgia kick that comes with overarticulated flaming, but really, there's not much to respond to beyond a qualified appreciation for the art (or at least your gusto for it) -- and a trenchant wish I was still sixteen enough to respond in kind.

[Spire]

Man, this thread was an amusing read. It reminds me a lot of some of the threads I've made over the years on certain boards. I would make a fiery post attacking some issue or another before I did my research and then spend the rest of the thread in a cloud of defensive fever, rapidly replying to every single post. I would try to backpedal and spin my way out of a crater and would ultimately convince myself that I had succeeded even though the only thing I had accomplished was persuading some that my original point was only slightly less retarded than they had originally thought. Thankfully I think I've learned to just keep my damn mouth shut but it does make me smile when I see others fall into the same trap.

[steve]

I was kinda hoping people would list what they thought was wrong with game reviews and journalism and critique these days...
Too many seem to spend more time talking about what's wrong with game reviews and journalism and criticism than actually doing something to improve the quality of game reviews and journalism and criticism.

[Doug Erickson]

Man, this thread was an amusing read. It reminds me a lot of some of the threads I've made over the years on certain boards. I would make a fiery post attacking some issue or another before I did my research and then spend the rest of the thread in a cloud of defensive fever, rapidly replying to every single post. I would try to backpedal and spin my way out of a crater and would ultimately convince myself that I had succeeded even though the only thing I had accomplished was persuading some that my original point was only slightly less retarded than they had originally thought. Thankfully I think I've learned to just keep my damn mouth shut but it does make me smile when I see others fall into the same trap.

Wow, it's one forum cliche after another around here! We've just played the "let's mis-summarize the thread for posterity's sake" card right after the classic hyperbolic flame, the hilarious demand for credentials,the "you're just jealous" gambit, and the classic LULZ TROLLZ canard. Can we complete the sequence by asking if I got picked on in high school, too? As they say on the SOHH forums: nicca, please.

Seriously, at this point, if this thread is all over the map, it ain't my fault. I've been interested enough to respond to the various requests, even those that were no more than semantic gerrymandering, trivia wrangling, and various character complaints. You should thank me!

[Aeon221]

http://www.marsneedsguitars.com/blog_pics/silence.jpg

[Doug Erickson]

Man, this thread was an amusing read. It reminds me a lot of some of the threads I've made over the years on certain boards. I would make a fiery post attacking some issue or another before I did my research and then spend the rest of the thread in a cloud of defensive fever, rapidly replying to every single post. I would try to backpedal and spin my way out of a crater and would ultimately convince myself that I had succeeded even though the only thing I had accomplished was persuading some that my original point was only slightly less retarded than they had originally thought. Thankfully I think I've learned to just keep my damn mouth shut but it does make me smile when I see others fall into the same trap.

Wow, it's one forum cliche after another around here! We've just played the "let's mis-summarize the thread for posterity's sake" card right after the classic hyperbolic flame, the hilarious demand for credentials, the "you're just jealous" gambit, and the classic LULZ TROLLZ canard. Can we complete the sequence by asking if I got picked on in high school, too? As they say on the SOHH forums: nicca, please.

Seriously, at this point, if this thread is all over the map, it ain't my fault. I've been interested enough to respond to the various requests, even those that were no more than semantic gerrymandering, trivia wrangling, and various character complaints. You should thank me!

Next up: you shoulda been nicer

[Doug Erickson]

NINJA

[MattN]

Despite winning the internet douchebag award of the week (an award that always has stiff competition for) Doug does have a point.
I would like to see more action being done to fix the review process rather than just talking aobut the issue. However, I think the SYMPOSIUM is a good way to really jumpstart the conversation with will in turn hopefully jumpstart change.
I think that everyone here can agree that there is a problem with the way the majority of reviews are conducted, and the amount of time it takes for someone to complete a review.
Personally, I haven't read a review in over a year. I just can't be fucked to read about how generic shooter X doesn't stand out from generic shooter Y and therefore shouldn't be purchased....3/5...7/10...B-
I know I might be the minority here, but what I want is more discussion on game themes and unique twists. That's why I listen to podcasts, especially GFW radio back when it was running.
I remember I had just beaten bioshock and was dying to talk about/listen to a discussion on the themes/messages/elements of gameplay from that game, unfortunately I am the only person in my group of family/friends who actually played it. It was so refreshing to hear other peoples opinion on it (I think it was Sean and Shawn). I know the spoiler implications make that a hard reality to implement, but I think there is a more elegant way to get this concept out there other than a message board and podcast.
I kind of A.D.Ded there but I guess what I'm trying to say is that there needs to be a change in the review process because the formula right now is boring as hell. Hopefully the symposium will influence a change in the way shit gets done.

[KieronGillen]

So, I guess all the other writers out there, we're... standing on the shoulders of giants?

Wow.

Sorry - what I was trying to get at was that all this talking about games writing malarkies is just people who want to do the job better. My point was for all Doug's hate at people talking over this stuff - in fact, anyone who spews hate about games journalism - if we* get anywhere, they win too. Which annoys me, because I'd much rather see people like Doug set on fire**.

I was feeling a tad bitter last night, and probably should have cut that whole bit, as it was just to get a light dig in.

EDIT: And man! I did it again. God, I haven't been the same since I had a go at worm over the Club. Weak.

KG

*As in, all of us who do this thing.
**I don't really care if Doug's a writer. He's being a cock, and since he's not showing much more insight than the average kid screaming BIASSSSSTTTTTTEEEDDZZZ!, I'm treating him as such.

[KieronGillen]

How many are there again?

More than you'd think. Americans and British games journalism is fundamentally not the same.

KG

[KieronGillen]

Forget RPS, Warren Ellis pimps Kieron's stuff on his blog (http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=6820). Jealousy!

Comes out this week, everyone buy it, etc, etc.

KG

[Jason McMaster]

Sorry - what I was trying to get at was that all this talking about games writing malarkies is just people who want to do the job better. My point was for all Doug's hate at people talking over this stuff - in fact, anyone who spews hate about games journalism - if we* get anywhere, they win too. Which annoys me, because I'd much rather see people like Doug set on fire**.

I was feeling a tad bitter last night, and probably should have cut that whole bit, as it was just to get a light dig in.

EDIT: And man! I did it again. God, I haven't been the same since I had a go at worm over the Club. Weak.

KG

*As in, all of us who do this thing.
**I don't really care if Doug's a writer. He's being a cock, and since he's not showing much more insight than the average kid screaming BIASSSSSTTTTTTEEEDDZZZ!, I'm treating him as such.

Ahh, OK. The worst part of this is that Troy was right.

[rabbit]

**I don't really care if Doug's a writer. He's being a cock, and since he's not showing much more insight than the average kid screaming BIASSSSSTTTTTTEEEDDZZZ!, I'm treating him as such.

What Kieron said.

What I find staggering is that we've got someone going OFF on the idea that someone would have the temerity to discuss some interesting topics in game writing, but then doesn't seem to actually know any of the folks doing game writing.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should know who any of us are -- hey, this is a damned small pond. But if you can both FIND Shawn's blog, care about it enough to hate it, and then post about it at the most inside-baseball game site on the net, then not actually knowing who Shawn is just sort of strikes me as reality-distortion.

-- Julian Murdoch

[MSUSteve]

I said:


2. You hate individual game reviewers achieving any level of "internet fame" and react strongly to what you perceive to be their arrogance for attempting to (in your view) speak for an entire industry.

See:


All this hemming and hawing has produced very little of substance, save the elevation of dubious personalities and this long-running yet predominantly silly meta-discussion of the "games journalism industry".


Massive apologies for not manufacturing celebrity distinctions around videogame fans. I'll keep that in mind should I ever decide to make a career change and barrel headlong into the world of internet fame!


...oooor if you're a humorless QT3 twat distressed over perceived blemishes on their golden calves, as it were.


So now I'm confused: are you saying that we should treat The Holy Ten as separate from the industry they are commenting on? Because as a consumer, I don't care whose name is on the byline, and this "symposium" purports to speak for the whole biz. Worse, I sorely doubt the IGN crowd is even listening.

I'd rather talk about WHAT SUCKS rather than WHO SUCKS, and the fact that we headed down this little branch of the delta makes me think that I'm right to call shenanigans on the celebrity wank suggested by this symposium effort. (The thread title was a little entendre on behalf of the fact that this symposium is a public circle jerk, rather than a quiet collusion of great minds. Seriously, the only folks who are going to pay attention are the forum voyeurs.)

I said:


3. Game reviewers are in bed with publishers and PR and write terrible, misleading, tripe as a result.

See:


I cannot count the number of reviews I've read where it was patently obvious that a reviewer played no more than a couple hours of a game at best, or had a clear agenda -- be it fueled by nostalgia or by PR flackery -- when penning it.

I said:


4. You regard podcasts as audio toilet paper.

See:


I'm actually a LITTLE concerned that y'all find these podcasts so memorable. They aren't exactly This American Life (or even Kevin Smith) -- they're background noise, by and large!


Haven't heard a great thought -- whatever that is -- yet on a gaming podcast, although I've occasionally picked up some real passion for the hobby underneath the nervous, didactic banter and buddy-buddy goofing.

I said:


5. You hate the idea of the proposed symposium (and the word symposium) that seems to be organized to discuss the very things that you profess to be railing against, yet when confronted with this fact you state that people from OUTSIDE the games press or with no games press experience should be the ones discussing the problems you see in the games press.

See:


To me, this "symposium" is nothing more than the inmates complaining about the asylum. Get some folks from other journalistic venues to page through a GameInformer or a 1UP blog or a play spread and have THEM make suggestions. Send yer shiz to Roger Ebert (I can only imagine his response).


like I said, let's ask the inmates why the asylum sucks!

Finally:


6. Any "symposium" convened to discuss these issues should be behind closed doors to make it more official, important, and "academic". Having it in the "blogosphere" debases it. Also, game reviewers need to be more open and honest with their audience.

It's pretty hilarious to me that you advocate reviewers being more open and honest with their audiences, while at the same time advocating they discuss the big issues plaguing their profession behind closed doors.

[EviLore]

Obsession.

[MSUSteve]

Obsession.
Well thanks for that man. I posted an off the cuff assessment of the various "points" Doug had made in the thread. He denied most. I went through his posts and showed exactly what he said that caused me to, pretty accurately I think, summarize his "points" the way I did. But if your best response to my reasoned and thorough post is that I'm obsessed, I guess I'll just say that's a bizarre statement coming from someone that owns the biggest web forum dedicated to games discussion there is. It's also an obnoxious, trollish thing to say and extremely fucking predictable. Anytime anyone crafts a thorough response to anything on a web forum some clown shows up with a one word post like yours. So congrats. Today it was you!

[Cubit]

don't mind evilore, steve. he is just jealous.

[Mike Pugliese]

So, I'm confused, is there anything worthwhile I should be getting from this discussion? Everything is so shrouded in douchebaggery that I can no longer tell if there was a point to this thread in the first place.

[Machfive]

Everything is so shrouded in douchebaggery that I can no longer tell if there was a point to this thread in the first place.

Welcome to QT3! Remember to tip your waitress.

[Etelmik]

Oh, this should be fun.

I think that was the point of the thread.

[salwon]

http://students.fim.uni-passau.de/~hansenk/bilder/futurama/fry.jpg

I love symposia!

[Eric Majkut]

No response from Shawn yet? Harumph.

[MSUSteve]

No response from Shawn yet? Harumph.
It's probably the right move, especially when there isn't much of a concrete point to actually respond to.

[Eric Majkut]

Right move? This isn't a billion dollar negotiation, it's making fun of a troll on an internet forum.

In this situation, funny move > right move.

[BlueJackalope]

No response from Shawn yet? Harumph.

Why would he?

Doug E. Not-So-Fresh has yet to articulate anything that needs a response.

[Shawn_Elliott]

I apologize for the apparent myopia, but the questions on my blog come specifically from the scores section. Several other topics are on the agenda, and “whether or not we complete games” figures prominently later on.

Nowhere have I suggested that I’m speaking for anyone other than myself. None of us are “purport[ing] to speak for the whole biz” – a presumptuous and absurd position. In fact, part of the point is that we’re not always in agreement with one another. This is not a manifesto-writing workshop. These aren’t all single-solution problems (in so far as writers, editors, and readers agree on what is or isn’t a problem in the first place), and it seems more pretentious to me to pretend that they are than it is to publicly talk about our concerns and the different ways in which we address them for ourselves or with our staffs.

You’re right in that this would amount to posturing or hand-wringing if all any of us did was write about how we want games to be written about. I now work for a developer. However, when I was a CGW/GFW editor I attempted to maintain practices consistent with my preaching. I’m proud of the writing I published in those magazines, and it was wonderful to work with Lara Crigger, Robert Ashley, Julian Murdoch, Tom Chick, Troy Goodfellow, Jeff Green, Sean Malloy, Ed Halter, and many other talented and thoughtful writers. I won’t bore you by listing our policies back then, but -- in my mind at least -- we made many bold decisions (*for an enthusiast magazine devoted to videogames*).

Maybe it’s all chicken choking, but I think you’re assuming a bit much before waiting to see what comes of it. I hope that didn’t sound too defensive.

[goz]

[My point is that game writers] don't play the games long enough to form a credible opinion. This is demonstrated by any number of reviews that get the basic mechanics of less popular games wrong, or gloss over the long-term failings of popular games.

I think that this is a question of raw economics. Game journalism pays a crappy hourly wage by almost any measure and so some freelancers and staffers alike take on more reviews than they can feasibly manage a month just to make ends meet (unless they make writing about games into a sideline rather than a primary source of income).

From the way you write I think this is something you've learned through experience rather than observation so you should know that addressing the question in this symposium can’t lead to any particularly meaningful discussion. These are the grim economical realities of the system and nothing's going to change that unless games start to get a whole lot shorter and magazines start to sell a whole lot more copies.

Do these realities mean that every game writer has sold their integrity down the river? Of course not. As you point out, it’s very often clear when a writer has only played a game for a fraction of the time they should have. If you’re writing for an esteemed publication with a knowledgeable readership then you understand this and will do everything in your power not to look like a tit and throw the possibility of future work or the publication’s reputation into jeopardy.

The aim is to always give solid and enduring criticism so that you get hired again.

Some reviewers maintain their integrity, others become compromised for a wide variety of reasons. Isn’t that the way it’s always been? What is there to discuss?

[EviLore]

someone that owns the biggest web forum dedicated to games discussion there is

I'M KING OF THE WORLD! *iceberg* *zombification sequel* *moderate arousal from current levels of misplaced internet anger directed at me*

[MSUSteve]

I'M KING OF THE WORLD! *iceberg* *zombification sequel* *moderate arousal from current levels of misplaced internet anger directed at me*
My "anger" isn't misplaced in that I find it irritating that you, or anyone else, would post a single word response implying that I'm an obsessive dork. Pointing out your affiliation to the GAF has nothing to do with me liking or not liking that forum. I simply meant that it's ironic for someone who is that involved in a message board devoted solely to discussion of games to call anyone else obsessive about game discussion.

[sluggo]

Just as fodder for the discussion, I'd be curious for Doug to point out a few reviews where he feels it's clear the reviewer didn't finish the game (or play as much as they should have).

I've been doing this a decade, and our review policy has always been: finish games, even if it's a 60-hour game like Fallout 3. And I'm not saying that to pat ourselves on the back, but more to point out that over the past ten years, as many people on these forums have worked and written for me, and I've gotten to know editors at all the other publications, rarely have I met anyone who preaches otherwise. Obviously, there are going to be exceptions where people cut corners and don't play as much of a game as they should, but in my experience, I'm just not seeing this as SOP for most publications and something that plagues more than a small minority of reviews.

To me, the biggest problem that infiltrates every corner of videogame coverage is the fact that there isn't a lot of money thrown around to attract the best talent. As a result, while you have a handful of really good writers scattered about, the general rank-and-file of most publications are unimpressive, mediocre writers. And so a lot of times, when you look at a review and it seems like the writer hasn't finished the game, I wouldn't be surprised to find the real problem is that the writer just sucks, that he doesn't know how to properly critique a game or write a proper review.

[EviLore]

Just as fodder for the discussion, I'd be curious for Doug to point out a few reviews where he feels it's clear the reviewer didn't finish the game (or play as much as they should have).

I can. IGN's God Hand review. (http://ps2.ign.com/articles/738/738253p1.html) GameDaily's The Witcher review. (http://www.gamedaily.com/games/the-witcher/pc/game-reviews/review/3106/1830/)

[Shawn_Elliott]

I can. IGN's God Hand review. (http://ps2.ign.com/articles/738/738253p1.html) GameDaily's The Witcher review. (http://www.gamedaily.com/games/the-witcher/pc/game-reviews/review/3106/1830/)

I suspect that reviewers often spend insufficient time with online multiplayer games, too.

[MattN]

I suspect that reviewers often spend insufficient time with online multiplayer games, too.
That may be true, but unless a game brings something new to the table multiplayerwise I don't see it as that big of deal. If your game has generic matchmaking, deathmatch, ctf ect. with 16 players then I don't see why a reviewer needs to spend more time on it. Looking at recent games that break the online mold i think their online elements got thier due time in a review. Games like CoD4's rpg elements, resistance 2's objective based games, or gears horde mode come to mind in this respect.

[Lysandus]

I suspect that reviewers often spend insufficient time with online multiplayer games, too.

What's the right amount of time to spend on a MMO?

[Jason McMaster]

I suspect that reviewers often spend insufficient time with online multiplayer games, too.

If referring to the MMO market, which I've done a lot of review/preview work for, I've usually found what I need about a game within the first 25 hours. It's almost impossible to explore every facet of any MMO in a reasonable amount of time.

[John Keefer]

I played Wrath of the Lich King for a full 10 days before doing the review. I started writing before I hit 80.

[Spire]

Wow, it's one forum cliche after another around here! We've just played the "let's mis-summarize the thread for posterity's sake" card right after the classic hyperbolic flame, the hilarious demand for credentials,the "you're just jealous" gambit, and the classic LULZ TROLLZ canard. Can we complete the sequence by asking if I got picked on in high school, too? As they say on the SOHH forums: nicca, please.

Seriously, at this point, if this thread is all over the map, it ain't my fault. I've been interested enough to respond to the various requests, even those that were no more than semantic gerrymandering, trivia wrangling, and various character complaints. You should thank me!

The various "cliches" aimed at you are not mutually exclusive. If this thread is all over the map, it's because of your manic, frenzied defense.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Bill, do you think Roger Ebert sleeps through Pauly Shore movies, or gives them a the same shake he gives all movies? Just askin', is all.

I think Roger Ebert gives as much proportionate time and attention to a Pauly Shore film as whatever gaming journalism equivalent you'd care to name does to a shitty game he or she reviews, yes.



Other than that, props for the old-school USENET-esque nostalgia kick that comes with overarticulated flaming, but really, there's not much to respond to beyond a qualified appreciation for the art (or at least your gusto for it) -- and a trenchant wish I was still sixteen enough to respond in kind.

There was plenty to respond to, Doug. You just don't have good enough answers for any of it. You can wave your hand over it if you like but you're not really fooling anyone, sorry.

And props to you for the old-hat forum troll action you've put together here replete with the typical postscript, namely the troll in question folding like a pup tent in a blizzard. Pink elephant.

[Dan Lawrence]

I'm actually really looking forward to the symposium.

Smart people talking about something they are very interested in, plus the fact that its fairly closely related to my own chief obsession, namely the craft of videogames.

If there is better videogame criticism I think there's a chance that we might get 'better' video games to be appreciated by it; or at least a different kind of criticism for a different kind of video game. I know when I'm reading a good review it sparks the creative neurons and I'm left pondering if I could have solved that design problem better, or if I could take what works from this game and fit it to my own designs. A bad piece of criticism by contrast is discouraging. If a reviewer seems ignorant of the medium or is phoning in their review then it just makes me feel, 'why bother?'. For me, creating things is a two-step of satisfaction, first pleasing myself and secondly pleasing the intended audience. If that audience isn't there, or if the critics who are hopefully going to communicate the good news aren't doing so, then making a game is a lonely affair.

So yeah, I think game review theory is worthwhile, the participants seem up to the challenge and I, as a member of the great unwashed would like to read the results.

[zengonzo]

Holy shit! What the fuck is going on here!? Eight pages since yesterday?

How come nobody invited me?!

One sec, I'm going to go find some funny internet pictures ..

[steve]

I'm actually really looking forward to the symposium.
I just think these these topics have been hashed out on forums and blogs in great detail for the last few years, to the point where it seems like people talk more about the review processes itself than the actual content of a review.

And why only talk to the people that have been talking about these issues? Why not bring in more people outside of the usual suspects? I think it'd be more interesting to talk to the Destructoids or Joystiqs of the world, or some of the more minor sites that are listed on Metacritic.

[Shawn_Elliott]

If referring to the MMO market, which I've done a lot of review/preview work for, I've usually found what I need about a game within the first 25 hours. It's almost impossible to explore every facet of any MMO in a reasonable amount of time.

MMO reviews are notoriously problematic. I meant games like Team Fortress 2 or Company of Heroes.

[Jason McMaster]

MMO reviews are notoriously problematic. I meant games like Team Fortress 2 or Company of Heroes.

That's the one aspect of reviewing that always bothered me the most. If you get your copy early, you either don't play multi or you play against the devs and a PR guy who either suck or throw the match.

That's why I buy the games I review now. I receive plenty of games from publishers for the other aspects of my work, but if I review something I spend my own money on it and I don't care if it's not the first review up.

[Dan Lawrence]

I just think these these topics have been hashed out on forums and blogs in great detail for the last few years, to the point where it seems like people talk more about the review processes itself than the actual content of a review.

Personally, I haven't seen what I would consider an in depth and wide ranging look into these issues; sure lots of articles around the edges on single topics that the syposiums seems to be looking into. I don't think there has been a sustained & focused discussion across the whole medium though, perhaps there was and it just passed me by. I think what I'm looking for is the back and forth of different ideas from several smart minds and synthesis of thought across different issues. I mean its not gauranteed the symposium will produce such insights but its surely worth a try.


And why only talk to the people that have been talking about these issues? Why not bring in more people outside of the usual suspects? I think it'd be more interesting to talk to the Destructoids or Joystiqs of the world, or some of the more minor sites that are listed on Metacritic.

I guess its a two-fold question of would they be interested in the time investment and would they have anything useful to contribute? If you haven't already been thinking about the craft of videogame criticism then maybe the symposium would be a bit daunting. If they have something worthwhile to say then I would say; bring 'em on, but its not my symposium and I think at some point you just have enough contributors. Perhaps, for a future symposiums a more tabloid (as I am perhaps mischaracterising joystiq and destructoid) perspective on games criticism would be interesting as well.

[MSUSteve]

Holy shit! What the fuck is going on here!? Eight pages since yesterday?

How come nobody invited me?!

Really zen! I missed the support you usually throw my way.


That's the one aspect of reviewing that always bothered me the most. If you get your copy early, you either don't play multi or you play against the devs and a PR guy who either suck or throw the match.

That's why I buy the games I review now. I receive plenty of games from publishers for the other aspects of my work, but if I review something I spend my own money on it and I don't care if it's not the first review up.

This, in my opinion, might be the most problematic thing facing game reviewers. If only they could somehow be insulated from the economic benefits (at least I assume this to be the case) to being one of the first reviews out there. Having reviews come late, but be more thoughtful and perhaps even full of discussion involving heavy "spoilers" could be excellent. Of course these sorts of reviews (post mortems perhaps?) would not serve the role of consumer reporting that many people rely on before dropping $60 on a game. But damn, I'd pay good money for a subscription to a magazine (even if it only came out quarterly) that took this sort of approach and packed in interesting features that gave a more inside look into the production of the games themselves.

[Dave Long]

But damn, I'd pay good money for a subscription to a magazine (even if it only came out quarterly) that took this sort of approach and packed in interesting features that gave a more inside look into the production of the games themselves.
Right here... this is why stuff like this symposium is a waste of time. You've been informed on Qt3 multiple times about this magazine...

http://www.imsnews.com/home.php?page=magPage&pubid=431

...which contains exactly what you ask for. This one has also been mentioned...

https://secure.widearea.co.uk/cisubs/IMAG/GTM/WEB001

...and is similarly excellent for what you want.

But like this symposium, it's a waste of time to post this because no one cares. You don't want a good videogame magazine. You want something free that you can click on and forget about. I'd post the link to Crispy Gamer, but why bother with that? You'll just tell me how awful the site design is or some other ridiculous excuse to enjoy something a little better.

If you folks are so interested in great games writing, why aren't you reading Edge? N'Gai has a column every month. You can even get much of the content from EDGE Online.

Bah... why do I bother.

[Dan Lawrence]

I don't know I expect a lot of people on here read EDGE. I know I read it every month.

[Dave Long]

I don't know I expect a lot of people on here read EDGE. I know I read it every month.
I expect you'd be wrong.

[Jason McMaster]

This, in my opinion, might be the most problematic thing facing game reviewers. If only they could somehow be insulated from the economic benefits (at least I assume this to be the case) to being one of the first reviews out there. Having reviews come late, but be more thoughtful and perhaps even full of discussion involving heavy "spoilers" could be excellent. Of course these sorts of reviews (post mortems perhaps?) would not serve the role of consumer reporting that many people rely on before dropping $60 on a game. But damn, I'd pay good money for a subscription to a magazine (even if it only came out quarterly) that took this sort of approach and packed in interesting features that gave a more inside look into the
production of the games themselves.

I couldn't agree more. My reviews don't have the audience that Tom or Kieron, but I've made it my personal mission statement to buy any game I review. Of course, I've reviewed gold code and review copies in the past and I've never given them a free pass, but I've found that I feel better knowing what the person reading my review is thinking about: is this game worth my money? If I can help even one person make a decision that leads them to enjoying a game or avoiding something I think is bad then I can take pride in what I've written.

[Jason McMaster]

I really like EDGE but never ended up subscribing due to cost. I try to pick up a few issues a year though. I really loved NextGen.

[Doug Erickson]

Hence, hand-wringing. The symposium is nothing more than the current self-titled literati rehashing issues no-one is prepared to actually solve, and again, it sounds like an excuse to, well, make excuses.

Show, don't tell, yadda yadda hey.

[perrinbar]

Hence, hand-wringing. The symposium is nothing more than the current self-titled literati rehashing issues no-one is prepared to actually solve, and again, it sounds like an excuse to, well, make excuses.

Show, don't tell, yadda yadda hey.

You really are just being a dick and that's all I care to say about it. If you really feel like it's so stupid, IGNORE IT. Christ. Don't be such an asshole to people who are trying to do something they think is important.

[Pogo]

Will you just shut the fuck up already?

[Doug Erickson]

I'm being a dick because I post an inflammatory opinion on a web forum full of folks with controversial opinions? When did the intertubes get clogged with so many big girl's blouses?

[perrinbar]

I'm being a dick because I post an inflammatory opinion on a web forum full of folks with controversial opinions? When did the intertubes get clogged with so many big girl's blouses?


Yeah sure why not? Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make you less of a dick.

[Cubit]

You really are just being a dick and that's all I care to say about it. If you really feel like it's so stupid, IGNORE IT. Christ. Don't be such an asshole to people who are trying to do something they think is important.

I'll second this ^

[MSUSteve]

Right here... this is why stuff like this symposium is a waste of time. You've been informed on Qt3 multiple times about this magazine...

http://www.imsnews.com/home.php?page=magPage&pubid=431

...which contains exactly what you ask for. This one has also been mentioned...

https://secure.widearea.co.uk/cisubs/IMAG/GTM/WEB001

...and is similarly excellent for what you want.

But like this symposium, it's a waste of time to post this because no one cares. You don't want a good videogame magazine. You want something free that you can click on and forget about. I'd post the link to Crispy Gamer, but why bother with that? You'll just tell me how awful the site design is or some other ridiculous excuse to enjoy something a little better.

If you folks are so interested in great games writing, why aren't you reading Edge? N'Gai has a column every month. You can even get much of the content from EDGE Online.

Bah... why do I bother.

It's nice of you to presume to know so much about me. I'd love to subscribe to Edge or Games, but I've balked at paying $70+ a year for the pleasure. Somewhere around $50 a year would be ideal, though I'm getting closer to simply giving in and getting an Edge subscription. I should've clearly stated that in my original post, but I didn't realize I was going to come under attack.

Also, thanks for assuming that I'm some kind of fucking moron that couldn't possibly appreciate Crispy Gamer and who wants to simply click on something forgettable. John Keefer brought Crispy Gamer to my attention earlier today (previously I'd clicked through links to Tom's reviews, but hadn't spent time browsing the site) and after spending quite some time with the site, I've decided it'll be an open tab from now on, just like Qt3 is. John brought the site to my attention in a much less caustic way to boot, which was much appreciated compared to your shit flinging rant. I mean, seriously dude. Why are you so angry? Haven't I been more than reasonable in all of my dealings on this board in the short time I've been a denizen?

By the way, I'm quite enamored with the site design of Crispy Gamer, for what it's worth.

Edit: Like Jason I was a NextGen subscriber back in the day. That was a fantastic magazine and was by far my favorite.

[steve]

Personally, I haven't seen what I would consider an in depth and wide ranging look into these issues; sure lots of articles around the edges on single topics that the syposiums seems to be looking into.
I'd say that largely because it's incredibly self-indulgent to think that the people paying for your publication---either by literally paying for it at a newsstand or by blocking those wonderful ads---are as interested in the process you use to cover games as the games themselves. These are game websites, not game website websites.

People seem to think there's more of a need to know the process behind writing a review of a game than there is for writing about war on terror. It's bizarre.


Perhaps, for a future symposiums a more tabloid (as I am perhaps mischaracterising joystiq and destructoid) perspective on games criticism would be interesting as well.
That's the thing: that style is already dominant, and the move to video will make things worse. To start with the old-school, and "this is how it should be," seems misguided.

[Dave Long]

It's nice of you to presume to know so much about me. I'd love to subscribe to Edge or Games, but I've balked at paying $70+ a year for the pleasure. Somewhere around $50 a year would be ideal, though I'm getting closer to simply giving in and getting an Edge subscription. I should've clearly stated that in my original post, but I didn't realize I was going to come under attack.

Also, thanks for assuming that I'm some kind of fucking moron that couldn't possibly appreciate Crispy Gamer and who wants to simply click on something forgettable. John Keefer brought Crispy Gamer to my attention earlier today (previously I'd clicked through links to Tom's reviews, but hadn't spent time browsing the site) and after spending quite some time with the site, I've decided it'll be an open tab from now on, just like Qt3 is. John brought the site to my attention in a much less caustic way to boot, which was much appreciated compared to your shit flinging rant. I mean, seriously dude. Why are you so angry? Haven't I been more than reasonable in all of my dealings on this board in the short time I've been a denizen?

By the way, I'm quite enamored with the site design of Crispy Gamer, for what it's worth.

Edit: Like Jason I was a NextGen subscriber back in the day. That was a fantastic magazine and was by far my favorite.
It's frustrating because that kind of stuff has been posted a zillion times, you now clearly knew about it beforehand, and yet you still moaned about not getting exactly what you want.

Go back and read your post, and then read your reply to me. I think you'll agree that the part I quoted in your first post never needed to happen. You had the options available to you. Instead you make it seem like there's nothing worth reading, and I'm so sick of hearing that when the stuff is out there for people to read.

[MSUSteve]

It's frustrating because that kind of stuff has been posted a zillion times, you now clearly knew about it beforehand, and yet you still moaned about not getting exactly what you want.

Go back and read your post, and then read your reply to me. I think you'll agree that the part I quoted in your first post never needed to happen. You had the options available to you. Instead you make it seem like there's nothing worth reading, and I'm so sick of hearing that when the stuff is out there for people to read.
You're right. I should've punchily said, "I wish there was a reasonably priced (preferably under $50 per year) American magazine that did all the same stuff that people say Edge and Games do," because that's what I meant. To stave off future hate I will attempt to be as mind numbingly specific as possible in all of my posts. So yeah, I guess I deserve to be the butt of your bizarrely placed rancor.

[Doug Erickson]

NextGen? The same mag that gave Turok 2 for the N64 five stars -- BEFORE IT WAS EVEN RELEASED?

[John Keefer]

NextGen? The same mag that gave Turok 2 for the N64 five stars -- BEFORE IT WAS EVEN RELEASED?

I'm sure EVERY site or mag has a review or 5 that they wish they had never posted.

[DoomMunky]

I'm being a dick because I post an inflammatory opinion on a web forum full of folks with controversial opinions? When did the intertubes get clogged with so many big girl's blouses?
Doug Erickson: Biggest tapir in a roomful of tapirs.

[Bahimiron]

Bah... why do I bother.

I've wondered that for a while.


I expect you'd be wrong.

God, you're such a Dave Long.

[JPR]

I can. IGN's God Hand review. (http://ps2.ign.com/articles/738/738253p1.html) GameDaily's The Witcher review. (http://www.gamedaily.com/games/the-witcher/pc/game-reviews/review/3106/1830/)

Speaking as someone who never finished God Hand, why is it obvious they didn't finish the game? It's obvious that they didn't "get it" and didn't pay much attention to some of the mechanics, but it's not clear to me that they didn't complete the game.

[Jon Rowe]

Why does everyone care so much about something so subjective as an opinion on a game.

[Pogue Mahone]

Addendum to Jon's question: why do we take game reviewers' opinions so seriously? Do you (general you, mind you) really care what some random joe rates some other random game?

[metta]

Do you (general you, mind you) really care what some random joe rates some other random game?

I'll take this question seriously.

I read a variety of gaming sites - Gamespot, GameSpy, Kotaku - just to keep up on how various titles are being received and get general game news. Some games I know I'm going to buy (based on the developer, continuing series, or subject matter) and if it's a big game that I'm pretty sure most folks are going to like (Fallout 3, Bioshock) then I purposefully don't read reviews so as not to sully my game experience. If it's a gamble for me - a new game, new developer - that caught my eye I will pay close attention to what reviewers are saying. If enough people rate a game as lousy then I won't buy it.

I also read a variety of gaming sites - Fidgit, Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Flash of Steel - because of the writers working those sites. Tom can get me to try a title I never would have picked up. Kieron makes me laugh and think, often at the same time. And Troy SG writes seriously and with great care about one of my favourite genres. All three of them can make games I have no desire to play interesting to read about.

I also subscribe to EDGE magazine. It's about $150 a year here in Canada and worth every penny. Regular sections like 'Time Extended' and 'The Making of...' make this mag a must-buy for me. The quality (as in, analytical quality) of the reviews is gravy. EDGE covers all the platforms in our house - Xbox 360, Wii, NDS, PSP - in one gorgeous, thoughtful package.

By 'random joe' I guess you mean someone I don't know personally. I would say that XXhamstarXXX on GAF is a random joe. You are a random joe. The writers that I regularly read have built up a body of work over time such that I can rely on their opinions. I may not always agree with them, but they are always interesting and entertaining.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Hence, hand-wringing. The symposium is nothing more than the current self-titled literati

Where do they declare themselves that?

[Doug Erickson]

Do they hafta spell it out for you? You're a fine one to play semantic games, as the forum's queen of histrionic hyperbole!


Leigh Alexander http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/
Robert Ashley http://www.myspace.com/icometoshanghai
Tom Chick http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/
N'Gai Croal http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/
John Davison http://www.whattheyplay.com/
Jeff Gerstmann http://www.giantbomb.com/
Kieron Gillen http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/
Dan Hsu http://sorethumbsblog.com/
Francesca Reyes http://www.oxmonline.com/
Stephen Totilo http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/

I trust you will recognize these names. In addition, journalist, photographer, hip hop activist, and radio host Harry Allen ( http://harryallen.info/ ) has agreed to contribute to the conversation when appropriate (i.e. whenever the fuck he wants). We're fortunate to have him.

This is a big, ambitious project that will span several months as the following paste should suggest.

[Bahimiron]

I do recognize those names, though.

I'd be willing to bet most of us do.

There's no statement of 'literati' there. It's a statement of fact. If you're reading Shawn Elliot's blog with any regularity, you're likely the kind of person who knows who John Davison, Dan Hsu and Stephen Totilo are.

Oh, and he says that the project will be 'big' and 'ambitious'. That's pretty damning. When I rebuilt my kitchen I thought that it was a pretty big and ambition project. Does that mean I was thinking of myself as amongst finest kitchen guys in the world?

[kentdog]

What would you have us do?

[Bill Dungsroman]

Do they hafta spell it out for you? You're a fine one to play semantic games, as the forum's queen of histrionic hyperbole!

I am a fine one to play semantic games, you squeaky twerp. It's glaringly obvious at this point that your entire issue with this is that you weren't invited.

You're upset at how Shawn and KG and the gang act like they're the elite - because you weren't included in the roll call. Ohhhhh, that just has to burn with the fire of a thousand thousand suns, doesn't it? How's the weather there, out in the cold, sucker? You sulk like nobody's business.

I bet if you'd been invited, the entire internet would stink of your farts. Maybe that's why you weren't. "I wouldn't go anyway!" Yeah, right.

Writers who think this is probably a waste of time, they'd perhaps say something, somewhere. Offer their two cents. But you, you didn't get picked for kickball by the cool kids at recess and now you're shitting your pants violently in the quad in protest.

Pink elephant.

[Pogue Mahone]

content

Your response strikes me as a, pardon me, adult outlook on things. I'm asking the question due to the striking quantity of, ah hell juvenile reactions to Tom's end-of-year pieces, not to mention the incredible sound and fury over a goddamn meeting of the minds over games and the content of games reviews.

If you'll allow me to refine my question: how many times have game reviews provoked an emotional response, for instance incoherent rage? I frequently disagree with Tom's conclusions but I keep reading his reviews because of, hey! entertainment value. Sometimes I even base purchasing decisions off these reviews, but those occasions are the exceptions. Hell, I read Tom's reviews for games I couldn't care less about (any given RTS) just because I figure it'll be a good read. If it's not, screw it -- I'm out maybe a couple minutes of my life. Hardly fodder for a complete internet meltdown.

So, do you take reviews from a random joe (Tom, me, Consumer Reports) seriously? I propose you do not. At least no more than they merit.

[Doug Erickson]

I am a fine one to play semantic games, you squeaky twerp. It's glaringly obvious at this point that your entire issue with this is that you weren't invited.

You're upset at how Shawn and KG and the gang act like they're the elite - because you weren't included in the roll call. Ohhhhh, that just has to burn with the fire of a thousand thousand suns, doesn't it? How's the weather there, out in the cold, sucker? You sulk like nobody's business.

I bet if you'd been invited, the entire internet would stink of your farts. Maybe that's why you weren't. "I wouldn't go anyway!" Yeah, right.

Writers who think this is probably a waste of time, they'd perhaps say something, somewhere. Offer their two cents. But you, you didn't get picked for kickball by the cool kids at recess and now you're shitting your pants violently in the quad in protest.

Pink elephant.

Tee hee. Why would I be invited? I'm a mediocre reviewer, and reviewing has and never will be my job, outside of the occasional freelance gig industry peeps have asked of me -- and be it on their own heads. I'm a software middle manager of several years, and have all the creative and critical ambition the role demands. Certainly, if I wanted to participate in such a thing, I could just start my own blog, or ask for gigs, or follow the ten billion obvious paths that all lead to a Kyle Orland-esque fate.

Really, though, can't I just have a loud opinion -- like you, my sweaty and bellicose friend?

(Meta: I can't believe you went down in three, Bill. Jesus! Sans the shrill oneupsmanship of the OMM forums as context, you just kinda thrash about, hoping that the giant internet combo meter on your screen will give you the points you want. As Terry Bogard says: Get seelious!)