shawn elliott likes it when you watch

[Jason McMaster]

Originally Posted by KieronGillen

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]

Originally Posted by Jason McMaster

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]

Originally Posted by Dave Long

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.

Originally Posted by KieronGillen

between different areas of games writing.

How many are there again?

[Jason McMaster]

Originally Posted by Troy S Goodfellow

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]

Originally Posted by Doug Erickson

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.

Originally Posted by Doug Erickson

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?

Originally Posted by Doug Erickson

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]

Originally Posted by Lh'owon

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Lh'owon

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

Forget RPS, Warren Ellis pimps Kieron's stuff on his blog. 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]

Originally Posted by Jason McMaster

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]

Originally Posted by Doug Erickson

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?

[TomChick]

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]

Originally Posted by bahimiron

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]

Originally Posted by bahimiron

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]

Originally Posted by TomChick

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]

Originally Posted by TomChick

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]

Originally Posted by Shawn Elliott

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/img72/500...5001379yb5.jpg

[Bill Dungsroman]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by Doug Erickson

-- 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!

Originally Posted by Doug Erickson

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.

Originally Posted by Doug Erickson

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!

Originally Posted by Doug Erickson

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.

Originally Posted by Doug Erickson

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!

Originally Posted by Doug Erickson

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.

Originally Posted by Doug Erickson

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

Originally Posted by Doug Erickson

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:

Originally Posted by Me

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]

Originally Posted by Doug Erickson

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]

Originally Posted by Bill Dungsroman

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]

Originally Posted by checker

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]