A bit back there was a
Zero punctuation review of Halo 3 in which the guy with the crazy accent admitted that he hadn't played any of the other Halo games but that he was now going to review this one. I realize that his reviews are more of a funny joke but it speaks to a greater problem within the world of gaming journalism and the attitude people take towards it. There seems to be a prevailing idea that gaming journalists need not be educated in their field, its history, and the influences that games have.
How could you possible review any game, let alone Halo 3, if you didn't know the background and experience the history of one of the most influential games in gaming history? Far too often you see the caveat at the beginning of the review that a reviewer hasn't played the first game or a writer will clearly miss the influences of one game on another simply because he hasn't played it. As a gaming journalist shouldn't you know where games came from not just where they are going?
It is absolutely ridiculous that any gaming writer wouldn't play a game that is highly influential to the medium. “It's not my type of game” is not an excuse if it is your job to be able to critique and comment on a game. A writer should know all styles of games and have played the ones that really matter. I am not saying that a gaming critic needs to play every game ever released but there are certain games that anyone who is seriously in this business must play no matter what. It is in fact their job to play these games and be able to apply their ideas and influences to current games.
I'm a film critic. If I told you I hadn't seen "Citizen Kane" and didn't understand the major impact it had on filmmaking you'd laugh me to the next block and disregard my opinion. Or lets say I am reviewing a zombie movie but I've never seen "Night of the Living Dead" (I have). I would argue that that pretty much invalidates or at least weakens any opinion I have on any zombie movie. It should be the same for games. These are extreme examples but stuff like this happens all the time in game reviews all over the place, even at the big boys like IGN, where it is nothing but they're job to be educated in gaming. If someone reviews
Metroid Corruption and they have never played Super Metroid they don't know exactly where the game is coming from. Not having played any of the Primes would be even more of a crime and yet I’ve read reviews at legitimate websites where the critic hadn’t played the either of them.
I understand that games take time to play through, and much like a film or art you can't see all the movies or all the paintings, but a journalist needs to make sure they have the classics played and that they know their shit. If you're playing a sequel it is your job to play the original, to have played at least a few games that may have influenced it. To know where that game is coming from is just as important as knowing how it plays now.
The point is that gaming journalism is a job, it is a profession and yet the overwhelming feeling from many sites is that it’s OK to treat it like something you can kick off on the side, that an education in games isn't as important as being able to make a witty joke and discuss how pretty the graphics are. Then the industry turns around and screams about not being respected as legitimate journalist or artists. The onus isn't just on the rest of the world to accept gaming as a serious business, it’s on the people who write about it to treat it that way too. I am not saying gaming journalism and critique needs to be high and mighty and lack fun but we must respect the history, the business and the art all at once when discussing games not just think that we as a community can go about treating gaming like it is still in its infancy.
Cowzilla3's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
hmmmm, makes sense, but I do have to say that it is a bit based on what you're focused on. I want to do games journalism. I am going to be doing games journalism. Do I want to review? not really, news and features are more my game. Does that mean I have to play Halo. I don't think so. Does that mean I have to understand the importance of Halo?
Oh yes, yes I do.
I agree 100%. Journalist shouldn't be bias fanboys.
But, you shouldn't have to play the first game to understand it or to have more fun with it. A game, despite whichever one you're playing, should be fun regardless.
Halo 3 didn't have any explanation as to what the hell was going on. You were just dropped in there. Remember, a reviewer has to keep everyone in mind and that includes the newbies.
Who said anything about fanboys?
I played Halos...I played Halo 3. I disappointed.
Free is free.
I think there are multiple audiences for game reviews, just as there are for games.
Some people just want a numerical buy/play recommendation. Others (like many Dtoiders) want a deeper review that traces game lineages and evolution and places them in the proper framework.
I like EGM's reviews because there are multiple people reviewing one game. Game Informer does something like this, but on a smaller scale. They have one massive review and one small side review by someone else. EGM splits 'em even between three people.
/agree
Awesome Cowzilla, and any real gamer will agree with you. My thoughts are only ignorant people take ignorant opinions from ignorant journalists.
Just like you know your credentials and background for the filming industy, since you review films, it should be the same, or even better it should be enforced, that gaming journalists aren't just posing to be something they're not.
@topgear
Yes you should have to have played all three Halos to write about gaming. They are massively influential and playing them is part of understanding why and forming your own opinion which will come into play no matter what you are writing about.
@vexed alex
I agree that you should be able to get into a game no matter what, but the average person is not a journalist. A journalist needs to be able to talk to both sides of the gaming market, noobs and hardcore alike. It is their job to be able to discuss to both these crowds and have the knowledge to be able to do so well.
@Cowzilla3
Great write up and I agree with you 100%
I know what you are saying here, Cowzilla3, but consider this: People get into games at different depths at different times in their lives. Some people might not have kept up with all of the Next-Gen bullshit like we have, but they simply wanted to see what Halo 3 was all about. Why shouldn't game reviewers who have kept the same distance from the Halo series write reviews or be allowed to criticize parts of the game? Wouldn't such perspectives fit in perfectly with what these newer Halo player's needs?
It is just something to think about...
@Variable
That is a good point but I personally feel that if you are a good writer and know your stuff you can understand how a game would feel even if you were just jumping in even if you've been with it the whole time. On the flipside it is impossible for you to judge any game as well if you don't know where it is coming from, it makes your review better and more informed no matter what how you are trying to approach it.
At least this is what I've gained from writing film and game reviews myself. An experienced, educated person can look at a game or film from almost any angle including that of a noob if they're a good writer, some one who is not only has that one viewpoint. Does this invalidate their opinion in general? No, everyone has opinions, but it does make them less valid to a wider audience and a game reviewer or journalist should hope to be speaking to everyone not just hardcore or new player.
CONFLICT!
@ Cowzilla3:
I agree, journalists should be able to simultaneously interest and educate the hardcore and the casual. That does not usually happen, especially not in mainstream news media.
I'm not sure that a reviewer should attempt to speak to everyone. There's merit in knowing your audience and tailoring a message for them. For everyone else, the reviewer provides a score so the review offers some use, if not insight.
That wasn't in response to Variable Gear, but it looks like I'm alone in this sentiment.
All I mean to say is that any reviewer should expect a substantial portion of their audience to stop reading fairly early on, depending on the tone the reviewer sets. Even if a reviewer switches gears later on, the people who would have been interested in that perspective are long gone.
@MaxVest
Thats true, always write for you audience if you know who they will be. That doesn't mean that you have to be uneducated or not knowlegable even if your audience is. It came out a little wrong, I was trying to say a writer who is well versed in games can speak to both crowds as well, while a writer who isn't can only speak to one, and even then not as well.
Thanks for the counter points guys, love the discussion.
At the same time, this kind of mentality keeps me from playing many new games. Like, I could run out and play Metroid Prime 3. But I haven't played my copy of Metroid Prime 1 yet, so how can I understand where it's coming from? The same applies to many games. My friend told me he loved Jak 3, so what do I do? I buy Jak 1. Sometimes, it takes a lot of effort just to play one current game.
Yea but its also not your job (I don't think) to play games Necros. If it was, like it is for a gaming journalist then you'd have time I would hope.
Yeah, I know I'm not a journalist, but I really do care about my knowledge of video games, so I do follow that line of thinking that requires you to play the older games first. For instance, I'm playing Deus Ex right now (and at least attempted to play System Shock 1, though old technology screwed that up) in preparation for when I get a 360 to play Bioshock.
Cowzilla, I can see your point, and I do agree that one day I should play Halo. At this point, (barely a junior in college) I have more important things to do than invest hundreds of hours making up on missed games. I mean, it's a whole lot easier to catch up on five ground breaking movies than five ground breaking games. And the cost is more, with anywhere from 3 or more very expensive consoles and a state of the art computer.
Here's how I see it: I want to be a games journalist. I specialize in News and Features. Not reviews. If I start reviewing (which brings its own set of moral qualms that I have with myself), and I review a FPS, then I better play Halo. Without a doubt.
I see your point, and I agree, but the industry isn't quite locked into reviews. There is more to it than that.
The difficulty in this being a reality is the sheer length of games. It's perfectly reasonable to watch every film Alfred Hitchcock ever made in a week or so. The same could not be said for the oeuvre of Shigeru Miyamoto or the like.
Also, a reviewer acknowledging their lack of knowledge of previous games is just like Roger Ebert panning "I Know What You Did Last Summer" because he despises Dead Teenager Movies. Everyone approaches media in a different way but, as long as the reviewer is honest about what condition they approach a piece in, it's still honest criticism.