Many issues face reviewers in games journalism from different areas, be
it from the general public voicing their opinions, feedback from the media and
game developers, and the time they are allowed to review said games in order to
meet deadlines. Kieron Gillen said that, ‘Put it like this: Games journalists are
stupid because they don’t have time to think’. A modern British video games
magazine is put together in 19 days, and within that time a they must research
and write enough to fill all of 150 pages. The rush from magazine to magazine
leaves them with little time for any serious
delve into a game, they must work with the time allowance that they have
been supplied.
New games journalism is comparable to
travel journalism, the writer responds to subjective experiences presented to
them by the game world as well as other players. Personal experiences and
anecdotes play a vital role in NGJ creating a unique story. The story is not
necessarily indicative of the experience any other player will have with the
game and will be unlikely to offer any objective value-judgements regarding the
game's merits or failings. Instead, attention is focused on the subjective
experience of the person playing the game.
My own view on this is one of less than
satisfaction. The idea of providing a reader with personal anecdotes based of a
subjective experience of one particular person is in no way helpful to another
in the simple fact of interesting them to invest in that game, rather give them
an entertaining read and leave them with a strange want for the writer to make
an According to Clarkson volume equivalent, if they are any good.
I feel a ranking system based off
numerical values like most magazines use now is sufficient along with the
traditional game journalism to hype up a game. The numbered system from
individual games allows me to compare different games I have previously played
to a new one, possibly enticing me to buy this new adventure if the reviews are
positive or better.
Although saying that I would quite enjoy
the NGJ style if I had already completed a play through of a game only then to
read it. The writing would then be more of an engagement with the reader and
share experiences from the game.
There are quite a few different forms of
game writing that I have found in my research, text based being the most
popular and most informative providing in depth reviews both web or print based
through forums, websites and magazines. Another type would be positive and
negative styled reviews on the game, although most reviewers I have seen, their
opinion changes between games as it should, but some reviews are constantly
positive or negative in their reviewing style either for comical effect in the
form of Zero Punctuation :
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation
Who uses this negative and visual style
through 2D animations to almost literally rip games to shreds for hilarious end
results.
On the flip side to that a review by ‘boomboxdan’:
Is almost sickeningly positive about Project Gotham Racing 3 only
to end up with and 8/10 which just angers the reader and is clearly displayed
in the comments below.
In conclusion I think I would strongly
value objectivity over subjectivity as it is much more usable to a large
audience as oppose to an entertaining story in to the mind of the writer.
References from:
No comments:
Post a Comment