Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

NYT On New Games Journalism 35

Posted by Zonk from the surreality dept.
The New York Times has a quick blurb up discussing some New Game Journalism pieces. While I think a look from a major newspaper at the actual writing style would have been interesting, it is more a simple linking story than anything else. From the article: "Over the last year, however, a handful of gaming writers have been bringing a more personal touch to their work, using a narrative, experiential approach that acknowledges the effect of the game on the player. Their young genre even has a name: New Games Journalism, after the New Journalism of the 1960's and 70's."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NYT On New Games Journalism More

NYT On New Games Journalism

Comments Filter:

  • A first post that isnt stupid (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OAB_X ( 818333 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @03:43AM (#12125277)
    I dont know whats wrong with the "old" style. I buy games based on reviews from magazines based on the "old" style. It works, thats why I use it. A writeup discuussing the games pros/cons, features, basic story, etc. then a score out of 100 based on the reviewers overall opinion.

    0-30% awful, avoid like the plague
    40-50% terrible games, some redeeming features
    50-60% average, has significant flaws
    60-70% you may enjoy these, but there are better choices
    70-80% very good
    80-90% excellent
    90-100% editors choice (no game should ever be given 100%)

    Whats wrong with that? Its informative, entertainig and it works.

    • Re:A first post that isnt stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Sunday April 03, 2005 @03:52AM (#12125300) Homepage Journal
      Because it's subjective. If you can write in an article what the game is about, without subjecting your own needs and desires onto the game, I can read your article and apply *my* needs and desires onto your article and determine whether I want to play the game.
    • The main problem with the % system was that it made no sense.
      Smany times did i see games where one would get 85% and another 84% or 86% and what the hell was the 1% , or a game that was called truely average get a score of 75% .
      so alot of magazines moved to an out of 10 system which still had alot of problems as really scores of 2 , 3 , 4 or even 5 made no difrence .
      Fair enough some review systems using this had some rules but often it was truely arbitrary.

      So nowadays most places have settled on No score just opinion or a 5 star system.
      Whilst i really dont respect gamespy reviews($$ etc) the score system makes alot more sense to me 5 is amazing dont miss it ,4 is a great game worth buying ,3 is average and enjoyable buy this if you like the genre , 2 is below average and may hold some fun for a fan of the genre of a fanatic(aka a star * game to star * fan), and 1 is tripe ,Now that makes sense .
      However it needs to be coupled with a good review and good writting.
      • It all depends on the reviewer, but ever game review that I have read that did not have any kind of rating at the end left me wondering whether the game was good or bad, I can hardly ever tell. Granted, the places that I saw them were not very high quality, but it leaves a lot to be desired in what I can tell. A 5-star system to me always makes me think "how can a game be perfect?" After all, a 5/5 is a perfect score. I know its not SUPPOSED to seem like that, and they really mean its fantastic, but its som
    • I'd prefer a system which uses a deviation from 0 to rate a game:

      0 means "par", i.e. the game is good enough to warrant a purchase.
      +1 means "great", the game really stands head and shoulders above the rest.
      +2 applies only to games that are so great people will talk about them for years to come (think Zelda, Soul Calibur, GTA3, etc).
      -1 is a game that's bad, at least bad enough so you wouldn't want to buy it. Some call that "mediocre" but these days you don't realy want to shell out 50 bucks (or more, depend
    • Whats wrong with that? Its informative, entertainig and it works.

      Nothing's wrong with it. If the only reason you read about video games is to find out which ones to buy, then the "old" style is more than adequate for your needs.

      But clearly some people are interested in video games, and in discussing them, beyond in a consumer capacity. I certainly am. Much as the same way people apply techniques of criticism to books and movies in their capacity as works of art and not as items to be purchased. This "New
    • Well, you might want to read some of these "new gaming journalism" pieces. None of the ones I've seen are reviews. They are essays about the experience--the idea to convey the range of thoughts and feelings that games can provoke. Peter

    • Games can be art, and art changes you. Some articles in the "New Games Journalism" style do a better job of conveying this than others. There's room in the gaming press for both buyer's guides and reviews. Look at reviews of literature or performing arts or movies. They aren't all buyer's guides. As the art form is more and more evident in games, I think some people will naturally wish to write about the game itself, not the commerce. I agree that reviews in the "New" style can't replace buying guide

  • About their title (Score:3, Funny)

    by aztektum ( 170569 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @04:09AM (#12125351)
    Overall I find it to be somewhat cliched and derivative of earlier titles. It tries to stand out as something unique, and it even does things a little different than what's come before, but it doesn't really focus on those differences to carve out it's own niche.

    I give it a 2 out of 5

  • How's this 'new'? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chman ( 746363 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @04:13AM (#12125364)
    You can go back to the beginnings of computer games to find kids on the playground talking about their favourite games - the boss they defeated last night, or the level they unlocked after a marathon session. Just because the internet affords every able-fingered person the opportunity to pour their inane ponderings into the public domain doesn't make this a new form of journalism. I'm not going to base a purchasing decision on some guy recounting last night's fan-boy wet dream of his favourite game onto his blog. I am, however, willing to wade through the knee-deep excrement ponds that are forums, and attempt to gauge the overall opinion of a game and any major problems that it was released with. Beyond that, the only way I can decide if a game is right for me is by getting hold of a good demo, and that's where the internet becomes useful - as a delivery system of actual game content, rather than pointless opinion.

  • Mreh. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by earthbound kid ( 859282 ) on Sunday April 03, 2005 @04:13AM (#12125365) Homepage
    I read "Kneel Nigger," back when Slashdot covered it last year. I thought it was OK, but not very well written. I like the theory of New Gaming Journalism, but I think its writers need to spend a little more time polishing their craft before its ready for prime time.

    Gaming is definitely different from other medias. Its not like a book or a movie that remains the same for everyone. It's more like architecture, where everyone is interacting with the same structure, but in different ways and at their own pace.

    It would be nice if there were more to gaming journalism than the old: Graphics X/10 Story Y/10 Gaming Z/10 Overall ([X+Y+Z]/3)/10. That style is definitely limited in what it can relate.

    Still, a first person narrative is also limited in how much it can relate. Or do you wish all the stories about the death of the pope read, "I looked down at my computer screen. 'The pope is dead.' I thought back to all the other times I had reported about the pope over the years, but I knew today would be different. Today, I would be reporting his death." :p

    I think the real need is for gaming journalists to find a way to do more than just tell us about the story and the graphics. What we most want to know about is how the game plays, and play is a much more complex thing to describe than just the story and graphics. Lots of luck to anyone who wants to try.
    • I read "Kneel Nigger," back when Slashdot covered it last year. I thought it was OK, but not very well written. I like the theory of New Gaming Journalism, but I think its writers need to spend a little more time polishing their craft before its ready for prime time.

      It's "Bow Nigger" [alwaysblack.com], not "Kneel Nigger". Besides, "Bow Nigger" is much more versatile. It could be an example of new games journalism, but it could also be my level 85 Bowadin. [planetdiablo.com]
      • My bad yo. But it has been a year since I read it. I did read the NYTimes article today (before the slashdot write up, actually). But they can't even write the word nigger anyway, so their version of the title didn't stick in my brain.

    • Re:Mreh. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by OAB_X ( 818333 )
      Graphics X/10 Story Y/10 Gaming Z/10 Overall ([X+Y+Z]/3)/10

      I dont like the cumulative score system, I find that it places too much emphisis on things like "graphics" and "sound" and not enough on things like "fun". I dont play games to be a tech demo for surround sound or graphics and zero gameplay (granted, the "gaming" part is supposed to ballance this out, but not always). If another game based on the Infinity engine came out (it wont but this is beside the point), then the graphics would suck, but the

      • I dont like the cumulative score system, I find that it places too much emphisis on things like "graphics" and "sound" and not enough on things like "fun". I dont play games to be a tech demo for surround sound or graphics and zero gameplay (granted, the "gaming" part is supposed to ballance this out, but not always).

        That's more like a problem with giving credit for being better than the other competition in one aspect. A much better system would be to collect a list of known flaws in video games - such

  • Here [ign.com]. (Yes, it's IGN, but it's not really a serious review.)
    -ReK

  • New York Times (Score:4, Interesting)

    by NMerriam ( 15122 ) <NMerriam@artboy.org> on Sunday April 03, 2005 @05:58AM (#12125605) Homepage
    Am I the only person bothered by the inability of the New York Times -- the "Paper of Record" -- to accurately report the name of a written piece on which they are reporting?

    I could consider it merely being (overly) sensitive if they quoted it as "Bow, N*gg*r", as is a common practice for "bad" words. You would at least know what word they were referring to.

    But to completely leave out the second word of a two-word title, and say only "a racial epithet" is not only journalistic cowardice, it is downright unhelpful. If I didn't already know the title of the article referred to, I could think of a dozen "racial epithet"s, and there is no context with which to guess which is correct.

    All of which completely ignores the fact that the title is *supposed* to be inflammatory.
    • Offtopic? The parent poster was talking about the content of the article! RTFA, dumbass.

      *ahem*

      But to completely leave out the second word of a two-word title, and say only "a racial epithet" is not only journalistic cowardice, it is downright unhelpful. If I didn't already know the title of the article referred to, I could think of a dozen "racial epithet"s, and there is no context with which to guess which is correct.

      I totally agree with you. What happens if a reader wants to read the piece themselves
  • They are not one and the same. The piece alluded to in the NYT has nothing to do with whether the game is worth buying or not. It is exposition of an event that takes place during a duel between two people on a Jedi Knight server.

    Personally, I think we need more pieces like this that explore games beyond the obligatory eye candy descriptions. Who cares whether a new game will be taking advantage of shader 3.0? I've given up reading print gaming mags as they are merely mouthpieces for the companies that ad

    • People tie NGJ to reviews because many of NGJ's biggest proponents are always talking about how it can "replace" the traditional review structure.

      Which is crap.

      If you read the NGJ Manifesto, he never mentions replacing reviews, just broadening the horizons of game writing.

      That's a noble goal, one I try to do in my writing, even though I'm a hack. But the pretentious followers of NGJ are also the ones that scream the loudest about how "it's better and smarter and did I mention better?"

      The two can co-exis

  • UH OH... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    LOOKS LIKE IT'S A BONA FIDE MOVEMENT NOW!

    Next thing you know, they will be moving into our neighborhoods. How do you feel about the possibility of one of "them" marrying your daughter?

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close