Extra: Games Criticism Shrinks

I've found through multiple sources, that games criticism has a shrinking audience. This is because there are fewer people who take interest in its academic nature. The group which primarily stays true to the style, are game designers. These are people who, when they read these pieces, are seeking to improve upon their own designs and ideas. They may look to the articles on cultural stereotypes in games, and the games that are guilty of them, for the purpose of avoiding those errors. For some time, there was an audience outside the industry that took interest in this knowledge. However, now the audience has shrunk.

As a result, there is only one real strong "bastion" of this writing style. That is GameSutra.com, as the website focuses upon pieces written by developers or simply writers with great knowledge of the industry. That is not to say games criticism is disconnected from games journalism, one can still find pieces which remind us of the connection it bears. 

Extra: Gameplay

Gameplay is supported by many things. This is because gameplay is but a piece of a larger puzzle, each piece is supporting of the other. However, gameplay is the most important piece, the piece that can spoil the others if it were to fail. When any consumer plays a game that has irritating or frustrating gameplay, it becomes almost impossible to appreciate the great graphics, music, or story. This is result of the fact that games, no matter how they change, are still entertainment. If a designer takes away from what makes games that unique entertainment, that is the interactivity, the whole game will suffer. When one plays a game, it is a experience, gameplay is the core of that.

Extra: The death of many scores

Traditional games journalism has been undergoing a gradual change. For a considerable amount of time, traditional styled game reviews had multiple scores. One for each aspect of the game, and then a final “overall” score. As time has progressed, this has become less so. Even the “champion” of traditional games journalism, IGN, has done away with its multitude of scores in favor of a single one. This is a change that has come gradually after the increased popularity of the website Polygon. Polygon is known for New games journalism styled reviews, which utilize a singular score. This is likely why the multiple scores of traditional games journalism has begun to fade.

Extra: Review Scores?

Review scores are not as necessary as some think. As pointed out in an article by Kevin Grant, Review scores are the “short cut.” The reason review scores have come into existence is because it is the easy way for people to get a sense of whether or not to buy a game.

However, this is not a detailed representation of the game itself. It is simply a score, given to said game by a journalist with his or her own views or opinions. The area where a reader is most likely to get a real sense for the quality of a game, is through the main body of the review. When a consumer reads this main body, they can learn about features and details that would not be revealed to them through a simple score. This can mean the difference between a purchase, a rental, or simply ignoring a game.

Extra: Bias in a review?

According to Erik Kain:

Media today likes to strive for this great arch of fairness, and unbiased opinion. However, this is all a big facade. There's this ever present structural bias and cultural pretense that makes that sort of thing non existent.

Furthermore, it is not necessarily a bad thing to have bias when it comes to writing reviews. Bias provides a different prospective, should you make it known to your audience when you write. For example; you may be able to say "I don't like first person shooters, her is what I think of this game from that perspective."

This is important, and most certainly relevant, because not everyone who considers a game is going to be a die hard fan of that franchise already. There will be those who may want to see what they might think of a game, should they not be fan. 

This requires a great degree of honesty, as often times people will ridicule writers who dare write about game genres they do not like. However, it is more important to write and be open with your personal opinion than to strive for some fake "fair" prospective.

Extra: World of Tanks (A new games journalism short)

"Clunk!"

The sound of the heavy armor piercing shells against my steel beast's chest made an all too familiar noise. Annoyed at the fact that anyone would dare fire munitions in my direction, I cautiously took cover behind the nearest boulder.

I carefully scanned the horizon for the red silhouette that marked the location of an enemy vehicle. At last! I spotted the pest who had scratched my new paint.

"Bang!" I sent a shell hurdling towards him, landing with great effect on his turret.

"Bang! Bang! Bang!" I kept up the fire, until all that remained was a smoldering pile of twisted virtual steel.

Satisfied, I drove off towards the enemy's base, our primary capture objective.

Blog 25: Mentorship

Literal

• log
• Andrew Canales: (562)708-0185

Interpretative

• The most important thing I gained from this experience was learning about the restrictions that are a part of the process in which each written journalistic piece goes through before being published. This was important because it taught me what was acceptable in journalistic world, and how an article can be changed by not abiding by those acceptable things. 

Applied

• What I have done provided some assistance in answering my EQ by showing me that some forms of writing may be more acceptable to the journalistic world than others. For example, the games criticism style may not be as accepted because of the fact that it focus on "hot button" issues that are not typically addressed in standard publications. This means that answers like traditional games journalism or new games journalism are more realistic options.

Blog 24: Exit Interview Questions

1. What is your essential question? What is your best answer to your question and why?
-My essential question: How can a video game journalist best create a review that truthfully analyzes the quality of a game's gameplay?

-My best answer is; by using new games journalism styles when writing about the game. This is because new games journalism focuses on the experience of playing a game, and gameplay is the core of what creates that experience. The other games journalism styles (traditional, criticism) may inspect elements that are influence gameplay, and the experience it creates, but new games journalism puts emphasis on it. Therefore if the goal is to truthfully analyze gameplay quality, new games journalism is the best choice.

2. What process did you take to arrive at this answer?

-The process I took in arriving at my best answer maintained itself primarily in the realm of research, but had some assistance from interviews. I first found through research that traditional games journalism divided a game into sections, game criticism analyzes technical and cultural aspects primarily, and new games journalism uses a narrative style to focus on a experience. Then, I discovered from my third interview that a review should be able to exemplify an experience well enough to the point that the reader will feel the review described it perfectly. Finally, I found in my fourth interview that gameplay is the core of what creates the experience that is created when playing a game. Therefore, new games journalism is best suited to analyze that, as its focus is on that experience.

3. What problems did you face? How did you resolve them?

-The problems I faced were in the area of interviews and mentorship, as it was difficult to locate a mentor, and it was also difficult to obtain effective interviews. I sought to resolve this primarily through perseverance. Essentially, I continually contacted as many publications as I could in search of mentorship. Until finally, the Poly Post was willing to assist me. Furthermore, I would reach out as often as possible in order to see if I can obtain good interview subjects. This eventually paid off on my fourth interview when I was able to question a journalist who had a great deal of experience in the field.

4. What are the two most significant sources you used to answer your essential question and why?

-My first most significant source was an article off of lostgarden.com entitled "A Blunt Critique of Games Criticism." This is because the article was effective in outlining the different styles of writing about games, what they focus on, and where they primarily come from. Second, was my fourth interview with journalist Erik Kain, as he was very informative about what it means to be "truthful" in a review, what gameplay effects, and why it is important.

5. What is your product and why?

-My product is a significantly greater ability to write about games. This is because, though I had some understanding before, I have come to learn what is really effective and important in 'good' games. In addition, I have learned a lot about the different writing styles that exist in the realm of games journalism. As a result, it is now much easier for me to write on games with structured and logical arguments.

Blog 23: 2014 Interview

1. Aaron Hutchings

2.Possibly a topic related to North Korea, or architecture. Aaron has an interest in the culture of North Korea, however, architecture is also a good topic idea as it may be easier to find an internship for.

3.North Korea: No ideas as of yet
   Architecture: Internship

4.Aaron hopes to see a focus on logical flow in the presentations.

5.Aaron had no questions at the moment.

Final Three Column

Chart