• 25Oct 08

  Call me a cynic, or am I just stupid?

  This is my first post in a LONG time, so bear with me people. First of all, this is a rambling post. I can hear people's heart's sinking already, but I assure you I've got my reasons.

  First of all, I've changed a bit. Older and wiser would not be the best way to describe it, but I'm a student at university now and I've been through a few things. Sex drugs and rock 'n roll don't make me a sage, but having to grow up a fair bit in a short amount of time is something I've had to do. Or else I wouldn't get laid...but I digress- the thing I'm starting to notice, as it eats away at me, is that an exceptional number of people are by all means, absolute **** idiots. But not you- that would be insulting the audience, and that is a big no-no, yeah...

  I'm writing this mainly in response to the state of video games journalism. This is a games post after all- and why, might you ask, am I so disgruntled? In short, it's because I have found that games journalism is largely a great facade of a conflicting, self-celebratory working field that places values on the opinions of personalities over that of any investigative or contemplative writing or writers. If you write for a website, you will be listened to. You may not be liked, but you will be heard- if you're a member of the underground, your voice is drowned out in the head shotting, frothily mouthed counter-strike addicted masses as to what a valid opinion is, all the while what makes a good game is very rarely discussed in great capacity or depth as the paragons of reviews as a marketing tools override the main spectacle of what video gaming journalism should be about, the love of gaming and dissecting all of its aspects on an intellectual basis.

  Now don't get me wrong, developers sink millions into their little fantasies with along with years of their lives trapped in office-building dungeons, so advertising and good reviews are almost always a nice icing on the cake, but it seems to me that every markedly hyped game is met with, largely in greater degree, overwhelming praise as to guarantee people like myself what they sink their $100 into is worth playing (yeah, I live in New Zealand. We pay more for our games than Australians do. And they complain.) But a piece of me dies every time I see a big release game, as I don't ever see anything original. Games are derivative, building and borrowing gameplay ideas on top of those that have come before, usually with even the smallest amalgamation of ideas hailed as innovation of the greatest kind. Take Mirror's Edge for example, the first person Le Parkour game (call it free running and I will hunt you down, and punish you for your ignorance...sleep tight.). Platforming. In first person. Using a recent cultural phenomenon as 'inspiration' (read "roadmap for making things look cool") Cue praise from games journos. Graphics score high. Game will get between 7.5 and 9.0 review scores. Mark my words.

  This happens every year. Small steps- baby steps, for a medium that rivals Hollywood for financial dominance- yet sees that any of its only vaguely artistic achievements are created by independent, bedroom developers (Braid, Darwinia). I'm still waiting for something that actually blows my socks off, as all of pre-release hype seems to guarantee me- when I'm always met by that slight sense of "Ah yeah. Now what?" by the end of every game that I play. Wait for the sequel. Then the prequel. Ramp up the difficulty. Play as a different character. Dabble in the soul-destroying process that is playing and MMORPG. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

  And don't get me started on videogame fiction- torn ripped and moronified aspects and versions of great fiction to be used as an 'original' concept for a story (read "roadmap for making people think videogame writers didn't spend their time thinking which parts of George Orwell's Nineteen-eighty-four were relevant".) You want to tell me a story? Bugger off. I'll read something.

  I'm sorry if this seems off topic, but my point is that I don't see why this kind (my kind) of winging is pouring through the seams of every videogames website available on the overly expensive carbon tubes. Freedom of speech? Abuse it! See that your grumbles are heard, valid or not so that at least, one day, someone just might get.

  All I can really say is thank god for Ben Croshaw and Zero Punctuation.

  
  

  • Posted Oct 25, 2008 10:09 pm PT
  • Category: Games
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 16Nov 06

  First post: Games in society theory

  To start of lazily, here are a couple of letters of mine which were recently published in PC Power Play (an Australian PC games magazine.)

  Letter 1:

  Sifting through the decaying PCPP magazines I have accumulated over the years has raised an issue that I'm sure many of you are familiar with. Why isn't gaming considered a 'mature' medium like television or literature? Why do people **** and moan about gaming and gamers being puerile and pointlessly immature?"Who gives a damn!" some of you may cry, but things are much more serious than you may initially think.

  All games, regardless of genre or quality, are inherently experiences of escapist fantasy. Think about it; can you name a single game that doesn't place you in the role of someone/something you're not, doing something you can't (or wouldn't) do, in a place that you cannot go to or probably won't go to?This prevalent factor in games limits there actual purpose(s) in the world today.

  Why do games have to be a medium for entertainment? Some games may present mature concepts under the main focus of the gameplay (KOTOR 2 anyone?), hiding the ulterior motive of the developer; they want you to actually think! Where are the gaming equivalents to documentaries, romantic comedies (the Sims don't count) and whatnot? Why not expand gaming into a subject that is not of equal, but greater relevance than cinema or literature? Why dammit, don't developers and publishers REALLY push the boundaries?

  Letter 2:

  After failing to convince my mum to at least try and play a game, I realised that one of the main factors putting people off about games is that they are, to most people, simply games. Dwelling on this has made a few of the mysteries of why gaming is despised so much by so many, the main being that the term 'game' is applied a little too loosely to our favourite pastime. To label any certain experience as a 'game' is to imply that it is of little use, consequence or value and merely exists as a form of entertainment (a 'time-waster' if you wish). Though this may perfectly describe some, it is not fair to label all 'games' as such. These negative connotations are only further cemented by the ways in which we interact with other ('mature') mediums. We may 'read' books or 'watch' T.V. or films, but to say that we 'play' games also tends to imply that books/films/T.V. are by their very nature more sophisticated than 'games', which is not true if the endless number of trash novels and reality shows that come out every year are anything to go by.

  What I'm trying to say is; while the quality of some games may excel that of many books/films/shows, they are still met with unfair reservations, and as such I think that the term 'game' should not be applied to our favourite pastime. Buggered if I know what to call it, but it might just make some people takes us a little more seriously.

  • Posted Nov 16, 2006 2:47 pm PT
  • Category: Games
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »