But Seriously, Folks (by Matt Sakey)
The gaming press needs to grow up
Several years ago, when I was young and reckless, I interviewed for the position of Reviews Editor at a major gaming publication. They fed me Goldfish crackers, chatted about games, kicked my ass in an Unreal deathmatch, and then sat down for the Serious Talk. Their final questions for me were about their own magazine – what would I do, they asked, to change it? What about the magazine did I like the least?
Maybe it was the jet lag, but I answered truthfully: “Sometimes I think your magazine acts too childish,” said I. “I could do without the stuffed animals and Godzilla jokes and Nerf gun battle pictorials. I'd rather see more in-depth coverage of gaming trends and the ideas that games produce, and less obsession with technology. If we want games treated as a hobby that's as much for adults as children, then we should act more adult. Fun, but grown-up.” This answer pleased them not, and in retrospect it occurs to me that had I shown a bit more tact – for which I am admittedly not famous – I might have gotten the job.
But the problem persists today. All printed gaming periodicals remain largely fanboy publications: saturated with “no gurls allowed” tree-house humor, sticking almost exclusively to reviews and previews, eliminating any possibility for intellectual discourse by imposing draconian word limits, and discussing games in only the most narrow context. With an 800-word review, it's easy to dash off a rundown of technical merit and overall gameplay, but hard to linger on a more intellectual discussion of how the game experience will affect the player. The press therefore feeds into the unwelcome anti-innovation vibe that haunts gaming, discussing only those things that have been discussed before.
All the reviews of Half-Life 2 that I've read go on and on about the gravity gun, the cool physics, the amazing water effects produced by the Source engine, and how good the level design is. Scarcely a word is mentioned about the potency of the urban dystopia so elegantly realized with City-17; about the brooding, ubiquitous Overwatch and the paranoia it foments; about humanity's growing despondency in the face of the Combine's relentless oppression. Discussion of such emotional impactors is the foundation of reviews in other media, which usually mention such things as technology and special effects only in passing. If our own press can't take seriously the idea that play can be affecting, no one else will.
Instead, it continues the cycle: developers consume the same press gamers do, and presto – the DOOM 3 expansion will have its own “gravity gun,” more physics coolness, and some fancy liquid effects. Doubtless a crateload of upcoming action shooters will do the same. Meanwhile the real power of Half-Life 2 is mentioned and dismissed with a line or two. Indeed, it's the same reason that Half-Life 2 is getting away with having a plotline so nonsensical, so bizarre, so riddled with holes that one wonders what they were on when they wrote it, and where we can get some.
It's time for the gaming press to grow up a little bit. Stop acting like the Nintendo Fun Club and start taking seriously the discipline of game development, and how the products of that discipline can uniquely affect us. The weird irony is that we're seeing websites/blogs take this responsibility and run with it, while print media devolves to little more than delayed advertisements for technical features. Really the web's timeliness and occasional amateurism is more appropriate for quick-turnaround reviews and impressions, while professional print is better suited to more deadline-inspecific meditative content. And yet we see thoughtful musings like this or this or this online, but never in print.
The gaming press shouldn't become ponderous scholarly dissertations on the meaning of the ludic experience. There's a place for that, as there is a place for scholarship in all media, but it's not for mainstream consumption. Rather, the press ought to start reflecting on games-as-experiences, start doing serious editorials, and loosen up a little on the word limits so their writers can say what they want to say. In reviews, grant equal space to rumination on how the game affects the player, what it means, what emotional impact it may have. Of course you can still talk about technology, but for crying out loud, pay as much attention to the game experience as to its normal maps.
It's not like print media is in good shape. It needs to change if it wants to survive, for the simple reason that it's no longer timely. Video killed the radio star; and the web threatens the big gaming magazines, with its discussion community, daily updates, and 24-hour turnaround on reviews. Print is as much as three months behind in some cases, meaning that a lot of their “scoops” have been scooped ages ago online. Right now they're dealing with this problem by focusing more and more on previews of upcoming titles, which is a good idea – but probably not enough. The Scarecrow needs a brain.
The shallow, fanboy press is one of the chief reasons that gaming as an art form remains unaccepted, even within the industry itself. How can developers look at what they do and call it meaningful if their own community doesn't? Perhaps the word “game” is our problem. “Games” are for children. We outgrow them. They're somehow different from movies or novels in this regard; to many, a thirtysomething who expounds delightedly on the joys of a game should feel somewhat abashed; immature at best and infantile at worst. Yet anyone who bothers to actually try one of today's games realizes almost instantly that there's nothing childish about them. Disciples of Salen & Zimmerman realize that games are just methods of communicating and exploring complex ideas. Maybe the press should start treating them as such.
