lester-bangs
Latest
The Soapbox: Game "journalism" is not journalism (yet)
Disclaimer: The Soapbox column is entirely the opinion of this week's writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of Massively as a whole. If you're afraid of opinions other than your own, you might want to skip this column. Hey folks, welcome back to the Soapbox. Before I get started, let me add a personal disclaimer onto the Massively disclaimer you just read: I don't hate game devs. On the contrary, I hold a couple of them in pretty high esteem. What does annoy me is the way that most of them get a free pass when it comes to tough questions. Another thing that sticks in my craw is the way readers sometimes confuse journalism with game journalism. The two aren't often the same thing, and in fact the latter term is a complete misnomer. So, when you throw together my disdain for PR-soaked reporting and my facepalming at any mention of the phrase "game journalism," you end up with this week's Soapbox. In it, I'd like to take a crack at educating the folks who erroneously refer to both me and other game bloggers as "journalists." To do so, I'll spend some time examining "game journalism," and I'll start by defining journalism itself. Then we can look at how applicable the term is to the current landscape of MMO-centric media (and really, game media in general). Merriam-Webster defines journalism as "the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media." So far, so good, right? Well, look deeper. A more thoughtful, thorough, and instructional definition is provided by the folks at Journalism.org. Rather than quote the entire nine-point synopsis here on my front page, I'll highlight what I consider to be the second most important principle of journalism (the first obviously being truth). Not coincidentally, this principle is one that game "journalism" utterly fails to uphold on a daily basis: "[Journalism's] practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover."
Klosterman responds to "critic" critics
Pop-culture writer Chuck Klosterman didn't earn many followers when he criticized gaming critics for not filling in the deified shoes of rock-critic turned cultural messiah, Lester Bangs. The response from the gaming community sounded something like, "He's dead and they've buried his shoes."Critics like Wired News' Clive Thompson made short shrift of Klosterman's Esquire piece, basically saying that there's plenty of intelligent discussion going on, it's just not going on in the pages of Esquire magazine. Klosterman, a little bruised perhaps, pulled himself up and sat back down again with Gamespot's Rich Brown to explain his critique. He said, "I think that people were confused by my piece. What they seemed to think that I was saying is that no one is doing good video game criticism. And that's not really the point, I wasn't making that argument. What I was saying is that there seems to be no dominant person writing about video games in a way that transcends the insular culture of gaming. In other words there's no one writing about video games who is of interest to people who aren't actively playing them."The reason there is no Lester Bangs of gaming is similar to the reason there is no Lester Bangs of music or Pauline Kael of movies anymore. People don't want serious criticism, they want service journalism: how many stars?; how many thumbs-up? In his own way, Klosterman is right, he's just not an informed critic. He reveals as much with, "I know people who are more engaged with it than I am, and when I say 'it,' I mean the Internet."Follow the debate:Read - The Lester Bangs of Video Games (Esquire)Read - Why No Lester Bangs of Gaming? (Wired News ... or Game Girl Advance or John Scalzi)Read - Chuck Klosterman answers critics (Gamespot)
Wherefore art thou Lester Bangs of gaming?
Chuck Klosterman, a contributing writer for Esquire and regular columnist for SPIN Magazine, has written a fascinating and frustrating feature for the former inquiring as to the whereabouts of "The Lester Bangs of Video Games." Klosterman wants to know why there is no video game analog to film-critics like Pauline Kael or music-critics like Lester Bangs, and explains why he suspects there never will be. He asks Steven Johnson, whose Everything Bad is Good for You Klosterman calls "one of the only mainstream books that comes remotely close to the kind of gaming criticism I just described," about the dilemma. Johnson responds, "Video games generally have narratives and some kind of character development, but-almost without exception-these are the least interesting things about them. Gamers don't play because they're drawn into the story line; they play because there's something intoxicating about the mix of exploring an environment and solving problems. The stories are an afterthought." He also talks with MIT's Henry Jenkins who says, "Game designers are asking themselves questions about how a game should look and what it should do, but not about what the game is supposed to mean."What's refreshing about Klosterman's take is that he's willing to acknowledge the importance and potential of video games (unlike other critics who've issued similar dictums) while also noting and understanding the shortcomings. What's frustrating are the ommissions; some would be heirs to this throne do come to mind and -- curiously enough -- some even appear on Something Awful's list of the five worst game reviews. Do gamers want anything more than a shopping guide out of their reviews? Do game designers even mean anything with the games they make? So we're all on the same page, before you start commenting on the column, be sure to read it first![Update: for some rebuttals, check out Game Girl Advance, John Scalzi, and Clive Thompson.]
