1/9/12 07:54 am - games journalism sucks (and everyone knows it)
I just tried to read a piece on PC Gamer's website that someone linked. Even though it was about a game I'm looking forward to, I couldn't get past the terrible prose or obvious malapropisms that should have been fixed by an editor.
When demo CDs stopped being the driving force behind the sales of PC gaming magazines because broadband penetration had become deep enough, the quality of those magazines sharply declined. In the few years leading up to that point, there were some obvious signs of decline: "PC Accelerator" was one, a lame attempt to combine a Maxim with a PC gaming magazine. Computer Gaming World, the better–written of the two major magazines, lost its excellent editor–in–chief, Johnny Wilson (oddly enough, also a pastor with a PhD in Old Testament studies) to Wizards of the Coast's short–lived attempt to turn The Duelist into a general gaming magazine and not just "The Magic magazine" (a venture first killed by the rise of Pokémon as Wizards's main property, and then given a finishing blow by their acquisition by Hasbro). CGW ended up left eventually to Jeff Green, the back–matter columnist and assistant editor who was the last man standing at Ziff–Davis by 2001 from the mid–to–late 90s era that Green himself has said was the magazine's peak. Ziff–Davis has since managed to kill off the property in new and interesting ways throughout the last decade (first with identifying it with Gamespot, then with entering into a blood–pact with Microsoft to turn it into Games for Windows Magazine, which—believe me—read as ugly as the title). PC Gamer turned into a thinner and thinner publication, largely ads.* Of course, other magazines without staples have gone this way as well: Wired is anorexic compared to the nineties and early aughts, and even National Geographic has thinned out.
There are some attempts out there to try and reach back out to that "games are worthy of good criticism" ideal that CGW and (to a lesser extent) PC Gamer were working on back then, but the current attempts are amateurish and show. The Escapist was better when it was much smaller, but its editing was questionable even back then. The current incarnation has good pieces now and then, but it has mostly turned into just another online gaming culture hub. The fact is just that the publishing men behind those magazines didn't think that the quality of journalism mattered… and they were right. Sort of.
A big part of gaming magazines for most readers was just the filter–feature. That is, give me some informed opinion, backed up with some stars or a percentage score and tell me how not to waste my money. For that, the person who just wants to know what doesn't suck can check… Metacritic.
But Metacritic has problems; take this score. The 83 is pretty high, but for some gamers, that score is way too low and for others it is immensely too high. Also, the title has changed radically in the four years since its release; what meaning does that score have anymore? Europa Universalis III is enormously complex— even some hardcore gamers find it daunting (people who micromanage in 4X games like the Civilization series find it daunting). For the historically–minded strategy gamer with the patience and ability to wrap his head around its depth, it will satisfy like few other games. For everyone else, they'll throw it against the wall. (The developer, Paradox, recognizes this and embraces it. They love and serve their fans like few other companies.) Careful gaming journalists can curate those sorts of experiences, they can explain why the game is great even to someone who would never play it. (One of my favorite pieces of gaming journalism was about a hyper–realistic racing simulation that I would never actually want to play.)
Anyhow, the suits were correct: Most readers of the magazines were just buying them for scores and demo CDs. And that can be done cheaper, with less competent writers and editors online. But there was still that other market, and it is largely unserved, or frustrated. Had Ziff–Davis stuck behind CGW or someone else started up a small (non–color?) alternative, it might still be around and successful in its own way. I mean, there are small computer game developers out there who have proved you can design to a niche and be successful and well–loved, even if you are not a Blizzard or Valve or Bioware in terms of revenue and recognition.
Why hasn't anyone written to the niche?
*I remember how, in middle school, PC Gamer was something like a weapon when rolled up, its issues were thick. They were durable, too; a friend of mine in band and I debated the various merits of the members of a top–fifty games of all–time list throughout one semester in eighth grade, writing down our adjustments to the rankings in the magazine itself. (I still had some of the old ones around until college, when I finally clipped out the good pieces and put them into manilla folders… which I lost sometime after moving back to Louisville in '07.)
Addendum: I just found a recent interview with Johnny Wilson that is pretty good.![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.7)
prester_scott in particular may be interested in the questions about being a gamer and a pastor.
When demo CDs stopped being the driving force behind the sales of PC gaming magazines because broadband penetration had become deep enough, the quality of those magazines sharply declined. In the few years leading up to that point, there were some obvious signs of decline: "PC Accelerator" was one, a lame attempt to combine a Maxim with a PC gaming magazine. Computer Gaming World, the better–written of the two major magazines, lost its excellent editor–in–chief, Johnny Wilson (oddly enough, also a pastor with a PhD in Old Testament studies) to Wizards of the Coast's short–lived attempt to turn The Duelist into a general gaming magazine and not just "The Magic magazine" (a venture first killed by the rise of Pokémon as Wizards's main property, and then given a finishing blow by their acquisition by Hasbro). CGW ended up left eventually to Jeff Green, the back–matter columnist and assistant editor who was the last man standing at Ziff–Davis by 2001 from the mid–to–late 90s era that Green himself has said was the magazine's peak. Ziff–Davis has since managed to kill off the property in new and interesting ways throughout the last decade (first with identifying it with Gamespot, then with entering into a blood–pact with Microsoft to turn it into Games for Windows Magazine, which—believe me—read as ugly as the title). PC Gamer turned into a thinner and thinner publication, largely ads.* Of course, other magazines without staples have gone this way as well: Wired is anorexic compared to the nineties and early aughts, and even National Geographic has thinned out.
There are some attempts out there to try and reach back out to that "games are worthy of good criticism" ideal that CGW and (to a lesser extent) PC Gamer were working on back then, but the current attempts are amateurish and show. The Escapist was better when it was much smaller, but its editing was questionable even back then. The current incarnation has good pieces now and then, but it has mostly turned into just another online gaming culture hub. The fact is just that the publishing men behind those magazines didn't think that the quality of journalism mattered… and they were right. Sort of.
A big part of gaming magazines for most readers was just the filter–feature. That is, give me some informed opinion, backed up with some stars or a percentage score and tell me how not to waste my money. For that, the person who just wants to know what doesn't suck can check… Metacritic.
But Metacritic has problems; take this score. The 83 is pretty high, but for some gamers, that score is way too low and for others it is immensely too high. Also, the title has changed radically in the four years since its release; what meaning does that score have anymore? Europa Universalis III is enormously complex— even some hardcore gamers find it daunting (people who micromanage in 4X games like the Civilization series find it daunting). For the historically–minded strategy gamer with the patience and ability to wrap his head around its depth, it will satisfy like few other games. For everyone else, they'll throw it against the wall. (The developer, Paradox, recognizes this and embraces it. They love and serve their fans like few other companies.) Careful gaming journalists can curate those sorts of experiences, they can explain why the game is great even to someone who would never play it. (One of my favorite pieces of gaming journalism was about a hyper–realistic racing simulation that I would never actually want to play.)
Anyhow, the suits were correct: Most readers of the magazines were just buying them for scores and demo CDs. And that can be done cheaper, with less competent writers and editors online. But there was still that other market, and it is largely unserved, or frustrated. Had Ziff–Davis stuck behind CGW or someone else started up a small (non–color?) alternative, it might still be around and successful in its own way. I mean, there are small computer game developers out there who have proved you can design to a niche and be successful and well–loved, even if you are not a Blizzard or Valve or Bioware in terms of revenue and recognition.
Why hasn't anyone written to the niche?
*I remember how, in middle school, PC Gamer was something like a weapon when rolled up, its issues were thick. They were durable, too; a friend of mine in band and I debated the various merits of the members of a top–fifty games of all–time list throughout one semester in eighth grade, writing down our adjustments to the rankings in the magazine itself. (I still had some of the old ones around until college, when I finally clipped out the good pieces and put them into manilla folders… which I lost sometime after moving back to Louisville in '07.)
Addendum: I just found a recent interview with Johnny Wilson that is pretty good.
prester_scott in particular may be interested in the questions about being a gamer and a pastor.