spotanime.mydadisageek.com

Welcome one and all to the first Page Flippin’ of 2009. Only one more year to go until the spaceship Alexei Leonov reaches Saturn, but I digress…

I received the February 2009 issue of Game Informer yesterday. GI continues to impress me with its editorial decisions. Not one page in this magazine feels like filler. And for all the credit the EGM and 1UP staff gets got for its memorable personalities, GI trumps them all with their Gamercard-like bios on the “GI Staff” page (p. 2) and the “GI Spy” regular column, showing just a bunch of regular Minnesota folk working their asses off on one heck of a magazine. No attitudes, no fraternity. GI is all about gamers who love games. Period. Here are some more highlights from the issue:

• “Afterwords” with Clint Hocking, Creative Director for Far Cry 2. The readers came up with the tough questions, but kudos to GI for actually letting them through. Questions like, “Why did you decide on such a wonky mission structure?” and, “Why did neither faction care that I was helping the other?” allow Clint to defend and explain such decisions, and gives great insight on the design process. Information like this is commonplace to Game Developer and Gamasutra, but seldom seen in a mass-market magazine.
• The “Where Have You Been” feature focuses on announced titles which have been quiet for too long. Conspicuously absent: Alan Wake, and pretty much all of Microsoft’s and Sony’s 2009 lineup. Either they are all embargoed or 2009 is in for tough times (as expected).
• “Loose Talk” says GTA V is expected in 2009; recent Internet buzz says otherwise. Who to believe?
• “The Top 50 Games of 2008″ is a welcomed departure from the Game of the Year and top 10 lists everyone else publishes. GI has been doing this for years, and it’s a fair and balanced look at the past year, in order of release. The staff provides their top 10 lists at the end of the end of the article, but it’s nice to see such a wide range of mentionable games all on one stage. Some interesting statistics: November released the most games on the list at nine; would you expect to see February with five games? What are they? Read the article…
• For all the credit 1UP and EGM get for their Japanese coverage, I haven’t seen them do anything as cool as the Actraiser feature in this month’s “Classic GI”, complete with an interview with Square Enix’s Shinji Futami on the story behind Actraiser 1 and 2. Sidebars include profiles on both games for newbies, and where to find the soundrack (hint: iTunes). This type of article is what made pre-Ziff Davis EGM so memorable, so it’s nice to see GI carry on the torch.
• Honorable mention goes to the “Sound Check” and “Impulse” regular columns, but the “MMO Report” is conspicuously absent here. Hey Andy, where are all those new features for 2009 you were talking about?

The February 2009 issue checks in at 96 pages, a testament to the difficulties of finding adverising in this economy. Still, the editorial content rages on. Great job, boys!

Magazines are not dead, contrary to popular belief.

People think this because EGM died a tragic, horrible, unexpected death, but that’s just not the case. In fact, it was a sick old publication that had seen better days and suffered for years before the official, certified date from the coroner. It’s no secret I was never a fan of what Ziff Davis, or more like 1UP, did to the once great gaming rag, and indeed they ran it into the ground. Literally. Six feet under.

For all those NeoGAFers crying foul and marching downtown to UGO’s offices with torches in hand, just wait a second. 1UP might have had some entertaining podcasts and video shows, but do you really think the failure of our beloved EGM had any less to do with the people in San Francisco running it?

Over two years ago, when downloads of demos and game add-ons were first made available through Xbox Live, I suggested how Official Xbox Magazine could change their strategy to move away from providing said content to readers for a premium, and instead produce original video content in DVD format, much like the Japanese magazine Famitsu Wave.

Saying all of that, it seems like the OXM disc has become obsolete, but I have an idea of how it can be relevant again. Future needs to hire a production team to create exclusive programming and content for the disc, much in the same way Enterbrain does for Famitsu Wave. Start providing more making-of, documentary-style content and entertaining segments with OXM personalities – borrowing a bit from Ziff Davis’ own 1UP Show. And make it more enticing for Xbox owners to have the disc, aside from a couple of inconsequential gamer pictures. Avoid Xbox 360 content at all costs – Microsoft wants it all to themselves so they can sell on the Marketplace. Instead, make it DVD-based so they can watch not just on their Xbox, but on any DVD player they choose. This might even sway non-Xbox owners to pick up an interesting-looking issue to sample for themselves, and even push them toward buying an Xbox.

See anything interesting there? 1UP attracted a devoted fan base because of their original video and audio programming. They were on to something, and yet never capitalized on the popularity of their shows to benefit the ailing magazine. EGM needed a fresh new business plan, something along the lines of what I suggested for OXM. And they had all the parts, too – a video department cranking out weekly 30 minute episodes of The 1UP Show, along with all the side video projects like Not The 1UP Show; and a growing schedule of weekly podcasts covering a range of topics. The problem was they desperately needed a reboot, and management sat by idle and let the train wreck happen.

It probably didn’t help there was such turmoil going on in those offices for so long. The EGM staff were tasked to put out a monthly magazine with a revolving skeleton crew that was increasingly lacking in experience to do so, and obviously quality took a beatdown by the sinking morale that was infecting the eighth floor offices at 101 2nd Street. After enduring such a prolonged and public exodus, management just didn’t have any passion left. They just wanted the pain to end.

As tough as those last couple of years were for the magazine, nothing can erase the indelible mark it left on all of us gamers today. We grew up with the fond memories of EGM’s supersized, 300 page behemoth issues, the secrecy of Quarterman and Sushi-X, and all that awesome Japanese game coverage in an era where the web simply didn’t exist. It wasn’t a magazine, it was a toy; just as much as the game cartridges that frequently lay upon it on the coffee table. Some could argue it never successfully made the transition to the pivotal 32-bit era of gaming, which incidentally happened during the handover from Sendai to Ziff Davis, and only regained footing once Next Generation folded.

But I digress. This wasn’t meant to be a eulogy – that’s been done to death already. Rather, this is a painful example of how poor management and a lack of proper planning caused a gaming icon to disappear. The current economic climate is a tough one, but it alone is not to blame. With that said, not only to I expect to see my favorite magazines continue to exist for years to come, but I look forward to the day EGM rises from the ashes of its own doing and returns to the glory as we all remember it.

You know the section in Gamer Informer where they have a developer and reader list their top five games of all time? I’m always interested in reading not the games they select, but rather the range (or lack thereof) of eras in their selections. The January selection from reader Joshua Lopez was especial heavy on recent titles from the PS2 and Xbox 360 era. Here’s his top five:

1. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty - PS2
2. Max Payne - PS2
3. Grand Theft Auto IV - Xbox 360
4. God of War - PS2
5. Kane & Lynch: Dead Men - Xbox 360

Now, this is one person’s opinion, and everyone’s entitled to one so I won’t argue its validity, but rather I’ll merely acknowledge its existence. There are several personal factors which might have influenced his selection, such as age, financial status, or other means which would prevent or hinder him from access to any given game. I’ll also say the games on his list are no slouch, either. But I ask the question, do they have what it takes to stand the test of time and be heralded among the best the industry has to offer – past, present and future?

I look to my own experiment of listing my favorite games, which I wrote about a couple of weeks ago. What I found was a list which largely consisted of games in the 10 to 15 year age range. In my analysis, I asked the question, “will there ever be a modern classic?” And what I’ve found is by looking at the GI list above, the answer is, “maybe”.

It seems I informally enforced my own criteria in selecting my all time favs. On top of the said personal influences, I looked to see which games have indeed stood the test of time for ten years or greater. In addition this time period covers videogame past generations of two or more, the most recent game being from the Dreamcast gen.

So then as I dive deeper into what makes a game “the greatest of all time”, why don’t we all implement such selection criteria? Let me give some examples:

• The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame says an artist is eligible 25 years after the release of their first album.
• The Pro Football and Major League Baseball Hall of Fames requires a candidate to be retired at least five years before eligibility

The Computer Gaming World folks maintained their own Hall of Fame for years. Although the exact selection criteria used is unknown, the most recent game on their list was Baldur’s Gate II: Shadows of Amn from 2001, which more or less also gave it a five year waiting period before eligibility. Gamespot ceased their selection of The Greatest Games of All Time back in 2007, when the last inductee was Grand Theft Auto III, released in 2001. So it appears as if the gaming press implemented their own criteria individually, but never has there been a universal, official standard process.

That’s where I invite everyone reading my blog and Twitter posts to help define this. Let’s come together and standardize the selection process for the greatest games ever made. We might all have different games on our individual lists, but at least we’ll all be picking from the same pool.

Comment with your ideas for selection critieria to this post, or send me a Twitter, and I’ll compile the results and ideas into a later post on the blog.

Today I was listening to the latest Giant Bomb Bombcast (which if you don’t already, you really should give it a listen), and I was struck by Jeff Gerstmann’s take on the new Sonic game, Sonic Unleashed. To paraphrase, he didn’t like it, and his reasoning behind that opinion was the game might not have been made for his audience. He said it was positioned to be the great comeback of Sonic for the die-hard fans, but the game ultimately was skewed way too young to cater to said fans. Again, I’m paraphrasing, but he said a six year-old might have fun with it.

Might. That word got me thinking.

There’s a couple of things going on here. One is the ever-increasing rift between the gaming critics and the “New Age of Video Games,” or what might be commonly known as the Wii Generation. The press have been up in arms for the past two years Nintendo is no longer addressing its core audience. One can argue the core audience has shifted from die-hard Mario disciples to the casual market. And indeed, that is what is keeping Nintendo miles from the competition. So why fault Sega for trying to capture a segment of this market? Or Microsoft, with its Lips/Movies/Scene-It! trifecta? The press dismiss these games almost immediately because reviewer opinion is highly subjective, and most reviewers at mainstream outlets are hardcore gamers. People like N’Gai Croal and John Davison have seen this disconnect, and in the latter’s case have positioned themselves pretty well for its future.

The second thing is regarding the quality of game reviews. Sure, someone like Gerstmann will never rank Sonic Unleashed at the top of their Game Of The Year picks, but can they use their subjectivity to pen an objective viewpoint? I know that sounds contradictory but hear me out for a second. What I’m talking about is not to play through a game assuming the role of a six year-old, especially if one has no connection to that mindset. And it’s not to go down the typical review checkpoints to see if it satisfies technical and mechanical baselines. It’s something else, and it got me thinking. How does Roger Ebert approach reviewing a film that is clearly not for his demographic? Babe was a childrens’ film, albeit one with adults in mind. But if he dismissed it because it had a talking pig, how would it have played for the general audience?

So I came up with this experiment – review editors take notice. What they should do is give every staff reviewer a casual or kids game to critique. Pair that game with a film of similar and comparable tone. Let the reviewer write the game review, and then compare that with Ebert’s film review of the film to which it was paired. Even though the media is different, it should provide some insight to Ebert’s thought process, which in turn can be applied to the reviewer’s repertoire for approaching future games in the same vein.

The goal here is not to dumb down the reviews for the targeted audience, nor is it to dismiss a game because it’s not for the critic’s demographic. It’s to be able to see what’s not good for the reviewer may be good for the reader and the ability to explain why.

For those who say, “print is dead,” I reply:

“…really?”

Just because Ziff-Davis is shuttering its remaining publications like CGW and PC Magazine, and the once-great Electronic Gaming Monthly, or EGM to you young-ins, is anemic to the point of flatlining, doesn’t mean it’s all doom-and-gloom for the rest. Page Flippin’ is going to be a somewhat-regular column of all that is good in the gaming mags.

In recent months, new EGM EIC James Meilke has taken the magazine in a direction we all wished it went ten years ago – a decidedly Japan-centric, fanboy slant – and proved that was the wrong idea for its general audience. The coverage, although it has been more niche-focused, seems only skin deep and lacks the depth the material requires. Perhaps its because of the never-ending bloodletting of the 1UP staff – almost every major article was penned by Meilke himself, a tall order for someone whose full-time job is to actually run the magazine.

But where EGM is failing, others are succeeding. Take for instance the awesome Rare profile OXM did a couple of issues back. Or Game Informer’s clever preview of Left 4 Dead, weaved within a multi-page, comprehensive overview of Valve Studios. These are two examples of excellent and creative writing which satisfies both the “hardcore” and general audiences. It’s also evidence that these magazines and, to an extent their publishers, respect and encourage traditional and fundamental journalism.

So how do these magazines follow up such standout features, and more important, can they?

Let’s start with the January 2009 issue of Game Informer, of which EIC Andy McNamara introduces MMO Report, the first of many new regular features for the magazine. Where EGM has unsuccessfully tried to shove PC gaming coverage into a page or two, GI has consistently covered PC and console gaming for years. The MMO Report shows their continued dedication to covering all aspects of gaming. Here are some other standouts from the issue:

• Afterwords with Lionhead Studios Design Director Dene Carter fields tough questions from the magazine’s readers about the critically and commercially acclaimed Fable II, like “Was there ever a point in development that the game had a more comprehensive property management system?” or “Why did you add co-op functionality on the game if we could not bring our characters into the other player’s game?”
• Achievement Dos and Don’ts, like “[do] chart the player’s progress toward unlocking achievements”, or “[don't] make multiplayer achievements if multiplayer is an afterthought”. What would normally be a page-filler in any other magazine is a thorough critique on the implementation of achievements in Xbox Live games.
• Continued exclusive reveals, such as Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and Guitar Hero: Metallica. Among the wealth of news, some inadvertent (or maybe not) disclosure why Lars Ulrich is such a dick: “at my house, we didn’t have any video games allowed…so when Guitar hero III came out I broke my own rule and I asked our friends at Activision if it was possible to get one of these since there was a Metallica song on there.”

Now on to the January 2009 issue of OXM:

• Independents Day covers the top XNA Community Games, thankfully profiling the creators of the games themselves and not the totally annoying community manager (and ex-1UP alumni, go figure) Kathleen Sanders. And if you still haven’t played Weapon of Choice, you now have no excuse.
• Dead On Live,  a rundown of some older XBL titles and what you would find if you tried to play online. It was interesting to see Shadowrun still had a dedicated audience, while GTA IV was “flatlined”, although this clearly was written before the recent uptick in XBL stats.
• Based on how all other outlets were holding onto their Riddick news, it’s clear OXM had the exclusive on the Assault on Dark Athena information. Too bad the embargo was broken before this hit newsstands, but embargoes are bad anyway.
• The whole identity theft issue with Xbox Live has been covered to death over the past year, but Get Your Hands off My Gamertag! seems to recap the information in one concise and complete package, while updating with current trends and providing valuable tips on how users can protect themselves. It’s reminiscent of the DRM article Dan Americh put up a few issues back, where he guided readers through the process by doing it himself and documenting his findings. I applaud OXM by continually putting themselves in the readers’ shoes in order to provide the most accurate information.

So there you have it. Those of you brave enough to step away from your RSS readers and head to the newsstands will be awarded, or at least surprised, at what you’ll find.

Well if this isn’t the neatest idea I’ve seen in quite some time…

TechCrunch has waged war on PR firms and their increasingly disturbing trend of news embargoes. I applaud them for their position, but unless other blogs and publications band together for this, I see it as a lost cause and only hurting them in the long run.

I was actually just thinking of this same subject as it relates to the gaming industry. Embargoes are bad for journalism. Publications, whether print or blog, professional or enthusiast, lose integrity because of them. Instead of writers working to break a big story, they are held hostage by PR firms for that next potential exclusive, only carrying out the message when and how the firms see fit.

I got the link for this story from Dan Hsu’s Sore Thumbs blog, and it gave me the idea of how Hsu used to make pacts with fellow publications. The current keepers of the game press should follow suit for something like this. They should all band together to stop the PR firms from running the press, and the quality and credibility of the game journalists would increase as a result.

Source: Death To The Embargo

Shawn Elliott posted to his brand-spankin’ new blog a discussion with other members of the gaming press on the subject of reviews:

Prior to departing 1UP.com, I prepared two sections for a symposium that never got off the ground. Newsweek’s N’Gai Croal, WhatTheyPlay.com’s John Davison, and I agreed to generate questions for eight episodes.

I see what he’s doing here and at the same time praise and damn his (overcomplicated) study of the reviews process. Essentially what he’s doing here is not related to reviews at all, but analysis of the reasons why human beings are subjective by nature. See, that is why we have favorite reviewers for all types of media. That is why I trust a Roger Ebert film review more so than a Peter Travers one, or a Jim DeRogatis review more than, um, some other person at some other outlet…sorry, my music tastes have lapsed AC (after children). Hell, it’s why we had a friggin’ opinion about Ebert’s replacement on At the Movies (Michael Phillips was my choice, by the way). It’s because of the flavor each individual adds to their writing; otherwise it’s just a series of gramatically-correct, probably-way-too-advanced-for-my-understanding words on a page or website. There’s writing, there’s creative writing, and then there’s creative writing in the world according to [insert critic here].

“How much is on our minds before we begin playing any given game for review purposes? Will we imagine a range of probable scores that a heavily marketed, highly budgeted, and hugely anticipated game will get?” What do I do when I find a wallet on the sidewalk? Do I hold the door for the person behind me? Do these questions define what makes a better review or just a better person? And most important, are these answers even important?

I grew up in Chicago, and therefore on Siskel and Ebert. Ebert was always my favorite because, well, the Sun-Times is in tabloid format and easier to carry. Seriously, I always found Ebert to be a better writer. Although Ebert is the one with the Pulitzer, he always dismissed that argument by saying the Tribune’s format didn’t give Siskel’s abilities the room they deserved (Ebert’s reviews were always represented in essay format; Siskel’s in digest). But most importantly, I read Ebert because I felt he agreed with my sensibilities. From pre-teen to post-college, I rarely knew Ebert the Person, yet I still thought this. Why? Because of what I gathered from his writings and reviews. When he liked or disliked something, he said why. He gave examples. He gave anecdotes. From those, and over the course of 20+ years, I learned to trust Roger Ebert as much as I did my own parents. Maybe even more so.

Reviewers are so wrapped up in the formula they get lost in it, and I think that’s the real problem. Everything else is what it is, and as what it should be.

Source: Unrealized reviews symposium

Leigh Alexander of Sexy Videogameland had a couple of choice nuggets to chew on:

When a title attempts to explore uncharted areas, it risks stumbling into areas that have been neglected for a good reason — because they don’t work as well. But when we fault them for trying, without recognizing that the game might have done a few new things well, or when we treat creativity or an attempt at inventiveness as a design flaw, we’re sending the industry some problematic mixed messages. We demand innovation and invention, and then we crucify any attempts in that direction.

The above comment was in response to Silent Hill: Homecoming, but rekindled from the spark Mirror’s Edge seems to have caused throughout the industry. So then, should Alone in the Dark for the Xbox 360 have warranted a 58 score on metacritic? Or the “improved” PS3 release, which received an average of 67? Maybe 1UP’s Nick Suttner was right, saying it was one of the overlooked gems of 2008? I’ll just say that’s why I bought it when it was released, although it’s still sealed on my shelf.

I tend to agree with this way of thinking. A game should be respected by trying something new and interesting. Now, let’s be clear, this is different than how Japanese developers like to reinvent things such as online play and controls for no good reason. There’s no way Dirge of Cerberus gets a recommendation in my book…

Leigh’s other point is one I’ve often thought of myself (”The Four Month Bell Curve”):

Here’s how it works — starting at about six months prior to release, the hype machine builds, reaching a fever pitch during the magical week. And in the week that follows, said highly-anticipated title is the greatest thing since sliced bread; reviewers use hyperbolic superlative adjectives, the top five Digg stories pertain to said game, it makes mainstream media headlines in spots like the New York Times or Slate (Newsweek doesn’t count, because we cheat by having N’Gai).

Fast forward a month later, and the backlash begins with a strongly worded post from the blog community, perhaps one single acerbic writer who doesn’t get what the fuss is all about. This, too, draws massive internet traffic, as seas of enamored fans flock to the dispute. And then, well, wait, wait, says someone else, Dissenter Zero might have a point — and then before you know it, we’re not talking “most breathtaking open-world experience EVER,” but we’re talking more like “ludonarrative dissonance,” and things like that (these are not actual quotes about GTA IV, as far as I’m aware, but might as well be — “ludonarrative dissonance” refers to BioShock, actually).

This has been going on for years. I placed it back to the first Prince of Persia: Sands of Time game. What was a game of the year contender when it was first released, it was singled out for it’s many flaws by the time the sequel was being previewed. Same with Jade Empire. Same with Halo 2. Same with BioShock.

Game reviews fall into this trap because they are packaged as buyers guides rather than genuine criticism. They are meant to hit the web by the time the game is on store shelves. Since most games sell the majority of their total sales during the first few weeks in stores, that means there are droves of potential buyers swarming the review sites to see if it is worth their hard-earned $60. See where this is a problem? Reviewers are forced to plow through a game within a set timeframe, write down their opinions in haste and paste it on the front page of a website to grab valuable traffic. They aren’t allowed to let their experience age, to reflect upon it for days or even weeks afterward.

Now, one can argue that film and music could also fall in this trap, since they are day-and-date driven by retail sales. The difference here is that those types of media benefit from manageable time commitments and lend themselves to repeat viewings or listenings, to help flesh out that initial love-or-hate fest. I used to review music for my university’s newspaper, and I’d listen to a CD over and over again throughout a weekend before I put my first word on paper.  I was able to dig deeper into a song, discover its true meaning, or at least what it meant to me. I could hear the conflict between the upbeat melody and the underlying melancholy lyrics that might get a pass if I only heard it once. That in turn resulted in some pretty good personal insight in my reviews, some that I’d be damned proud to reprint here if I still had my scrapbook of writings…

So why do videogames suffer from a short honeymoon? It’s because a 10+ hour game isn’t easy to playthrough a second or third time before a review deadline is met. What we’re ever seeing is the reviewer’s initial impressions based on a single playthrough. And the nature of game criticism is, that’s pretty much gospel.

Turns out all these holiday releases do more than give us all sore thumbs, they’ve inspired a slew of bloggers to critique the people who are critiquing all those AAA titles, especially when so many are falling in the love-it-or-hate-it bin. I’ve been on this bandwagon before, and I’m also at it again, but let’s see what some other folks have to say on the subject:

From The Guardian UK’s Games Blog, Keith Stuart wrote:

I found the IGN review particularly depressing. Not only does the writer suggest that the combat system could have done with an extra button (wha? Why?! Why add extra layers of complexity? Since when was that an artful response to anything?), but he ends with:

The ideas are there for a very cool experience, and I truly hope that a sequel is spawned, but this first attempt falls just a bit short.

Can you imagine, for a second, critics emerging from the press screening of Apocalypse Now, or The Magnificent Ambersons, or Bladerunner and proclaiming, ‘yeah, it had some good ideas, but it wasn’t perfect – I’ll look forward to the sequel’. I suppose there’s an argument that, as films are only ninety minutes long, we’ll accept a more flawed experience, but are notions of quality really so tightly governed by longevity? I hope not.

I think most critics have the right idea but wrong execution for this argument. I’m in software development, and we thrive on iterative development and design. There’s iteration on a project level, but also iteration on a portfolio level as well (with portfolio, think franchises for gaming). A perfect case study would be the Crash Bandicoot franchise. The first one was Sony’s entry into the mascot race on the original Playstation. I think everyone at the time thought it was pretty mediocre with some underlying potential. Naughty Dog was able to iterate on that original game with the feedback they received from the community, and good golly miss molly if Crash 2 wasn’t an improvement if not defining moment in the 32-bit sweeps.

Taking the argument to film, as did Keith, look at The Transporter or Austin Powers. Both weren’t huge successes at the box office, but they found enough of an audience in the secondary market to convince the studios to fund two sequels each. So in this case, yes, people do actually say, “I like what I see, now give me more of it and better!”

Therefore, I agree with IGN’s statement in concept. Just to add, John Waters once said there should be more remakes of bad movies than good ones; the “sequelitis” to which Keith referred is really just this opportunity for developers to iterate on a good concept which might have been buried in bad execution. And hey, he should be happy videogames have this opportunity; the film industry is still busy remaking classics like “Miracle on 34th Street” and “Psycho”.

Here’s another hypothetical review:

Bill: I’ve really been looking forward to Mass Effect 2 for a long time, and now that it’s finally here I feel a little bit underwhelmed. The first game had its share of problems with the dialog options, despite trying something different from the typical branching conversations found in other RPGs. That said, there’s not much more they could do to improve on here and it shows. The combat was another big issue I had with the original, and here they’ve dumbed it down a tad to make it more KOTOR-like and manageable; that said, I was really looking forward to something along the lines of GRAW, but that just didn’t happen.

Jonas: I couldn’t agree more. Through my thirty hours of playtime my experience with the game was not substantially different than the first, and that is a letdown. Sure, the beautiful graphics have improved with better film filters, less texture pop-in and more realistic facial animations, and I loved the additional character customization options. But the real problem was the story, or lack thereof. The first game set up such a huge and wondrous universe full of potential, but here it feels like the developers cut costs by retreading familiar worlds and environments from the first game.

Ninja-Z: Guys, what game were you playing? I loved the addition of the fourth party member for combat, and the ability to play with the first game’s twitchy mechanic. The story is pretty grand, although we are only seeing a sliver of it here. The backstory can be filled in with codex entries (and I suggest reading the three novels to get the full experience) and there’s the prospect of a third game based on the game’s shocking ending (SPOILER!).  Sure, some of it might feel familiar, but here familiar is so good. There isn’t a better RPG available on any system this year.

Okay, how would a developer who spent tens of millions of dollars and years of work to craft such a product feel when their game is relegated to 500 words? The point I’m trying to make here is how can anyone find such a reflection on a playthrough that took thirty hours anything less than insulting?

Game reviews are frequently compared to film reviews. Although they are different media, they are both products in the same vein, offering both a sensory and emotional experience. So why then do game reviewers rarely relay that type of individual experience felt by critics in a typical film review?

A few good examples of game criticism do exist. Game discussion at length is a good exercise. 1UP FM’s recent backlog playthrough of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. provided some excellent group insight and personal experience that seldom makes it to the written word. The Giant Bomb guys, in talking about Street Fighter, showed that such intelligent conversation can occur about the technical aspects of a game as well. And of course, the GFW guys’ frequent tangents always proved more engaging than anything put to print (sans Greenspeak, of course).

Could it be the journalists who review games are well qualified to critique them, yet lack the requisite skill necessary to communicate their thoughts effectively through their writings? Shawn Elliott was accepted as the industry champion for better journalism, and his frequent rants on the subject indicated he was qualified as such. For some reason, however, that same passion never made it to print. Does that mean he was merely a better student, or were the confines of 1UP to blame for his aspirations never taking flight? And why is talking about good game journalism more celebrated than actually doing it? I guess we’ll never know – after moving on to 2K Boston, he has become to journalism as Bam Margera is to television, with his Internet Wall of Shame daily updates on Twitter.

On a recent Player One Podcast, former game journalist and current Sega producer Ethan Einhorn suggested writing is all about the personalities, and that someone like Elliott should have been “thrown a couple hundred thousand dollars” to keep him. Ah, $200k for what amounts to stories of juvenile disobedience and ongoing episodes of online griefing? No thanks, I’d rather spend that money for a real journalist.