- Def Jam: Fight for NY off to factory -- Electronic Arts' rapper-brawler has gone gold; set to ship September 20.
- Rome: Total War goes gold -- The Creative Assembly's ancient-world real-time-strategy game marches on to the factory.
- ShellShock: Nam '67 ships -- Less than 24 hours after it goes gold, Eidos' Vietnam-set shooter marches on to stores.
- Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2005 golden -- Electronic Arts' perennially popular golf game is being caddied to the factory.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Slow News Day
The top four stories on Gamespot at 4:20 EST on Mon., Sept. 13, 2004 (headline and sub-head):
Friday, September 10, 2004
Rumor Engine: Games
The next time you're about to post a story that you think sounds a bit fishy, you might want to check with Rumor Engine: Games. While the submissions there range from potentially credible to totally ludicrous to pretty amusing, chances are if it appears on Rumor Engine it needs a little more fact-checking.
Even if you aren't researching a specific article, crusing the rumors is a fun way to learn what kinds of chatter is being thrown around cyberspace. Or, if yo uwant to have some fun, post your own rumor and see how long it takes to appear in your favorite news outlet.
Even if you aren't researching a specific article, crusing the rumors is a fun way to learn what kinds of chatter is being thrown around cyberspace. Or, if yo uwant to have some fun, post your own rumor and see how long it takes to appear in your favorite news outlet.
DT Q & A on GJ
Yay, acronyms!
If you haven't has a chance to check out Rich Miller's Game Journalism blog yet, now's as good a time as any. Rich looks at game journalism as a part of the larger videogame industry and manages to consistently link to excellent examples of good game writing.
Rich recently posted a Q & A with Dave Thomas of the International Game Journalists Association. I've considered Dave a good friend for a few months now, even though we've only met in person for literally 30 seconds at Nokia's E3 booth. If you read the Q & A, you'll probably notice that we share a lot of the same ideas on game journalism and where it's going. It's nice to know that a succesful, mainstream columnist and a struggling, freelance hack can agree on some things.
If you haven't has a chance to check out Rich Miller's Game Journalism blog yet, now's as good a time as any. Rich looks at game journalism as a part of the larger videogame industry and manages to consistently link to excellent examples of good game writing.
Rich recently posted a Q & A with Dave Thomas of the International Game Journalists Association. I've considered Dave a good friend for a few months now, even though we've only met in person for literally 30 seconds at Nokia's E3 booth. If you read the Q & A, you'll probably notice that we share a lot of the same ideas on game journalism and where it's going. It's nice to know that a succesful, mainstream columnist and a struggling, freelance hack can agree on some things.
Thursday, September 9, 2004
When the Latest News Isn't
Turns out that the local PBS affiliate was only showing the new Video Game Revolution special on the high-definition digital cable channel. Despite the literally couple of dollars that the ads to the right have garnered, I can not currently afford a high-definition TV, so I could not watch the documentary last night
As I try to procure a copy of the program another way, enjoy this interview I've been sitting on for a while:
A few weeks ago, the story broke that Nintendo had been granted a patent for an add-on device with "communication and storage capability via a modem and hard disk drive."
Some in the videogame press community (and some in the non-videogame press) quickly filed speculative reports on the device as an XBox Live-style GameCube peripheral. One source featured the highly misleading headline, "Nintendo Patents XBox Live". Another source enigmatically guessed that the device might function as a Personal Video Recorder. It was race time at the rumor track.
To my knowledge, Gamespot's Tor Thorsen was the first author on this story to track down the actual patent, rather than relying on the summary provided on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Site. What he found revealed the newly-approved patent as a 1999 filing for the now-defunct Nintendo 64 Disk Drive.
I talked with Thorsen via e-mail about the fact-checking that went into his story and how videogame press as a whole handled the situation.
The Video Game Ombudsman: How were you first tipped off about this story?
Tor Thorsen: If told you, then I'd have to kill you. (just kidding -- see below)
VGO: When you get a tip like this, what sort of fact checking does it go through? Does this process apply to all articles, or only some? Take me through the process.
TT: Initially we were tipped off about the patent. I looked it up at the US Patent & Trademark office (USPTO) and found out it was legit. I looked at the description, and checked the "granted" date. I also sent off e-mails to Nintendo's reps (who can be very slow about getting back). Then I wrote an initial draft of the story, which heavily played up how strange it was that the week before, NOA reps were talking up game-only devices and blasting the PSX. According to that patent, they were making something that sounded a lot like a cross between the PSX (TV integration) and Xbox Live (online & game-content downloading capabilities). That version got sent to copy edit while I did a second round of fact-checking.
VGO: Was there anything about the story that made it seem particularly suspicious to you when you first heard about it?
TT: The whole situation seemed bizarre--either Nintendo's whole PR effort for the last year was BS, or they had done a "Crazy Ivan" about-face. It just seemed off. My spider sense was tingling, but there was the official gov't USPTO listing right in front of my face. Then I got hold of the scan, and I realized it was the 64DD.
VGO: What part of the patent scan first indicated to you that the patent was for the 64DD and not a new system or peripheral?
The diagram (!) and the other dates -- neither of which was including in the listing on the USPTO Web site.
VGO: Are you surprised that articles that preceded yours (and some since) did not notice the connection to the 64DD? Do you think these sources actually read through the entire patent?
TT: Online game news is a two-headed beast. You want to be first to put it up, but you also need to get the facts right. I think a lot of sites let the former override the latter. I come from a more traditional journalism background, so I've had fact-checking drilled into my head since I worked at my college paper.
That said, the online USPTO listing did not have the diagram or the initial date on it. The one thing that sent my alarm bells ringing was the original date on the page which said "Filed: April 4, 2003." That meant that either Nintendo's PR people had been putting on a very false front by pooh-poohing "convergence" (or whatever the marketing droids are calling it this week) for over a year, or something was amiss.
Here's the whole content from the USPTO site:
[editted out for space. See the online USPTO listing]
Reading that--an official document from the US gov't--you can see how it would be really easy to think it was a brand-new patent.
VGO: If you had not figured out the true nature of the patent, how long do you think it would have continued to be reported incorrectly? How far do you think the speculation would have gone?
Not long. Shortly after my story went up, Nintendo called to explain it to me. They called other people too, but, ironically, only one of our competitors bothered correcting it immediately. The others let it run until the next day, and many smaller-level sites were parroting it as fact days later. Nintendo was smart to do damage control, though -- a lot of publishers don't understand that rumors will persist only for as long as they let them and stay silent, fueling speculation.
VGO: What do you recomend to other videogame news writers to avoid oversights like the one your article corrected?
Something like 75 to 80 percent of news stories are based on press releases, so no fact checking is really necessary (though, due to the vague wording, clarifications often are). It's easy to get sloppy when you're getting spoonfed stuff all the time and you've got about a half-hour to write the thing, proof it, code it, publish it, and make it not sound like crap.
That said, a lot of people have been in this game a lot longer than me, so I wouldn't presume to tell them how to do their jobs. My advice to myself is simple: check your facts and trust your instincts. If something feels wrong, that's probably because it is.
As I try to procure a copy of the program another way, enjoy this interview I've been sitting on for a while:
A few weeks ago, the story broke that Nintendo had been granted a patent for an add-on device with "communication and storage capability via a modem and hard disk drive."
Some in the videogame press community (and some in the non-videogame press) quickly filed speculative reports on the device as an XBox Live-style GameCube peripheral. One source featured the highly misleading headline, "Nintendo Patents XBox Live". Another source enigmatically guessed that the device might function as a Personal Video Recorder. It was race time at the rumor track.
To my knowledge, Gamespot's Tor Thorsen was the first author on this story to track down the actual patent, rather than relying on the summary provided on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Site. What he found revealed the newly-approved patent as a 1999 filing for the now-defunct Nintendo 64 Disk Drive.
I talked with Thorsen via e-mail about the fact-checking that went into his story and how videogame press as a whole handled the situation.
The Video Game Ombudsman: How were you first tipped off about this story?
Tor Thorsen: If told you, then I'd have to kill you. (just kidding -- see below)
VGO: When you get a tip like this, what sort of fact checking does it go through? Does this process apply to all articles, or only some? Take me through the process.
TT: Initially we were tipped off about the patent. I looked it up at the US Patent & Trademark office (USPTO) and found out it was legit. I looked at the description, and checked the "granted" date. I also sent off e-mails to Nintendo's reps (who can be very slow about getting back). Then I wrote an initial draft of the story, which heavily played up how strange it was that the week before, NOA reps were talking up game-only devices and blasting the PSX. According to that patent, they were making something that sounded a lot like a cross between the PSX (TV integration) and Xbox Live (online & game-content downloading capabilities). That version got sent to copy edit while I did a second round of fact-checking.
VGO: Was there anything about the story that made it seem particularly suspicious to you when you first heard about it?
TT: The whole situation seemed bizarre--either Nintendo's whole PR effort for the last year was BS, or they had done a "Crazy Ivan" about-face. It just seemed off. My spider sense was tingling, but there was the official gov't USPTO listing right in front of my face. Then I got hold of the scan, and I realized it was the 64DD.
VGO: What part of the patent scan first indicated to you that the patent was for the 64DD and not a new system or peripheral?
The diagram (!) and the other dates -- neither of which was including in the listing on the USPTO Web site.
VGO: Are you surprised that articles that preceded yours (and some since) did not notice the connection to the 64DD? Do you think these sources actually read through the entire patent?
TT: Online game news is a two-headed beast. You want to be first to put it up, but you also need to get the facts right. I think a lot of sites let the former override the latter. I come from a more traditional journalism background, so I've had fact-checking drilled into my head since I worked at my college paper.
That said, the online USPTO listing did not have the diagram or the initial date on it. The one thing that sent my alarm bells ringing was the original date on the page which said "Filed: April 4, 2003." That meant that either Nintendo's PR people had been putting on a very false front by pooh-poohing "convergence" (or whatever the marketing droids are calling it this week) for over a year, or something was amiss.
Here's the whole content from the USPTO site:
[editted out for space. See the online USPTO listing]
Reading that--an official document from the US gov't--you can see how it would be really easy to think it was a brand-new patent.
VGO: If you had not figured out the true nature of the patent, how long do you think it would have continued to be reported incorrectly? How far do you think the speculation would have gone?
Not long. Shortly after my story went up, Nintendo called to explain it to me. They called other people too, but, ironically, only one of our competitors bothered correcting it immediately. The others let it run until the next day, and many smaller-level sites were parroting it as fact days later. Nintendo was smart to do damage control, though -- a lot of publishers don't understand that rumors will persist only for as long as they let them and stay silent, fueling speculation.
VGO: What do you recomend to other videogame news writers to avoid oversights like the one your article corrected?
Something like 75 to 80 percent of news stories are based on press releases, so no fact checking is really necessary (though, due to the vague wording, clarifications often are). It's easy to get sloppy when you're getting spoonfed stuff all the time and you've got about a half-hour to write the thing, proof it, code it, publish it, and make it not sound like crap.
That said, a lot of people have been in this game a lot longer than me, so I wouldn't presume to tell them how to do their jobs. My advice to myself is simple: check your facts and trust your instincts. If something feels wrong, that's probably because it is.
Wednesday, September 8, 2004
PBS And Playboy Prattle About Play
First off, before I start to hear from a bunch of complainers saying I already broke my Tuesday/Thursday update rule, it was not my fault. The date and time on the new introduction post reflect when it was actually ready to publish, not when it was actually published because of Blogger glitches.
Anyway, people looking for interesting perspectives on videogames from unlikely sources have two very distinct choices today. The first is a new PBS special, The Videogame Revolution, which is premiering tonight at 9 p.m. I'm a little biased towards public broadcasting (my day job is at NPR), but I am looking forward to what will no doubt be a comprehensive look at the short history of the medium. Expect a full review tomorrow.
Today's second selection from the "they cover videogames?!?" file is Playboy, whose October issue features full-frontal nude pictures of videogame characters. It'd be easy to write this feature off as not worthy of serious consideration, but a quote about the feature in an Associated Press story today made me think otherwise:
"Part of the thrust of the piece is that gaming is not just for kids," [Playboy senior editor Scott] Alexander said. "We want to establish the way Playboy's going to be covering video games. We want to cover them from perspective of an adult who has a life. We're not writing video game reviews for kids who play five hours a day. We're writing for the grown-up who may play five hours a week, if that much."
I might just have to pick this one up. For the articles, of course.
Anyway, people looking for interesting perspectives on videogames from unlikely sources have two very distinct choices today. The first is a new PBS special, The Videogame Revolution, which is premiering tonight at 9 p.m. I'm a little biased towards public broadcasting (my day job is at NPR), but I am looking forward to what will no doubt be a comprehensive look at the short history of the medium. Expect a full review tomorrow.
Today's second selection from the "they cover videogames?!?" file is Playboy, whose October issue features full-frontal nude pictures of videogame characters. It'd be easy to write this feature off as not worthy of serious consideration, but a quote about the feature in an Associated Press story today made me think otherwise:
"Part of the thrust of the piece is that gaming is not just for kids," [Playboy senior editor Scott] Alexander said. "We want to establish the way Playboy's going to be covering video games. We want to cover them from perspective of an adult who has a life. We're not writing video game reviews for kids who play five hours a day. We're writing for the grown-up who may play five hours a week, if that much."
I might just have to pick this one up. For the articles, of course.
Tuesday, September 7, 2004
Introduction V 2.0
Any sufficiently developed artistic medium requires an equally developed set of critical and journalistic standards to help give it meaning.
-Me
The question of whether videogames are an artistic medium is far from settled, but granted that premise, I hope the conclusion above makes sense to you. If so, welcome to The Video Game Ombudsman.
Until very recently, most writing about videogames was, to be blunt, thinly veiled public relations junk. Overtly corporate magazines like Nintendo Power and other more independent publications gave young gamers who could string a few sentences together a job that let them play games for a living. What they wrote usually wasn't considered that important -- just some press release filler to condense the whitespace between the pictures and ads that fueled childhood dreams and filled publisher pockets. Not that it couldn't be good, even great, but it wasn't well-developed as a whole.
Times are changing. A generation that grew up on games does not consider them mere child's play anymore. Fiction authors, cultural critics, academics and journalists are taking a serious look at videogames as more than just a consumer product. They're writing web sites, blogs, articles and books that expand the way people think about games.
This blog is dedicated to any such writing.
In the original introduction to this blog, I said I would "put a check on the often sloppy, lazy, biased, and unethical world of video game reporting." That is still a focus of this site; journalistic standards and ethical considerations will be discussed.
But in the coming year the blog will also try to answer broader questions about videogame writing. What important topics aren't being covered by the videogame press? What topics are we harping on too much? Does videogame writing influence or only reflect videogame making? Who are we writing for? What can videogame criticism learn from other critical forms? What should it reject? Is there still a place for the print videogame magazine? What makes videogame writing good?
I'll attempt to answer these and other questions through regular, well-researched columns, editorials and interviews, as well as occasional links to other sites that address the same topics. The writing, as usual, will mix my unapologetic opinions with fact-based reporting and the views and opinions of my readers.
There's a lot of videogame writing out there, and I can't read it all. If you see a piece of videogame writing or think of a game journalism issue you have a strong opinion about, I want to hear it. As I've said before, "this column is only as good as the readers that take part in it, so do your part by dropping me a line."
About the Blogger
Kyle Orland graduated from the University of Maryland, College Park in May 2004 with degrees in computer science and journalism. He's been writing about videogames since 1997, when he founded Super Mario Bros. HQ, which he ran for four years. He's written for a variety of online and print publications including The Diamondback, GameCritics, and GameSpot. Kyle is a founding member of the International Game Journalists Association and is always looking for freelance and permanent writing opportunities. His favorite game of all time is Super Mario 64.
Also, he's not really an ombudsman.
-Me
The question of whether videogames are an artistic medium is far from settled, but granted that premise, I hope the conclusion above makes sense to you. If so, welcome to The Video Game Ombudsman.
Until very recently, most writing about videogames was, to be blunt, thinly veiled public relations junk. Overtly corporate magazines like Nintendo Power and other more independent publications gave young gamers who could string a few sentences together a job that let them play games for a living. What they wrote usually wasn't considered that important -- just some press release filler to condense the whitespace between the pictures and ads that fueled childhood dreams and filled publisher pockets. Not that it couldn't be good, even great, but it wasn't well-developed as a whole.
Times are changing. A generation that grew up on games does not consider them mere child's play anymore. Fiction authors, cultural critics, academics and journalists are taking a serious look at videogames as more than just a consumer product. They're writing web sites, blogs, articles and books that expand the way people think about games.
This blog is dedicated to any such writing.
In the original introduction to this blog, I said I would "put a check on the often sloppy, lazy, biased, and unethical world of video game reporting." That is still a focus of this site; journalistic standards and ethical considerations will be discussed.
But in the coming year the blog will also try to answer broader questions about videogame writing. What important topics aren't being covered by the videogame press? What topics are we harping on too much? Does videogame writing influence or only reflect videogame making? Who are we writing for? What can videogame criticism learn from other critical forms? What should it reject? Is there still a place for the print videogame magazine? What makes videogame writing good?
I'll attempt to answer these and other questions through regular, well-researched columns, editorials and interviews, as well as occasional links to other sites that address the same topics. The writing, as usual, will mix my unapologetic opinions with fact-based reporting and the views and opinions of my readers.
There's a lot of videogame writing out there, and I can't read it all. If you see a piece of videogame writing or think of a game journalism issue you have a strong opinion about, I want to hear it. As I've said before, "this column is only as good as the readers that take part in it, so do your part by dropping me a line."
About the Blogger
Kyle Orland graduated from the University of Maryland, College Park in May 2004 with degrees in computer science and journalism. He's been writing about videogames since 1997, when he founded Super Mario Bros. HQ, which he ran for four years. He's written for a variety of online and print publications including The Diamondback, GameCritics, and GameSpot. Kyle is a founding member of the International Game Journalists Association and is always looking for freelance and permanent writing opportunities. His favorite game of all time is Super Mario 64.
Also, he's not really an ombudsman.
Friday, September 3, 2004
The VGO Is Back
If you've ever read a blog, you know it's the bloggers perogative to take long, unannounced hiatuses only to return as if nothing ever happened. Or, at least you do now.
The difference is I'm not acting like nothing ever happened. Now that I've taken some time to enjoy the last days of summer (and am preparing to enjoy a long Labor Day weekend) I'm ready to rededicate myself to the Ombudsman. This will manifest itself in a few ways:
The difference is I'm not acting like nothing ever happened. Now that I've taken some time to enjoy the last days of summer (and am preparing to enjoy a long Labor Day weekend) I'm ready to rededicate myself to the Ombudsman. This will manifest itself in a few ways:
- Regular Updates: Promises, promises, I know, but this time I'm serious. The Video Game Ombudsman will be updated with features every Tuesday and Thursday, starting next week. By features, I mean longish articles, usually falling into one of the following categories:
- Interviews: These have gotten some good response from readers recently and, frankly, they're easy to do, so expect more of them in the future.
- Reviews: I figure if others can review games, why can't I review them? Magazines (both specific issues and entire publications), web sites, and books will be subjectively reviewed for overall quality based on what I consider important (which should be apparent to readers by now). Expect my usual unapologetic opinions.
- Editorials: My usual post style, dealing with the larger issues of video game writing that I find interesting. These will sometimes be general diatribes and sometimes be specific complaints.
- Coverage Analysis: As big events happen in the world of videogames, I'll look at how the videogame press deals with them, as I've done in the past.
- Other Updates: On other days of the week, expect shorter updates with links to videogame-journalism related things I find interesting or short commentaries about how I'm right and everyone else is wrong.
- Administrivia: Little things around the site are changing along with Blogger, including different Google ads (on the right), a new comment system (see the bottom of this post), each archived post on its own page, and the ability to e-mail posts to friends.
In the interest of full disclosure, I do make some money from the ads, based on clicks, but I don't actively solicit them. Rather, they're provided automtically based on the content of the page. So if you notice me trying to awkwardly fit in the names of big companies to attract big-paying ads, feel free to call me on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)