When I saw the Gamespot headline NBA Street V3 garners gold, I initially thought the game had won some sort of award. I found this a bit odd, at first, because the game had not yet come out when the article was written. I read on, though, and found that the game "is off to the factory and will be on store shelves February 8." It had "gone gold" as the saying goes.
Notwithstanding the difference between going gold and garnering gold, I always found the phrase "gone gold" to be more than a little distracting. Granted, I can see using the term occasionally if stuck for space in a headline -- "gone gold" does fit better than "ready to ship" or even the comparable "complete" -- but the term has crept into common usage in the text of game enthusiast sites and press releases. Many of these uses offer no explanation to the term's meaning except for context. Others explain it to the extent that the term itself is rendered useless, as in these two examples:
id Software CEO Todd Hollenshead announced today that its eagerly anticipated action/horror title DOOM 3 has finally "gone gold," meaning that it's been signed off as complete and sent off for duplication, with an "official" in-store date of August 5
-DOOM 3 has GONE GOLD!
Bungie today announced that Halo 2, easily the most anticipated game in the Xbox's history, has passed all the critical phases in development and has reached the final stage in its production process: It's gone "gold."
Gone gold isn't actually what happens anymore to most final discs. "Gold discs" are in fact digital tapes that get transferred to a master disc that is then copied onto millions of discs. But putting technical explanations aside: Halo 2 has been shipped to retail manufacturing and it's being duplicated for millions worldwide as you read this.
-Halo 2 is Golden
In either case, the term is exactly the type of shorthand jargon that makes video game journalism utterly inaccessible to casual readers, and this reason alone should be enough to do away with it for good.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Headline of the Moment
XBOX 2 IS 'UNBELIEVABLE', SAYS MICROSOFT CEO
Subhead: Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Steve Ballmer gets all excited (again) inside...
Subhead: Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Steve Ballmer gets all excited (again) inside...
Wednesday, February 9, 2005
Good Gamers, Bad Game Reviewers?
Adrenaline Vault's Bob Mandel posted an interesting think piece last weekend regarding whether or not good gamers make good game reviewers. The article's main argument is that the skills needed to succeed at games are different than those needed to succeed at reviewing.
There are certain personality traits that often go with being a top gamer capable of winning various kinds of competitions. Without getting into negative stereotypes, such players often seem to outsiders to be neurotic, obsessive, narrowly focused, impatient, inflexible, impossibly definitive, and condescending to those outside of their circle. None of these characteristics associates with the potential to be an outstanding reviewer. Moreover, many of the best players lack the perspective and maturity to take a more detached and overarching view of the titles they play.
Mandel goes on to judge gamers lacking in communication skills based on blog and forum posts and postulates that gamers "used to an unending stream of positive feedback" would not be able to handle the harsh rejection of the game journalism world. "Without getting into negative stereotypes," indeed!
Video game are unique among reviewed entertainment media in that some people will literally not be able to experience the whole work before writing the review. If you asked someone who had never watched a movie to go see "Citizen Kane" and write a review, he might overlook some key points -- ideas of pacing, directing, cinematography, mise en scene and so forth acting would be totally lost on him. But at least he will have seen the entire movie, beginning to end, in a little less than two hours, and probably will have a basic understanding of the movie's basic story elements.
Imagine the same scenario with Metal Gear Solid and a person who has never played a video game before. Even with the instruction booklet, the reviewer will likely awkwardly fumble with the controller, randomly run around and jam on buttons, die prematurely and generally be unduly frustrated. If the reviewer finishes at all, it will only be after dozens of hours of painful learning and development as a game player.
Obviously, game reviewers need to have some skill at games to be able to fully experience them. For this reason, I don't think there's such a thing as being too good at games. Even if I, as a reviewer, find a game too easy, I think I'd be able to use my memories of my gaming skill development to determine if other gamers might find it difficult. The alternative -- not being able to complete and fully review a game that's you find too hard -- does a greater disservice to gamers who would be able to beat the game easily.
That being said, Mandel does make some good points. His thoughts on comparative game reviewing are especially apt:
To me, perhaps the most critical component of review quality is the ability of the reviewer to place an offering in a deep and rich context, with extensive references to relevant releases in the same genre. Having experience with similar titles and being able to bring comparative insights to bear within a review is thus absolutely vital. The ability to play games well does not appear on the surface to increase or decrease the likelihood that this vital contextualization will occur in reviews.
Mandel has it backwards in that last sentence, though. While game playing skill does not necessarily imply a broad, contextualized view of gaming, any gamer who has played enough games to have gain a broad view would probably develop some above-average gaming skills along the way.
In short, while being good at games doesn't necessarily make you good at reviewing games, I'd say it probably doesn't hurt either.
There are certain personality traits that often go with being a top gamer capable of winning various kinds of competitions. Without getting into negative stereotypes, such players often seem to outsiders to be neurotic, obsessive, narrowly focused, impatient, inflexible, impossibly definitive, and condescending to those outside of their circle. None of these characteristics associates with the potential to be an outstanding reviewer. Moreover, many of the best players lack the perspective and maturity to take a more detached and overarching view of the titles they play.
Mandel goes on to judge gamers lacking in communication skills based on blog and forum posts and postulates that gamers "used to an unending stream of positive feedback" would not be able to handle the harsh rejection of the game journalism world. "Without getting into negative stereotypes," indeed!
Video game are unique among reviewed entertainment media in that some people will literally not be able to experience the whole work before writing the review. If you asked someone who had never watched a movie to go see "Citizen Kane" and write a review, he might overlook some key points -- ideas of pacing, directing, cinematography, mise en scene and so forth acting would be totally lost on him. But at least he will have seen the entire movie, beginning to end, in a little less than two hours, and probably will have a basic understanding of the movie's basic story elements.
Imagine the same scenario with Metal Gear Solid and a person who has never played a video game before. Even with the instruction booklet, the reviewer will likely awkwardly fumble with the controller, randomly run around and jam on buttons, die prematurely and generally be unduly frustrated. If the reviewer finishes at all, it will only be after dozens of hours of painful learning and development as a game player.
Obviously, game reviewers need to have some skill at games to be able to fully experience them. For this reason, I don't think there's such a thing as being too good at games. Even if I, as a reviewer, find a game too easy, I think I'd be able to use my memories of my gaming skill development to determine if other gamers might find it difficult. The alternative -- not being able to complete and fully review a game that's you find too hard -- does a greater disservice to gamers who would be able to beat the game easily.
That being said, Mandel does make some good points. His thoughts on comparative game reviewing are especially apt:
To me, perhaps the most critical component of review quality is the ability of the reviewer to place an offering in a deep and rich context, with extensive references to relevant releases in the same genre. Having experience with similar titles and being able to bring comparative insights to bear within a review is thus absolutely vital. The ability to play games well does not appear on the surface to increase or decrease the likelihood that this vital contextualization will occur in reviews.
Mandel has it backwards in that last sentence, though. While game playing skill does not necessarily imply a broad, contextualized view of gaming, any gamer who has played enough games to have gain a broad view would probably develop some above-average gaming skills along the way.
In short, while being good at games doesn't necessarily make you good at reviewing games, I'd say it probably doesn't hurt either.
Interviewees: Doing the Scum's Job
Came across this gem from IGN's Ivan Sulic while looking through my referral links. Ivan's words in bold:
Do Work For Me
To whom it may concern,
My name is Kyle Orland. I'm doing some research for a feature article on my weblog, The Video Game Ombudsman (http://vgombud.blogspot.com). The feature will focus on video game reviewers' answer to a seemingly simple, but actually quite complex, question:
How long do you have to play a game before you're ready to review it?
Feel free to answer the question however you want,and make your response as long or as short as you want (of course, longer would be better for me). In your answer, try to consider the following related questions:
* Does the amount of time needed change for different genres? * How do you handle games that don't have an official end? (Tetris, The Sims) * How do you handle massively multiplayer online games? * Do you need to see everything in a game before reviewing it? * How do you know if you've seen everything in a game? * Is there a minimum amount of time needed to fully understand a game? A maximum? * Does the amount of time spent with a game affect it's rating? * Does a game's rating affect the amount of time you spend playing it for review (i.e. you play better games longer before writing the review)?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
-- Kyle
Wait a second, you want me to write your blog for you and I won't get paid for it? Sure! I'll get right on that after a meteor hits me in the face and expels all common sense from my body. Thing is, I've never even done my own blog, Kyle. Why would I willingly contribute to yours?
I will give you some advice though, if you think you're going to get a load of honest answers from this industry, you're sorely mistaken. I've worked with a lot of scrubs at different companies, and while they all speak high and mighty, it turns out they scam their own businesses out of freelance money just so that they can bust out fewer 250 word fluff pieces they call articles. Our industry is filled with scum and scrubs and dorks and the occasionally decent person. Don't bother polling a bunch of ogres unless you want to hear a bunch of inane grunts that drown out the one or two bits of genuine truth you're likely to receive.
-- Ivan
A little bit of background. This exchange appeared in IGN's Oct. 8, 2004, PS2 mailbag. The original mail I sent was obviously part of a canvassing of game reviewers for a feature I was planning on standards for game reviews. I contacted quite a few people, some who I had talked to before and some who I hadn't. I got very few responses, so I put the project on the backburner. Ivan didn't see fit to respond to my inquiry directly through e-mail, but obviously did decide to post this response on his web site (something none of the other targets did. I think).
The first part of Ivan's response, in my view, is a little silly. I didn't ask him to write my blog for me... I asked him to respond to an interview question. It's a courtesy that journalists ask of people all the time. Many are happy to oblige. Others imply the experience or replying would be similar to being hit by a meteor. Different strokes, I guess.
The second part of the reply is a little bit more interesting. This is a guy who's an writer at IGN PS2 -- definitely someone who's deep on the inside of this video game journalism behemoth -- pretty much saying that the entire industry sucks. I don't exactly follow his argument about freelance skimming (are they paying the freelancers with drug money or something?) but the accusation that the industry is full of "scum and scrubs and dorks and the occasionally decent person" is pretty damning from someone so invested in that very industry. Maybe Ivan and I have more in common than I previously thought.
Do Work For Me
To whom it may concern,
My name is Kyle Orland. I'm doing some research for a feature article on my weblog, The Video Game Ombudsman (http://vgombud.blogspot.com). The feature will focus on video game reviewers' answer to a seemingly simple, but actually quite complex, question:
How long do you have to play a game before you're ready to review it?
Feel free to answer the question however you want,and make your response as long or as short as you want (of course, longer would be better for me). In your answer, try to consider the following related questions:
* Does the amount of time needed change for different genres? * How do you handle games that don't have an official end? (Tetris, The Sims) * How do you handle massively multiplayer online games? * Do you need to see everything in a game before reviewing it? * How do you know if you've seen everything in a game? * Is there a minimum amount of time needed to fully understand a game? A maximum? * Does the amount of time spent with a game affect it's rating? * Does a game's rating affect the amount of time you spend playing it for review (i.e. you play better games longer before writing the review)?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
-- Kyle
Wait a second, you want me to write your blog for you and I won't get paid for it? Sure! I'll get right on that after a meteor hits me in the face and expels all common sense from my body. Thing is, I've never even done my own blog, Kyle. Why would I willingly contribute to yours?
I will give you some advice though, if you think you're going to get a load of honest answers from this industry, you're sorely mistaken. I've worked with a lot of scrubs at different companies, and while they all speak high and mighty, it turns out they scam their own businesses out of freelance money just so that they can bust out fewer 250 word fluff pieces they call articles. Our industry is filled with scum and scrubs and dorks and the occasionally decent person. Don't bother polling a bunch of ogres unless you want to hear a bunch of inane grunts that drown out the one or two bits of genuine truth you're likely to receive.
-- Ivan
A little bit of background. This exchange appeared in IGN's Oct. 8, 2004, PS2 mailbag. The original mail I sent was obviously part of a canvassing of game reviewers for a feature I was planning on standards for game reviews. I contacted quite a few people, some who I had talked to before and some who I hadn't. I got very few responses, so I put the project on the backburner. Ivan didn't see fit to respond to my inquiry directly through e-mail, but obviously did decide to post this response on his web site (something none of the other targets did. I think).
The first part of Ivan's response, in my view, is a little silly. I didn't ask him to write my blog for me... I asked him to respond to an interview question. It's a courtesy that journalists ask of people all the time. Many are happy to oblige. Others imply the experience or replying would be similar to being hit by a meteor. Different strokes, I guess.
The second part of the reply is a little bit more interesting. This is a guy who's an writer at IGN PS2 -- definitely someone who's deep on the inside of this video game journalism behemoth -- pretty much saying that the entire industry sucks. I don't exactly follow his argument about freelance skimming (are they paying the freelancers with drug money or something?) but the accusation that the industry is full of "scum and scrubs and dorks and the occasionally decent person" is pretty damning from someone so invested in that very industry. Maybe Ivan and I have more in common than I previously thought.
Monday, February 7, 2005
NY Times: Final Fantasy is Violent, Plotless
The New York Times had an excellent piece on media convergence in the movie and video game industries this morning. It took a good, balanced look at the potential business impact of game studios being acquired by movie studios. The article contained one parenthetical that gave me pause, though:
But when studios have tried to exploit video games as movies in the past, they have had limited success. (Remember "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within?" No one else does. Video games that are too violent or lack a good plot are hard to translate to the screen.)
Yes, Final Fantasy was a bomb and a sign of game-based movies' limited success. But Final Fantasy... too violent? I suppose the little cartoony characters attacking monsters with oversized swords is violent when compared to... I don't know, Tetris. But Final Fantasy is no Grand Theft Auto -- not by a longshot. And even though the Final Fantasy movie is a little more violent than the games it was based on, it still pales in comparison to the Tomb Raider franchise, which is cited later in the same paragraph as an example of game-based movie success.
Lacking in plot is another charge that should never be leveled against Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy games are filled with plot -- hours and hours of it, told through cut scenes, text boxes and voice acting. I suppose it's debatable whether Final Fantasy "lacks a good plot," (emphasis added) as the author writes here, but this editorializing is cutting it a little thin. Then again the Final Fantasy movie's action-packed sci-fi plot bears little resemblance to the swords-and-scorcery wanderings of the Final Fantasy games, so the game's plot seems to be of little consequence in this example.
If the author was looking for a violent, plotless game that was turned into a movie, there was always House of the Dead.
But when studios have tried to exploit video games as movies in the past, they have had limited success. (Remember "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within?" No one else does. Video games that are too violent or lack a good plot are hard to translate to the screen.)
Yes, Final Fantasy was a bomb and a sign of game-based movies' limited success. But Final Fantasy... too violent? I suppose the little cartoony characters attacking monsters with oversized swords is violent when compared to... I don't know, Tetris. But Final Fantasy is no Grand Theft Auto -- not by a longshot. And even though the Final Fantasy movie is a little more violent than the games it was based on, it still pales in comparison to the Tomb Raider franchise, which is cited later in the same paragraph as an example of game-based movie success.
Lacking in plot is another charge that should never be leveled against Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy games are filled with plot -- hours and hours of it, told through cut scenes, text boxes and voice acting. I suppose it's debatable whether Final Fantasy "lacks a good plot," (emphasis added) as the author writes here, but this editorializing is cutting it a little thin. Then again the Final Fantasy movie's action-packed sci-fi plot bears little resemblance to the swords-and-scorcery wanderings of the Final Fantasy games, so the game's plot seems to be of little consequence in this example.
If the author was looking for a violent, plotless game that was turned into a movie, there was always House of the Dead.
Thursday, February 3, 2005
Typo Headline of the Moment
Update: (11:21 a.m., Feb. 4, 2005) Kotaku's Brian Crecent blames blogging software Movable Type for the error staying up as long as it did. "The system does this to me all of the friggin time. I caught the error this morning, shortly after it went out and corrected it. Actually some reader pointed it out to me. But somehow it's back up there again." And now you know... the rest of the story.
The headline: PS2 Officially as Powerful as PS2
Duh!
(This Kotaku article refers to a gamesblog story with the more interesting and more correct headline: "PSP – officially as powerful as PS2.")
P.S. Yes, I know I'm a jerk and I also make typos and no one's perfect, etc. You want to make fun of me? Start your own blog.
The headline: PS2 Officially as Powerful as PS2
Duh!
(This Kotaku article refers to a gamesblog story with the more interesting and more correct headline: "PSP – officially as powerful as PS2.")
P.S. Yes, I know I'm a jerk and I also make typos and no one's perfect, etc. You want to make fun of me? Start your own blog.
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
Game Reviews in the Onion... No Joke!
It's been 33 years since Nolan Bushnell debuted Pong, the first commercially successful video game, and in spite of the predictions, society has not collapsed. In fact, video games have become a fact of everyday life. The video-game industry has continued to grow, becoming as viable and pervasive an entertainment habit as music or movies.
With these words, The Onion A.V. Club announced its coverage of video games today. I've always thought game reviews would go well with the A.V. Club's disaffected, ultra-hip style, and their first two game reviews seem to show I was right. A.V. Club reviews almost assume a deep understanding of the medium, diving into minute details, obscure comparisons and broad generalizations from the first sentence. The result is a quick, pithy overview that gives you a good impression of the work, without all the padding that goes into most other newspaper reviews. This stuff is definitely not meant for the mainstream.
The A.V. Club also has an interview with Will Wright and Howard Scott Warshaw. This is a pretty safe pair to start off with -- no matter how bad your questions are (and the Onion's are mixed, in my opinion), guys like these are going to give long, interesting answers that make the reader think. The A.V. Club also jumps on the retro-chic games bandwagon with a classic games appreciation column called The Games of Our Lives, written by none other than TV's Wil Wheaton. Wil's first piece, on the Atari 2600 game Gunslinger, manages to sneak as many sarcastic jabs as it can into what amounts to a cute, quick retrospective.
All in all, I have high hopes for the A.V. Club's video game coverage. Their unique style is a welcome change from the bland uninformed coverage in the mainstream press and the jargony, technical coverage in the specialist press.
With these words, The Onion A.V. Club announced its coverage of video games today. I've always thought game reviews would go well with the A.V. Club's disaffected, ultra-hip style, and their first two game reviews seem to show I was right. A.V. Club reviews almost assume a deep understanding of the medium, diving into minute details, obscure comparisons and broad generalizations from the first sentence. The result is a quick, pithy overview that gives you a good impression of the work, without all the padding that goes into most other newspaper reviews. This stuff is definitely not meant for the mainstream.
The A.V. Club also has an interview with Will Wright and Howard Scott Warshaw. This is a pretty safe pair to start off with -- no matter how bad your questions are (and the Onion's are mixed, in my opinion), guys like these are going to give long, interesting answers that make the reader think. The A.V. Club also jumps on the retro-chic games bandwagon with a classic games appreciation column called The Games of Our Lives, written by none other than TV's Wil Wheaton. Wil's first piece, on the Atari 2600 game Gunslinger, manages to sneak as many sarcastic jabs as it can into what amounts to a cute, quick retrospective.
All in all, I have high hopes for the A.V. Club's video game coverage. Their unique style is a welcome change from the bland uninformed coverage in the mainstream press and the jargony, technical coverage in the specialist press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)