Critic vs. Journalist – My Thoughts on Game Media

Videogame media is a maelstrom of conflicting voices all with differing agendas hoping to be the loudest in a loud room. Publishers seek to promote their content, manufactures their systems. There are the fans who just want to enjoy their games and there are fans who want to analyze them (that’s me).  And there are countless other voices that I cannot hope to name but matter nonetheless. But then there are those whose job it is to make sense of this chaos and then present it in to the world at large. They are called videogame journalists.

The job of a journalist is by in large to tell the truth. They filter everything that has happened recently and produce easily digestible informational content for the common public to consume. Sometimes the job is groundbreaking and earth sharking as the revelation of truth changes the way the world is perceived. Sometimes the job is just boring, something interesting does not happen all the time. And videogame journalists are no different. They struggle, succeed and then struggle again to bring forth information from the cacophony of noise.

Then once the journalist has brought the information to the light another voice rises. A voice that challenges. A voice that engages and re-evaluates. A voice that sings praise as much as it sings of failure. That is the voice of the videogame critic, one whose job it is to make opinions and take stances on not just the games themselves, but on what the journalist has said. Critics evaluate the merits of creative works and creative mediums using critical and analytical thinking. Videogame critics are no different.

The difference and distinction between journalist and critic is clear in every form of media except that of videogames.  It is a common misconception that all writing on videogames is videogame journalism. The title videogame journalist has become an all encompassing term to describe anyone who ventures forth into the written, or filmed or audio, world of videogame related media. And even though I may be damning myself, that inclusionary idea is wrong. Not every person is a videogame journalist nor is every publication a journalistic endeavor. The multitudes of voices filling the room are not all the same. They have different agendas, different opinions and different purposes to be speaking. There are videogame journalists and there are videogame critics. And they are different people.   

Two of my favorite videogame journalism publications are IGN and Gameinformer. IGN is an entirely internet based service providing fast and mostly accurate breaking news. However, that is a double edged sword. IGN is a hype machine as much as it is a news outlet. It is good for immediate coverage, but lacks more substantial journalistic pieces. That is why I like Gameinformer as well. Being both an internet presence and a physical publication Gameinformer lags slightly in the breaking coverage aspect of news delivery. They make up for that however, by having more substantial journalistic coverage of events, games and the industry at large. The people at Gameinformer investigate, fact check their sources and produce quality content. They may not be as fast as IGN, but when paired together the two provide me with almost all the coverage I need.

What I find lacking from both publications is any real criticism. That is why they can only provide almost all the coverage I want. By taking the role of primarily news publications, both outlets attract a high level of public awareness. And it is just good business that once the public will is bought it should not be squandered. So they lack pieces that offend, that challenge. They ultimately lack pieces that criticize. Both publications publish reviews and opinion pieces, and all the respective authors are entitled to their opinion. Yet, I find that an almost pandering blandness infiltrates these pieces. IGN will never give a hyped about game less than an 8.5 out of 10. Gameinformer retains slightly more journalistic integrity, yet the corporate strings are easy to see. Why is it that Assassin’s Creed and Call of Duty get a cover article every year?

It is harder to trap down on my favorite videogame websites for criticism. Where as it is easy to list the sites dedicated to journalism, a site fully dedicated to videogame criticism is rare. Most of my favorite videogame critics are people who have posted their work through many differing sites or even media. With that being said however, there are two websites I would like to recognize for their continual outstanding criticism: The Escapist and Unwinnable. The Escapist walks the line between being a journalist news outlet similar to Gameinformer and an entirely criticism driven space. They push and publish breaking news articles with fervor while also offering insightful criticism. Opinion pieces are common to The Escapist as well as a level of quality that some of the other publications lack. Mostly their reviews challenge and occasionally offend because they actually take a stance and say something, not simply pander. Unwinnable is site dedicated solely to criticism and analysis without any journalistic, breaking news, endeavors. A commonality to all work published on Unwinnable is the personal narrative and or reflection that videogames can bring. It is an interesting take and one that I think deserves to be further explored.

(It became apparent to me during my writing of this that my opinions in relation to the differing publications show themselves in terms of the pronoun I use in relation to the publication. I did not even realize this until I wrote it out. IGN is an “it”; unpersonable, indifferent, slightly scary. Gameinformer, The Escapist and Unwinnable are “they” respectively; groupings of people and writers, less scary.)

At the very last I would like to take a moment to recognize my favorite videogame critics. These are the people who inspire me to be another voice yelling in the crowd:

• ·         The Bald Man (Adam Sessler)
• ·         The Australian Man (Yahtzee Croshaw)
• ·         The Unwinnable Woman (Jenn Frank)
• ·         The Angry Man (Jim Sterling)
•           The Activist Woman (Mattie Brice)

Seriously, why does Blogger always mess up the formatting? It's really annoying.

YOU might want to read this

Today I am going to do something slightly different.  Typically every week I will write something about videogames, however it should be known that I am not the only person who writes about videogames. There are a multitude of us would be writers putting out content because we believe in it. Or, in truth, many of us desperately want a job as well. But there are those lucky few who are professionally published. One of those lucky few is Austin Grossman; author of the new fiction YOU.  Having had the chance to read YOU in its entirety I will now give you my thoughts. Consider this a review of sorts.

YOU is a novel chiefly about videogames, but specifically about the unique and highly personal relationship that forms between the game’s maker (developer), the player character and the player. Sometimes those three elements conflict, sometimes they harmonize and sometimes the purpose of one so overrides the others as the render them near in inconsequential. Grossman’s book ends up a lot like a game itself, succeeding and suffering by the same three-prong divided focus that all games live by. YOU has the potential to be great, but proves itself to just be good.

It opens with a hook that is too strong for any videogame enthusiast to ignore: “What is the Ultimate Game?” From there Grossman introduces the reader to Russell, a 28 year old suffering from long held ennui of never fully giving up on childhood while at the same time reluctant to embrace adult life. He is a decent enough protagonist; a character bland enough to allow self insertion into the story, but given enough characterization as to connect him to the geeky-nerd type (like myself) who would read this book. The book is around 380-ish pages and a good portion of them are spent with either Russell feeling conflicted or just faffing about. At one point he goes on a date with the possibly hallucinatory female lead of the game. Grossman toys with Russell’s mental state, but never commits to either him or the reader what is actually going on. For all we know it may have very well been divine intervention by the God of Videogames, known in this fiction as Simon.

Narrative momentum is rather slow in YOU. However, when plot does present itself it falls into the previously mentioned three-pronged divided focus. Here is where the comparison of the book to a game is most apt. The book was written in 2013 focusing on characters and plots happening in 1997-98 with flashbacks to Russell’s childhood in the 80’s. Grossman becomes himself the game designer or developer as author of the book. 1990’s Russell is the player character and 1980’s Russell is the player. The player does not quite understand the world he is in while the player character keeps attempting to assert control. All the while the game developer is omnipotently watching and occasionally throws something around to see what happens. It is bad game design and even worse narrative writing. Grossman creates a story rich with potential, but fails to succeed in delivering on that promise. There are moments of brilliance within this book, notably the several chapters dedicated to telling the story of how Realms II was developed at KidBits Summer Camp 1989, but the total story lacks any single defining focus.

With the exception of Russell, Grossman’s characters are well developed and lively. It is easy to see them as real people working in the game industry during the birth of 3D. Not a single one is trite or stereotyped, offering an extensive and detailed look into the inner workings of a game studio. Some of it is humorous, some of it is serious and all of it seems real. Lisa stands out as a particularly well done character; anytime her presence was felt within the book’s second half made it all the much better. Furthermore Grossman has a knack for finding the human things locked away deep within the gamers’ heart and he uses that to his advantage creating circumstances that at first seem outlandish and then make perfect sense. Take for example this passage that really resonated with me about the near obsessive compulsion to not just play, but also create that burns deep within any game developer: 

“The world narrowed to the tiny realm where he was always pushing on to the next screen, the next castle, always in a private dream of concentration and hard reflex, like a stoner kid doing bar chords over and over until his fingers were cramped and the muscle memory was there even in his sleep, always on the verge of some conclusion on the next screen, the crucial revelation that never quite appeared, that he could spend his life chasing, unless he learned to make them, unless he got to set the rules himself, unless he could put what he wanted in that castle, lock it away and bury it in a dungeon for a thousand years.”

But now I must make a slight disclaimer. I have to acknowledge that I may not be of proper age to connect with YOU as Grossman may have wanted. My mother first got this book and tried to read it. She lost interest and said she was too old. By that same account, I may be too young. I have the prerequisite passion and knowledge for the book, but what Grossman wants of his readers is something I do not have: nostalgia for the early days of gaming. I have the upmost respect for all the games before my time and, as a hopeful game designer, I understand that this medium would be nothing without them. But that does not change the fact that I have no fondness for the 80’s or pixels or chip-tune. Grossman dedicates a large portion of YOU to nostalgia for those times, which in the end I am too young for. It was completely lost on me.

YOU by Austin Grossman could have been a great book. It is dripping with potential, but much like the “Ultimate Game” it is not all that revelatory or profound. YOU succumbs to a misguided three-pronged focus that, along with all the other games that are just good, should be played and returned or picked up cheep on sale.

Character Studies: World Character

The world of a videogame can be a character unto itself. Play characters are the portal through which the player engages with the world and non-player characters are the ludic or narrative elements with which they engage. Yet, the world that surrounds everything within the game is itself a character with as much depth and importance to the entire experience as either of the other elements of a game. Beyond a simple setting, the world of a videogame is a livable place inhabited simultaneously by every person, character and idea related to the game. It is also a framing device used to establish the core elements of the game. The world character of a game ultimately defines not only what the game is, but what it will become.

In the most basic terms the world of a videogame serves all the same narrative elements that the setting of a novel does. It establishes a place of action and a feeling of place. Interestingly enough, place of action and the feeling of place are not always the same. In fact sometimes they are purposely conflicting. The place of action is the simplest role that a videogame world plays within the narrative. It is the literal ‘Where is this happening?’ ‘When is this happening?’ A feeling of place is a more complex concept. Adding a level beyond the concrete physicalities established by the place of action, a feeling of place is the emotion or sensation the world wishes to impart. When as a person in real life or a character in a game, you – the player, enters a new area what is it that you think? Do you look around and think ‘This room is approximately 40 sq. ft. with low ceilings, dirty possibly blood splattered floors and several dark menacing shadows?’ Or do you think ‘This place is creepy. I’m getting out of here.’ That feeling of fear, sense of slight disturbance that is a feeling of place. What you think as you enter a new area for the first time, the sensations imparted on you is the feeling of place a videogame world provides. Occasionally for added effect the place of action and feeling of place with conflict with each other to impart greater meaning to the player. Would the sunken city of Rapture from the original Bioshock be so memorable if it wasn’t for the juxtaposition of the broken and ruined physicalities of the place of action in relation to the grandeur imparted by the feeling of place? A videogame world is a character that provides the game with a place of action as well as a feeling of place.

The place of action and feeling of place are both concepts that videogame world character shares with other forms of media; books, plays, movies, ext. Together they form an establishment of setting necessary for all narratives. However, even in setting the interactive elements of videogames establish themselves forcing a change in the way world character is established. The world character does not only reflect and influence the narrative of the game, but so too does it affect the gameplay. As a ludic experience the game and therefore the world character must be dominated by the interaction and engagement that the player, the audience, you, gets to have with it. The place of action and feeling of place have immense ramifications on the gameplay of a game. When all the elements work in tandem; world character, narrative and ludic elements, the total experience is cohesive and all the more enjoyable. The best way to avoid ludonarrative dissonance is through the use of a properly aligned and strongly developed world character. Because ultimately it is the world inhabited by the game; its developer, its characters and you, the player, which create the tone of the game. That tone can range from playful, to sincere, to energetic, to somber depending on the game being played. And it is that tone which gives focus to gameplay. It would not make sense for Mario to stop on a Koopa and there be blood spilling out. It goes against the tone established in world character. Likewise it would be disruptive to have mushroom power-ups in Call of Duty. The place of action and feeling of place work in with narrative to develop a tone pervasive throughout the world character and it is that tone which focuses gameplay. 

Videogames have one last unique characteristic in relation to their world character; the world character of a videogame is transcendent.  Books and films have previously reached levels or transcendence become iconic in their own. But there is degree to their transcendence that is somehow lacking. Less about what the literature, film or even play meant to audience, but what is has meant over the course of time. Although that is a perfectly suitable definition, it is inapplicable to videogames. An unfortunate side effect of the medium being so young. Transcendence in videogames is achieved in another manner. It is directly related to the world character of a videogame that it becomes transcendent. The audience is always the final collaborator; they will bring to the game something unique that will change and differentiate the experience for them. And the world character of a videogame allows for that. Narratives, even in the most open and free form of videogames, are already set by the time a player engages with them. However the world is not. World character is a living conceptual place inhabited by all the collaborators of the game. The developer’s concepts are most strongly felt throughout this world; their characters inhabit the play space after all, but the world character of a videogame adapts and changes as the player engages with it. What you, the player, choice to take, interpret and make your own from the game becomes part of the world character. It is part of you and you are part of the game. In that manner, Fallout became a deeply personal self examination for myself. I choose to believe in something the developers had created therefore making it partly may own. It is for you, the player, to decide in the end how the game will play out and that makes you just as strong a force within the game as the developers who created it. World character for videogames is transcendent. It is a living place that evolves and changes holding on to the ideas and experiences of every person who contacts it. Just take a small dive into any of the massive fandoms surrounding videogames and franchises. All these people believing and committed to the world character of the game, constantly adding to it, expanding it, making it live. That is transcendence.

World character defines a videogame while at the same time elevating it. The establishment of place of action and feeling of place is also the establishment of tone and gameplay. World character feeds the other elements of the game ultimately creating a living fiction. A transcendent experience shared by millions, but utterly unique to each one. World character in videogames defines what the game is and what it will become.

Character Studies: Non-Player Characters

If the player character is the player’s portal into the game world, giving life to the code and impetus to the fiction, then non-player characters, also known as NPC’s, are what the player interacts with. NPC’s serve to bring a semblance of life to the world of a videogame and provide ways for the player to engage within the fiction. Without NPC’s most games would fall flat. More often than not NPC’s are a way for the developer to insert their force into the game. Win-states are used as a ludic method of creating player investment; for narrative momentum developers utilize NPC’s. Some villager needs your help or the main villain has just taunted you over the radio, for example. The use and implication of NPC’s is vast and for that reason they play an integral part to the ever expanding field of videogames.

 There are three main types of non-player character; allied with the player, against the player, or neutral. Those allied with the player can range from a nameless helpful AI to a fully fledged companion character. Often of greater narrative significance allied NPC’s are subject to greater character development than their counterparts. Facelessness along with namelessness is a plague upon the opposing and neutral NPC’s in videogames. Because their narrative significance is often very little, development beyond the bare minimum is not given. Then again, it is often not required. Players do not care for the story behind the actions of the cannon fodder; they are there for the purpose of being a standard level of engagement for the player, the basic enemy that serves only as gameplay lengthening obstacles or the shop owner that buys and sells equipment to the player character. These NPC’s represent the lowest level of engagement that the player has with the game world and for that reason they are subject to facelessness and namelessness. 

However, just as allied NPC’s can be subject to character development and narrative significance so to can neutral and opposition NPC’s.  The method for developing a complex NPC of narrative and ludic significance is the same for all NPC’s no matter which category they belong. Complex NPC’s have much in common with a developer-made-character for a player character. They are both conceptualized and then given form within the game world by the developer of the game. Any narrative significance they have is assigned to them by the development team. The greatest difference being that ultimately a complex NPC will remain subject to the will of the developer. Yet, that allows for complex NPC’s to provide engagement to the player in ways that common nameless NPC’s could not. Complex NPC’s will often have their own animations, dialogue, in game scripting and even differing game play options for the player. With the inclusion of complex NPC’s the developer is able to change, differentiate and reinvent the common type of engagement present within their game thereby creating a more fun and varied experience for the player.

The development of complex NPC’s is the same no matter their category; however the narrative and ludic engagement provided by NPC’s to the player is affected by their category and alignment towards or against the player. An ally NPC will not feature the same functionalities of an enemy NPC. Those in opposition to the player provide drama to the narrative thereby giving context to the gameplay. ‘Shoot these characters because they are established within the game’s fiction as being evil’. Neutral NPC’s provide very nearly the opposite in terms of engagement. ‘Do not shoot these characters because they are established within the game’s fiction as being neutral’. Only allied NPC’s allow for a more dynamic dialogue to happen in terms of engagement. ‘Fight with these characters because they are established within the game’s fiction as being good’. That ‘fight with’ dialogue can be and is used to build relationships over time between the player, player character and non-player character. Narratives in games are often built around that relationship. There is drama inherent in conflict, and that drama is only increased by focusing the conflict with strongly developed ally, enemy and neutral NPC’s. They allow for player engagement with the narrative and create a context for the gameplay. 

Non-player characters are so common place in videogames that it is easy to over look their importance. Sometimes they serve an important role to the narrative or gameplay, other times they are just cannon fodder, but no matter the type or complexity most all videogames would be incomplete without NPC’s. Developers can assert their narrative force through use of an NPC, providing drama and context for the gameplay. Player engagement can be varied and challenged with proper use of NPC’s. From both a narrative and ludic standpoint NPC’s are as invaluable to modern day games as the player themselves.