• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Good gaming journalism: Totilo examines the shooter in NYTimes

DUTY1-articleLarge.jpg


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/arts/video-games/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii-and-halo-4.html?pagewanted=1

This is how you write about video games. This article is focused on genre (specifically two blockbuster games representative of that genre), but individual game reviews could be written in a similar manner.

Things to note. This article is not trying to sell me something (doritos, mountain dew, the console, or even the game). This article is not objective (I've noticed a lot of people complaining about lack-of-objectivity in gaming articles/review and I honestly have no idea what that even means). This article explains the relationship occurring between game, culture, and audience. This article is actually interesting and cannot be summed up as "BUY or DON'T BUY."
 

jschreier

Member
Yeah, that was a pretty great piece! If you liked it, you might like the website that guy runs. I think it's called caketaku or something
 
Things to note. This article is not trying to sell me something

Its clearly trying to sell the legitimacy of games/gaming to a general audience. It's not about shooting people, its about problem solving! It's chess... with guns! Did I mention Call of Duty makes more money than that movie over there? Cause it does!

That's how I read it anyway
 

Brera

Banned
DUTY1-articleLarge.jpg


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/arts/video-games/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii-and-halo-4.html?pagewanted=1

This is how you write about video games. This article is focused on genre (specifically two blockbuster games representative of that genre), but individual game reviews could be written in a similar manner.

Things to note. This article is not trying to sell me something (doritos, mountain dew, the console, or even the game). This article is not objective (I've noticed a lot of people complaining about lack-of-objectivity in gaming articles/review and I honestly have no idea what that even means). This article explains the relationship occurring between game, culture, and audience. This article is actually interesting and cannot be summed up as "BUY or DON'T BUY."

You can't compare a newspaper article in a respected newspaper with a blogger/website reviewer.

Anyone remember Dave Gibbon on UK Teletext, was he on C4 or the BBC? The guy was awful but the template to the chumps we have now.

Suck up that Mountain Dew!
 

JDSN

Banned
Eh, the title implied that there was some explanation of why people play shooters, found some comparisons between chess and also poker (the fuck?) and description of the new features.

Im gonna start playing Black Ops 2 today, looking forward for all those "story-bending choices typical in the likes of Fallout" like the writer suggested, game journalists are never prone to hyperbole so im gonna believe this espefic part. Pretty pointless article that sets out to do questions but never answers them, I guess not every mainstream media can have decent games writers like Forbes does.
 

Currygan

at last, for christ's sake
good article, but it pains me that RPS is not cited enough when it comes to quality game criticism
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
Defense Secretary Petraeus


lololololololololololololol

It really is hilarious.

You can't compare a newspaper article in a respected newspaper with a blogger/website reviewer.

Why not? The guy who wrote that IS a blogger. He's Kotaku's EIC!

Why can't Kotaku be more like that article and less like.... whatever Kotaku is. Well, Kotaku does what it does to get hits. Ultimately, Kotaku is just giving people what they want.
 

dimb

Bjergsen is the greatest midlane in the world
I don't really get the appeal of an article like this to readers like us. It seems more for the lowest common denominator, stretching what could be said in two sentences into two pages as it does its best to appeal to people who do not understand video games.
 

Eideka

Banned
DUTY1-articleLarge.jpg


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/arts/video-games/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii-and-halo-4.html?pagewanted=1

This is how you write about video games. This article is focused on genre (specifically two blockbuster games representative of that genre), but individual game reviews could be written in a similar manner.

Things to note. This article is not trying to sell me something (doritos, mountain dew, the console, or even the game). This article is not objective (I've noticed a lot of people complaining about lack-of-objectivity in gaming articles/review and I honestly have no idea what that even means). This article explains the relationship occurring between game, culture, and audience. This article is actually interesting and cannot be summed up as "BUY or DON'T BUY."

Brillant article, I guess that's the difference between real journalists with true writing skills and barely disguised uncultured fanboys that we found in gaming's journalism today.
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
This article and Gerstmann's review actually make me want to play Black Ops 2.
 
I've seen that image a thousands times and just now realized that guy's arm was covered in dudebro tattoos. I thought it was a real sleeve the whole time.
 

bryehn

Member
Things to note. This article is not trying to sell me something (doritos, mountain dew, the console, or even the game). This article is not objective (I've noticed a lot of people complaining about lack-of-objectivity in gaming articles/review and I honestly have no idea what that even means). This article explains the relationship occurring between game, culture, and audience. This article is actually interesting and cannot be summed up as "BUY or DON'T BUY."

OK then.
 

eosos

Banned
You can't compare a newspaper article in a respected newspaper with a blogger/website reviewer.

Anyone remember Dave Gibbon on UK Teletext, was he on C4 or the BBC? The guy was awful but the template to the chumps we have now.

Suck up that Mountain Dew!

Yes, you can, and you should.
 
Yeah, that was a pretty great piece! If you liked it, you might like the website that guy runs. I think it's called caketaku or something

hi jason, kotaku, no i dont like it
but it doesnt mean i dislike an article on the sole basis that totilo wrote it
look, nevermind, forget it

on objectivity: if we consider video games to be art then a review can (should ?) be objective, there are criterions according to which a work of art is good or bad. Someone can be proven wrong in thinking that a work of art is bad for example. Even in terms of technique we can be objective, in terms of writing too. I dont see how that would be impossible just because we're talking about video games. Unless we all agree that video games are not art and simply depend on individual taste, like for pizza for example (typing fast, i hope im clear enough)
 

Brizzo24

Member
He summarizes why I love video games in one simple paragraph,

Forget that Halo 4 is a science-fiction heroic epic, set to begin a second multimillion-selling trilogy, as we control Master Chief, the armored space Marine (and possible species savior), in gunfights on strange new worlds. Forget that Call of Duty: Black Ops II is the nth annual military shooter and possibly the biggest moneymaker of any piece of new entertainment of the year. These trappings don’t make these games fun. The shooting does.

Always has been/will be the underlying principle on why games like Black Ops and Halo are successful.
 
It's a decent article. It rehashes a lot of things people usually say when they try to explain why they like shooters and mixes it with some bullet points about current shooters. The author even used the worn-out chess comparison...

But ok, compared to the usual shit posted at Kotaku (yes, I'm aware that Totilo is the EIC at Kotaku and the authour of this piece) this probably qualifies as a standout article.
 
hi jason, kotaku, no i dont like it
but it doesnt mean i dislike an article on the sole basis that totilo wrote it
look, nevermind, forget it

I almost responded seriously to correct you, but then I realized that you typed "jason" instead of jschrier(sp?). Nowhere in the topic does anything refer to him as Jason, meaning you already knew.

/encyclopediabrown
 
Yeah, that was a pretty great piece! If you liked it, you might like the website that guy runs. I think it's called caketaku or something
I'm interested! But tell me - do they run articles which could accurately be tagged with the category 'pantsu'? This is important!

!
 

RedFalcon

Neo Member
I will give the piece props for trying to talk about games in a format other than a review or preview. However, come on guys: Brilliant? Proper games journalism?

This is actually a pretty poor piece. Once you cut through the over 1,000 words used to construct the thing, the message comes down to: "I like to shoot things in games and games like Halo 4 and Black Ops II are actually more like chess and your decisions really matter."

OK ... so he goes on to admit how the stories in both games aren't great and that since both games were so linear in their past incarnations, the little bit of choice they offer up makes them better as the "shackles have now been obliterated."

However, he spends most of the article talking about the background of both games, not what real choice and interactivity are and why they truly matter.

I appreciate games writing in a way different from the norm, but the thing that irks me about folks like Totilo is that they're trotted out as these top-tier editors, journalists or critics when there are tons of examples of better writers out there making zero dollars and getting next-to-no notoriety from their work.

If folks are looking for a good column on choice and games, I suggest seeking out Damion Schubert's Game Developer Magazine column entitled, "Designing Choice." It jumps into the topic, deconstructs it and is far more thorough. Unfortunately, I think the column is only available in print. I can't seem to find it online anywhere. Here's a link to the issue it's in: https://store.cmpgame.com/product.php?id=2922.
 

The Boat

Member
I will give the piece props for trying to talk about games in a format other than a review or preview. However, come on guys: Brilliant? Proper games journalism?

This is actually a pretty poor piece. Once you cut through the over 1,000 words used to construct the thing, the message comes down to: "I like to shoot things in games and games like Halo 4 and Black Ops II are actually more like chess and your decisions really matter."

OK ... so he goes on to admit how the stories in both games aren't great and that since both games were so linear in their past incarnations, the little bit of choice they offer up makes them better as the "shackles have now been obliterated."

However, he spends most of the article talking about the background of both games, not what real choice and interactivity are and why they truly matter.

I appreciate games writing in a way different from the norm, but the thing that irks me about folks like Totilo is that they're trotted out as these top-tier editors, journalists or critics when there are tons of examples of better writers out there making zero dollars and getting next-to-no notoriety from their work.

If folks are looking for a good column on choice and games, I suggest seeking out Damion Schubert's Game Developer Magazine column entitled, "Designing Choice." It jumps into the topic, deconstructs it and is far more thorough. Unfortunately, I think the column is only available in print. I can't seem to find it online anywhere. Here's a link to the issue it's in: https://store.cmpgame.com/product.php?id=2922.

I'm going to have to agree with you on this. Sorry Totilo, hope we can still be friends.
 
DUTY1-articleLarge.jpg


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/arts/video-games/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii-and-halo-4.html?pagewanted=1

This is how you write about video games. This article is focused on genre (specifically two blockbuster games representative of that genre), but individual game reviews could be written in a similar manner.

Things to note. This article is not trying to sell me something (doritos, mountain dew, the console, or even the game). This article is not objective (I've noticed a lot of people complaining about lack-of-objectivity in gaming articles/review and I honestly have no idea what that even means). This article explains the relationship occurring between game, culture, and audience. This article is actually interesting and cannot be summed up as "BUY or DON'T BUY."

In that case the article fails in my eyes. When I read reviews, the general concensus of "buy or not" is exactly what I'm looking for. I hate reviews that don't take a clear stance on things.
 

Shinta

Banned
I will give the piece props for trying to talk about games in a format other than a review or preview. However, come on guys: Brilliant? Proper games journalism?

This is actually a pretty poor piece. Once you cut through the over 1,000 words used to construct the thing, the message comes down to: "I like to shoot things in games and games like Halo 4 and Black Ops II are actually more like chess and your decisions really matter."
That was my impression of it as well. It wasn't bad. Maybe it's just the OP pumping it up that soured my impression.

I've always felt like shooting games were a bit shallow, since all you do is find things to point at and hit the trigger. I honestly don't know why people find it so endlessly appealing, because I really don't, and I can't get inside the mindset of someone who does.

I feel like this kind of games writing comes quite naturally when you try to honestly write for an audience that knows very little about video games, like the NY Times. It's natural to talk about the bigger picture in broad strokes, because they don't really know about or care about the smaller details.

It was interesting I guess, but I don't see the "defense" part really being fully developed in the article. The main defense was that it's popular, and lots of people really seem to enjoy it, so it must be doing something pretty deep and interesting. I don't think the piece really spells out what is worth defending though. If these games weren't popular, it would be easier to break them down into the reductionist "connect point A to point B" description of what the gameplay really is, instead of pretending they're much more significant than that.
 

pargonta

Member
I would appreciate less "why we gamers" type language, it is exclusionary and boundary making. the term 'gamers' is also kind of dated, antiquated, with undue baggage from the 80s and 90s, it's better to just talk about the games themselves no?

reading the actually article now...

edit: well the first line is terrible, why would you push that framing of video games? we want to change that, why would you want to spread that as truth when the diversity of games is infact growing every year? i don't even want to read this shit lol

..but it turns out alright. It is obviously meant for a non-gamer audience, where those enthusiast boundaries are already in place, and antiquated language and generalizations makes it easier to understand. it does at least touch on the interesting discussion of shooting in games.
 
It's a hyperbole filled puff piece, it isn't journalism. This piece contains about as much journalism as a typical episode of Entertainment Tonight.

Edited for sloppy writing. And sorry if I insulted you, Entertainment Tonight.
 
N

Noray

Unconfirmed Member
I really wish people would stop misappropriating the word 'journalism'.

What the flying fuck does this have to do with journalism?
 

sonicmj1

Member
It's better work than Seth Schiesel put out at the same position, but it's not really appropriate to call that "criticism". It doesn't exactly critique anything.

It's a piece meant for people who aren't too familiar with the world of video games, who don't exactly understand what they're all about. I think it has a rather defensive tone sometimes (or maybe it's impossible to make the "odd romance" between a "faceless supersoldier" and a "voluptuous artificially intelligent female hologram" not sound weird), but it does get the basics across.

I hope future work in that column has more critical meat without sacrificing approachability. That could just be a casualty of having to crush two game reviews into one piece, but a lot more time is spent on basic description than I'd normally like to see.
 
Top Bottom