Support NeoGAF

[Flynn]

I guess the next step in this thread is a round of pitying as this guy clearly needs help?

When you choose to be a writer this is pretty much a given.

 

[Datschge]

When you choose to be a writer this is pretty much a given.

Touché.

 

[Agent Unknown]

This is the first time I've ever read an actual article that he wrote.

Huh.

Huh.

Yeah first time for me too. His writing style is absolutely awful and totally reminds me of a long, rambling Harry Knowles movie review. It's so similar if you told me this was Harry Knowles under a different pen name pretending to be a video game reviewer I would believe it without question.

 

[Shake Appeal]

The best videogames journalist.

http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story/

 

[bhlaab]

He doesn't write about games. Scratch that, he doesn't write about anything besides himself. People like Hunter S Thompson used this technique to contextualize the events and cultural movements around a central idea. Tim Rogers contextualizes nothing. It's just me me me me me. If it's NOT narcissism then it's just empty nothingness nothing.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Posts like that leave me scratching my head. Do people actually read what he writes?

 

[whalleywhat]

Gamers are only interested in game writing functionally. They're fans of games, not good writing. Tim Rogers can describe the inner functioning of a game, i.e. why it does what it does and why we respond to it in the way that we do, better than a lot of people. If you're arguing otherwise, that he doesn't actually engage with the game, then you haven't read him. It's simply untrue. The self-involved musings that frame everything are just his style. Personally, I find it amusing.

 

[Riposte]

Tim Rogers can describe the inner functioning of a game, i.e. why it does what it does and why we respond to it in the way that we do, better than a lot of people.

I've read a ton of his shit and disagree entirely. His interpretations of games can seem completely idiotic and random(at times contrarian, even). His analysis of the "inner functioning" of games, i.e. the mechanics, are rarely to my satisfaction(and I recall many times he would marginalize it in order to make some minor point through a huge rant). I can think of a dozen NeoGAF posters I'd take over him in a heartbeat simply because they can actually comment on the inner functions properly(not to mention do it in context of genres) and that is more important than writing ability. I will admit he can be witty, but then again you know what they say about brevity.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Tim Rogers is often clever and very rarely incisive.

That's the distinction. Compare him to someone like Chris Remo (on the podcast) and you'll see that insightful, interesting and witty commentary on games doesn't also have to be an obnoxious egotrip.

 

[gatotsu911]

He doesn't write about games. Scratch that, he doesn't write about anything besides himself. People like Hunter S Thompson used this technique to contextualize the events and cultural movements around a central idea. Tim Rogers contextualizes nothing. It's just me me me me me. If it's NOT narcissism then it's just empty nothingness nothing.

This is exactly what bothers me about every piece of his writing that is not about games. Like I said earlier, he writes about his two favorite things, games and himself, and in each of these modes his writing is quite a bit different. When he sits down and actually talks about games, he is actually worthwhile. The rest of the time... well. Let me just post this for reference: I Got My Fashion Sense From Video Games (And You Can Too!), a groundbreaking exploration of Tim Rogers' near-limitless vanity by Tim Rogers. I literally have no response to this. It's both narcissism and nothingness. I strongly get the impression that Tim uses irony and exaggeration as a cover for the fact that he really is a textbook case of NPD, specifically the passive-aggressive and "social climbing" variety. Of course, the fact that he's so screwed up can make him something of a fascinating character in spite of himself.

 

[bhlaab]

Gamers are only interested in game writing functionally. They're fans of games, not good writing. Tim Rogers can describe the inner functioning of a game, i.e. why it does what it does and why we respond to it in the way that we do, better than a lot of people. If you're arguing otherwise, that he doesn't actually engage with the game, then you haven't read him. It's simply untrue. The self-involved musings that frame everything are just his style. Personally, I find it amusing.

He doesn't know a damn thing about any of that, he's just good at bullshitting flowery pseudo-analysis of the artistically obvious. He engages with the material like a duck engages with a piece of bread-- waddling in circles around the exterior and thrusting his head forward inelegantly every so often to tear away pieces of the outer crust.

 

[Erigu]

I strongly get the impression that Tim uses irony and exaggeration as a cover for the fact that he really is a textbook case of NPD, specifically the passive-aggressive and "social climbing" variety.

That would be the conclusion I arrived to a while ago, yeah.
Boy, I had pretty much forgotten all about that guy's existence...

 

[Alex Connolly]

He doesn't know a damn thing about any of that, he's just good at bullshitting flowery pseudo-analysis of the artistically obvious. He engages with the material like a duck engages with a piece of bread-- waddling in circles around the exterior and thrusting his head forward inelegantly every so often to tear away pieces of the outer crust.

Good LORD, that's a one-two right there! I'm not bothered either way by the man - there are pretentious gits around every bend, it seems, he's no different - but DAMN, a freight train indictment if there ever was one.

I smiled, sir.

 

[MC Safety]

Gamers are only interested in game writing functionally. They're fans of games, not good writing. Tim Rogers can describe the inner functioning of a game, i.e. why it does what it does and why we respond to it in the way that we do, better than a lot of people. If you're arguing otherwise, that he doesn't actually engage with the game, then you haven't read him. It's simply untrue. The self-involved musings that frame everything are just his style. Personally, I find it amusing.

This is so much garbage in one post we need to back up the truck.

Rogers embodies the worst of the self-important writer. He's so absorbed in the "I" most of the time his writing has no relevance to anyone but himself.

That he can occasionally touch on games is purely coincidental.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Gamers are only interested in game writing functionally. They're fans of games, not good writing. Tim Rogers can describe the inner functioning of a game, i.e. why it does what it does and why we respond to it in the way that we do, better than a lot of people. If you're arguing otherwise, that he doesn't actually engage with the game, then you haven't read him. It's simply untrue. The self-involved musings that frame everything are just his style. Personally, I find it amusing.

As a writer, I take umbrage with the idea that Rogers engages in what can be described as "good" writing.

He can write a lot about a little and use five dollar words to do so. It's skillful at best, insulting to the craft at worst.

 

[BocoDragon]

I think Tim Rogers haters take him far too seriously. Isn't there a place for absurd over-the-top gaming analysis?

 

[Alex Connolly]

I think Tim Rogers haters take him far too seriously. Isn't there a place for absurd over-the-top gaming analysis?

I'd like to think so, but Tim Rogers doesn't do much in the way of gaming analysis. He does write splendiferously on Tim Rogers, though.

 

[whalleywhat]

Looks like I won some hearts and minds. I honestly think he's good at describing game mechanics, but maybe from a more holistic view than the technical description some of you might want.

 

[Splash Wave]

I like Tim Rogers and I like what I've heard of his music.

 

[gatotsu911]

I think Tim Rogers haters take him far too seriously. Isn't there a place for absurd over-the-top gaming analysis?

I honestly have kind of a hard time seeing just what people find amusing about Rogers' shtick. It strikes me as downright masochistic to watch someone stroke their own ego and consider it fun. Sure, he's great at stringing you along and giving the sense that he is saying something or going somewhere actually significant, but when all is said and done I am always left with a conspicuous sense of emptiness after reading one of his non-game-focused pieces. He weaves words into a void - a black hole, of sorts - that sucks in all light around it and has at its center not a heart, but an uncanny simulacrum thereof.

tl;dr two years of reading Tim Rogers has very likely made me a better critic, but a worse human being.

 

[bhlaab]

Looks like I won some hearts and minds. I honestly think he's good at describing game mechanics, but maybe from a more holistic view than the technical description some of you might want.

If by holistic you mean pointless ruminating for 10,000 unnecessary words to say nothing of more substance than "It sure is neat that Metal Gear Solid has a bunch of easter eggs! Their inclusion is preeeetty subversive! By the way, I've been to Japan."

 

[Jonnyboy117]

I fired Tim Rogers. At E3. He wrote a story about it. Like most of his stories, it's not actually worth reading.

 

[Amir0x]

I fired Tim Rogers. At E3. He wrote a story about it. Like most of his stories, it's not actually worth reading.

*nod*

 

[gatotsu911]

I fired Tim Rogers. At E3. He wrote a story about it. Like most of his stories, it's not actually worth reading.

Do elaborate.

 

[bhlaab]

Do elaborate.

And if you can find a flimsy excuse to relate it to your preferred brand of designer jeans, please

 

[Rufus]

Looks like I won some hearts and minds. I honestly think he's good at describing game mechanics, but maybe from a more holistic view than the technical description some of you might want.

He's good at making you think that. I don't believe you could, with only his words as a guide, describe a game to someone else in any truly useful way. He tries to approximate whatever he feels about a game in the most roundabout ways and though I do occasionally enjoy his writing (when I can force myself to tackle it), that only works if you a) happen to actually understand where he's coming from or b) don't really care for what exactly it is he's saying so much as how he is saying it. The instances where's he's being more clear than obtuse are rare. His review of FF13, for instance, has a much better content to confounding ratio than most of his pieces.
Read his most recent review of Shadows of the Damned on Actionbutton.net. It's amazingly short and a perfect example of why people hate his writing. He says barely anything relevant regarding the game. Except that it's stylish, I suppose? And maybe made to appear more interesting than it is...? Which might be meta on more than one level and not only concerning the game? I don't know. Not sure he does. And that's pretty much the problem right there.

That's the distinction. Compare him to someone like Chris Remo (on the podcast) and you'll see that insightful, interesting and witty commentary on games doesn't also have to be an obnoxious egotrip.

Oh man. As happy as I am for him that he landed a job at Irrational, I can't help but wish he'd still be with Gamasutra, casting pods on the side. :<

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Actionbutton.net has yielded some good things, I can't hate on that.

...Actually I take that back, I just saw the site's latest redesign and my browser crapped itself.

 

[gatotsu911]

I would agree that even his game-oriented writing tends to say little without the context of the game itself as a guide. If I read a review of his on a game I haven't played, what he has to say about it appears meaningless. It's only after playing the game that his insights make sense. That's not the worst thing for a critic, but I guess you could argue that a truly great critic could imbue a fundamental understanding of their topic even to someone who has never experienced it, rather than elucidating on an experience that the reader has already had.

 

[Jonnyboy117]

I was Director of Planet GameCube at the time. We posted a call for writers; the staff was and still is all volunteers. Tim applied and had writing experience with Insert Credit, as well as Japanese skills and a pre-registration for E3. He wrote a couple of pretty good reviews for us that are still online at Nintendo World Report; they are a far cry from the meandering New Age articles for which he is famous.

Splinter Cell:
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/review/4090

Soul Calibur II:
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/review/4082

I met him the night before E3 kicked off at the hotel where most of us were staying. He came from somewhere across the city, but that's not unusual since we have some local staff and others who prefer to stay with friends. I did always make it clear that people were expected to be at our hotel for a nightly staff meeting to plan the next day's activities, as logistics for covering the show are challenging with 15+ people, many of whom had no prior experience at press events. I think we saw him the next day at Nintendo's press conference, and I reminded him about the meeting later that night (probably the most important one all week), but he never showed up for it. The next day, I randomly saw him on the show floor and asked why he wasn't at the meeting. He said that he was hanging out with friends and just didn't feel like coming. I said something like "Okay, it was nice knowing you," and walked off. We revoked his staff login later that day, and that was the end of it. As far as I was concerned, he was just a goof-off who used us to get into E3 and didn't live up to his responsibilities. His story (published much later) spins it into some elaborate scheme to infiltrate a gaming fan site and learn how they work from the inside, but this seems highly unlikely given that he was on our staff for less than a month and barely participated at even the most basic level.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I was Director of Planet GameCube at the time. We posted a call for writers; the staff was and still is all volunteers. Tim applied and had writing experience with Insert Credit, as well as Japanese skills and a pre-registration for E3. He wrote a couple of pretty good reviews for us that are still online at Nintendo World Report; they are a far cry from the meandering New Age articles for which he is famous.

Splinter Cell:
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/review/4090

Soul Calibur II:
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/review/4082

I met him the night before E3 kicked off at the hotel where most of us were staying. He came from somewhere across the city, but that's not unusual since we have some local staff and others who prefer to stay with friends. I did always make it clear that people were expected to be at our hotel for a nightly staff meeting to plan the next day's activities, as logistics for covering the show are challenging with 15+ people, many of whom had no prior experience at press events. I think we saw him the next day at Nintendo's press conference, and I reminded him about the meeting later that night (probably the most important one all week), but he never showed up for it. The next day, I randomly saw him on the show floor and asked why he wasn't at the meeting. He said that he was hanging out with friends and just didn't feel like coming. I said something like "Okay, it was nice knowing you," and walked off. We revoked his staff login later that day, and that was the end of it. As far as I was concerned, he was just a goof-off who used us to get into E3 and didn't live up to his responsibilities. His story (published much later) spins it into some elaborate scheme to infiltrate a gaming fan site and learn how they work from the inside, but this seems highly unlikely given that he was on our staff for less than a month and barely participated at even the most basic level.

Wait, was this E3 2004?

IF SO IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE I WAS HANGING OUT WITH HIM THAT NIGHT

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

That's not the worst thing for a critic, but I guess you could argue that a truly great critic could imbue a fundamental understanding of their topic even to someone who has never experienced it, rather than elucidating on an experience that the reader has already had.

It's probably why I tend to write about games with my non-gamer mother in mind.

 

[Jonnyboy117]

Wait, was this E3 2004?

IF SO IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE I WAS HANGING OUT WITH HIM THAT NIGHT

No, this would have been 2003. It was my first E3 as Director since I took over for Billy Berghammer earlier that spring. Thus, Tim was one of if not the first person I hired, and most definitely the first person I fired. He is still the only person I have fired in person.

 

[bhlaab]

Okay so he's a liar too, then.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

No, this would have been 2003. It was my first E3 as Director since I took over for Billy Berghammer earlier that spring. Thus, Tim was one of if not the first person I hired, and most definitely the first person I fired. He is still the only person I have fired in person.

Ah, off by one year.

Yeah he does have kind of a "I don't give a fuck" quality to him, which is probably just another facet of his need to be as non-conformist as possible. If you tell him to be somewhere because he needs to be, that's the kind of shit people who aren't hip and brilliant like him do.

 

[gatotsu911]

It's probably why I tend to write about games with my non-gamer mother in mind.

The weird thing about this as it applies to Tim's reviews is that even though they are clearly more insightful for people who have already played the games in question, they are still ostensibly geared toward those who have not - he almost always goes out of the way to explain (and comment on) the game's mechanics, plot, etc. in extreme detail, to the point of frequently constructing an entire mini-Let's Play. I guess he would consider that part of his free-form (i.e. structureless), stream-of-consciousness style.

Yeah he does have kind of a "I don't give a fuck" quality to him, which is probably just another facet of his need to be as non-conformist as possible. If you tell him to be somewhere because he needs to be, that's the kind of shit people who aren't hip and brilliant like him do.

Isn't that attitude more or less ubiquitous of the entire hipster subculture?

 

[Yagharek]

A tangential point, but thanks to this page I'm getting the impression that the games journalism (non-pejorative use of the term) community is a fairly small clique.

It explains a lot, because there seems to be very little deviation from a group consensus of gaming ideas through the years.

FWIW I really enjoyed Tim's article in Games TM the past few years.

 

[whalleywhat]

He's good at making you think that. I don't believe you could, with only his words as a guide, describe a game to someone else in any truly useful way. He tries to approximate whatever he feels about a game in the most roundabout ways and though I do occasionally enjoy his writing (when I can force myself to tackle it), that only works if you a) happen to actually understand where he's coming from or b) don't really care for what exactly it is he's saying so much as how he is saying it. The instances where's he's being more clear than obtuse are rare. His review of FF13, for instance, has a much better content to confounding ratio than most of his pieces.
Read his most recent review of Shadows of the Damned on Actionbutton.net. It's amazingly short and a perfect example of why people hate his writing. He says barely anything relevant regarding the game. Except that it's stylish, I suppose? And maybe made to appear more interesting than it is...? Which might be meta on more than one level and not only concerning the game? I don't know. Not sure he does. And that's pretty much the problem right there.


Oh man. As happy as I am for him that he landed a job at Irrational, I can't help but wish he'd still be with Gamasutra, casting pods on the side. :<

These are both good examples. People could have saved themselves some money if they read his FF13 review before the NA version was released. The point he makes about the team claiming to have twice as many assets as made it into the game, and this being indicative of the total lack of directorial vision in the game, with a bunch of artists just designing crazy shit and providing you with a tube to follow in order to show it all to you, is one of the most trenchant critiques I've read, and pretty handily describes everything that's going on at Squeenix right now.
The SotD review seemed to be written knowing that he couldn't actually review a game he worked on, so it was just a forum to share a story about jeans. But yeah, there may be an element of self-parody to it.

 

[Rufus]

The SotD review seemed to be written knowing that he couldn't actually review a game he worked on, so it was just a forum to share a story about jeans. But yeah, there may be an element of self-parody to it.

There may also be an element of fiction to it. I'm not opposed to writers making up stuff to make a bigger point, but as in his SotD review, he doesn't do it well. (I wish I could say 'not always' at this point, but it's in the nature of the thing that I can't really know.) Unless he did actually work on the game and design a bunch of levels with no oversight or direct-... Yeah. (Is it commentary on Japanese game design? Maybe.) Credits suggest he didn't, though that doesn't rule it out completely (if he left early), but my money is on it being made up.

 

[Jerry Orbach]

The jeans were something Suda gave to his employees, which they picked up and ran with. By the end, not even Suda could appreciate the genius ironic stupidity of the jeans, which might in fact make it actual stupidity.

Off the subject of jeans and on to games: that Planet Gamecube review is a remarkably fair assessment of Splinter Cell, for 2003.

 

[BocoDragon]

I honestly have kind of a hard time seeing just what people find amusing about Rogers' shtick. It strikes me as downright masochistic to watch someone stroke their own ego and consider it fun. Sure, he's great at stringing you along and giving the sense that he is saying something or going somewhere actually significant, but when all is said and done I am always left with a conspicuous sense of emptiness after reading one of his non-game-focused pieces. He weaves words into a void - a black hole, of sorts - that sucks in all light around it and has at its center not a heart, but an uncanny simulacrum thereof.

tl;dr two years of reading Tim Rogers has very likely made me a better critic, but a worse human being.

Why is it amusing? Why is Charlie Sheen or Jersey Shore amusing? Spectacle is interesting. I know he must frustrate all you serious critics out there... but his writing is insane and that makes it unique and appealing. I might actually read it, unlike more conventionally written articles that tell me what I already know.

 

[blame space]

what does this dude think of flower

 

[gatotsu911]

Why is it amusing? Why is Charlie Sheen or Jersey Shore amusing? Spectacle is interesting. I know he must frustrate all you serious critics out there... but his writing is insane and that makes it unique and appealing. I might actually read it, unlike more conventionally written articles that tell me what I already know.

I'm not talking from the perspective of a critic, I'm talking from the perspective of a reader. It is only from the perspective of a critic that I would even care about Rogers.

 

[Xenon]

I read a few of his reviews. If I had to compare his style to anyone it would be Seth Macfarlane. He throws so much shit at you that enough of it sticks to make it entertaining.

 

[Adam J.]

what does this dude think of flower

He doesnt like it. Described it as Katamari Damacy for people without a sense of humor (lol).

 

[BocoDragon]

I'm not talking from the perspective of a critic, I'm talking from the perspective of a reader. It is only from the perspective of a critic that I would even care about Rogers.

I was talking from the perspective of a reader. "Spectacle is interesting."

I mentioned "critics" because there seem to be a lot in this thread. I think Rogers' biggest enemy is those who write serious pieces of game journalism because he's kind of making a mockery of their profession.

I read a few of his reviews. If I had to compare his style to anyone it would be Seth Macfarlane. He throws so much shit at you that enough of it sticks to make it entertaining.

Yes, and Tim Rogers hate reminds me of Family Guy hate. Haters must be taking them way more seriously than I do to even begin to hate them that much. I kinda like them both.. but I don't take them seriously in the slightest. It's just junk food, and sometimes junk actually tastes better than higher quality stuff....

 

[MC Safety]

I was talking from the perspective of a reader. "Spectacle is interesting."

I mentioned "critics" because there seem to be a lot in this thread. I think Rogers' biggest enemy is those who write serious pieces of game journalism because he's kind of making a mockery of their profession.


Yes, and Tim Rogers hate reminds me of Family Guy hate. Haters must be taking them way more seriously than I do to even begin to hate them that much. I kinda like them both.. but I don't take them seriously in the slightest. It's just junk food, and sometimes junk actually tastes better than higher quality stuff....

As a former game critic, I can say that I'm not threatened by bad, masturbatory writing.

And the Family Guy comparison is apt. McFarlane is a hack who thought Brian eating Stewie's feces was funny. People will always line up to defend garbage.

 

[blame space]

He doesnt like it. Described it as Katamari Damacy for people without a sense of humor (lol).

this dude is cool in my book

 

[Kintaro]

As a former game critic, I can say that I'm not threatened by bad, masturbatory writing.

And the Family Guy comparison is apt. McFarlane is a hack who thought Brian eating Stewie's feces was funny. People will always line up to defend garbage.

American Dad says your opinion is invalid.

 

[MC Safety]

American Dad says your opinion is invalid.

I've already made my point that people will line up to defend garbage. You needn't reiterate it.

 

[BrokenSymmetry]

The best videogames journalist.

http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story/

This is a pretty good piece.
Even Rock, Paper, Shotgun says so: "Tim Rogers writes a long, long, long piece entitled “Who Killed Videogames?” And it’s the best thing he’s written in ages."

And from the article itself (about the cynical design of "social" games):

“The players will come for the cute characters, and stay for the cruel mathematics.”