We reach the final form, us!
I don't follow print gaming magazines much, but I'd figure there will always be a place for them. They might not reach the mass market, but if they could cater towards the more dedicated gamers they could survive.
Personally I like Edge a lot. It doesn't look like it was printed on toilet paper and they have good articles about the industry as a whole. I subscribed to them for a year, but didn't renew because their mags were always a month late. I don't care if they can't bring me the news on a daily basis, but if you can't deliver a magazine from the UK to Belgium in less than a month, something is amiss.
^ I suspect they wait until returns from Uk newsagents before they sell those copies onto us foreigners.
Dvader said:We reach the final form, us!
Well, we are the only games forum that hasn't died with the sites hosting them except for NeoGaf. So it'll be us or NeoGaf that comes out on top. The smart money is on us, obviously.
Everything you say is true.
The loss of EGM was a blessing. (And I loved it). But ultimately it was a compromised form, as is the current IGN/ Gamespot duopoly.
And a good review is harder to create than a good game, that is a fact.
Often the best reviews (from a writing perspective) are done to service the writer rather than the reader. At least if you take the Rolling Stones angle on reviewing. (like this = you'll like that).
I think when game reviewing is at it's best is when historical relevance is applied (no surprise the old guy wants context) combined with a "this is what makes this game special/ this is what makes this game rote", combined with elements of the larger cultural input (but this is my 90's movie appreciation talkign, which may now translate to TV).
You made some edits. So my last post may or may not stand (vis-a-vis agreeing with everything you said).
I can't remember what the editing was, so it couldn't have been important. Maybe adding in modernism?
aspro said:And a good review is harder to create than a good game, that is a fact.
I wonder if that is true, of if you just perceive it as such as you have first hand experience with writing (I assume), but not with game development. Also, how can you objectively meassure how good a review is? There are no reviews of reviews. It's all very subjective if you ask me. Plus it's apples and oranges. A good game is honed to perfection through itteration upon itteration, a review is a piece of text you write in a very short period of time.
Foolz said:The internet, religious repression, and nihilistic post-modernism have destroyed literacy (technically modernism is the cause, but post-modernism is the fatal symptom), so the sooner games websites (and all text based media) die out the better. Except for Hyper <3. Let's be honest: Greg Kasavin makes a better game than a review; probably because making a good game is easier than making a good review...Well, we are the only games forum that hasn't died with the sites hosting them except for NeoGaf. So it'll be us or NeoGaf that comes out on top. The smart money is on us, obviously.
This. Oh, how I hate post-modernism. It's just an excuse to do away with all meaning, semantics and connotations, say 'bugger you all' and make something that is usually grotesque and ugly. At least modernism searches for new meaning, a new set of rules and connotations. Post-modernism just doesn't care.
SupremeAC said:aspro said:And a good review is harder to create than a good game, that is a fact.
I wonder if that is true, of if you just perceive it as such as you have first hand experience with writing (I assume), but not with game development. Also, how can you objectively meassure how good a review is? There are no reviews of reviews. It's all very subjective if you ask me. Plus it's apples and oranges. A good game is honed to perfection through itteration upon itteration, a review is a piece of text you write in a very short period of time.
You can't objectively measure how good a game is, either. A review is an essay, an article (ie. it's non-fiction literature), or whatever you want to call it, and there’s a long tradition of literary analysis; certainly it’s easier to come up with an argument to the objective quality of a review, for this reason, than it is with a game.
And I would say that that's how you write a shitty review, if most iteration wasn't needless bureaucracy, and there was any correlation between the worth of something and how long it took to make.
SupremeAC said:This. Oh, how I hate post-modernism. It's just an excuse to do away with all meaning, semantics and connotations, say 'bugger you all' and make something that is usually grotesque and ugly. At least modernism searches for new meaning, a new set of rules and connotations. Post-modernism just doesn't care.
The only problem with anarchy is when people try to adopt it as a rule set: thus modernism is the cause, and post-modernism merely the terminal symptom.
Foolz said:SupremeAC said:I wonder if that is true, of if you just perceive it as such as you have first hand experience with writing (I assume), but not with game development. Also, how can you objectively meassure how good a review is? There are no reviews of reviews. It's all very subjective if you ask me. Plus it's apples and oranges. A good game is honed to perfection through itteration upon itteration, a review is a piece of text you write in a very short period of time.
You can't objectively measure how good a game is, either. A review is an essay, an article (ie. it's non-fiction literature), or whatever you want to call it, and there’s a long tradition of literary analysis; certainly it’s easier to come up with an argument to the objective quality of a review, for this reason, than it is with a game.
And I would say that that's how you write a shitty review, if most iteration wasn't needless bureaucracy, and there was any correlation between the worth of something and how long it took to make.
I'm not going to discuss this with you, as both my knowledge of the English language as the more technical side of writing and game development is insufficient. But what makes a good review, the fact that is well written, or how well it sculpts an image of what the game is, what it excels at and what it's shortcomings are?
Foolz said:SupremeAC said:This. Oh, how I hate post-modernism. It's just an excuse to do away with all meaning, semantics and connotations, say 'bugger you all' and make something that is usually grotesque and ugly. At least modernism searches for new meaning, a new set of rules and connotations. Post-modernism just doesn't care.
The only problem with anarchy is when people try to adopt it as a rule set: thus modernism is the cause, and post-modernism merely the terminal symptom.
I am going to pretend that you're just agreeing with me. But in case you aren't: modernism is not anarchy, it's breaking free from tradition and searching for something new to replace it. Post-modernism is breaking free from tradition without looking to fill the gap it left.
To both of your points:
- Nihilism is a lie, because any breakout philosophies rely on a body of intellectual accretions that have formed over time.
- Writing a break-out review s more difficult to become accepted than a break-out game (just look at the indy-regeneration). Having said that, is a break-out review of a video game worth the effort? (given the ambivelance of the audience).
Foolz said:I can't remember what the editing was, so it couldn't have been important. Maybe adding in modernism?
You added eligous repression too. I don't think that is a direct contributing factor, and if it is, it is in the tenths of thousandths range (at least amongst game developers and writers).
aspro said:To both of your points:
- Nihilism is a lie, because any breakout philosophies rely on a body of intellectual accretions that have formed over time.
But what is post-modernism really? it didn't really accrue anything as far as I'm aware of. It never claims to hold the answer, it never offers rules to which you must conform. That's the whole thing. It was a knee jerk reaction to modernism, throwing out the idea that everything needed rules and meaning.
aspro said:
- Writing a break-out review s more difficult to become accepted than a break-out game (just look at the indy-regeneration). Having said that, is a break-out review of a video game worth the effort? (given the ambivelance of the audience).
We werent' talking about reviews or games being exceptional. We settled on merely 'good' 
aspro said:You added eligous repression too. I don't think that is a direct contributing factor, and if it is, it is in the tenths of thousandths range (at least amongst game developers and writers).
I would say it is the highest contributing factor to illiteracy (although post-modernism is more direct; but I would argue post-modernism owes a lot of its problems to religious repression). But when I say religious repression, you probably don't think what I mean. Which isn't your fault, and if you wanted further explanation you could have it, but not necessarily here. Illiteracy has little affect on videogames due to its age, though, so you probably don't need it anyway (thus there was no harm in throwing it in).
SupremeAC said:Foolz said:SupremeAC said:I wonder if that is true, of if you just perceive it as such as you have first hand experience with writing (I assume), but not with game development. Also, how can you objectively meassure how good a review is? There are no reviews of reviews. It's all very subjective if you ask me. Plus it's apples and oranges. A good game is honed to perfection through itteration upon itteration, a review is a piece of text you write in a very short period of time.
You can't objectively measure how good a game is, either. A review is an essay, an article (ie. it's non-fiction literature), or whatever you want to call it, and there’s a long tradition of literary analysis; certainly it’s easier to come up with an argument to the objective quality of a review, for this reason, than it is with a game.
And I would say that that's how you write a shitty review, if most iteration wasn't needless bureaucracy, and there was any correlation between the worth of something and how long it took to make.
I'm not going to discuss this with you, as both my knowledge of the English language as the more technical side of writing and game development is insufficient. But what makes a good review, the fact that is well written, or how well it sculpts an image of what the game is, what it excels at and what it's shortcomings are?
Foolz said:SupremeAC said:This. Oh, how I hate post-modernism. It's just an excuse to do away with all meaning, semantics and connotations, say 'bugger you all' and make something that is usually grotesque and ugly. At least modernism searches for new meaning, a new set of rules and connotations. Post-modernism just doesn't care.
The only problem with anarchy is when people try to adopt it as a rule set: thus modernism is the cause, and post-modernism merely the terminal symptom.
I am going to pretend that you're just agreeing with me. But in case you aren't: modernism is not anarchy, it's breaking free from tradition and searching for something new to replace it. Post-modernism is breaking free from tradition without looking to fill the gap it left.
Well, I'm not the best person to ask for a broad view on this because I don't have many aesthetic preferences, so if I was critically approaching a review (as I would anything) the major basis for my argument would be to first ascertain what the intent of the author is, and then come up with a technical judgement comparing what they produced with what I perceive they intended. Therefore, this technical judgement may be based on the quality of the language, the accuracy in its representation of the game, the development of analysis to conclusion; depending on what the author was trying to achieve (as far as I could tell).
Luckily, for the purpose of this discussion, videogame reviews are extremely limited in their scope (though extremely detailed), and most purport to be a Frankenstein combination of consumer guide, pure technical analysis, and light (if we're being kind) entertainment. So a good review following these principles would need to be commercially informative, have a strong understanding and clear expression of videogame development technique, and be enjoyable (not necessarily well written) and easy to read; which I think are pretty easily definable qualities. My conclusion that videogames are easier to make than reviews is based on statistics (which are naturally indebted entirely to my vague sense of taste): even within these narrow confines (any idiot should be able to write a successful review following those simple terms), I could not produce for you an extensive list of reviews that succeed on even two of these requirements; whereas I could give you a list of hundreds, or thousands, of games that succeed at least in the majority of their intentions...I'm not saying it's a good theory. But it's something.
But modernism failed to produce a replacement, therefore it was ultimately anarchy as a movement; even if the individual works weren't. And post-modernism is the result of this anarchy: there was no tangible base (beyond technique; because modernism failed) for post-modernism to rebel against, which I think is a large contributing factor to the things you don't like about post-modernism. And I'm not sure I'm agreeing with you completely, but I'm definitely not disagreeing.
^ You are so weird foolz. Interesting but weird.
SupremeAC said:aspro said:To both of your points:
- Nihilism is a lie, because any breakout philosophies rely on a body of intellectual accretions that have formed over time.
But what is post-modernism really? it didn't really accrue anything as far as I'm aware of. It never claims to hold the answer, it never offers rules to which you must conform. That's the whole thing. It was a knee jerk reaction to modernism, throwing out the idea that everything needed rules and meaning.
Why bring up post-modernism? I was talking about nihilism. Now that you have brought it up, it was a fad.
Foolz said:... if I was critically approaching a review (as I would anything) the major basis for my argument would be to first ascertain what the intent of the author is, and then come up with a technical judgement comparing what they produced with what I perceive they intended. ...
This is a good approach, one which I will adopt. See, when I read your reviews, or do the show, I completely disregard your determination on the actual value of what it is you are examining. I am more interested in the response the thing produced, and then how you chose to articulate it.
I think most folks start the other way around, determining their own opinion on a thing, and then dispensing or embracing what the reviewer has to say based on their existing view.
When I read a review, as with the consumption of any of my media I want two things (in order of importance):
1. Authenticity.
2. Entertainment.
I am not looking for reviews to validate my beliefs.
If a review is not authentic, then it has no value (some reviews). If it is authentic and not entertaining it holds less value (most reviews). If it is both authentic and entertaining, then I'm happy. Most of the reviews in EGM were like this.
Reviews in Play were entertaining, but usually not authentic (they were angling for advertising dollars).
Most reviews these days (IGN, Gamespot, Game Informer) are just sheerly incompetant. Seme outlets, like Games TM, EDGE, Eurogamer and Giantbomb are usually almost always authentic and usually almost entertaining, which is why I still read them. Tom Tower's work is consistently both.
aspro said:Why bring up post-modernism? I was talking about nihilism. Now that you have brought it up, it was a fad.
Because Gott ist tot.
aspro said:SupremeAC said:aspro said:To both of your points:
- Nihilism is a lie, because any breakout philosophies rely on a body of intellectual accretions that have formed over time.
But what is post-modernism really? it didn't really accrue anything as far as I'm aware of. It never claims to hold the answer, it never offers rules to which you must conform. That's the whole thing. It was a knee jerk reaction to modernism, throwing out the idea that everything needed rules and meaning.
Why bring up post-modernism? I was talking about nihilism. Now that you have brought it up, it was a fad.
Because Foolz first wrote it down in regards to post-modernism. You seemed to make an argument stating that post-modernism was not nihilistic, since it would not fall within the definition you supplied. While I feel it does.
So the internet put print outlets out of business by presenting the same information faster and for free.
No more magazines.
And now the internet sites cannot figure out how to make money from giving the content away for free (go figure). Or they do so in such a manner that it is entirely unsatisfying (pre-rolls, articles spread over 15 pages, link bait stories that were written by PR or another site).
So now they are drying up (see Kotaku, Polygon and Gamespot layoffs).
The old school writers from print mostly went into development, and even the old-school writers from the first internet wave have moved onto development, leaving the ranks filled with content creators that were once subscribers, or people fresh out of university.
Game companies now have their own blogs, websites and Nintendo-direct-like presentations to cut out the middle man.
So back to the topic: Now what?
Do we end up with just user generated content like this site and YouTube and Publisher-generated content? And if so, is that a problem or the final solution?