the winds of change

My wife is awesome. In most circumstances a guy with my hazardous preoccupation with games would be hard pressed to find a spouse that would actually pick up a gaming magazine on their lunch break for them. However an unforeseen mix-up occured after I kicked my PC Gamer habit, because she came home one day last week with a copy of Computer Gaming World as opposed to my new publication of choice - the infinitely more readable Computer Games. An easily forgivable mistake, and something that I have actually used to my advantage.

After reading Brian Hook's review of Computer Gaming World as part of my quest for PC Gamer's successor on my coffee table, I silently agreed that this magazine was not to be touched. However, considering the circumstances I figured it was a good opportunity to find out for myself what was lacking within its screenshot-laced pages. For it to be a "Game of the Year Awards" issue was an even happier coincidence; the cover clearly indicated World of Warcraft would be lavished with praise by yet another publication and I was curious to see their justification. (Aside: I got Computer Games magazine shortly after, who also gave World of Warcraft top honors in an issue that seems to be penned entirely by Cindy Yans. Needless to say I was overly unimpressed aside from Tom Chick's "Listmania").

Unsuprised by CGW's poetic love letter to Blizzard for gracing us with the gift of World of Warcraft, I turned to their RPG of the year award. Fresh off of the disappointment of Troika's closing, I laughed bitterly at their choice of Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. Stating that "Bloodlines would have been tough to beat even in an RPG loaded year", I chuckled at how these lofty statements can never actually be disproven. Though I didn't read their full review, I got a pretty good idea of what it was like with this completely embarassing description:

It offers all the things roleplayers love in their games: a deep, balanaced character creation system, a truckload of interesting quests, a good story, and great NPCs to interact with. All of this goodness is wrapped in one deliciously bad package - a graphically rich, sexually charged midnight underworld populated by a wild variety of scheming evil, and occasionally flat out insane bloodsuckers and their hangers-on.

Deliciously bad? Holy fuck I wish I could write like that. But there's more:

[Bloodlines is] a game that truly rewards players for trying to get into the head of a "real" vampire instead of merely asking them to hack their way through the game world and that adds up to a little thing we like to refer as "award winning". Besides, how can you not love a game that lets you create your own personal ghoul? Exactly.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but Amit@Damned Machines is right - these idiots need to grow the fuck up. Game awards are important, as they tend to influence casual gamers that don't have the time or inclination to experience every one of the year's releases. Bloodlines may have won RPG of the year, but their endorsement is not something that would make me run out to the store and buy it. It won Best RPG of the Year, how about putting some effort into the reason why?

In the same awards feature under the "Best Trend" category rejoicing the number and quality of strategy games released in 2004 they plead: "Now if only someone would pay this much attention to the floundering role playing category that is dying a slow, painful death". I beg to differ, assholes. Clearly your heads are too far up publishers greasy rectums to notice two European developed isometric RPGs that came out last year: Sacred and Beyond Divinity. Two games that weren't even dignified as also rans in the RPG category because your layout designer fucked up and repeated the same information from the "Best Adventure Game" category the page before. Way to go. Oh, and stop whining about the fact that the PC version of Spider Man 2 sucked as if it was some kind of crime. If you didn't listen so much to your fellow whores at EGM you would know that you weren't missing anything.

They also go on about how great Silent Storm was in their "Best Trend: Good strategy games" blurb, but put it up against The Sims 2 in a truly odd category called "Best Strategy Game: General". Why not have a best sims category, and reward Silent Storm? It's clearly the only combat strategy game in the category (and a turn based one, at that), which was up against other nominees The Political Machine and Roller Coaster Tycoon 3. Instead they create a hand job of a category called "Best use of a game engine" so they don't seem so fucking myopic by not letting Silent Storm win something.

Though when you chip away all of this ranting, it essentially becomes another argument for better game journalism in print media. I still think there's a place for game magazines, but as I said before they have to stop trying to compete with gaming websites and focus on what makes their publication unique, lest they continue producing subpar material and almost certainly driving themselves into irrelevance.

A deeper exploration of a game's meaning and influence would make for a more readable account instead of a formulaic approach that amounts to tickboxes on an imaginary review content checklist. We've all heard the words "New Games Journalism", but instead of constantly reframing past accomplishments it's time to start thinking about how to apply this buzzphrase en masse.

I'm of the mindset that there has to be an old games journalism first. Based on what I saw in CGW, the writing that passes for current video game journalism is just a bunch of fucking book reports; there's no real analysis beyond the superficial. I'm just as guilty of examining the technical details or how a game is played as opposed to any feeling it evokes, hard as I try to promote the latter. That's only because as a medium, video games are still finding their feet. If you'll allow this lazy comparison, film has had a hundred years to develop trends, themes and conventions that allow critics to focus on the message - not the parameters by which they're brought to the screen. However, this is partly the fault of the games themselves: take any game and try to glean some kind of message that goes beyond the story and gameplay. Something that actually sticks with you or possibly changes your outlook on life. There's no way you'll see "encourages deep thinking" or "contains content that may cause you to question the state of the world" on a game's featurelist - it's nowhere near as appealing as "Awesome new graphics!" or "Realistic weapon models!". Games may be interactive experiences, but like films they remain discrete events that provide simple entertainment or insight into a moral quandary that tends to dissipate after walking away from it. Games as learning tools can accomplish so much more than simple escapism. Even though some video game aficionados (myself included) will sometimes attribute life-changing experiences to a videogame, rarely is this the developer's intentions. Call it cynical, but I just don't think we're there yet. That being said, if it must be called "New Games Journalism", so be it. Encouraging game writers and gamers alike to approach the latest title with this softer criteria can in turn influence developers to put this type of content in their games so it may be found. The medium can evolve, and perhaps establish itself truly as an art form instead of a simple pastime.

like a gyprock parachute