Tuesday June 07, 2005
carnival or bust
I have been invited to the Carnival of Gamers. Twice.
Flattered to be considered part of the "heavy hitters of the gaming blogosphere" that were so noted on the invitation, I still didn't bother responding. What was the point of asking someone to link to one of my old posts? I'm happy to write for myself. I went about my business.
The first ever Carnival of Gamers has come and gone, and left a few people's egos in its wake. Some have been inflated, and others put in check, but I was mostly interested in the flame war sparked by one man's rage against the gaming media machine.
It all started with a post over at Tea Leaves, which cried foul over the news that Gamespy modified the review score for Donkey Konga 2. According to Tea Leaves, this was evidently another strike against the current state of video game writing, though the post was styled as a typical rant common to most blogs and should not have even been dignified with a reply, let alone a post on the Computer Games website. This poorly formulated response to a haphazard collection of links caused an avalanche of commentary, most of them located at Buttonmashing's follow up post. I was a little disturbed watching Computer Games' Matthew Gallant try to defend himself, having no real position since he never bothered to slog through all the links.
While I agree with the spirit of the Carnival, the way in which it was carried out does the entire "gaming blogosphere" a disservice. There was no evident method for selecting the posts. It was even said that the only reason the Tea Leaves post was listed first was because it was submitted first. The Carnival itself is simply a collection of links with a few choice words wrapped around them. If I was someone interested in a particular topic, for example, the lampooning of online game journalism, how would I know where to look? Categories or headers for common blog posts would have done well in this regard. The organizer and proprietor of Buttonmashing also noted that he didn't like some of the posts. So why were they listed? To be fair to those who submitted links? How is it, then, that you can call the Carnival "the best and brightest video game bloggers from around the world!" I don't care if it's sarcasm: this is unfair to the readers that have been lured in from other websites that might actually take this statement, and the following collection of video game writing, seriously.
I think Matthew Gallant's complaint about the lack of editorial control is an excellent one. The Carnival may be providing links to some unknown weblogs, but if it's bad writing (or as we saw, provides a sensationalist negative opinion) it will reflect badly on the organizer, and the Carnival itself. Slashdot Games may have ripped into the Carnival as well, but why dismiss them? Instead of hearing what the commenters had to say, despite its negative slant, it was blocked out as an insult to the whole affair. It's one thing to link to a bunch of articles you enjoyed. If they're read by similar-minded people like the ones on the typical game blogger's links page I doubt you'll get any arguments. But when word gets out, you're likely to draw in those people that don't agree with you. Either learn to put up with criticism, or stop doing this. It's that simple.
The referrer log gazing on the Carnival's wrap up post was amusing. Calling it a great success based on some heavy linkage is hardly a comprehensive measurement. Of particular note are the links on Kotaku and Instapundit. Did they even read all the posts in the Carnival? I really doubt it, because they probably would have had more to say. Outsiders are lured into this realm expecting greatness, or at least a level of quality reflective of the linking website.
What's so bad about writing and nobody reading it, anyway? This is a classic symptom of blogger narcissism. I've been happily writing about games on this site since 2003, and whether I get visitors or not makes no difference on how I do things. Half the time commenters were trying to sell me vicadin or horse pills anyway. I write what I want, when I want, and I'm not trying to apply myself to some unwritten agenda that game blogging must be seen to be validated. Besides, once your gaming weblog gets attention, then what? Are you going to use it as a portfolio to get a job somewhere else? At a gaming website? At a gaming magazine? Railing against established media isn't exactly the best way to network with future employers.
I blame Penny Arcade for this obsession with internet fame. I have nothing against the guys, but the cult of personality that has sprung up around them is absolutely mind-boggling. They can say a bad thing about a game and influence thousands of people. Tycho can praise a game using his verbal gymnastics and people will be lining up at EB the next day. These are just the opinions of two guys, but that doesn't matter. Disagree with the mob and you've got a flame war on your hands. And isn't that what's happening here?
There's nothing special about game blogs, yet the Carnival's supporters seem to think so. Some of the posts at the Carnival were actually well- written, even if they weren't talking about something I was particularly excited about. Part of the problem is that sentiments are simply echoed throughout these sites' collective blogrolls. What's the point of reading at all if I'm not going to get a difference in opinion, or a new viewpoint on an old subject? What makes this different from weblogging in general?
Frankly, I'm a little embarrassed for those on both sides of this perceived battle. Making light of the negative comments from Slashdot Games is one thing, but when your own comments section erupts into the same type of defensive, ranty posts found there it undermines the purpose of the discussion in the first place. Furthermore, making a point of lambasting a professional game writer as if he were responsible for the mess that is games journalism seems kind of shortsighted. It's usually wise to assume that the mainstream media understands very little about weblogging. So is outright hostility how new readers should be introduced to this subculture of game writers? I wouldn't be surprised if visitors directed to the Carnival from elsewhere saw these immature displays and opted to never return again.
I have never made any claims to expertise or credibility. It's safer that way, and I'm a lot happier doing my own thing than trying to champion some cause that I don't believe is necessary. There's just something about self-aggrandizing self-publishing that smacks of inexperience. I'd hardly call Kotaku the pinnacle of game blogging. Do you enjoy sifting through advertisements to get to your information? Yet for some reason the underlying theme here is bringing attention to the gamebloggers, these unsung heroes of game journalism that might one day rise up against the firmly established gaming media empire. But for what? Ad revenue? Respect? A piece of virtual infamy? There's no way attention would be this important if something wasn't wanted in return.
The next Carnival is this week. Here's hoping the host exercises a bit more editorial control, before the Carnival is buried under the unfortunate stigma of its predecessor.
fools like us
Like Gallant and many of the Slashdot posters, you seem to have gotten hung up on the (in hindsight) unfortunate hyperbole about "best and brightest". Let's say instead he used words that more accurately describe what a Carnival is, as used in many other places - just a collection of interesting posts on a common subject that you may find interesting.
Not a "Best of..." necessarily; no awards go along with selection. It's a set of posts the current editor found interesting and thought deserved a wider audience among like minded folk. And if you don't like his selection, like other Carnivals there will be other editors that will have other tastes. There's no need to have some rigid selection criteria, with a committee that does the vetting - let's lighten up out there already!
And yes, many of the chosen posts were rather sophomoric; but let's face it, most game blog posts are. But I found a couple new blogs to read and so I considered it a success.
And while I certainly don't write for various blogs for the fame of it, I do write for others to read. If I didn't, then I just might as well keep the posts on my hard drive. I hope to be an entertaining read that contains some bit of information others might find useful - a new FreeBSD command, a movie they haven't seen or a game they haven't played.
There was no evident method for selecting the posts. It was even said that the only reason the Tea Leaves post was listed first was because it was submitted first. ... The organizer and proprietor of Buttonmashing also noted that he didn't like some of the posts. So why were they listed?
I explicitly said that I would be accepting any submissions. I didn't feel it was my position to judge whether something was good or not. I had no idea what kind of response we would get or how many people would be interested in participating so I wanted to be all-inclusive. I thought about grouping posts together by subject but just went hodge-podge in the end. This is a work in progress. Perhaps we will moderate entries in the future. It's up to the host to present the entries how they see fit, perhaps the next host will group the entries by topic.
How is it, then, that you can call the Carnival "the best and brightest video game bloggers from around the world!" I don't care if it's sarcasm
This comment wasn't simply sarcasm. It was an attempt at humor, plain and simple. Is there no sense of humor in the blogosphere? I can't believe how many people made a big deal of this. You yourself said it -- most bloggers are full of themselves and this was my jab at that mentality. This was a "Carnival." It wasn't a Symposium, it wasn't a Solemn Assembly, it was a "Weee, I'm having fun on the Ferris Wheel" Carnival.
Slashdot Games may have ripped into the Carnival as well, but why dismiss them? ... Either learn to put up with criticism, or stop doing this. It's that simple.
You made the point yourself -- the comments on Slashdot weren't criticisms, they were ripping on the Carnival without providing any substance. I'm thick skinned, I can handle it just fine, and I can deal with criticism (believe me, I've received it in spades) but this wasn't criticism. It was just slashdotters being slashdotters.
Calling it a great success based on some heavy linkage is hardly a comprehensive measurement.
I'll disagree with this. In the world of blogging, linkage is currency, like it or not. Hits and page views are tangible measurements. I could forward you emails or comments by other bloggers saying "I hadn't read this guy until the Carnival" but that's anecdotal. I like numbers, I like math. It was my measure of success.
There's nothing special about game blogs, yet the Carnival's supporters seem to think so.
Maybe they think so because there actually is something special about them. You write for yourself. Maybe they write because they like the idea behind blogging and they think it will become something more than it already is.
I'd hardly call Kotaku the pinnacle of game blogging.
I don't think anyone did. I like what Brian is doing over there but I certainly don't see it as the pinnacle of game blogging. I don't think we can point to any particular game blog as "the pinnacle."
The next Carnival is this week. Here's hoping the host exercises a bit more editorial control, before the Carnival is buried under the unfortunate stigma of its predecessor.
Here's to hoping.
I like what you write and I think it's thoughtful and well written. That's why I invited you to join the Carnival. I hope you realize that the Carnival will evolve and maybe give it another chance. This has been a learning experience. I appreciate your criticism, I do take it seriously. I would like to see the Carnival succeed and hopefully it
Hieronymus: I think it's perfectly reasonable to get "hung up" on Tony's introduction to the Carnival. As I said, think of the newcomers. These are the people the Carnival is supposedly reaching out to to gather attention for these unknown weblogs. These new visitors presumably don't know any of the featured bloggers, and after reading that kind of introduction they were colossally disappointed. As for the "other editors with other tastes", this seems to have been thrown out the window in favour of allowing any and all submissions for the next Carnival.
Going by your definition of the Carnival, I still fail to see how different it is from a collection of links. Why not just tell people to visit the blogs on your blogroll? Or stop by Gameblogs.org? I understand that this was just one guy's idea, and I doubt he put much thought into the execution. There needs to be a singular definition of what the Carnival is all about. Otherwise it's left open for criticism, and outright dismissal.
"Lighten up" is a weak defense. Do you want to be read or not? It's pretty clear that the Carnival's supporters care about what they're writing, but the lengths to which they justified this thing went a lot deeper than that. It's like they thought the gaming blogosphere was being attacked. Keep in mind that game bloggers are a sub-set of a sub-set of internet-dwellers. Is it sensible to assume that the readers of IGN or Gamespy or Gamespot or EGM or PSM will even care that this event transpired?
The key is in the presentation. Appearance is everything on the Internet. The most aggravating blowhards are somehow touted as excellent writers or unlimited fountains of knowledge, as long as they make themselves sound that way. If it looks amateurish, it will be treated as such.
I check out Buttonmashing from time to time, and I didn't see anything different from one of Tony's usual link posts. So why was this group of posts called anything different? The underlying current that echoes throughout many of the comments made by the Carnival's supporters in its aftermath suggests something more than just linking to a bunch of blog posts. So what's it going to be? Continue playing the part of novelty, or creating a deserved reputation for game bloggers? Calling out game magazines and websites as a bunch of filthy liars is not a good start.
It really is unfortunate that the first carnival had to turn out this way, but the Carnival can salvage a decent return by being more selective, and presenting the blogs with a little more professionalism, something both sides of this debate are severely lacking. Weblogs link to each other all the time. Prove that gaming weblogs are different.
Lastly, please don't lump me in with Slashdot Games and Matthew Gallant. I consider my criticism mostly constructive.
Tony: thanks for your comments. It's unfortunate that they were cut off, but you can blame Movable Type for that.
My point is not the "best and brightest" comment itself, but rather how it was interpreted. Your "jab at the blogger mentality" probably reinforced the negative opinions of outsiders towards bloggers in general. While it's true you could have never anticipated the reaction to the Carnival, making these kinds of claims will almost always cause those that would have said nothing at all to react quite violently. Appearances are everything and all that. Blogging in general has a long way to go, and I think the fact that the first Carnival was turned into such an "Us vs. Them" battle didn't really advance anyone's opinion of it.
You deserve credit for starting this, but despite both of our hopes it doesn't appear anything's about to change. In fact, Thomas' outright denial of any comments on his site (directing them instead to "the source") makes me think that this is to be some kind of hermetically sealed experiment. How is game blogging supposed to improve with this kind of attitude? At least you were accomodating enough to let people vent on your site, however useless the comments may have been. If the host renounces all responsibility for the quality of the posts, what's the advantage of doing it on different websites? I don't see how it can be anything other than a link grab.
You're absolutely right about linkage being currency - and that's the problem. When you're linked the automatic reaction is approval. But how do you know they aren't laughing in your face? This is tough to gauge properly, and something that will only become evident after a few more carnivals. Unless there are some masochists in the audience.
How is a Carnival different than a blog roll? The most obvious way is that a Carnival (something done all over the web now, for all special interests) points to specific posts, while a blogroll points to the latest post. I don't see why that's such a bad thing, and why it should bring scorn down upon it. It isn't unique by any means, and it's a good way to get to know other blogs. It is slowly evolving and I personally think it is coming along just fine. It is not "one guy's idea", besides making one for gaming blogs. There are literally dozens of Carnivals rolling around the blogosphere and I find them a fascinating snapshot of the blogging art form.
I don't think the writers are defending their writing, just the ad hominem attacks on the Carnival like it is some kind of malignant evil incarnate. And I think we all have every right to slam Gallant for having the unmitigated gall to say "I read the first one, hated it, so all the rest must be puke too. Go away kids, you bother me.". Like Tony says, constructive criticism is fine, but the backhanded stuff handed down from a "professional" writer is amateur at best.
I'm not sure what "underlying current" you are swimming in, but I don't see the claim anywhere that the Carnival "suggests something more than just linking to a bunch of blog posts." And if there is, then they too are missing the point.
"Unfortunate the first Carnival turned out this way"? Oh boy, I will, once again, suggest that you lighten up. It "turned up this way" precisely because you and other\ nabobs of negativity want to paint it that way. Go out and read other Carnivals. Be happy if one or two of the posts, which you may have otherwise missed, make it worthwhile. I, and I think many others, feel the Carnival turned out just fine and here's hoping that all the rest will be as much fun.
As for constructive criticism, I don't see much, to be honest. Don't do it isn't useful. Don't link to me is okay. Link to better writing might be useful, if you could define "better". To me, the post sounds more like "I'm above the fray because I don't care to be read. I'm writing for myself and all these other clowns at the Carnival are in it for the self-aggrandization."
Hieronymus, the reason gatmog is above the fray is because he'd rather focus on good writing than wave his hands above his head and try to get noticed. Getting noticed for good writing is more important to him than blindly accumulating traffic hits.
His most significant criticism of the Carnival, which has been echoed by others, is that because the Carnival has no quality filter, it has nothing substantial to offer. The whole internet is unfiltered. Why would I read "just a bunch of links" at the Carnival when I can do that anywhere on the entire web? It's a waste of time. You should respect your readership enough to offer them the cream. Instead, you're willing to run any crap that happens to find itself in your inbox. How is that a selling feature?
The Carnival, in offering whatever ends up being submitted, does indie games journalism, and games blogging a disservice. Games bloggers have spent a long time trying to build credibility, and what the Carnival has done is announce that the best standard of quality is no standard at all. That drags down the whole gaming blogosphere by giving the unintiated a bad first impression. So you might see why gatmog, myself, and others are less than thrilled with your efforts.
My recommendation to you and your fellow Carnies is to concentrate on good writing, not hype. Traffic should play second fiddle to quality. There is too much information on the internet for people to handle--filtration is necessary, not optional. Set some standards, even if those standards are merely one Carnival host's selection of the best writing submitted. That, at least, says *something*, not *nothing*.
The Carnival could be more of a writers' workshop, except that it seems all you guys want to do is pat each other on the back. And that is what we call an echo chamber. It's not something to be happy about.
I pretty much agree with the sentiments of gatmog and Tony Walsh, but I don't really have any strong feelings either way about it. You see (not to toot my own horn), I'm sort of like the jaded, grizzled, senile delinquent that, after a long (weblog) life, has pretty much seen it all. I have seen the patterns and the lives and deaths and the ebbs and flows before. Hell, at times, long ago, I was caught up in them.
The novelty of it *was* captivating. The instant feedback and readership. After a while, the novelty fades.
This so-called emergence of gaming blogs (like if it's something new! Pfft. I remember game focused weblogs back in 2000) is following the same kind of pattern that many other weblog "communities" have seen before.
You start with a sort of popular A-List, which has lots of readership. People with similar interests are drawn to those and start writing themselves. Then a large influx comes in with an inflated optimism and enthusiasm which, after a short while, burns out as people figure out that this weblog thing isn't going to change the world. Business then continues as normal. It happened with the so-called War Blogs, and it happened with the whole of the "Blogger" world of 2000.
Consider these growing pains. Consider these learning periods. If you do write primarily for yourself (as I do), then why even care about others' link and meme whoring?
(Also, the name "Carnival" (apparently, other such "carnivals" have existed. Who knew? In *MY* day, we just called it "metablogging") sort of implies a circus freak-show atmosphere. Which, really, I don't find particularly helpful.)
I'm insanely late here, but I did want to say:
"Furthermore, making a point of lambasting a professional game writer as if he were responsible for the mess that is games journalism seems kind of shortsighted."
I never lamblasted Matt for being responsible for games journalism. I lamblasted him for not being responsible in his own journalism. Since he's a paid professional, then such lamblasting is perfectly reasonable.
As for the "lack of editorial control" on the Carnival. Well, it continues to do quite well. Today was the third, I saw a huge increase in traffic and I read a few new blogs that I wouldn't have normally seen. With the "editorial control", that third part wouldn't have happened. So, yay for us.
Thanks for signing in,
.
Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
hillside landscaping
Excerpt: shit-happens 1691116 Good information about hillside landscaping.
Weblog: hillside landscaping
Tracked: June 18, 2007 08:09 AM
corel draw download
Excerpt: shit-happens 1691116 Good information source for corel draw download.
Weblog: corel draw download
Tracked: June 18, 2007 06:46 PM
