Curmudgeon Gamer
01 May 2008
Video game canons and flesh colored band-aids
I was obviously asleep when the announcement was made that this stab at a video game canon was announced last year:
Mr. Lowood and the four members of his committee — the game designers Warren Spector and Steve Meretzky; Matteo Bittanti, an academic researcher; and Christopher Grant, a game journalist — announced their list of the 10 most important video games of all time:
Okay, I can pick at the list. Anybody can pick out a list. Did they screw up? Sure. Where's KABOOM!? (kidding on that one -- for now)
What concerns me is that these guys are, well, just that. All white guys. Sure, it's a pretty good crosssection of dark haired white guys. There's a short one. One that's not ashamed of his poor vision. Two -- no, on second glance, three -- major facial hair decisions. Still, as humans go, it's a pretty diversity challenged group on its face, har har.
What else unites the Superfriends of Ludological Canonization? That they all decided not to make their rationalizations for picking these ten easily Googleable [by me].
In any event, even if white guys too largely made the games and white guys too largely play/ed the games, is that really a good reason that white guys should pick the games? I imagine these guys would likely find my dimestore critique here uncontroverstial, but then why not branch out before announcing your list at the Game Developers' Conference and posing for the NY Freakin' Register of the US Times?
Insert smilie.
Labels: classic, culture, ethics, hype, marketing, peer pressure, pretension, retro
--ruffin at 11:46
Comment
[ 6 ]
25 May 2007
Media Summit A-Go-Go
The big sites have mentioned they've been under another of those news embargos for the duration of Nintendo's big E3 replacement show. (I've registered my disdain for the news embargo system before.)
So, what was the big news that was so R0XX0RZ MEGAT0N that Nintendo would forcibly gag a legion of game press until the moment of midnight to release it?
THAT THERE WAS NO NEWS.
In the words of Joel Robinson, "Oh god! The joke's on us!"
So, what was the big news that was so R0XX0RZ MEGAT0N that Nintendo would forcibly gag a legion of game press until the moment of midnight to release it?
THAT THERE WAS NO NEWS.
In the words of Joel Robinson, "Oh god! The joke's on us!"
--JohnH at 15:33
Comment
[ 1 ]
30 March 2007
The hyped get hypeder: Invitation policy for the New E3
Joystiq said a few weeks ago that lots of journalists are being snubbed concerning getting invited for the forthcoming E3 2.0. A recent Kotaku post confirms that the game companies are fully in charge this time out concerning who gets invited and who does not.
Under the old system, one generally applied to attend, then supplied press credentials, and if they checked out: wham, you're in. Those credentials could be as simple as being loosely affiliated with a website. With the help of the (great) guys at N-Sider, for whom I've done all of one article, I was able to obtain entry credentials two years running. (I wasn't able to attend either time, but I still have my pass for last year. I would scan it and put it on the web, but the picture is from my driver's license. Ugh.)
It is understood that recent years have seen E3 become quite a rancorous display, an annual geek festival akin to DragonCon but sprayed with a light sheen of professionalism--very light, judging from all the booth babe photo collections that popped up every year. And it didn't help when they started holding public access days.
But the new system is just as bad in the opposite direction. According to Joystiq:
The result, to my eyes, is another intensifier of the tremendous influence that big game companies already wield over game journalists. Under the new scheme it's possible that, if you displease the Great Ones, you could mysteriously fail to receive your invite next time.
The ultimate result? Less insightful commentary out of the big-site attendees, meaning more of its reverse: more blather, more mindless teenager chasing, more pseudo-hipster posing, and more hype, if that's possible.
The purpose of this, really? It is an attempt by Big Console's PR departments to more accurately micro-manage the essential First Impression, that point where the general public outside the NDA firewall first finds out about a new product. Recently, Sony was all about cutting off the flow of precious, life-giving hype to Kotaku when they broke early about Playstation Home, and that was only a couple of days early! Why would they throw such a fit over 48 hours?
It's because the big companies recognize that, what with the fickle and faddish nature of game press hype, given that its main consumers are notoriously fickle and faddish teenage boys, it can fall to a single malicious word to banish a promising game or feature to Teh Suckland. (Exhibit A: "Celda.") These are people who dismiss with ease, and are rarely willing to rethink their first impressions. By controlling the message (telling the world through specially-chosen people exposed to a big unveiling show), they attempt to make the hype-happy gaming world do their bidding, instead of trading snarky little jokes about Giant Enemy Crabs.
Does my premise sound unlikely to you? Well, think of it this way. Sit for a moment and imagine if someone had broken news of Nintendo's controller early, and instead of receiving a wave of mostly uniform appreciation for the device, using phrases like "It really does look like Nintendo is reach out to non-traditional gamers," they said more things like "It remains to be seen if Wii will become anything more than Gamecube 2.0"? Then all those cheering echo posts from second-tier sites, instead of being enthusiastic celebrations of Nintendo's bold direction, become, instead, responses to grave concerns. Features about Nintendo's bold new direction will instead chart the company's downward spiral, and probably include a good number of Wii jokes along the way.
What is that I hear? Do you think I paint an overly grim picture of the enthusiast press? Well cheer up Bunky. At least, in the end, all that's at stake here are silly little video games. If you want to get a look at this debate framing, echo chamber process on a much larger and sadder scale, well, you really don't have to look very hard to find it.
Under the old system, one generally applied to attend, then supplied press credentials, and if they checked out: wham, you're in. Those credentials could be as simple as being loosely affiliated with a website. With the help of the (great) guys at N-Sider, for whom I've done all of one article, I was able to obtain entry credentials two years running. (I wasn't able to attend either time, but I still have my pass for last year. I would scan it and put it on the web, but the picture is from my driver's license. Ugh.)
It is understood that recent years have seen E3 become quite a rancorous display, an annual geek festival akin to DragonCon but sprayed with a light sheen of professionalism--very light, judging from all the booth babe photo collections that popped up every year. And it didn't help when they started holding public access days.
But the new system is just as bad in the opposite direction. According to Joystiq:
The ESA told Hill, "It is entirely up to participating companies to decide whom to invite to the event. Thus, if anyone calls ESA to ask for 'tickets' to the event, that's what they will be told."Hill did receive an invitation after publicly saying aloud how nice it'd be to get one. (Further reading indicates that reason may also have something to do with E3 receiving more of a North American focus and Hill being in Australia, but the above quote seems to counter that.)
The result, to my eyes, is another intensifier of the tremendous influence that big game companies already wield over game journalists. Under the new scheme it's possible that, if you displease the Great Ones, you could mysteriously fail to receive your invite next time.
The ultimate result? Less insightful commentary out of the big-site attendees, meaning more of its reverse: more blather, more mindless teenager chasing, more pseudo-hipster posing, and more hype, if that's possible.
The purpose of this, really? It is an attempt by Big Console's PR departments to more accurately micro-manage the essential First Impression, that point where the general public outside the NDA firewall first finds out about a new product. Recently, Sony was all about cutting off the flow of precious, life-giving hype to Kotaku when they broke early about Playstation Home, and that was only a couple of days early! Why would they throw such a fit over 48 hours?
It's because the big companies recognize that, what with the fickle and faddish nature of game press hype, given that its main consumers are notoriously fickle and faddish teenage boys, it can fall to a single malicious word to banish a promising game or feature to Teh Suckland. (Exhibit A: "Celda.") These are people who dismiss with ease, and are rarely willing to rethink their first impressions. By controlling the message (telling the world through specially-chosen people exposed to a big unveiling show), they attempt to make the hype-happy gaming world do their bidding, instead of trading snarky little jokes about Giant Enemy Crabs.
Does my premise sound unlikely to you? Well, think of it this way. Sit for a moment and imagine if someone had broken news of Nintendo's controller early, and instead of receiving a wave of mostly uniform appreciation for the device, using phrases like "It really does look like Nintendo is reach out to non-traditional gamers," they said more things like "It remains to be seen if Wii will become anything more than Gamecube 2.0"? Then all those cheering echo posts from second-tier sites, instead of being enthusiastic celebrations of Nintendo's bold direction, become, instead, responses to grave concerns. Features about Nintendo's bold new direction will instead chart the company's downward spiral, and probably include a good number of Wii jokes along the way.
What is that I hear? Do you think I paint an overly grim picture of the enthusiast press? Well cheer up Bunky. At least, in the end, all that's at stake here are silly little video games. If you want to get a look at this debate framing, echo chamber process on a much larger and sadder scale, well, you really don't have to look very hard to find it.
Labels: e3, echochamber, fanboys, firstimpressions, hype, joystiq, media
--JohnH at 02:30
Comment
[ 11 ]
Feedburner
