Task 5

I think that games journalism is an interesting area of specialism to consider. This is probably because it's about what makes or breaks a good game, gaming culture, game industry business plans, and not about firemen rescuing iguanas from trees. However, I find it a tricky thing to find a reliable source for game reviews and articles that aren't susceptible to bias which makes it difficult to find a definitive and thoroughly considered opinion on a game.

I have to admit to being one of those people who sways towards buying a game due to glowing reviews and a big shiny '9.6' on the box (it helps if the box is shiny too... can't get me enough o' that shiny). But what else is there to go on? I don't fancy parting with a fiver for a magazine to play a timed demo of a game that I'll maaaybe consider a purchase, so I think it's probably best to try to find a trusted source for reviews. And that leads me on to the issues that face these reviewers.

Reviewing a game is by no means simple due to all the elements that need to be taken into consideration, what with game mechanics, graphics, innovations and the rest of it, but after looking at Kieron Gillen's blog, it seems that the amount of pressure the reviewers are under to get the reviews out in the 19 days of magazine work time they have seems to be a real issue. Either that or they are just, to use Gillen's words, "corrupt, lazy and fundamentally stupid." But , as he goes on to mention, it seems that this rush to get opinions out in time is what leads to vague reviews, where the writer simply hasn't had the time for an in-depth consideration of a game. I have to say I don't totally agree with this blog, I think that there are many magazines and sites that are devoted to game journalism and really do put the effort it. And even if it's a rushed review, it's always fun to read the article on that game that scores 2/10, when even the rushed writer lets loose and tears into a bad game.

After exploring some of the other links, I really feel that New Games Journalism has been a successful movement which showcases a real passion for writing about games. It's the personal approach that makes the articles more engrossing and adds the subjective touch. This researched and carefully considered approach is very apparent in Tim Roger's review of Metal Gear Solid 2:
http://www.insertcredit.com/features/dreaming2/
His analysis was an involving read, I enjoyed his consideration of EGM's review and was assured that he was taking things seriously when he re-read Japanese literature to grasp that crazy plot. This contemplated and subjective approach made for an enjoyable review.

I think that ranking systems can be handy for an brief overview on certain aspects of the game and in some respects work as a simple summary, but I don't think that a number can show what you're going to get from the game as it depends almost entirely on what you actually want from the title. This is where I feel it's important to read the review to discover which aspects of the game contribute to its final score. For example, the game may receive a fantastic score, but it could be heavily story based with more cut scenes than play time and involves a David Bowie cameo, whom the reviewer could happen to idolize. If this is what you want from a game, then you could get it, but this couldn't be represented by a ranking system alone. So, in conclusion, I think ranking systems are not really essential to a well thought out review, but can help to convey an idea on the reviewer's general respect for the game.

I’m not so sure about my own writing. I’m thinking it’s more subjective and hopefully considered, but I don’t know. I think I’ll review something sometime soon to find out.

Lookin' forward to the next task, bye for now!