Video game journalist writes about video game journalists

Steve Kent wrote a new article at Crispy Gamer about the history of video game journalism. Doesn’t it seem a tad… narcissistic and strange to write the history of your own industry? It would fall under creating a museum to be about the history of museums or analysts analyzing themselves. I tend to dislike journalists (in all its mediums) since they tend to be vain, they are the only business I know who, when their customer complains, tells the customer, in their face, that they are stupid and don’t know how things are done, and that journalists tend to inject themselves into history where they do not belong. For example, a journalist covering a war zone could later write how ‘heroic’ he was, how he was in a combat zone, and keep injecting himself in the story while ignoring the true movers and shakers: the soldiers. Kent’s article has flavors of that where journalists are injected into the rollercoaster ride of the industry as if they were active participants as opposed to passive observers, as if they were pulling the levers instead of riding in the seat of the rollercoaster itself.

Nevertheless, the article is worth a read because it goes through a ‘sweep of time’ from the beginning to the present. Gamers today need to know how gaming was pre-NES. Many grew up with NES and its successors and think gaming *always* improves in a straight line on a certain value, like graphics, with no disruptions. But there are crashes and changes.

I did wince when Kent covered the Nintendo Power era (I’ll do a separate post about Nintendo Power later as it deserves its own post). Generally, when something is a business success but is not understood, the word ‘marketing’ is thrown at it (as if to show that the company is a conman, that ‘marketing’ means lying and shady tricks). We have heard Wii Fit and even the Wii itself to sell because of ‘marketing’. When games we don’t like sell, it is because of ‘marketing’. When games we do like don’t sell, again, it is because of ‘marketing’. When chicken entrails read one way and not the other, it is because of ‘marketing’. When tea leaves point out the future somewhere else, it is ‘marketing’.

OK, I made up the last two. We do know that when people use the word ‘casual gamers’, they are utterly confused and are unsure of what exactly are these new type of gamers. This is why you can replace ‘casual gamers’ with ‘retard gamers’ anytime ‘casual’ is used and you can see it fits. These fools think the market is stupid. When people say ‘marketing’ causes this and ‘marketing’ is responsible for that, what they are really saying is that the market is stupid. Consider:

“This game I like didn’t sell. Why is it?”

“It wasn’t marketed enough.” (Translated: the market is stupid. It needs more commercials so all the idiots will buy the game!)

“This game I hated sold tons. Why is that?”

“It was because of marketing.” (Translated: the market is stupid. They just saw some commercials and all bought the game.)

When we answer questions as to why games or magazines or whatever else sold because of ‘marketing’, it turns our brain off. A better question would be is WHY is it selling so much? This turns our brain on and we begin asking questions. Analysis begins with a questioning mind.

I want you to see a commercial.

Did you cringe? Obviously, making a game is nothing as simple as displayed. Yet, journalists talk about business in the same cringe worthy way. “Let’s bump up the marketing, fellas!” “It’s time for a price drop!” And so on. Now, I am not a business expert, but I do quote business experts. I don’t trust my thoughts alone.

What I find lacking in Steve Kent’s article about the history of game journalism is WHY and WHEN did game journalists become so chatty about ‘the business’? Why is it when I read a review of a game, it reads as if it is more interested in how the game will affect The Console War than how the game plays. Why do game journalists bother quoting analysts (essentially giving them free advertising) when none of their readers are interested in buying video game stock? It is one thing for game business sites to write about game business, but it is another for it to seep into all the journalists. Why do game journalists even care about ‘CONSOLE WAR’ in the first place? Why can’t reviews of games and good writing attract readers instead of the eternal horserace of ‘console war’? And if it is not ‘console war’, it is the upcoming ‘console war’ that is talked about. And if that is not talked about, new little wars are made like ‘Music Wars’ between Guitar Hero and Rock Band.

I get the impression that game journalists write more from the standpoint of the industry than the standpoint of gamers. I think it is disturbing that gamers do not look at game journalists as ‘fellow gamers’. They used to back in the day. I do remember game journalists talking much about programming and HOW to program especially in the computer magazines. There weren’t top ten lists about ‘worst games’ then. Instead, they would try to teach you the programming so if you thought a game was bad, YOU could make a better one yourself! (This is actually something game developers would be thrilled to see. Someone saying, “Your game sucks!” and that person makes something marvelous. Developers appreciate talent whenever it is shown and even the attempt!)

But back to the point: Steve Kent, can you please tell us when and why game journalism began becoming obsessed over the ‘business’ side? Frankly, I would like to know.