Problems With The Media

As other articles this week will demonstrate, the gaming industry is full of problems. And even though we may often be critical of game developers and publishers for whatever reasons, it is my belief that the gaming media should also be held to account. In a previous article on the subject (Fostering Fanboyism), I outlined the general issues that I have with the gaming media. And in particular, my contention was that problematic reporting of news, as well as inadequately researched editorial/feature articles could mislead the reader. Sometimes the purpose is intentional; the publication might be pushing a particular bias. But sometimes (especially in the case of mainstream media), there is simply a general lack of research and understanding of the industry as a whole. In this article, Id like to present some specific examples of what I believe are true distortions and misrepresentations within the gaming media.

Before I begin presenting examples, I want to be explicit about the purpose of this article. In presenting examples of problematic gaming journalism, my intention is not to bash either the author or the publisher. My intention is to underline faults within the gaming media and to provide constructive criticism. I believe that my previous article provided some useful (albeit very general) examples of what the media is doing wrong and how both publishers and readers can ensure that matters improve. Its important to understand, as I mentioned in the previous article, that online gaming media is a very muddy area. Its very difficult to apply any standards of good journalism when, in many cases, gaming sites themselves are so different from site to site. Many sites are simply not designed to be serious examples of game journalism. And in those cases, sites are often pretty clear about their intentions. But some sites that start out as small mouthpieces for certain fan bases soon become larger and build a more widespread readership. The problem arises when sites claim to be providing factual and well researched information, when in fact (either through laziness or a particular bias), individual authors are not particularly careful about what they write.

The first writer that Id like to examine is simply known as Frank. His last name is not published on any of his articles. Due to the fact that I want to keep the focus squarely on the writer and not the publication, I wont mention the publications name within the article. Perhaps the best way for me to explain Franks writing is to provide you with a list of his more objectionable editorials as well as some brief quotes from each.

Zelda Gone Wrong (August 24, 2001)

Look what Miyamoto has done with the new Zelda look. Kids, this is why you shouldn't smoke crack. You shouldn't drive while high on crack, because it's dangerous. Look at the new Link, just look at him, this is why you shouldn't develop video games while high on crack.

It's ruined. Nintendo has shot itself in the foot.

Link is now "cel-shaded", which basically means that he'll look like a deformed character that you might see on a Saturday morning kid cartoon: extreme shading contrast, disproportionately sized head, and oversized eyes. This new transformation makes me cringe.

Sure, if Miyamoto wanted to make a cel-shaded Zelda, then do it on the GBA instead of spoiling our GameCube experience! I'm sure that the GBA could handle such simplistic graphics!

We could make Mario a homosexual transvestite on a mission to find a male companion, and that game would definitely be different and unique, but is it necessarily better?

Color Blind Nintendo (February 23, 2001)

Sure, I guess such a color is fitting for selling the next line of Barbie dollhouses, but not for a high-end technological gaming powerhouse.

Look at the other next-gen consoles, the look of the Playstation 2 and the Xbox just scream out "technological innovation", while on the other hand, a purple just screams out "Fisher Price toy".

The concern is that it is better to have a generic-looking console than a gaudily colored machine.

Yes, it is true that that you can get a non-purple GameCube, but what I am ranting about is the fact that the color that Nintendo puts front and center is the one that is might mislabel the console.

Although this an extremely shallow way to judge consoles, you have to accept that that is the way that some consumers will decide these days, just like people will judge a book by its cover.

It would be the best idea for Nintendo to present the GameCube's image as something of great technological innovation, but violet doesn't quite accomplish this, and the most obvious move would be to not present such an unfitting color first and foremost.

Game Boy Advanced Aint So Advanced (February 9, 2001)

I thought that this was the technological age. I thought that we pushed passed our low-resolution 2D side-scrollers, and that the new standard in gaming was for us to be immersed in a 3D photorealistic virtual environment. Isn't that why these next-gen console wars have pushed the limits to create gaming machines like we've never seen before? And here we all are, holding our breath for the GB Advance, but in this age of technology, the spotlight seems to be shining on low-tech side-scrolling games, just like the old days 15 years ago when the NES was cream of the crop.

But as innovative as it may be, the limitations of it are so great that it doesn't impress me for the least. If this is such a grand revolution to the face of handheld gaming, then why are we still seeing the same types of 2 dimensional games with bland colors that are being played on the same low-resolution screens.

I really don't see how all of the technology behind this was advanced so far, because to me, it looks like a minimally beefed up Gameboy Color with little improvement. We'll be seeing the same types of comparatively low-tech games with the same types of blocky graphics with the same types of beeping sound effects. Maybe this isn't quite as innovative as I presumed it to be before.

Well, maybe I can be 'cool' and show off my brand spanking new GB Advance to show-and-tell and look like a gaming-obsessed dork in front of everybody. Come to speak of it, who would carry a video game system everywhere they go? Well, maybe a lot of people might, but that just doesn't sound like something that people like me would do.

My standards for video gaming are way passed what the GBA has to offer.

As mentioned, the above examples are what I believe are the more objectionable works from Frank. The Game Boy Advance piece, in particular, underlines a tactic that I touched on in my previous article on game journalism. That is, the argument put forward by the editorial is ostensibly that the Game Boy Advance doesnt live up to its name, that it isnt technologically advanced. However, as the article continues, we start to see the real reason behind the initial submission. The real reason is that, put simply, Frank sees the GBA is a non-issue because it doesnt feature the stunning realism of games like Shenmue. Perhaps Franks own words will reveal the disjointed nature of his editorial: If you are an enthusiast in this new-aged era of gaming, you are into things that will really impress you, I'm talking about technically impressive games such as Perfect Dark, Shenmue, and other games that are so realistic and involving that you just can't help but to play in awe. This is where the GBA doesn't fit in.

The examples above are sourced from the works of just one writer. However, such articles can be found almost anywhere on the Internet. These articles attempt to sound authoritative, but ultimately, they often boil down to nothing more than a rant on the part of the writer. And thats fine; but at some point, we have to question whether or not this kind of content hurts the gaming media in a broader sense. Online media brings with it many benefits that print media can never hope to match (much broader coverage, more varied editorial analysis and of course, free access to most information). But conversely, online media presents some very significant concerns. And within the game industry, these concerns are very warranted.

Brendens recent article on the whole Megaton situation is one clear indication of how powerful the online gaming media can be. All it takes is for someone to create a baseless rumor on a message board, which an irresponsible site might publish as factual news. And so it goes on, more sites publish and rumors spread out of control. These events can then cause some very real problems. For one thing, the share prices of actual companies can be affected by media speculation. Of course, speculation based on an informed opinion is one thing, but irresponsible reporting is something else entirely.

I believe that the online gaming media plays a significant role when it comes to problems within the industry. However, conventional media sources also bear a significant share of the responsibility. I also believe that there are two major differences between the online gaming media and the conventional mainstream media. For instance, the excerpts that I provided above are all taken from online gaming media and in my view, they represent problematic journalism in the sense that the writer uses deception and misinformation in an effort to create a convincing case. In other words, the submissions are deliberately designed to establish a particular point of view, even if that point of view fundamentally misinforms the reader. On the other hand, conventional media tends to be guilty of simple ignorance.

There are some clear examples of how the two types of media approach the game industry in different ways. Recently, I was watching a BBC World special on the game industry. The special was half an hour long and was designed to take a look at each respective console maker. I noticed two immediate elements that I took issue with; firstly, the shows host seemed to be reading official PR statements in regard to each company. In other words, there was seemingly no actual objective analysis. And secondly, the host conducted short interviews with several journalists from within the gaming media (both online and print). These interviews were frequently performed with journalists who work for official publications (ie: Official Xbox Magazine). So, there was very little attempt to talk to journalists who might be a little more objective in their responses. The first half of the special covered Sony (and in particular, Sonys online plans and current market dominance). The second half covered Microsoft (just about all of the coverage related to Xbox Live - rightly so, perhaps). And then the credits rolled. I had to do a double take; Nintendo was not mentioned once in the half-hour special! This fact should be surprising even for the most anti-Nintendo gamer. Was this a deliberate attempt to shut Nintendo out? I dont think so. I think that, simply, the producers of the program didnt even consider the GameCube as a viable competitor, despite the fact that the gap between GameCube and Xbox sales were pretty significant when this program went to air. This BBC World special, to me, was the absolute epitome of conventional media ignorance when it comes to the game industry.

And so, this is the key difference between the conventional and game industry media, in my opinion. Whilst certain elements within the gaming media will use deceptive tactics to further a particular agenda, the conventional media will end up reporting inaccurately due to poor research and a lack of understanding.

In closing, the only real advice I can give to readers is only a reiteration of my previous thoughts on this subject; make sure to sample as many sources of information as you can and ultimately, make your own judgment. It has always surprised me that, despite the game industrys now massive size around the world, the conventional media in particular is still so far behind the ball. How massive does the gaming industry have to get before the conventional media chooses to take its reporting on the subject seriously?

James Burns