News "All games journalists should make a game"

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/10/13/all-games-journalists-should-make-a-game/1

Zombie Cow's Dan Marshall has said that all games journalists should dabble in development.

 

Rubbish. He sounds like he's whining.

A tea-taster doesn't have to make tea, a booze connoisseur doesn't have to own a distillery and a hardware reviewer certainly doesn't need to know how to manufacture a video card.

Suck it up Dan.

 

Unless the reviewers are having ago at the way the game is made, instead of the results.

 

If he has to change code instead of just a property table for balancing....juuuuup that'll make it more complicated.

 

Utter, utter nonsense. Having an experience of what the process of creating a game is like may well make you more appreciative as to how difficult (or not) it is, but it won't make you any more or less qualified to comment on what the end experience is like. Games journalists aren't reviewing the creation process, they're reviewing the end result. I don't need to know how to make a cheesecake to know when I've eaten a good one.

 

But I'd preferre to read a review from someone who knows what they're talking about

 

The only reason gamers might think the process must be easy would be the more talented studios consistently make it look so. And even then, ease of creation has absolutely nothing to do with how the end consumer enjoys the product, so who cares? At the end of the day, games journos should be telling me which game I should be spending my $100 on based on how enjoyable the experience is, not on whether it was difficult to make. All that stuff is extra fluff between releases.

 

Forced how? At gunpoint? If they refuse, shoot them? Mass grave for those who refuse?

I like how people come up with an interesting idea then decide it should be forced onto people. Statist mindset at work.

 

doesn't HAVE to, no, but a knowledge of the brewing process and particularly what differs between brews does help in telling beers apart - for example! Also knowing what makes whiskeys different from a distilling/aging perspective also allows you to appreciate the character of the resulting product.

I think that he has a point, but only a very small point. Journos are all too quick to complain about delays or slag off certain aspects of development without knowing what it involves, but making them develop a game is a bit too far.

I don't think Bit-Tech are quite as bad, though. BT has a developer column, for example, so has a "both sides" thing working for them to an extent.

 

I wouldn't say that and I think on the sites I read at least that the writers have a good idea of how complex it is to make a great game and where some bugs can be overlooked etc. It sounds a bit like whinging but I guess it is a bit of a shock to the system but then going from all the other examples it is like that for anything you want to create rather than just enjoy.

 

Argh, okay, I used poor analogies. I was being funny.

Point is, Dan whatsisname is whining.

 

I disagree fundamentally. I would argue that the opposite is true.

The objective of a games journalist is to review a game on behalf of the consumer, not the developer. To consider the challenges of developers in the review is to distort that objective.

It sounds like he got a bad review and is now jumping on anything he percieves to be a high horse.

 

It is a simple matter for any journalist / reviewer to say that any game is particularly bad or not to their liking, what would give more credence to their words is being able to say Game X sucks because the developers failed to do something in particular. If a game has little to no plot / storyline or poor dialog then it's a simple matter to blame the writer, but to be able to criticise that writers particular style would require a better understanding of the English (or other) language(s) used.

When the staff at here at Bit Tech review a product they tend to explain why a particular feature is bad or why particular design features are good. Surely it makes sense for other reviewers / journalists to be able to share an informed and educated opinion to the masses that is un-biased and excludes personal opinion.

I am surprised that we don't have 2 or 3 people involved in the review process to give us an all round experience and to better highlight the good and bad elements, especially where is may come down to personal choice.

 

+1.

 

Just because you like ice cream, it doesn't mean you have to know how it's made to know if it's good or not. It's the same with games

 

...Does that mean, by the same logic, that war correspondants ought to go and fight in, or command in, a war?

Guy sounds like an idiot tbh.

 

Although I think it is positive for a gaming journalist to know a bit about the developing process I don't think any knowledge developing a game is required. What Is really important is to be able to analyze a game correctly for the limited time a reviewer has access to it and to have the necessary communication skills to pass that information to the public.

Just my two cents. I work as software developer and although I realize how complex it is to create a game and have some understanding of how a game comes together, I think it is unimportant from a gamer point of view. Gamers look for one and one thing only.
A good time. Be it playing an FPS, an MMO or whatever a game needs to provide you a good feeling. A reviewer only needs to share if the game accomplishes that and how. That is important because what a person likes another may not.
Todays games also brign a lot of tools to let a community florish. Modding tools are very popular and many gamers also pick games depending on the inclusion of those tools. Analysing those tools is also something reviewers need to take into count, but despite that a game needs to be able to stand up based on what is already included in it.

 

Maybe there is an underlying tone that he wants gamers to empathise with the process and how tough it can be?

Of course, as gamers, we don't really care as long as we enjoy the game. Personally speaking I enjoy GamesTM for the in-depth stuff. Edge was good for industry news back in its day.

 

The whole POINT of a games journalist / reviewer is that thet review from the end-user's perspective, as that's what the consumer needs to know when buying a game. Reviewing from a developer's perspective would only really be useful to...developers.

What an idiot.

 

He has a point. You'd never get a non-teacher to inspect a teacher would you!

If Reviewers did make games then they could make constructive comments about how the game could be improved. Rather than just saying 'oh this part isn't very good it needs something else'. Might not be so useful to the consumers but would be damn useful for the developers especially when you guys get your hands on previews.