After reading some of the articles on 'New Games Journalism' ( A phrase coined by Kieron Gillen in his 'NGJ manifesto'.) I have to say I wasn't really getting it...I couldn't see the problem. Let's say I've just been paid and after paying rent and astronomical energy bills, I have £50 left over. Now this £50 has a lot of value to me and I want to spend it in what I consider a worthwhile way, buying games. Where do I turn to help me make my decision? Well amongst others, the gaming press. I hope to gain from them a detailed view of what the games like and whether or not I might like it, and indeed should buy it. Then in a mild moment of realization I thought what an impossible task that was. So I re-read the NGJ manifesto and started to understand. Whilst an objective ranking system might help separate game A from game B, what does it actually tell us? Game A got 10/10 for game play whilst Game B only got 5/10. So is A's game play twice a fast as B's? Or twice as big? The trouble is its trying to rank abstract concepts such as fun and enjoyment. Whats fun for one person might be sheer hell for another. This is true for all forms of art and entertainment I guess. One man's Jackson Pollock is another mans spillage. A much more sensible approach, as suggested in the NGJ manifesto, would be to write about games in a very personal way. Explaining how they made you feel, what you gain from the experience. Then let the audience decide if they'd maybe like to experience similar things.
All this being said, I have been known to spend aforementioned £50 based on the pretty picture on the case.......
No comments:
Post a Comment