Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eugene Jarvis article blowout

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Eugene Jarvis article blowout

    Over this week at Way of the Rodent...

    Lie with passion and be forever damned...

    #2
    Originally posted by WotR
    We're here to help you recapture the Original Spirit of Videogaming.
    gnng

    Why are these retro fanzines always so arrogant and self important? I'm sure there are some nice articles in there somewhere, but I just can't take it seriously.

    It was the capitalisation that really did it, in their bold not mine.

    Comment


      #3
      Taking itself seriously is something I can hardly say applies to WotR now...

      It's just about empathical and ethereal memories of videogaming, rather than the stagnated point based explanations a lot of other writing gets stuck in. Feeling not fact in essence.

      Though the fact the editor is a major Edge freelancer might have something to do with it also... still it must appeal to a lot of people as visiting stats have increased every single week it has been online.
      Lie with passion and be forever damned...

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Mayhem
        Taking itself seriously is something I can hardly say applies to WotR now...
        I didn't say it took itself seriously, I said it came across as arrogant and self important. Which it does.

        The writing goals are laudable as you state them, but to a knowledgable reader who doesn't share the same opinions as the editorial the whole thing comes across as arrogant and patronising. They fall into the classic trap of stating opinion as fact. I already know what I think, thanks.

        My favourite bit is the claim that they don't differentiate between Retro and Current games, even though that is exactly how the reviews section is divided.

        I don't think Edge has anything to do with it, other than perhaps similar flashes of arrogance.

        I am being harsh its true, and as I said I'm sure there are some good articles in there somewhere. Its just that this arrogance that seems to permeate retro fanzines really puts me off, it is a legitimate complaint.

        Comment


          #5
          To paraphrase some thoughts...

          I would say that the perceivement of arrogance is being confused with passion. To be arrogant would presume that the writers in question are unable to listen to different points of view... which is certainly not the case. All articles are attributed to the writer, thereby making it that writer's opinion. By comparison, Edge come a cropper by signing everything off as "Edge" in much the same patronising way "The Sun says". By having strong opinions, especially disagreeable ones, I suppose some of the aim is to get the reader to question their own. A magazine that simply reaffirms what you already know isn't doing its job. If it encourages debate about a subject that we all feel very strongly about, how can that be bad?
          Lie with passion and be forever damned...

          Comment


            #6
            I would say that the perceivement of arrogance is being confused with passion.
            'perception' shurely

            I know when I see enthusiasm and passion. At WotR I think ego gets in the way of enthusiasm, whereby editorially the site worries too much about impressing people.

            Originally posted by Mayhem
            To be arrogant would presume that the writers in question are unable to listen to different points of view...
            No I don't think so, thats not what I meant. WotR is arrogant in that they believe their opinions to be more important than other people's; they come across as smug and cliquey. They rely too heavily on trying to be clever rather than funny, and opinionated rather than interesting.

            I think Retro fanzines generally make the mistake of writing for themselves and their friends, thereby assuming too much about their readership.

            I agree that attributing articles to writers is a good thing, but it doesn't really affect what I'm saying. I'm not comparing WotR to Edge at all!

            WotR should try to encourage debate, I was implying that it didn't do a very good job of it. By stating opinion as fact and coming across as self important, they are encouraging people only to agree, not to debate.

            I really think the point I made in my first post was lost, so lets take another look:

            Originally posted by WotR
            We're here to help you recapture the Original Spirit of Videogaming.
            Ok, so what did I really dislike about this?

            This is the capsule sound bite of what the site is about, with no real explanation. Elsewhere WotR is described as 'Home of the ?Original Spirit of Videogaming?'.

            The capitalisation and bold type is WotR's own emphasis of their own idea, to let us know that as far as they're concerned its an important idea. WotR are implying that it is in fact an already established idea. Except that outside of WotD its a rather awkward phrase that doesn't mean much.

            So its left to the reader to infer the meaning. The Original Spirit of Videogaming could be just about anything. What is different between the current and Original 'spirit'? Why is the Original one good? Does this refer to playing videogames, creating videogames, or both? Is this old games or new games? Arcade games or home games? Action games or adventure games? Already I'm excluded, I don't know what the Original Spirit of Gaming is, and I don't know why I'd want it recaptured (or why it was freed in the first place). Most importantly, why do I need WotR's help in finding it?

            The only sensible conclusion is that the Original Spirit of Videogaming is just a way of saying WotR prefer older games, but no. The preceding two sentences state the opposite, they like old and new games. Calamity, now I'm even more confused.

            So the writer is assuming blind faith on the part of the reader, based on the importance of his own idea. The writer is also assuming that I'll think that they are a pretty cool bunch of people, so it doesn't really matter whether they explain what they're about or not. As a duly impressed reader I just want to unquestioningly be fed more carefully crafted nuggets of gaming wisdom.

            Now, that is a horribly nit picky way of looking at a fairly innocuous sound bite, but it is representative of the style of writing. Opinion is offered as fact, and it is assumed that readers think as highly of the writing and opinions as the writers do.

            Comment


              #7
              Hi, thought I'd swing by here and say Hi and thanks for clarifying your comments over at WotR - all criticism is appreciated (Really!) as it helps us to know what readers think when they first hit the site.

              As for the "Original Spirit" and how it relates to a philosophy?

              Well, mostly it's a soundbite that seemed good at the time, but to us, it's come to be a feeling, a way of looking at videogames and how they touch our lives. To remember what it was like when you first encountered Robotron or Space Invaders or Sonic or Mario or even Rise of the Robots. That *moment* when you realised that there was something new, something wonderful in the world that hadn't been there ten minutes ago.

              It's not meant in a grumpy old sod "The old days were better!" kind of way (although a few of our writers are of that opinion). But more in a "Bloody hell! Games are great aren't they?" way of looking at them rather than the increasingly jaded seen-it-all-before attitude that pervades videogame writing. Too many people writing about games are more concerned with trying to prove that they've seen it all before somewhere. We're just trying to remember why it is that we care about videogames in the first place.

              Cheers
              Chris

              Comment


                #8
                Hi. I'm the Way Of The Rodent editor. Just thought I'd add a few things...

                Originally posted by Papercut
                I know when I see enthusiasm and passion. At WotR I think ego gets in the way of enthusiasm, whereby editorially the site worries too much about impressing people.
                Well, we deliberately go for a Gonzo edge as a reaction against the sterile and samey games journalism that takes the writer's personality out of the equation and focuses on blank, technical appraisal. I find the approach of a passionate and knowledgeable gamer expressing his love for a game and not being afraid to stir in a few personal details quite refreshing. We're just trying to add a bit of colour and humanity to the whole business, but I think we're careful and self-aware enough not to be ruled by our egos.

                If you want to see a similar thing done in a truly misguided, ego-indulging way, then take a look at any videogame magazine with a cover featuring a leering, barely-clad bint trying to look sincere about pointing a light-gun into the camera - and then try to read one of the 'reviews' without wanting to gnaw your own knees off.

                Sure, we're crowing about the Eugene Jarvis interview. But wanting to share that kind of achievement isn't necessarily ego-driven.


                And 'impressing people'? Mainstream, advertising-led magazines have an unavoidable remit to try and 'impress' - the number-crunching advertisers, the ever-harried and hands-off publisher, 'floating' readers... It doesn't necessarily make them bad at what they do, but it certainly blunts their... edge a little.

                I've worked on magazines where I've been instructed by the publisher to stamp 'EXCLUSIVE REVIEW' on something - when we both know the review is going to appear elsewhere.

                We don't have any secondary commitments and we're not trying to 'impress' - in the fatuous, everyone-look-at-me! sense. We're trying to *entertain* - with a sense of fun, honesty and - yeah - maybe even a bit of integrity. Perhaps shockingly, we're also trying to enjoy it while we're doing it - and I hope that's the feeling that rubs off on readers, rather than rubbing them up the wrong way.

                But, enough rubbing...

                WotR is arrogant in that they believe their opinions to be more important than other people's; they come across as smug and cliquey.
                Gimme a strong opinion over a 'Well.. erm... maybe... 5/10', anyday. Yep, we can be kind of loud and, yeahyeah, 'opinionated', but I think you're being unduly mean-spirited if you feel that anyone holding a firmly-held view on something is holding it in the belief that it's the best and only view on that issue (smugness/"stating opinion as fact"). As has been said before (here and on the Rodent forum, I think), everything we publish is linked to a comment thread - which is not designed to stimulate back-slapping. It's a genuine avenue to discussion. If you don't agree with us, say so. If we didn't want to encourage debate, we wouldn't be stating our claims so firmly. I just don't see how that, as you say, is working some clever trick of being self-important in order to encourage people to tell us how great we are.

                Cliquey? Well, webzine-wise, we're young and fresh and nubile. I think all magazines start off feeling a little bit cliquey and aim the writing at their peers, and then, as they grow and gain a firmer sense of a wider readership, things start to mature a little. Give us time. Besides, most of our friends are sharp, committed gamers and we like to think they're the kind of people who would read Rodent in general. It isn't "assuming too much" about our readership. It's just finding a subjective model to work with. At least we're not pandering to some creepy, committee-driven demographic.

                They rely too heavily on trying to be clever rather than funny, and opinionated rather than interesting.
                I'd like to think that some of the style and content is made to make your eyes water - or at least raise the odd coffee-splutter. But I'm convinced that we're not trying *too* hard (to be clever), and if you don't find it funny, personally - well, shame. No apologies, though.

                'Funny' and 'interesting' are super-subjective, anyway. I'm 100% happy that we've published plenty of pieces which both could be applied to - depending on your sense of humour and, er, what interests you. One of the key game designers of our generation (Jeff Minter) talking about how he was influenced by one of the key game designers of a slightly earlier generation (Eugene Jarvis)... I though that was kind of interesting - and written with lots of warmth and humour, too.

                so lets take another look:
                *Now* who's being self-important?

                I agree with you about the 'We're here to help you recapture the original spirit...' thing. I think the tag should be 'We're here to recapture the original spirit of videogaming'. You might not like either of 'em as a tagline, but at least the latter doesn't imply some kind of lofty, 'We are here to cure you'... ideal. I think Chris has explained the 'original spirit' thing pretty well, so I won't go on about it again.

                Anyway...

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Ahchay
                  To remember what it was like when you first encountered Robotron or Space Invaders or Sonic or Mario or even Rise of the Robots.
                  I still feel that way about good video games!

                  Originally posted by Ahchay
                  Too many people writing about games are more concerned with trying to prove that they've seen it all before somewhere. We're just trying to remember why it is that we care about videogames in the first place.
                  I'd go along with that

                  Originally posted by Sickboy
                  Yep, we can be kind of loud and, yeahyeah, 'opinionated', but I think you're being unduly mean-spirited if you feel that anyone holding a firmly-held view on something is holding it in the belief that it's the best and only view on that issue (smugness/"stating opinion as fact").
                  I'd say my criticism has more to do with the presentation than any deliberate intent.

                  You guys are clearly very enthusiastic about the same kind of games, so a lot of the site carries the same kind of attitude. By trying to capture that enthusiasm, you are implying that you have a different and better approach to games journalism, and that carries with it some pride. Combined with some quirky language this can all give the impression of smugness. That was the first impression I got, and I was turned off by it.

                  Originally posted by Papercut
                  so lets take another look:
                  *Now* who's being self-important?
                  Rumbled.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Completely off topic and not to derail the thread at all but for those of you at work reading the interviews (which i found really interesting by the way) one of the defender articles makes reference to "no cum dodging allowed #2" which was a little tricky to explain in a more than paranoid work enviroment.

                    Heh not that i had seem any of the series or anything...

                    just difficult to explain why it was there....

                    Comment


                      #11
                      It's a spoof porn video name they came up with
                      Lie with passion and be forever damned...

                      Comment


                        #12
                        that isn't a made a vid
                        ahem
                        thats why it made me double check
                        don't ask how i know that

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Destrukticor
                          Completely off topic and not to derail the thread at all but for those of you at work reading the interviews (which i found really interesting by the way) one of the defender articles makes reference to "no cum dodging allowed #2" which was a little tricky to explain in a more than paranoid work enviroment.

                          Heh not that i had seem any of the series or anything...

                          just difficult to explain why it was there....

                          Sorry about that. It was a slightly elliptical way to illustrate the difficulty of following up something good with an even-better sequel.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            the funny thing was I could see what the author was trying to get across, but the word cum doesn't show up to often at work!
                            i found it funny, though a bit of a shock.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Papercut
                              They fall into the classic trap of stating opinion as fact
                              I haven't read the articles, but isn't that what a writer is supposed to do? There's little point in writing "probably" and "in my opinion" constantly. Obviously it should be done without patronising the reader, but I don't feel it's a trap.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X