Reading through the usual bits and bobs that accompany the Sunday Times today revealed once again that in their gaming section, Killer7, has been completely ignored. This wouldn't be of particular concern to me if it were not for the fact this isn't an isolated case within the mainstream media. BBC's text service, which also covers gaming, has completely glossed over the title's existence, along with a number of other sources, both televisual and print press. Before anyone starts... I'm very much aware that Killer7 is an acquired taste, and due to its offbeat nature, isn't going to be provided the attention of the latest family friendly EA Sports sim. I also know that due to its violent and twisted content, this is a game at best, would only feature in certain tabloid/broadsheets focused on covering aspects of media that aren't traditionally an interest inside the mainstream.
In my opinion Killer7, (along with Half-Life 2 and Resident Evil 4), is the most important game to have been released over the last couple of years. People may differ as to what they actually think of its content, but vitally, at places such as this and Rllmuk, it's incited discussion as to its merits within a framework managing to transcended the usual 'I'm stuck/I need help' format.
The Sunday Times over the past few months seems to be willing to cover games that fall inside the boundaries of a conventional frame and little else, within a magazine whose purpose seems to be to attempt to cover the most interesting cultural developments of the media. Self-censorship within gaming is a big enough problem currently within itself... but equally a problem, could be self-censorship of mainstream media to only cover games that live up to a stereotypically perceived view that gaming only reaches certain age groups.
Is the public to blame for games such as Killer7 not selling? Yes, a large part of the burden does fall on the inhabitions of the gaming public. But another contributing factor to games such as this potentially not doing better than they are, may also be the media refusing to report or acknowledge these games exist in the first place, when they choose to report on the medium within magazines, papers etc.
The conditions for change and the furthering of originality are there, though if only the same-old same-old typical releases find themselves covered, isn't this going to fester the conservatism present, and restrict the perceptions of gaming to a wider, and perhaps open-minded audience? I'm not talking about Mr. and Ms. Joe, but the types of people which this 'Culture' magazine is aimed at.
How is videogaming going to reach audiences who may possibly be interested in some of its less stereotypical offerings, if the media who report to those audiences continually ignore interesting, less obvious happenings inside the medium? There's a cut off point, which if broken, may allow the likes of Killer7 to potentially gain the attention of more people, and achieve greater sales. Unfortunately, if mainstream sources only refuse to report on what they see as products suitable to their view of the media in question (in other words, non-problematic content for a 'childish' medium), how is the perception ever going to change in terms of their audience?
The questions I'd like to raise are these...
Do mainstream parts of the media (which choose to cover gaming) focus frequently on aspects that further define the perception videogaming is a culturally fruitless medium, and underline the current trivialised perception of the medium for their audiences, who may otherwise be able to alter their viewpoint if the coverage is varied enough? To be honest, I'm not bothered how anyone else sees the way we choose to play games... my concern is titles deserving of recognition failing to achieve it.
Alternatively, are we the problem... the core users failing to promote games such as Killer 7 to the right sources... to get them noticed more in the eye, and therefore potentially help aid greater sales, and the possibilities of further esoteric content? Then again, is this all a myth, and do you think the mainstream is slowly warming up to covering titles which are determined to offer something a little different from the footballer/racer/shooter norm? Are there any examples you could provide?
The situation isn't black or white, I know that... but when I see the likes of interesting (under-promoted) games ignored for simply being different, I find these situations somewhat depressing. Isn't it the job of culturally-focused media reporting to pick up on things such as these themselves? In my opinion the blame is threefold.
The mainstream gaming public has become conservative to the point that (similar to the music charts) it won't accept anything outside of a very narrow frame. The problem is that while fresh, vibrant and soulful music may continue to exist without an ideal audience, games such as Killer7 need to justify their production costs through either critical or commercial appraisal. Even if you think Killer7 is a load of tosh, there is a danger that if gaming narrows down to the extent there is little-to-no alternative outside of the chart, then the perception which the mainstream media gives to gaming may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The second problem could be us. Are the core users of gaming not as influential or able to carry word of mouth as they once were able to? Does the buzz and discussion around interesting, imaginative titles fall flat on deaf ears these days, or is that perception also just as much a myth? Lastly, is the mainstream media strangling the awareness of innovative content/developments by failing to cover what they think won't be immediately popular to their readers?
Note: I'm just using this specific example (the Sunday Times/Killer7) to muse over a number of thoughts related to the issue at hand. Obviously I'm not saying every mainstream newspaper or magazine which cite to cover modern cultural developments are necessarily all taking the same approach.
In my opinion Killer7, (along with Half-Life 2 and Resident Evil 4), is the most important game to have been released over the last couple of years. People may differ as to what they actually think of its content, but vitally, at places such as this and Rllmuk, it's incited discussion as to its merits within a framework managing to transcended the usual 'I'm stuck/I need help' format.
The Sunday Times over the past few months seems to be willing to cover games that fall inside the boundaries of a conventional frame and little else, within a magazine whose purpose seems to be to attempt to cover the most interesting cultural developments of the media. Self-censorship within gaming is a big enough problem currently within itself... but equally a problem, could be self-censorship of mainstream media to only cover games that live up to a stereotypically perceived view that gaming only reaches certain age groups.
Is the public to blame for games such as Killer7 not selling? Yes, a large part of the burden does fall on the inhabitions of the gaming public. But another contributing factor to games such as this potentially not doing better than they are, may also be the media refusing to report or acknowledge these games exist in the first place, when they choose to report on the medium within magazines, papers etc.
The conditions for change and the furthering of originality are there, though if only the same-old same-old typical releases find themselves covered, isn't this going to fester the conservatism present, and restrict the perceptions of gaming to a wider, and perhaps open-minded audience? I'm not talking about Mr. and Ms. Joe, but the types of people which this 'Culture' magazine is aimed at.
How is videogaming going to reach audiences who may possibly be interested in some of its less stereotypical offerings, if the media who report to those audiences continually ignore interesting, less obvious happenings inside the medium? There's a cut off point, which if broken, may allow the likes of Killer7 to potentially gain the attention of more people, and achieve greater sales. Unfortunately, if mainstream sources only refuse to report on what they see as products suitable to their view of the media in question (in other words, non-problematic content for a 'childish' medium), how is the perception ever going to change in terms of their audience?
The questions I'd like to raise are these...
Do mainstream parts of the media (which choose to cover gaming) focus frequently on aspects that further define the perception videogaming is a culturally fruitless medium, and underline the current trivialised perception of the medium for their audiences, who may otherwise be able to alter their viewpoint if the coverage is varied enough? To be honest, I'm not bothered how anyone else sees the way we choose to play games... my concern is titles deserving of recognition failing to achieve it.
Alternatively, are we the problem... the core users failing to promote games such as Killer 7 to the right sources... to get them noticed more in the eye, and therefore potentially help aid greater sales, and the possibilities of further esoteric content? Then again, is this all a myth, and do you think the mainstream is slowly warming up to covering titles which are determined to offer something a little different from the footballer/racer/shooter norm? Are there any examples you could provide?
The situation isn't black or white, I know that... but when I see the likes of interesting (under-promoted) games ignored for simply being different, I find these situations somewhat depressing. Isn't it the job of culturally-focused media reporting to pick up on things such as these themselves? In my opinion the blame is threefold.
The mainstream gaming public has become conservative to the point that (similar to the music charts) it won't accept anything outside of a very narrow frame. The problem is that while fresh, vibrant and soulful music may continue to exist without an ideal audience, games such as Killer7 need to justify their production costs through either critical or commercial appraisal. Even if you think Killer7 is a load of tosh, there is a danger that if gaming narrows down to the extent there is little-to-no alternative outside of the chart, then the perception which the mainstream media gives to gaming may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The second problem could be us. Are the core users of gaming not as influential or able to carry word of mouth as they once were able to? Does the buzz and discussion around interesting, imaginative titles fall flat on deaf ears these days, or is that perception also just as much a myth? Lastly, is the mainstream media strangling the awareness of innovative content/developments by failing to cover what they think won't be immediately popular to their readers?
Note: I'm just using this specific example (the Sunday Times/Killer7) to muse over a number of thoughts related to the issue at hand. Obviously I'm not saying every mainstream newspaper or magazine which cite to cover modern cultural developments are necessarily all taking the same approach.
Comment