Game journalists are not progressive in how they cover social gaming

Franksmall
Monday, March 21, 2011
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Rob Savillo

The most recent issue of GamePro does have an article on Sid Meier's upcoming Civilization title headed for Facebook; however, it's not given the same cover-feature treatment the more traditional Civilization 5 received, which speaks directly toward Frank's argument that more magazine outlets should focus on the rising social-network and mobile gaming space.

In the latest issue of Game Informer, Editor-in-Chief Andy McNamara said that in order to prevent triple-A games from dying because of social media and mobile games, you need to “show the industry you care by throwing your support behind the elite blockbusters (and not just first-person shooters).” It was yet another instance of someone in the media decrying the impact social and mobile games are having on the industry.

While McNamara did have positive things to say about his experiences with these genres, his overriding concern was the negative effects this market may have on triple-A title development. It left me wondering why so many in the games media, who are so quick to call for developers to adapt to the market and to change with the times, seem so hesitant to do so themselves when it comes to the product they create.

Let me ask you a few questions: When have you seen a mobile- or social-network game on the cover of a major game magazine? How many reviews or previews of said games do these magazines you read include? Lastly, how many articles have you read positing over the impact social-network and mobile games may have on the industry?

 

I would bet good money that the last question was the easiest to answer because it seems like every month in every issue of every game magazine there is the familiar "will mobile and social games kill the industry?" piece. It had been the subject of numerous sessions at gaming and developer conferences, and it appears on almost every gaming website with the regularity of the sun rising in the morning.

Let’s imagine that in movies, the mumblecore scene suddenly found immense success. Tens of millions of consumers began to watch movies like Tiny Furniture because they are cheap to view and easily accessible. Do you think that the entertainment media would ignore those events and write numerous articles wringing their hands over the effects this rise would create? Maybe they would, but it is much more likely that you would see mumblecore movies on the covers of outlets like Entertainment Weekly and inside the pages of Variety.

Now, I am not saying that every game magazine and website should bow to the new mobile- and social-media masters, but I am saying that at least one or two might be wise to cover them in a more positive light and with more of an eye for detail.

Imagine the effect the instantaneousness of looking at the review of a mobile game and then buying it on your phone could have on the audience for a game magazine. Imagine the people walking by the magazine rack at Barnes & Noble who ignore the games section yet play Angry Brids every free second of their day. Don’t you think that that consumer may be more likely to buy a copy of Electronic Gaming Monthly or GamePro if they saw Angry Birds on the cover?

Andy’s editorial was wrongheaded, and more than that, he asked us to support the wrong side of the industry. If we want our big-budget console games to continue, wouldn’t we better serve the industry by throwing our support behind the smaller -- but still great -- console games being made by developers that could end up making the next, big, elite game with the right support? Really, that is an article for another day....

Again, I am not saying that we should all rush out to cover every aspect of what is happening with the world of social media and mobile games, but I do think that we need to examine our attitudes on them and think about how we can use their existence to our benefit rather than decrying that their development might lead to less of the triple-A games we love. The debate needs to become how much we should cover social and mobile games, not how badly they are going to effect the industry we love. Would that be such a bad thing?

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (10)
Default_picture
March 20, 2011

Call me pathetic, but i've had more blast playing Backgammon and Mastermind flash games  than Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect 2, because they require careful planning and strategizing, which tickle the right part of my brain,and which also applies to Advance Wars: Dual Strike, but then again, i don't know whether i can classify AW:DS as an AAA title or not.

And this kind of propaganda is not really far-fetched from the previous 'Western game developers have surpassed Japanese game developers' epiphany by the western journalists. Ironically, the one that  has been resisting this is the biggest game journalism outlet there is, namely GameSpot, which picked Demon's Souls over style-without-substance garbage that is Uncharted 2 as their GOTY 2 years ago. Or how journalists laud Mass Effect 2 or Fallout 3 as truly evolutionary. Oh if only they had played the truly-evolutionary Japanese-made RPG like Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4, which i dare to say has as much realism to it as Yasujiro Ozu's Tokyo Story in its Social Links element and as strategic as any Advance Wars game in its combat, they would crumble to their feet and worship Japan.

Imbarkus_picard_avatar
March 21, 2011

Although I think it is a fair assertion that social gaming will not actually replace hardcore gaming any more than motion gaming did, I'm not sure it logically follows that hardcore gaming outlets could extend their audience by granting these types of games the same coverage that they do the triple-A blockbuster big-budget games.

Social gaming has attracted all new crowds of people to interactive activities for entertainment.  Yet I don't think this new audience would make the same transition many of us hardcore gamers have--to start tunign in to the gaming press to find out more about their hobby.  Social gaming represents the same bugaboo that certain members of the gaming press have been freaking out about since the Wii first came out--casual players who are NOT interested in their product (game journalism, namely).  They find out about new product when it is released and advertised, they discover new features when their friends advertise them on their Facebook walls, they wait until a zeitgeist of discussion is reached about a particular game before trying it.  I know loads of people with Androids and iPhones who play Angry Birds because it is, essentially, the only game they have ever heard of.  No matter how many times I pimp Cut the Rope, they eye me with suspicion, and will need to hear the same title from a dozen others before they reach out and try this "other game."

If game publishers want to target this new offshoot, bully for them.  They can look forward to one, maybe two game sales a year from this casual, borderline "gamer" crowd.  As is the case with Farmville, if Zynga can get some single-digit percentage to buy digital doodads in their microtransaction playground, they will be just fine.  But Farmville, the Magazine, will never become a thing.  The game changes so quickly that it print lead times just won't work with it.  And Zynga would rather have folks online playing thier games than reading about them.

Certainly Andy of Game Informer is responding to all the "buzz" and "intention" he hears from developers who are obsessed with chasing "the next big thing."  But the comparison to the movies that you made in your article holds true in another way:  making games is not just a business, it is a craft.  And like all crafts, there will always be a place for devoted, amazing craftwork, and an audince for it, too.

Me
March 21, 2011

It's worth noting that Metacritic, for all its flaws, will now have an iOS section, and I happen to know that the publication Inside Social Gaming is about to get some heavyweight games journalism staffing, though I will let that news come out on its own...

I think this is one occasion where comparing coverage of the film industry to coverage of the video game industry might not be fair. It takes someone between 90 to 180 minutes to watch a movie. It takes between 10 and 40 hours to play a video game. Prof. game journalists who do reviews have very full plates when it comes to playing games much of the time. I don't necessarily think it's fair to blame them for not adequately covering this up-and-coming genre of games when their pages are already full of the sorts of games they've traditionally covered for years, and which their audiences come to them to see covered.

I think that casual/social games need to develop their own, dedicated media, and it will slowly happen over time. I suspect that the audiences for the sorts of outlets we have right now might actually be different than the audiences would be for these new outlets which would cover casual/social games.

Good article. Got me thinking. :)

Default_picture
March 21, 2011

I think the "casual market" (or "gaming muggles" as a gamasutra piece called them) is extremely important, both financially and otherwise. But I have to wonder if Game Informer isn't simply going where the ad dollars are. I'm not saying it's right, but publications of all stripes will usually cover the topics of highest interest to the largest number of people possible.
This has been discussed before but the difference between the "casual" and "core" gamer is analogous to the difference between joggers and runners--runners care about the distinction. Joggers don't. "Casual" gamers don't care for the "gamer" label one way or another. By and large, they don't follow industry developments or keep up with news. They generally rely on word-of-mouth (for many, the only game they've heard of is Angry Birds). And they probably don't read gaming magazines, at least not as extensively as the "core" gamer. I realize I've made lots of assumptions, and feel free to disagree. But in my opinion, it's dedication (or the lack thereof) that separates the two types of gamers. Game Informer may simply be serving what it feels is its predominant audience

Profile_pic4
March 21, 2011

Gaming Muggles.  Great term.

Great piece, Frank!  I'm with Dennis, this one got me thinking.  Specifically, it got me thinking that McNamara is screaming "SAVE THE WHALES!", when there have been guppies like Angry Birds (am I stretching this animal metaphor too much?) all the while.

An example.  Drug Wars didn't kill the Quake franchise.  Quake killed the Quake franchise.  Keep making dope (sorry) games, and we Gaming Wizards will keep buying them.

Me04
March 21, 2011

I've never bought into this whole "social gaming is killing 'core' gaming" nonsense. Sure, I think social games and most of the popular iOS games are shit, but obviously a lot of people don't. If they enjoy them, then more power to them. I'm sure they feel the same about the games I play.

Just as a lot of people on "our" side feel threatened by social games, I can imagine a lot of people on "their" side (mostly tech journalists who want to see Apple dominate the games industry) feel that social games and apps are the only future that gaming can go. It's all rather silly, if you ask me.

My main concern is with how people perceive the gaming medium as a result of these titles. The fact that the Angry Birds film will almost certainly be as trivial as the game it's from doesn't surprise me one bit. Yet I imagine most filmgoers will find Angry Birds (the film) to be dreadful, as opposed to the game...

All the same, that's for another article. As for this one, it's good. Like Dennis, it got me thinking.

Franksmall
March 21, 2011

Thanks for the promotion and the great edits, Rob, and thanks to everyone who has commented so far.

One response that I have is that I want you guys to watch assuming that the mobile and social media crowd does not care about the coverage of the products they buy. That is just as likely a situation of lack of coverage as it is a lack of desire to read said coverage. Of course casual gamers are not flocking to games media yet. We are not even taking the time to try to speak to them, and the few times we do, it usually has a decidedly negative and sarcastic tone.

When a game like Legendary, which was obviously a steaming pile of crap the first time I saw it, can get previews giving it benefit of doubt positive coverage, but every mini-game collection gets treated like trash or ignored; I see that as a problem.

We are not getting the casual crowd to take part in our dialog because our side of the dialog is, "You guys are so lame with your casual 'games.' Why don't you buy a console and get a freaking life?" The more we assume that 'casual' gamers don't read game magazines, the more we assure that they won't. Provide a service, like showing them the best available free games, sales, or new games, and watch your audience grow. Isn't that the point of being in business anyway? The last I checked, games journalism was still a business, no matter how much we want to act like it is just a culture and things like profits and growth don't matter.

I would love to see the results of this survey: Take one article for the next CoD game and have Activision promote it, then have another article about Farmville and have Zynga promote it. I would be willing to bet money that the Farmville article would get more hits. Why? Because the (potential) audience is so much bigger.

I hope this response didn't read negatively to you guys. I am just trying to show you the flip side. If there is one thing that learning to teach over the last year has taught me, its that making assumptions about people is setting yourself up for disappointment and failure. It is better to always expect the best from people, and then modify your plans for reality once it rears its head. If you make your plans planning on failure and disengagement, then that is most likely what you will get.

Thanks again!

Imbarkus_picard_avatar
March 21, 2011

I see your point Frank but I truthfully don't see either of my sister-in-laws buying a gamer's magazine or visiting a gamer's site for information about the one and only Zynga game they play.  Many of these gamers just pick one game and play it to death until they are done with it.  Of course many of us used to be that way with our old Nintendo games, but only becuase we couldn't afford or get our parents to buy us more.

On Facebook, not only are these players already presented with cutting-edge news about their games latest changes right in their news feeds, but they are already constantly assailed with attempts to get them to play other related Zynga games to get more in-game benefits in their game of choice.

So with both the advertising and the news already covered, what do we have to offer these folks?

Oh and I thought the Kraken fight in Legendary was alright, and the giant Golum battle had its moments.  But yeah.  Overall, not very good:  http://www.bitmob.com/articles/haiku-review-legendary-ps3

Me
March 22, 2011

This is a great article. As others have said it sort of has us thinking. Part of that is because you have only covered part of the topic. This top could go in a number of directions and that is indicitive of a definition problem. It's hard to cover mobile games and app games because, quite frankly, there are so many of them. We have a lot of games to play these days and reviewers had enough problems just keeping up. Add every game to the console/PC list that comes out on XBLA, PSN, indie games, and now mobile/app games and when would the press get a chance to sit down if they had to cover all that content. It makes more sense to me for new departments to open up to sort of digest/filter that information out.

Another avenue of interpreation on this topic has to do with the fact that console games cost $59.99. As a consumer I could care less what a app game reviews for if it only costs me 2-5 bucks to buy it, but a review for a $60 dollar product is a much better investment of my time.

Again, great topic!

Me
March 22, 2011

@Frank - It's also worth noting that IGN has reviewed mobile games for a while, as well. The fact that they haven't chosen to expand their coverage or promote it actively (to the best of my knowledge) might be an indication as to core gamers' interest in social/iPhone gaming.

Check out the website Inside Social Gaming and tell me if you see anything different, however. AJ Glasser, former from GamePro, just started publishing over there. ISG just become a site to watch, I think, and might address some of your concerns. She's a pro with a lot of cred.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.