Measuring the required amount of industry know-how

I'm going to let you in on a secret: My life doesn't completely revolve around video games. In fact, the majority of my time is spent mired neck-deep in academia, inching ever closer to attaining a journalism degree. That doesn't mean I shirk my gaming duties as a consequence; the scarcity of free time simply devolves my play sessions into shortened bursts of enjoyment.

Writing about games, however, is something I strive to constantly hone and perfect through experience and insightful feedback. When I first stumbled upon Bitmob, I possessed a rudimentary understanding of the games-journalism industry and what role journalists played within it – hardly anywhere near the level of knowledge exhibited by other Bitmob staffers and community members, but adequate enough.

Sure, I understand the basic tenets of maintaining objectivity, and I realize the importance of Dan Hsu's crotch glow. But beyond that, I don't see a pressing need to memorize every last facet of the industry to claim credibility. Am I required to have an encyclopedic awareness of a franchise? Do I need to maintain a mental Rolodex of luminaries and their work history as a way of keeping abreast?

To clarify, I'm not endorsing a complete dismissal of knowing the inner workings of the industry. On the contrary, such a stance is quite irrational in the wake of the sheer amount of face time and contact information one receives as a games journalist. My belief is that passion and initiative are the keystones behind having the drive to debate about gaming.

Even though I don't know who Geoff Keighley is or why that HipHopGamer guy gets so much attention, I've promised myself to buck up and muster along in my burgeoning (and thoroughly awesome) writing career.

What do you think? Is it necessary to have an exacting knowledge of the industry to write about games?

Problem? Report this post

Dennis Scimeca

February 12, 2011

I personally feel that reconnaisance is more often than not useful prior to taking action. Games journalism is such a closed circle that it doesn't take long to get caught up. I think that one probably doesn't -have- to try and learn about how the industry works and who the principle figures are, but it sure doesn't hurt. :)

Report | Reply

clyde marshall

Of course it's not necessary. Look at the few pieces of games journalism that you actually respect and extrapolate what information allowed them to write it. Most of games journalism is a professional version of the "first" in the comments section. Not that it has no use, but it's easily duplicated and completely dependent on level of access. And since there are embargos on information, there's a limit to how first you can be.

So actually, if knowing all that shit gets you in far enough that you can publish an article at the moment the embargo lifts, then yes, you do need to know it.

I'm more interested in game criticism and game curation. Game criticism is when you provide us with an arguement that allows the player to perceive a game or gamer culture in a new and enlightening way. It provokes thought. Game curation is when you point out games that I wouldn't have known were in my interest. I feel that Rock Paper Shotgun does an excellent job of this, but there are so many games that don't have enough people falling over themselves that there is room for excellence. Knowing the big money publishers and their umbrella projects isn't necessary for this, because they already put plenty of money in marketing. But if you can find jewels on Newgrounds and Xbox indie arcade, then I would be appreciative.

Actually, there is a type of games investigative journalism that I would appreciate. The type that would explain to me why Quarrel by Denki never came out.