There are two kinds of games journalism; new (NGJ) and old (OGJ). Journalists can use either or a combination of both when writing about games.
Old Games Journalism usually sticks to hard facts about the game such as technical aspects of it and will go into great detail analysing this aspect. I've never really found this type of journalism that useful; it doesn't give you an opinion on the game and it doesn't offer you any reason to buy the game either.
On the other hand though, new games journalism often refers to someone's specific experience with the game. They will give their own opinion on the game and talk about the things they liked and that they didn't like about the game. They often compared the game to other games that have been recently released or games that are related to the one that they are reviewing. I personally find that this type of journalism is much more useful to read, as you get someone's opinion on the game. It's like asking a friend what they thought of a game; it often will lead you to or away from a game.
This doesn't mean that OGJ is useless though; I find that it can be really useful to be included within a typical NGJ review. Although it isn't game changing, it is useful to know the technicalities of the game; if the graphics were horrible, the whole game could potentially be spoilt.
Are there any examples of "new games journalism" you could cite to illustrate what it is about "new games journalism" that you find interesting?
ReplyDeleteSimialry, an illustrative example of the technical specifications typical of "old games journalism" would make a useful contrast.