I’ve been kicking around a response to the uproar that was Chuck Klosterman’s article, “The Lester Bangs of Video Games“. Poor Chuck. He was misunderstood. All he wanted to do was jump on the video game criticism bandwagon. Hell, if Hillary Clinton can put it on her agenda, and with legislators carrying out their witch hunt against Take-Two and the ESRB, he just didn’t want to miss out on some free publicity.
And publicity he got. Kind of like shaking a bee’s nest, because the people who picked up this story were the journalists themselves. That’s kind of like Mike Ditka making a speech at the NBA All-Star game about the lack of fundamentals with today’s basketball professionals.
There are basically two types of game journalists today. There are the Enthusiasts, like Kotaku and Joystiq, which are sprout from blogs and report with an opinionated, fanboy-ish slant. The Enthusiasts took offense to the story because unlike their professional brethren they are the ones trying to break the mold of traditional journalism, providing commentary on the gaming industry in an unorthodox, mostly satirical way.
Then there are the Professionals, like Gamespot and 1UP, which are more objective and unbiased. Of course they had to comment on the story because it was news, and that is what they do. They merely reported on the reaction among the media, and probably cried a little inside at the realization their years of work really haven’t amounted to anything meaningful. I must give credit to 1UP for at least trying to do something different in their approach, but the end result of their attempt at gonzo is the appearance that the inmates are running the prison.
Why, Chuck, if you’ve found such a void in video game journalism, don’t you just fill it yourself? Probably because you can barely spell Xbox, let alone play games on it. No, instead you are merely raking the coals of the latest hot topic to appear to be “with it”. But I don’t want to pick on just you, I want to pick on the media themselves for not being able to retort with a quick, intelligent response. Please, let me have the honor.
The fact is, the video game media does have a Lester Bangs. Many of them, in fact, who are even more emotionally invested in the industry than anyone realizes. See, for those who aren’t sick of hearing the biography of Lester Bangs as told by Cameron Crowe, he was someone who understood music because he was integrated with its creation. There was Bangs, hanging out in the Bowery, drinking and smoking with the kids who would eventually save the world (or something like that). He heard the jams-in-progress, saw the same psychedelics as the musicians themselves. He was one of them.
Greg Kasavin or Dan Hsu are very much veterans of the video game media, but they are not one of them like Bangs was. Certainly it isn’t someone who writes about the feeling they get while playing Jaws Unleashed. They can act profound and say they want video games to make them cry, but they really don’t know what that means.
Cliff Bleszinski does. David Jaffe does. So does Warren Spector. So does Chris Crawford. God forbid, so does John Romero. See, the music industry had Lester Bangs, essentially a groupie, writing tales from the inside. But I don’t think someone like Keith Richards was ever sober enough to talk about the Beatles. Hell, we can barely make sense of musicians when they wax on about their political beliefs. The game industry is different in that it has an ever-expanding group of outspoken innovators and creators who not only critique the work of their peers, but also try to advance their craft by educating and stimulating the gaming populous with their blogs and journals about what it really means to make and play video games. They are one of them, very literally.
So I guess that means Chuck was right. The video game media doesn’t have a Lester Bangs. Nor will it ever, because to be able to critique at that level one would need a deep understanding of what it takes to make games at an emotional level. And if they had that, they wouldn’t be writing for 1UP or Gamespot anymore, they would be the ones actually making the games. But maybe since they didn’t know how to point Chuck in the right direction in the first place, perhaps they would be better suited playing the games rather than writing about them.

Pingback: spotanime.com » Blog Archive » 1UP Needs a Chaperone
Games Testers are pretty much the groupies of the industry. They get to see and understand the inner workings, they speak to the designers on a daily basis and take apart their work piece by piece. They also see the giant, stinking, hairy ass of the industry and all that comes out of it. I speak from experience and I know it certainly fuels my vitriol.
Maybe all we need is a Roger Ebert of video games. Someone we can trust to tell us if a game is worth our hard earned 50-60 bucks. With all the advertising and sponsors on these websites and all the hype from the weblogs it’s hard to tell if a review is honest or not.
I used to trust Kasavin over at Gamespot. But then he creamed all over Perfect Dark:Zero for the 360. I blew 45 bucks on that piece of trash because Kasavin either got caught up in the 360 launch hype or was bought outright. That game just plain sucked and Kasavin knows that.
I don’t need any heartfelt insiders view of gaming. I just wanna know how much money a game is really worth.
Slybri brings up a valid point, and one that I’ve heard over this topic before. Do we really want that type of journalism, or do we just want a “buyer’s guide” to gaming. Speaking for myself, and I am interested in the advancement in gaming. Not just graphics, or system horsepower, but in a more-zoomed-out way. I like to wax philosophical over gaming trends and deeper meaning in gaming. Maybe its a bit pretentious, but, in the same way I do it with music, I like to let games take me somewhere else. And to me, that is worth writing and talking about.
I think a lot of people confuse Roger Ebert, who has a Pulitzer for his film criticism, with someone like Peter Travers. Those who read the Sun Times know Ebert’s reviews are sprawling essays, albeit do not rise to the level of literary comprehension (and thankfully so) as something in the Village Voice or New York Times. I believe this is a conscious decision, rather than a limitation of his skill, in order to broaden his audience. The point I am trying to make is Ebert is usually used as an example of being a “critic”, but I think it is wrong to think of his work as just layman’s criticism. His understanding of the craft of filmmaking, as well as his interviews with filmmakers across the decades, are just as important to the history of film as anything else he’s written.
Even Siskel, who is just as much of a film activist and historian, used to be jealous of Ebert’s writing. Siskel only wrote small reviews, and wasn’t even the Tribune’s main critic through the ’80s and ’90s.
Ebert might have taken critical rating scales to the mainstream, which has been the foundation for the typical “buyer’s guide” connotation, but never should his work be considered as merely that. Just wanted to get that off my chest…
Pingback: Carnival of Gamers #17: CAG on our CoG » Girly Gamer
To the poster ‘Slybri’ – I write reviews for a local newspaper and culture magazine and I archive them online here – http://vastikroot.blogspot.com if you fancy a different read. I like to think i’m honest in my approach and never swayed be hype or PR bull.
My review of Perfect Dark was far from gushing too (online stuff saved it from a damning though) -http://vastikroot.blogspot.com/2006/06/perfect-dark-zero-15-verdict-shiny.html