Gamerz Rite The Guudest!11 ZOMG LOLZ!11

Today I got my free copy–or should I say login name and password for a PDF download–of The Videogame Style Guide and Reference Manual. It is supposed to be a reference book for aspiring game journalists that provides the same kind of definitive rules as Strunk & White’s Elements of Style, but specific to the needs of game journalism, which, unlike its much older ancestors has little in the way of standardization, or public respect.

It’s an interesting read, although I think that anyone who’s already established in the industry will find the majority of the content not that useful. The bulk of the book consists of a glossary that explains most of the terms commonly used in gaming, such as “1-up” and the merits of using the word “console” versus “system.” Just about the only thing that I walked away with from that particular section was the fact that all these years, I should have been writing PlayStation, not Playstation. The other, more arbitrary decision is the guide’s stance on using “videogame” versus “video game.” I think that for the most part, this book will be most useful to two kinds of readers; those who are new to writing in general, and writing about games in particular, and those who broke into game journalism with a profound belief that neither grammar nor structure are necessary for game journalism because that kind of stuff is for nerds. Since game journalism tends to be far more lenient about people that “break in” than counterparts in news journalism, film journalism and music journalism, I suspect there are far, far more of this second type of reader than the game industry would like to admit.

But one part in particular that I found interesting was the theoretical bit towards the end. Here they make a stand on “reviews” versus “criticism” and they break it down into a fairly simple line of division. Reviews are pieces that talk about what something IS. Criticisms are pieces that explore what something MEANS. The book goes on to state that most reviewers tend to fall somewhere in the middle, leaning heavily towards the review aspect and throwing in another element, which is personal taste. The guide believes that while having a personal opinion is obviously something is important, it should not be the final destination of a really good piece, as, at least in film, it is the critical aspect that separates a thoughtful exploration of a game from a merely gushing/acerbic holler. It likens this difference to what readers see when they read a review by Harry Knowles (“That scene was awesome! THIS MOVIE IS AWESOME!”) versus Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael (“That scene was an interesting play on both societal concerns and anxieties, as well as a reference to cinematography of the German Expressionist era, working on two levels to engage the audience.”). Obviously the feel that game journalists are too much of the former and there aren’t anywhere near enough of the latter.

Of course that brings up an interesting question, which is, “Do we need that kind of reviewer yet?” I’m firmly in the camp that games are an art form, albeit a new and still emerging one. For the moment, games are still viewed as a shallow, vacuous (and dangerously influential) entertainment for the masses, with no social, cultural or artistic value. That should be a familiar line to anyone who was there at the birth of film, comics or rock and roll, and as time has proven, that perception eventually ends up being discarded as the form matures. I think games too, will have to start being taken very, VERY seriously when two inevitable factors kick in. 1) The academics get into it, something that is already happening, and 2) The people who grew up playing videogames are entrenched in every level of society, including political policy making. Perhaps, for example, Fredic Wertham and his anti-comic study Seduction of the Innocent held sway in the 50′s when comics were still perceived as new and threatening, but try telling any psychiatrist today that comics are responsible for the evils of the world and they’ll say you’re wrong and tout videogames as far more dangerous. However, give it another 30 years, when every decision maker has grown up exposed to–if not playing–games, and you’ll see them saying games are harmless and the real danger is all that crazy Neural Simulated Reality the kids are plugging into.

By the time it gets to that stage, hopefully there will be less superstition surrounding games and more critical thinking. But the thing I’m wondering is, how do we move NOW into that transition where game journalists are sort of third party advertisers, and into a position where they are regarded as thinkers that contribute insights to games and their impact on society? What’s it gonna’ take before we get that Lester Bangs or Pauline Kael that this style guide holds up as the paragon that we should be shooting for? Do we need some gonzo journalist to start writing for Wired in the same way that bangs did for Rolling Stone Magazine?