Oooh, blog fight!!!

So a couple months ago I wrote a post about some overly flowery previews of Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. I contrasted the preview written by Wired's Chris Kohler with those of IGN's Charles Onyett and 1up.com's Patrick Joynt and said the latter two "function as little more than press releases. They're so breathless that they're ultimately unbelievable. Forget that 90 percent of glowing previews have little to do with the final product; forget that Oblivion might actually be an amazing game once it's finished. At this point, it isn't finished. And until it is done, the function of a critical preview should be just that: not to give a book report and thank the studio for allowing a glimpse, but to give a critical look at the bit they're showing you."

Now Joynt is -- wait for it -- out of joint:

Putting out an overly negative preview to be more "edgy" isn't serving the reader; it's serving the publication's advertising department that demanded the writers be more "out-there". For example: "I haven't really read it yet, and he's not done writing it, but I don't like Mr. Korr's next blog." That's not a critical preview, just like putting out a half-thought out St. Petersburg Times staff blog isn't to actually say anything, but to try and get some clicks.

Ouch!

First off, I was extra snarky in that particular post, which explains the returned snarkiness. But his response seems to confirm a view of video game previews that I think deserves to be criticized.

By Joynt's logic -- it would be wrong to trash my unfinished blog post, i.e. it's wrong to look critically at an unfinished game -- previews are supposed to serve as nothing more than book reports. He writes: "Previewers should try to get information to their readers so that when a review comes up, there's a context to understand it in -- not pre-empt the review." But if that's the case, why do you need a game writer to give this book report? If a writer is going to do nothing but describe exactly what he sees, without judgment, why not just have the company do it themselves? Why not release the preview to the world, so we can see it for ourselves? Why have a mediator if he's not going to be a filter?

And hang on a sec, because maybe Joynt sees the value in a filter after all: "A preview should be honest, not by default negative or positive," he writes. But by that logic, it is ok to pass judgment (whether positive or negative) on my unfinished blog post. So which is it: Previews should be honest, or previews shouldn't be critical of unfinished works? You can't have it both ways.

When I say critical, I don't mean in a positive or negative sense: I mean critical in the sense of being a filter of any kind. When Chris Kohler writes "you do a lot of slashing rats for the first hour. Lots of rats. Then the occasional goblin. Combat feels solid," I feel like I'm reading a critical assessment of what he saw. It's neither positive nor negative, but conveys that there's a bit of repetition at the beginning but the fighting isn't boring or poorly controlled.

On the other hand, describing every detail and the storyline and concluding it's all great isn't convincing. No game is that great. By not discriminating among the details, by seeming not to filter anything, a preview becomes unbelievable. Joynt writes: "Unlike the starting quests in so many games, there's no doubt that you're involved in epic stuff. You're not trying to find a way to a small town or save a small village: the Emperor of the land you live in has charged you with his last breaths to deliver his legacy and save the land from the horrors he has seen coming." I've played a dozen RPGs that charge you with saving a country or world. So what if it's epic -- is this story original? Not a cliche like most RPGs? He tells me it's "a powerful story," but doesn't show it. The preview convinces me Oblivion is epic in scale, but it doesn't convince me it's creatively different. That's the difference between summary and analysis.

It's a matter of tone as much as anything else. Onyett and Joynt both start off by describing arriving at the San Francisco hotel and being greeted by the game developer's PR people. It's one thing if you're on a junket and disclose that for the sake of honesty. In these kinds of cases, there's no need to describe being greeted, being shown the snack table, and saying things like "Unlike many gaming events, there wasn't pounding techno music or other pretenses that suggested we weren't all present solely to play videogames. The room was dark and quiet with headphones at every station; the perfect way to experience a four-hour play session of Oblivion." It starts the reader off thinking: Why is he talking about the PR people so much? Why is he implicitly thanking them for such a wonderful setup?

So anyway, I apologize for being a bit of an ass in that first post, but stand by the underlying point. As for my "half-thought out" blog, all I'll say is read this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this.

Bring it!!!