Comments on: BIOSHOCK (**)

By: Ikiru

Ikiru — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 01:49:03 +0000

The people who think that ABDN and IC are egotistical like shit should really read some Insomnia. Those guys have egos at least three times bigger than the average NGJ writer. Though maybe they wouldn´t notice, as they don´t talk about themselves in their stuff by principle.

Seriously, I want to hear the story behind putting Insomnia as a link (not even because I think it´s bad, I just want to hear Tim´s thoughts on them).

“A review of a thing cannot rise above the value of that thing, after all, whatever Tim and Eric-Jon might try to tell you — because if it did it would not be a review of that thing any more.”

Then what about negative reviews? Is the point of a negative review not to see what the piece in question does wrong? And does one not do that by saying how it could do this right? And, then, by doing this, is the review not a piece more revealing and insightful than the piece being analyzed, while still being a review?

By: internisus

internisus — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:29:17 +0000

Re: Erostratus

Is it proof enough that I was more satisfied by this review of Bioshock than by playing the game about which it was written?

By: kzkb1

kzkb1 — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:37:59 +0000

Kierkegard’s article is hilarious, spiteful shit, and anyone who takes that sociopath’s egomaniacal screeds seriously should probably just quit reading this site all together.

By: Erostratus

Erostratus — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:21:54 +0000

I have read Alex Kierkegaard´s article and I can say that it is bullshit full of resentment. I can´t believe that someone who actually dares to quote Nietzsche can say things like this:
“A review of a thing cannot rise above the value of that thing, after all, whatever Tim and Eric-Jon might try to tell you — because if it did it would not be a review of that thing any more.”
So actually things have stablished, solid values, and one cannot go beyond them in a critical aproach… Ever heard about the Umwertung alle Werten? Maybe he should read Nietzsche a little more, perhaps that would make him rethink the problem of Art, technique and it´s relationship with the concept of life and Will (for example, like Sloterdjick´s reading of Nietzsche), problems that are in fact present in Videogame culture. Laying that aside, the statement is false in an even more basic, non philosophical level. All kind of artists and philosophers have made approaches to popular phenomena, and by no means this approaches can´t “rise above the value of that thing”. Well, go and tell that to philosophers like Walter Benjamin or Slavoj Zizek (the latter made an excellent philosophical essay on the Kinder Egg which actually deals very seriously with the hegelian notion of subject) or writers like Thomas de Quincey, who took all his formidable classical erudition and wrote an essay about the aesthetic value of murder: he gave something that was inherently immoral, low, base, an aesthetic value, even if it was more or less a mock essay. Result: E. A. Poe, detective fiction, etc. I don´t say videogames are the same, but perhaps writing about them could become the same, because nothing is decided in this world, specially when you speak about “spiritual” values. The whole article is based in the prejudice that videogames are an inherently low subject and it´s critics can´t go beyond the base level of videogame journalism because that is lying. That is just another Denkverbot (a prohibition on thinking) and a prejudice which the very history of art refutates. For example, take this statement: “And even he understands that even the very “best” NGJ review is childish nonsense compared to any halfway decent film review. ” Making a review of Tarkovsky or Lynch doesn´t make you at instantly deep or intelligent. It´s all about the talent and intelligence of the reviewer, not of the work itself. Plus, come on, even masters like Tarkovsky and Lynch actually took “base” or “pop culture” subjects like sci fic (Solaris, Stalker) or Hollywood mysteries (Mullholland drive) and turned them into masterpieces. Of course I am not even trying to compare videogames with all these masters of art cinema (even if Shigeshato Itoi is not as far from them as you may think), but I strongly disagree with the whole tesis of the article, which art constantly refutates. He believes that someone who has interest in videogames and internet cannot have culture: well, guess what, there´s people that are actually interested both in the classics (history, literature, philosophy) AND videogames. You can say it is a result of the Zeitgeist or perhaps an effect of the Kaliyuga, but it is true. That shouldn´t surprise someone with a little of culture. Finally, the conclusion of the article is strongly false:
“as if that profundity had always existed but failed to be recognised — defiling, in the process, everything that was geniune about the past; its simple, honest, childish innocence.”
Well, maybe that profundity DID exist and we didn´t saw it, and if this proves to be true then someone has in fact made us aware of a new thing in the world, and that´s what´s art is all about. What some believe is simple childish innocence can become the high culture of next generations (think about Stevenson´s “Treasure Island”, for example, which Borges held higher than Goethe´s “Faust”). I don´t imply this is necessarily true about games, but then again, who knows?

By: GilbertSmith

GilbertSmith — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:54:00 +0000

I kind of hate the term New Gaming Journalism. In every single field of journalism besides writing about video games, talking about your own life to provide context for why you do or don’t like something isn’t enough to justify someone coining a new term to describe your revolutionary approach to writing.

By: JoeX111

JoeX111 — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:38:54 +0000

Hey Tim, what did you think of Alex Kierkegaard’s take on NGJ and your style of writing in particular?

Link: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_new_games_journalism/

By: GilbertSmith

GilbertSmith — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:23:12 +0000

Gamers are a really fetishistic group. Tim Rogers telling Nintendo kids that the new Mario is kind of dull is like telling gay furries that they should try for better storytelling in their shitty webcomics, and less gratuitous semi-human nudity.

I actually like when Tim goes off on a single frivolous issue, when that frivolous issue runs violently against what the game pretends to be going for, like with Saint’s Row, how your vigilante, anti-crime friends are quick to gun down any old lady you aim at.

By: leeray666

leeray666 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:23:09 +0000

I posted a link to this review in a couple of forums that I tend to visit from time to time because I think you make some very good points.
However, for some reason everybody seems to hate you Tim.
I don’t know why, I happen to think you’re quite funny and honestly critical. Though I think there are sometimes you seem to miss the point and pick up on frivolous issues; overall I think what comes out in your reviews are some harsh realities that need to be addressed by the gaming industry if they are to ever truly take this medium to the next level. A lot of magazines and review sites seem to skip past the real issues, preferring to concentrate on lighting effects etc.
It’s refreshing to come here and read something with a bit more thought. Don’t ever change….

… Oh, and hurry up with that Metal Gear Solid 4 review.

By: ray

ray — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:53:15 +0000

well you’re sure off to a good start there, droll comments guy

By: InterestingJesus

InterestingJesus — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:31:58 +0000

“hey guys! just wanted to say that i’ve read, maybe, all of this thread here.

my dream is coming true — it is so close i can taste it: a community of people who will respond to this bullshit i write with excellently entertaining comments; soon, i won’t even have to read the news anymore, because i’ll have you guys, and videogame reviews.’

This cannot be allowed. I shall now respond to nearly every thread with incredibly droll comments. Your fun shall not be had, Tim. Shall not at ALL!