The state of game industry journalism is still terrible. Everything seems to cling to the extreme of either gas-bag meaninglessness or rock-stupid fanboyism. Former ESA president Doug Lowenstein thought this was a big enough problem that he chose to mention it in his farewell address to the industry, describing our press as thoughtless, immature and lazy. Unsurprisingly, few video game news sites decided to make much mention of this, but it's impossible to disagree with him– especially when sites like GameDailyBiz concurrently present articles in which a supposed game critic puts forth the laughably absurd notion that “being knowledgable is not necessarily a prerequisite to being a good critic.” Actually, it is.
But instead of staying negative, I want to point towards something that I like, and this brings me to Insert Credit.
Insert Credit caught a lot of flak from whiny people for being pretentious, which it sometimes is. It is also sporadically updated and usually consists of a short-form blog posting links and news about obscure games (mostly Japanese). But every once in a while Insert Credit posts a longer article– sometimes very long– that intends to review a game and begins discussing something like the meaning of life. And there, I think, we find a seed of real game criticism.
Much of the best material on Insert Credit was written by Tim Rogers, who was once described to me by someone who was around him as “a really, really weird guy,” and who sometimes ends up talking more about himself than the game he is ostensibly reviewing. He once titled something he wrote “the greatest piece of videogame-related journalism ever written” with too few traces of a qualifying postmodern smirk; his stream-of-consciousness paragraphs often get hung up in pointless eddies and go nowhere; and he is overly subjective and guilty of loving certain titles only because they are obscure, or esoteric, or too Japanese to ever be translated. He is also occasionally just wrong.
But his articles are interesting, because he is genuine in them, and, unlike the anonymous game critic above, he is knowledgeable. Tim Rogers doesn’t just play the titles he reviews, he plays them to death; he loves them and tries to understand them and wants to somehow convey what it’s like to discover a hint of a profound revelation in something most of the world seems to have ignored. The intent behind the game, and whether or not the end product was successful at realizing it, doesn't seem very important to him: he talks about games as if they had sprung into existence fully-formed, and evaluates them exactly as they are— as if he was a travel writer describing encounters with a culture that both baffles and inspires respect.
Insert Credit has published less and less of these kinds of articles over the years. Perhaps the participants have moved onto bigger and better things. Lately I’ve noticed some of the people who used to contribute to or be associated with the site appearing in more well-known publications: Brandon Sheffield on Gamasutra.com, Chris Kohler in Wired, even the untamable Tim Rogers had something vaguely resembling a column for Next Generation (I am not sure it still continues). But now that these writers have become professionals after a fashion, I feel like the promise that Insert Credit once held has faded. We are back to the sales charts and the banal interviews and phrases like “the music is about what you would expect.”
How can we fix this? I will save that discussion for a future entry, but here’s a hint at my answer. As Steve Ballmer used to say, “developers, developers, developers, developers!”

Comments (3)
Rogers is one of God's prototypes. Something tells me that Tim Rogers wasn't what Lowenstein was think of when he said: "I think the games industry press needs a higher level of maturity and seriousness.”
One of the most valuable things about games journalism is its ability to mix playfulness with worthwhile analysis, and that's easily lost in the quest for 'seriousness'.
Posted by Rossignol | February 15, 2007 5:37 AM
Posted on February 15, 2007 05:37
Point taken, but even so, Rogers is one of the few writers on games I have read who takes the facts and attempts to figure out what they mean, as opposed to simply recording them. In other words, I am saying it may not be such a bad thing that his writing is so biased, personal and internal.
Posted by Matthew | March 13, 2007 9:56 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 21:56
Nice little piece.. I think Brandon Sheffield's last feature piece for Insert Credit (Gaming's Missing Kane) suddenly makes him a threat towards being a great games writer.
Tim Rogers is fucking excellent, and his appearance on the One Life Left podcast where he confirms he a) works for a videogame company but on his own terms, b) freelances translations of manga on his own terms and c) just fucking hates most gamers means that he is eminently qualified to tell people what he thinks.
I've been writing a piece about 'whats wrong with... what's wrong with videogame journalism' to get to the root of all this anxiety, but I think that things are better... look up 1up.com's Islamogaming feature for a glimmer of hope..
But for every Tim Rogers, there is the memory of the IGN SSX3 review.."Equally satisfying are the short load times. Perhaps the load times are normal, like 15-30 seconds, but I don't care. And I don't because most of them are genuinely short, while the long ones give me something to look at while waiting. A simple little scene of snow passes across the screen, while the informational load screen tells me exactly how fast the data is being loaded. The effect is that I feel like something is happening even though I'm doing nothing. Nice trick!"
I mean.. I've written some shit in my time, but I've never lobotomised myself to the extent that I type 'nice trick' and then think, hey, what the fuck is missing... I know, an exclamation mark!
Um, anyway, Old Man Murray is still hosted, so its all fine.
Posted by Christian McCrea | July 21, 2007 7:48 AM
Posted on July 21, 2007 07:48