I dunno. I thought it was a pretty good read, actually. Maybe he actually liked Bleszinski? He obviously likes Gears of War. Not a game I'm that into but one that I agree is, mechanically, pretty damn good. Anyway, I read it less as a piece about whether or not I should love Epic and CliffyB and more of a glimpse into how big-budget games get made. To people not in the industry (and I'm not), it's interesting in and of itself.

Oh snap. Shouldn't this be in the 'examples of horrible game writing' category?

'I thought for a moment. Earlier, he had made a nicely observed reference to the novelist Cormac McCarthy, and I was attuned to the possibility of an altogether unexpected window into his imagination. Was it from Auden? No. It was a reference to a line from Zach Braff’s film “Garden State,”'

Classic!

I have to agree that Bissell quickly went off topic and was a bit too descriptive on the car and clothing part.

I was expecting a bit more of Cliff's design philosophy that culminated over the years. But hey, it's an article for the masses.

Overall, the article stands out. It read away like a two page version of 'Masters of Doom', which also included quite a hefty amount of exotic cars and clothing style descriptions :).

Dear Matthew,

I don't usually respond in these situations, but what the hell. Funnily enough, I've been to your site before and always enjoyed and often admired your thoughts on games. Your long post on Mass Effect (a game I love), to name one in particular, was not only a thing of analytic beauty but also really illuminating. I even had the thought, while writing my piece, whether you might address the thing, be it for a huzzah or an ear twist. Too bad for me, it's an ear twist, but that's the way these things go.

However, I really very much take issue with your pretty blithe way of suggesting I would do the bidding of Microsoft or its PR arm. You know the game industry inside and out, obviously, but I'm not sure you know as much about the world of magazine journalism, because if you did you might realize to suggest such a thing is pretty much akin to spitting in a writer's face.

Your other criticisms are fair game, and, however wincingly, appreciated. I tried to write a piece that gamers wouldn't want to puke on. I know those pieces, and, yes, I've puked on them. I can say that I'm not a fanboy, though I love games, and I wasn't particularly dazzled by Cliff, though I did like him an awful lot. You read it, possibly a little willfully, as fawning, though that certainly wasn't my intention. We could probably argue about this, but that would be dumb, and beside the point. The bottom line: Thanks for the response, sorry it let you down, and I hope in the future our literary/gaming paths cross again, though more happily.

Take care,
Tom Bissell

This just reeks of haterade why don't you stop bithching and moaning and make a better peice other than this shoddily written horrible attack on the writer get a life.

Tom,

You are correct in assuming I know very little about how real journalism works, and so I apologize for the insult.

We could return to the other points, perhaps fruitfully; I’m game to discuss them if you care to, though I will understand if you don’t. I appreciate your response in any case.

thanks,
matthew

I'd be very much up for that. As I said, I like your approach to games and I think we might have more in common than you suspect. Or maybe not. Perhaps we'll find out!

Wow, two people who disagree are acting civil to each other. I am amazed.

At least Troy reminds us that this site exists on the real Internet, and not some civil bizarro Internet.

This discussion should be an article in it's own right. Civil and contrarian...

Mr. Bissell, I enjoyed your article and felt your presentation of CiffyB was direct and respectful (though the fashion sketch was a bit unnecessary) and very humanistic. I hope you do more of them.

Please do not let the fiery responses of some gamers and particularly Adam Sessler's comments get in the way of writing more pieces - they are overly defensive rants from people who have lost a bit of perspective in feeling that mainstream media is always derisive of their profession.

I felt you respected your subject and the industry with equal measure, but could do with less high-minded literary references that smack of snobbery.

Overall, a good short read and informative which is all you can ask of good journalism.

Thanks,
Shawn

@Shawn:

Thanks very much for this. Yeah, I saw Mr. Sessler's rant this morning. I had pretty much one response to it: Wow. But it was interesting to watch. My favorite part was when he accused me of being embarrassed to admit in The New Yorker I liked games (um, did he the article?). My other favorite part was when he compared Microsoft's wish to keep the game's mortar secret to Seymour Hersh's work on Iran. That he could draw equivalence between the two delighted me as well as proved my point.

As for literary references, all I can say is that I'm a writer and reader before I'm a gamer. Literature is the prism through which I look at the world--particularly creative endeavors. No snobbiness intended, in other words. It's just the way my mind works.

Best,
TCB

@ Shawn once more:

A friend of mine just reminded me of something that's kind of funny to bring up with regard to Mr. Sessler and his long harangue over my amusement at the game industry's use of "secrets." Upon my arrival at Epic, I had to sign an approximately 4000-page non-disclosure agreement, which was totally cool. I understood why. Even so, it took some of the Epic folk a while to adjust to having a journalist in the room when they were discussing stuff that they never mentioned in front of journalists, ever. And, as I wrote in the piece, I was pulled aside at one point and basically forced to promise I wouldn't tell anyone about the mortar Cliff had mentioned.

Now, the reason I found this kind of amusing is not because the mainstream media never uses exclusives. The reason I found this amusing is because, in 2005, I was embedded with the United States Marine Corps for six weeks in Iraq's Anbar Province. The Colonel in charge of the brigade I was with even let me sit in on classified intel meetings. It was pretty heady. Now, what's funny is that no one in the Marines asked me to sign a thing and no one pulled me aside to stress how top secret what I was being exposed to actually was. I'm not sure I could tell you why this was the case, but it should better frame the fun I had with the game industry's distorted sense of its secrets' ultimate value. But, as the man says, I kid because I love.

I'll stop posting here now.

:)
TCB

The question that came to mind reading the profile - which was very well written and well reported - was, why CliffyB? Why this game? It's easy to say that the New Yorker has a hard time selling video games to its sophisticated, non-console-owning audience. But as both a gamer and a gigantic New Yorker fan, I still found this article awkward - looking for deeper meanings in a game that really has none (sure, it's sad, but so is a lot of shallow pop), but only reluctantly enjoying the lizard brain thrills that are the game's real goal.

This is also a weird conservative tic of mine, but I'm uncomfortable with pieces in the New Yorker that use the first-person extensively. It's fine when the writer has to explain where they were or what they were doing when they were reporting a thing ("I was waiting in Chuck Hagel's office and overheard ... "), but I was constantly aware of you without being sure why I was supposed to be aware of you. With the passage quoted above, namechecking Cormac McCarthy before revealing that CliffyB was quoting "Garden State," I had no idea why you mentioned this train of thought except possibly to make CliffyB look simple. Which he did, and not just once.

I'm a huge fan of Seabrook's piece on Will Wright. It's likely the best piece of games writing from '06. And that's not to compare you to Seabrook, but to compare Will Wright to CliffyB. Right now, game critics seem split between the people who think academically and theoretically about the nature and potential of games, and people who think it's just fucking awesome that someone stuck a chainsaw on an assault rifle. But these camps aren't mutually exclusive, and someone like Will Wright has the kind of appeal that bridges all camps and also excites the mainstream. CliffyB doesn't - and if he has a heart or purpose to convey, I didn't really get it, and I don't know if anyone could. Game designers aren't as interesting to talk to as say, rock stars. They rarely learn to prove they're human in any engaging way, and the games press, which is closer to Car & Driver than the New Yorker, never pushes them to.

But he is important and successful, so I guess I understand why he was picked. And I don't know if someone like Jonathan Blow, to take an example from the brainy camp, would make an ideal New Yorker subject either. Though I'd have been less surprised to see him in there. And with Blow, you'd know he really WAS quoting Italo Calvino, and not, say, Gossip Girls.

I mean this all respectfully, and greatly appreciate your swinging through here to discuss your article - it's truly fascinating.

@Chris

I'm not sure how much headway I'll make here, but I'll try.

First, as to the presence of the "I" in the piece: You probably don't want to dig too deeply into my work if these are your aesthetic feelings about first-person journalism. Believe it or not, "The Grammar of Fun" is me being first-personally restrained. I'm always a big, opinionated participant in my nonfiction. I have my reasons for this but they're probably boring to anyone who's not me or dating me. However, I can say that they come out a desire to be honest and clear and forthright--and entertaining, needless to say. If you were asking yourself what you say you were asking yourself while reading the piece I suspect I'm probably not a writer whose stuff you're ever going to love.

As for the rest: Cliff is obviously not Will Wright. And I'm not John Seabrook. (Not accusing you of claiming I am, understand.) I'm the same age as Cliff and grew up playing a lot of the same games. So I felt some kinship to him there, and I loved Gears the first time I played it. I see Gears get downgraded a bit in the game community these days, but, you know, I was there when it came out. I played it when it came out. I talked to other gamers when it came out. And what I remember is people who were not even big shooter fans saying, "This game is different. This game has some bizarre extra enzyme." (Okay, maybe they didn't say "enzyme.") I don't claim Gears is the most sophisticated game around in terms of its various dialectical imperatives (aliens v humans, chainsaws v torsos) but I think the game (as I said to Matthew in a private email exchange) has a peculiar and often quite beautiful soul. As I also said to Matthew, I think, having now talked at length to some of the guys who made it, that this soul is traceable to the love and care and thought they put into that world. My first experience with Gears was doing the online cooperative campaign with a friend and, when we finished, I'm not sure I'd ever felt so exhilarated after playing a mere shooter. It wasn't the story that moved me but rather the cumulative effect of its many interesting mechanics, which I think are much subtler and more elegant than those of any other shooter out there. Let's not understate this: Shooting in the game is *fun.* They made shooting for hours and hours on end an aesthetically interesting experience--and that is not nothing. The reloading minigame was a terrific spin on what had come to be a really hoary conceit; the roadie run is brilliant; the cover mechanic (though not Cliff's innovation, it might as well be) still gives me enormous pleasure whenever I play the game. Are there games I like and admire more than Gears? Yeah. But Gears was the first game since the original Resident Evil that essentially pressed a reset button in my brain. Here is a game, I thought at the time, that other games of its kind are going to have to address from here on out. To use a phrase from our dismal election cycle: It was a game-changer. Imagine it in terms of philosophy (to use a perilously high-falutin' analogy). Everything from math to ethics to medicine to game design starts out in philosophy, but once these disciplines develop their own internally consistent principles they break off from philosophy. This is what allows people from Aristophanes on to knock philosophers for sitting around formulating grand thoughts and never really getting anything done. But this is an illusion. Everything philosophers do accomplish configures an entire systematic way of thinking about the world--the reset button, yes, is pushed. What does this have to do with Gears? Well, think about it: Has there been a shooter since Gears was released that has not been, in some way, forced to address it? That's what I think great games do: They reconfigure the genre they're a part of.

I appreciate the fact that not everyone is going to agree with this. Gears can be regarded as an example of moral depravity or as an average shooter and Cliff himself as a merely pretty talented designer, and I'm certainly not going to argue. The proclivities of taste we will always have with us. I tried to make the case that Cliff is a great game designer who understands the exceedingly odd hand-brain/controller-screen dynamic as well as anyone alive, and if I failed to convince you of that, the fault is mine. But I can say that Cliff's colleagues told me, again and again, that he really does have a unique gift for understanding the vagaries of game mechanics (and these are guys who are themselves exquisitely talented gentlemen). Is Gears the best expression of those talents? Might it be better for games if that sophistication was put to use in a genre less maligned than the shooter? Well, I just don't know, really. Gears is the game he conceived, it's a game that I love, and it was the game I wanted to write about. I'm glad you acknowledge that there can be crossover between people who like to think about games' potential and people who enjoy sawing Locusts in half, because I'd like to think of myself as one of them--and, for the record, I would love to write about Jonathan Blow. I adored Braid. That game's achievement is 180 degrees different from Cliff's achievement in Gears. And I have to say, though: Isn't this good? Isn't this a step forward? That we can differentiate Cliff from Blow and Gears from Braid and live in a world in which both can be separately interesting? I love Kurosawa and Herzog; I also love The Empire Strikes back. No one today would think of slighting an appraisal of Empire because it's not about Aguirre or Ran. Films are not regarded as one thing, and neither should games be. I imagine you agree with this, or at least hope you do.

One last thing: I never tried to make Cliff seem simple. The thing about McCarthy, Auden, and Zach Braff was a joke, but not on Cliff. I was, indeed, trying to poke fun at myself for reading too much into Gears. But, you know, when you spend weeks playing and replaying a game in preparation for a piece like "The Grammar of Fun," and reading a bunch of fairly theoretical books on game design, by the end your antennae are pretty much too shiny and alert and hungry to allow for any interpretation that's not an embarrassingly overarching one. (My editor warned me about that sequence. Damn.)

At any rate, it's a real pleasure to come here and talk about this stuff, and I appreciate your concerns and your reservations (and that they are expressed so respectfully). The first draft of the piece that I wrote was much longer, and got into some of the stuff that has been raised about it lacking, but that's an occupational hazard of the trade, though no less frustrating because of it. I'll be writing about games again, and you and Matthew have already provided me with some insights that I will attempt to MacGyver into pieces of more evident argumentative armor.

Take care,
TCB

Tom, I really appreciate your taking the time to respond. I agree with you that Gears of War has something special and changes what shooters can do, and really like your explanation of it - and of CliffyB's gifts on that front.

I'm usually pretty timid about making remarks that can sound negative, but I'm really glad to have had the chance to read all your responses here - I've learned a lot as a writer from this discussion. And you got it right, nobody faults Empire Strikes Back for not being Ran, but I'm very aware of how the mainstream press is still wrestling with these distinctions. (And believe me, I'm on the side of the mainstream press on this one. When the games press makes fun of the New Yorker or the NYT for daring to write about games, I start grinding my teeth.)

And btw, I misstated how I feel about first-person writing in general - I look forward to checking out your other work.

Thank you again - I really appreciate it.

Chris

Hey,

great article. Working in the industry, I get tired of puff pieces coming from outsiders as well but I feel that it's part of the growing pains of a quickly expanding industry. And for every 10 poorly written puff pieces you end up with a really cool and interesting guy like, to me, N'Gai Croal.

This criticism isn't particularly aimed at Tom, who was cool enough to stop by and say something, because I haven't read his piece but I know exactly what you mean.

Keep up the good work, I enjoy your writing

-Jason

@ all,

I am as new to gaming as I am writing. I have put out four titles and am still working on publishing my first book.

Having played all the games and read all the books and articles explored and referenced to in this article and the comments below it, I must proclaim that I have never been as proud to be affiliated with both groups -- gamers and writers -- as I am right now.

Be it game designer or short story craftsman - we all have much more in common than we think. It's passion. For craft, for communication, for growth. I've worked around some of the biggest names in all of gaming and entertainment and what's so fascinating to me is that for all the ego and secrecy, what it comes down to is what Tom put best (and Cliffy alluded to): We do it for the consumers. Whether that means they're gaming our games or reading our writing, we kill ourselves to make something that enriches their experience in our relative platform.

Matthew, as a blogger, you've enriched your entire platofrm as well. The entire blogosphere is better having you in it, and this specific web address is one I wish was RSS'd into every inbox of every gaming executive at my company. It shows a passionate side to gaming the fanboys often overshadow - sincere enchantment.

Thanks guys, all of you, for all of this.