For a while I picked snippets of “bad” writing about games and posted them here. It was amusing, and made for easy updates, but I’ve decided not to continue doing it. By picking egregiously poor constructions or obvious typos, I shifted the discussion to one about following the rules of spelling and grammar– a component of good writing, to be sure, but certainly not the only one. Writing with no low-level structural flaws whatsoever can still be completely terrible. Additionally, I found that pointing out others’ bad writing gets some people indignant, who’d vengefully comb my own writing for errors (I try my best, but I doubt it could really stand such close attention). I did not want to be the Lynne Truss of game journalism. Even if everyone instantly had the clearest understanding of the difference between composed and comprised, for example, writing about games would not miraculously be better because of it.
Still, the exercise wasn’t without its rewards. One of the best was getting responses from the people who had written the articles in question. When I pointed out a review on Gamer’s Hell that credited Ubisoft’s Red Storm studio for developing Haze, the author of the piece immediately e-mailed me, apologizing and stating he’d since corrected the article– a message that precipitated a long and interesting discussion between us about the state of Internet-based game journalism. He was enthusiastic about his work and clearly trying his best. (In contrast to the small and independently operated Gamer’s Hell, CBS-owned GameSpot's “the same explosions and over again” and News Corporation division IGN.com’s “just as fierce... than ever before” appear to survive for all posterity.)
The real description of what I highlighted, then, might not have been “bad writing about games” so much as lazy or careless writing about games. Thankfully, since I began this blog I’ve discovered a lot of the opposite: thoughtful, intelligent writing about games, much of it off the Internet’s beaten paths, and completely free to read. It is written by a loose circle of critics, theorists and designers who clearly desire the same kinds of discussions that I had hoped to encourage with my possibly ill-advised and obnoxious browbeating of enthusiast outlets. In that sense, Bad Writing draws to a close with a happy ending. Or at least despite the occasional example I may yet happen upon, over which my friends and I’s laughter will indubitably continue.
Comments (7)
You've got better stuff to be doing with your time now anyway, right? Still, it will be a bit of a pity to never see a new post making fun of IGN/Gamespot/Etc at The Wasteland.
At least we've still got Mitch Krpata's occasional Gamespot User Submitted Previews serving a similar purpose.
Posted by Ben Abraham | September 24, 2009 5:51 PM
Posted on September 24, 2009 17:51
I had always appreciated your posts about bad writing for quick laughs, but I can easily see why you would choose to stop doing those. After a point the realization hits that there are thousands and thousands of terrible writings on the Internet, and then they just aren't interesting anymore.
If anyone wants to get their regular dose of awful videogame writing, just find a site like this and bookmark it http://trinest.com/2008/01/16/hotel-dusk-room-215-review/
Posted by John | September 24, 2009 5:57 PM
Posted on September 24, 2009 17:57
If you're going to quote Stephen King's book, shouldn't you also point people to it? (Maybe you have in the past, I confess to not knowing.)
Go read "On Writing" by Stephen King, folks. It's really, really good.
Posted by Eric | September 24, 2009 7:40 PM
Posted on September 24, 2009 19:40
While bad game writing always amuses (my personal favourite remains one that Old Man Murray pointed out, regarding a quote from Warren Spector lamenting that individual people get credited by the games press for creating a game when it's very much a team effort, attributing it to "Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex") one imagines that a user-submitted, bash.org setup would be a more appropriate forum than one curated by an individual person, who presumably is attempting to say something with their selections.
...hmm, there might be something to this.
Posted by Merus | September 24, 2009 9:26 PM
Posted on September 24, 2009 21:26
"It was amusing, and made for easy updates, but I've decided not continue doing it."
Pot calling the kettle black, sir. ;)
Posted by Stitched | September 25, 2009 12:30 AM
Posted on September 25, 2009 00:30
@Stitched: You got me. I fixed it.
Posted by Matthew | September 25, 2009 8:32 AM
Posted on September 25, 2009 08:32
Since I copy-edit for Gamers With Jobs (a job I got by being the grammar-nazi gadfly), I know both sides of the grammatical concerns well: It's hard to take writing seriously that doesn't seem to take itself seriously, and poor grammar signals to me that the writer and staff couldn't be bothered to edit or re-read before publishing. At the same time, not every gaffe can be caught and fixed before press.
That said, I've often thought about compiling stylistic and compositional mistakes (bad, buried or missing theses, for example) as I go through the web for the VGHVI Context Clues link-dump each week. If I had the time to do it well, I'd like to think it would help elevate the level of discussion and bring new writers over the hump between "random rant" blogs and intelligent games conversation.
Posted by Erik Hanson![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.magicalwasteland.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 28, 2009 8:07 AM
Posted on September 28, 2009 08:07