You know how I said I wanted to discuss recent events in internet reviewing? Well, I think I’ve burned myself out on the topic just by following the recent Channel Awesome debacle. You can read into that yourself, but I think I’ve wasted too much time following it. I need to clean my headspace out a bit. So instead it’s filler video time.
Oddly this could factor in since the Escapist kind of falls into those problems and I need to change the logo I use when tapping into Extra Credits for Filler Videos. The topic is academia and video games. Video game companies seem to fall into the same trap as the movie studios and television networks in that they research ideas to death and leave perfectly good ideas to whither, or massively change them, based on demographics and other research. It’s when they take a risk or actually try to find out what people like with more research than a calculator can provide that media improves. Video games need to learn this as well, as the gang at Extra Credits explains.
He raises a good point. Even in game reviews the story is only really examined in theorizing rather than analyzing the story the same way you do other mediums. (Although I’m still the only person I know who reviews songs for their story rather than their musicality, and even then there’s not much to say there by nature.) They talk about the mechanics and the play experience, and there are gamers who ignore the story altogether (I hate when “let’s plays” or even just walkthroughs do this) and just play the game. Yes, the graphics are very pretty but what about the story? How does it fit the interactive nature and how can video games tell a story in ways other media can’t, and vice versa. I don’t see enough exploration of that.