Zombie Cow's Dan Marshall has always walked in two worlds, writing editorials and reviews for PCZone as he programmed his first game, Gibbage. As he (and partner Ben Ward) went on to create adventure games like Ben There, Dan That, he found the experience extremely helpful. So helpful, he told Gamasutra, that he thinks every journalist should have the same experience.
"As a developer I think you're slightly more understanding of the process involved, but as a gamer you know whether or not you're having a good time," Marshall said. "I think all games journos should be forced to make a game somehow, see how they get on. It gives you a more rounded perspective."
Luckily, we've got Marshall's request covered.
Reader Comments (13)
Posted: Oct 12th 2009 5:07PM MrFrench said
Personally I want a gaming "journo" to have the same perspective that I, the potential customer, is having. Does that mean every single person who buys games needs to take a course in game design just to know how to appreciate the game?
Next up: Readers can't read books without being a published author first.
Reply
Next up: Readers can't read books without being a published author first.
Posted: Oct 12th 2009 5:15PM (Unverified) said
I agree completely. The whole adage that art is only subject to criticism from other artists is completely without merit. It makes him sound like sour grapes.
Reply
Posted: Oct 12th 2009 5:22PM Courtney said
Did you actually read Joystiq's post, or the source article? He writes about games and makes games, which he felt that gave him a more well rounded perspective. He's not criticizing games journalists, he's just pointing out that they would be more informed if they had actually tried to make a game (and he's right).
The best science journalists I know have a fair science background (even if they never worked as one). The best economic journalists come often have economics degrees. Having deeper, even hands on, knowledge of the subject you are writing about makes you a better journalist. Period.
Besides, games journalists will never have the same perspective as you. When your job revolves around gaming, you think about it differently. When many of your games are free (either from pubs or from the entity you write for), you don't think about the experience the same as if you had shelled out the money yourself. You might try to think that way, but it won't ever be exactly the same.
Reply
The best science journalists I know have a fair science background (even if they never worked as one). The best economic journalists come often have economics degrees. Having deeper, even hands on, knowledge of the subject you are writing about makes you a better journalist. Period.
Besides, games journalists will never have the same perspective as you. When your job revolves around gaming, you think about it differently. When many of your games are free (either from pubs or from the entity you write for), you don't think about the experience the same as if you had shelled out the money yourself. You might try to think that way, but it won't ever be exactly the same.
Posted: Oct 12th 2009 6:35PM MrFrench said
Courtney, yes I did read the Joystiq article and I agree that creating a game would give a journalist a more rounded perspective, but my issue is when he says, and I quote, "I think all games journos should be forced to make a game somehow." Forced. Somehow. Those are pretty strong words. I just got the impression that game journalists who don't make games are a little less valid to Mr. Marshall, but that's just my opinion and translation of the article.
Oh and people who call journalists "journos" don't get much respect from me. Very douchetastic.
Reply
Oh and people who call journalists "journos" don't get much respect from me. Very douchetastic.
Posted: Oct 12th 2009 6:49PM Courtney said
I don't personally like the term journo, but I see it pop up from the British more than anything (have even seen it in BBC headlines), and assume it's just more of an accepted colloquialism for the Brits than Americans.
They are strong words, but it was also an off-the-cuff answer to what was likely an unexpected question. I tend to try and take such quotes in context. If he had taken the time to write out a blog post on Zombie Cow's site about how games journalists ought to be forced to make a game, then I think that's a different situation than glibly answering a question he's been asked about whether one informs the other. I took it as a bit of hyperbole.
Reply
They are strong words, but it was also an off-the-cuff answer to what was likely an unexpected question. I tend to try and take such quotes in context. If he had taken the time to write out a blog post on Zombie Cow's site about how games journalists ought to be forced to make a game, then I think that's a different situation than glibly answering a question he's been asked about whether one informs the other. I took it as a bit of hyperbole.
Posted: Oct 12th 2009 6:47PM ch3burashka said
Mr. Marshall's perspective is one I can appreciate: to understand the game process, creating a game is an excellent step. However, the majority of consumers probably will NOT appreciate that perspective because they haven't made a game. They care mostly about the fun factor and if the game is worth the money, and after learning the amount of effort that goes into games, I think the 'journo' would be more inclined to say that yes, it IS worth the money. I'm not insinuating that understanding can lead to worse journalism, but a broader perspective is not necessarily a better thing.
Reply
Posted: Oct 12th 2009 10:30PM superberg said
Although the unique perspective is something to keep in mind, asking game journalists to make a game is a little bit much. Creating a game of any substance requires years of study and practice beyond a "standard" education.
You can disassemble something much more easily than build it from scratch.
Reply
You can disassemble something much more easily than build it from scratch.
Posted: Oct 12th 2009 11:23PM The Albatross said
Meh, I'm indifferent to this. The same idea exists amongst some sports analysts: the idea that you cannot properly analyze something without having played it, but I take the opposite approach: perhaps you can appreciate subtle things, but your job as an analyst or journalist is to communicate a game to an audience that is primarily NOT made up of game experts. Just as there aren't many former athletes who are good sports journalists, it could be rare that there are many programmers and game designers who are also strong writers and communicators.
Generally, I think that game journalism needs to improve its command of journalism before its command of videogames. Joystiq is one of the few videogame websites with generally very strong writing.
Reply
Generally, I think that game journalism needs to improve its command of journalism before its command of videogames. Joystiq is one of the few videogame websites with generally very strong writing.
Posted: Oct 13th 2009 8:32AM Gnoll said
Someone may have already said this same sort of thing, but here's the deal: most people who set out to make games fail. That's fine and dandy, but that's not a good perspective change! Game journalists are there to look at the finished product. The problem is that if you get them involved in the process and they can't handle it, all of a sudden they might be more forgiving of amateur games. Too forgiving. You see this all the time in indie gamemaking communities, people put together the absolute WORST crap that they put very little effort into and everyone around them praises it because it's better than the crap they're working on. Sure, it sounds like a good idea for journalists to have some hands-on experience, but what you'll end up with is journalists forgiving bad games (or bad aspects of games) far too often, beyond the point of being reasonable.
Reply
Posted: Oct 13th 2009 9:42AM (Unverified) said
This is a bad idea. Programming games are by and large not that much fun, and polish takes a lot of effort. If a journalist is willing to let go of a game that isnt as polished simply because he understands how hard it is, he is no longer holding up the developers to a consumer expected standard. This will only lead to lazier programming.
Reply
Posted: Oct 14th 2009 1:53PM (Unverified) said
Let's force Roger Ebert to make a movie before we let him review another one.
Reply
Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 12:11AM masterinsan0 said
No one should ever be "forced" to make a video game. It's a long, arduous task, mostly thankless, and will forever ruin your perception of games. It's a lot harder to have fun with a game when all you can think about is how much better you could have done it (or how much better it is than your game). You have to sort of relax your mind and forget about game development while playing a game, because otherwise it'll drive you crazy.
A lot of developers, for example, don't really play games anymore. Usually it's because they're too busy with balancing ridiculous crunch cycles and their families, but it's also because once you've gone through the process of making a game, you don't really see them the same ever again.
Reply
A lot of developers, for example, don't really play games anymore. Usually it's because they're too busy with balancing ridiculous crunch cycles and their families, but it's also because once you've gone through the process of making a game, you don't really see them the same ever again.
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 221 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 161 comments
- Blizzard taking Valve to court over 'DOTA' trademark 116 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 107 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments









