Critics and Writing About Games

Today I was kind of bouncing around a bit on the internet. I was on Rock, Paper, Shotgun which is video game website. Basically providing news and reviews. And I stumbled on a link to an old post by John Walker who is the guy behind a website called Buried Treasure that reviews indie games. I admire this Buried Treasure site and think it is a cool way to be a games journalist. But then I also, after searching his name, came on some criticisms of him from some people in an alt-right forum. Also read him excoriating a game called MYST which came out in the 90's and was pretty popular and has received some re-releases. I played it some at that time and liked it. Somewhere in there I also searched about Lester Bangs the rock critic and read the wikipedia page on him and then was kind of browsing some of the other critics pages that were linked to on Bangs' page.

So, I just have been having some mixed feelings about this. I guess I always have. Part of me thinks it would be fun to be a critic. Doing what you like (whether that be reading books, listening to music, or playing video games) and then writing about it. As I mentioned in a previous post, I kind of have the idea of reviewing AA and indie games. It seems like a good way to combine interests.

But part of me has always kind of felt sort of negative about critics. Basically that they are inferior to the creators who actually make things whether that is novels, or rock music, or video games. In the games world there is also a significant part of me that would rather be good at actually playing games rather than good at writing opinions about games. Another issues that came up in my reading today about Walker, Bangs, and some others is just this idea that sometimes it seems like they are just trying to make their own personal predilections into some kind of universal moral judgments.

But on the other hand, I do feel like there is a place for criticism. One of the things that I like about the movie Ratatouille about the rat chef is that it discusses the function of criticism. I think to some extent critics have a place to kind of promote what is good and to try to give reasons why some things are bad.

I also suppose that there is a place for writing about games that isn't necessarily just writing take downs. One of my favorite authors is John Fairbairn. He is British but is fluent in a number of Asian languages and aside from being a journalist has done a bunch of translating and writing about go and shogi. I really love his books on Go Seigen's matches in which he synthesizes a lot of writing that is only available in Japanese from newspaper reports of the match to professional commentary on the games themselves. Fairbairn doesn't much care to play in tournaments although he is not a bad player. He is kind of a role model to me about a way of doing something valuable with games that isn't just "getting good" or like some of the other obvious ways of getting into games like being a coach or a streamer.

But it can be difficult to find a niche. I feel like Fairbairn is able to provide some unique services to the Western go world because of his talent for languages and his ability to write effectively. But in the world of chess it is difficult to find a place to be a writer. I suppose one can write about the news and drama. But that is not particularly appealing to me. But to write about the game in any serious way it is kind of a prerequisite that one be a strong player despite the fact that these strong players mostly rely on computer analysis when writing. There is also writing about the history of games but again that requires a talent for languages. I did keep a blog about my chess adventures but wasn't very serious about it and the internet is littered with dead chess blogs. There was also a part of me that begrudged the time spent writing the entries as opposed to actually playing or studying. There is also a lot of video games journalism on the web already as well as plenty of reviews and explanations about how to play various boardgames. There are plenty of people online making new magic decks and playing them.

But there are also questions of scope. Sometimes it seems like the point is to kind of find some specific area and really get knowledgeable about it. And secondly, if you have any hopes of building an audience you usually have to be kind of targeted. But as I have mentioned I often find myself moving around in my interests.

So I guess it is just to say that these things can be complicated. I would like to find a way to write about games that would somehow be valuable to other people. I guess I envision using my philosophical training in some ways. I feel like in some ways I would like to be positive by somehow focusing on good things. But I also know that as a reader of reviews about chess books it can be frustrating to see that all the reviews are 4 and 5 stars out of 5. There is some part of us that kind of craves the take down. It feels kind of toothless and questionable to only praise instead of also criticizing. But harsh reviews can also feel mean spirited and like they are beating up on people who don't deserve it. One example is the tenfootpole.org blog that reviews roleplaying adventures written mostly by small time creators and is generally pretty savage. Walker again had a post where he talked about his feeling that Buried Treasure should focus on positives because there is no point in trashing these indie creators who don't have much of an audience as it is.

I guess I will say that so far I am fairly satisfied with the "Gamester's Miscellany" kind of format that allows me to indulge in a variety of writing from personal reflections, to reviews, to other ideas. I just do sometimes feel like I wish I had a more specific kind of niche or scope or mission that I could really dig into.

Intentions and the "Should"

 One problem that has dogged me for a long time is just that on the one hand I have a deep craving to live intentionally. I want to have some kind of purpose. I want to have some kind of direction where I am working toward a goal and can see concrete progress even if it is incremental and sort of slow. But on the other hand, what inevitably happens is that in an attempt to create actionable steps that I can take to make progress I frame a set of "shoulds". I should do tactics every day. I should play Suzerain today. But inevitably these shoulds lead very quickly to losing the inspiration or desire to do that activity. I quickly decide that I don't actually want to do that thing. This creation of "shoulds" is often described as a negative mental habit in the mental health community.

Sometimes I frame it as a head-heart thing. I just can't seem to get my head and my heart on the same page. When I feel excited and inspired about a game then I don't live intentionally. I just do what I feel like and often this means avoiding effortful activities or activities where there is risk. This often goes to the extreme of not doing anything at all except journaling or things I absolutely have to do because I just don't feel like it. So I will get my head involved and like make actionable plans to actually pursue the game. But then I feel like I just get stuck where I think I should but I don't want to.

So I have tried a lot of strategies to resolve this dilemma. I think the trick is just to realize that it is a gradual process and try to avoid going to extremes. Basically it is a proven fact that if I just do what I feel like I will devolve into just journaling. But it is also proven that at least some of the times that I force myself to take action I end having a good time and being glad I did it. Of course sometimes I force myself and I hate it and it is a total waste of time. But I think the process is I just have to trust that if I can get myself into action then a lot of times I will feel good about it. So I just have to learn to have some faith in that process. Things like setting small manageable goals that don't seem so intimidating. Or setting a specific time when I will stop journaling and start playing. But also to have some escape hatches and not force myself to accomplish huge things every time but making a simple idea to just play for half an hour or something like that. Also avoiding being too specific. If I insist that I have to play a specific game every day then I end up rebelling. But if I start out with the idea that I will just try to make the decision to play whatever as often as I can then I am moving in the right direction. So I need to kind of avoid that trap of falling into the idea that if I pick up the journal I will work myself into feeling like doing something.

On the other hand, it is proven that when I make elaborate and detailed plans of things to do every day I never follow through and just feel bad. I think the trick is to kind of learn to see through some of the tricks my mind plays. On the goal oriented extreme my mind will tell me that I am a total failure and I am wasting my life and if I want to accomplish anything at all I have to hardcore get in gear right now. This is generally false. I have accomplished things in life and even on the game front I have put a lot of effort to games in general when I think of all the stuff I have done. I have also done a fair bit of writing in my notebooks about games. I think I also have to work on giving myself credit for doing things. Basically I have a bad tendency to move the goalposts on myself. I will set out to do something that I find challenging to do and then when I get it done it will feel like somehow it wasn't that big a deal and I should really have much bigger goals. So I just have to see this problem of journaling instead of taking action as some kind of significant problem I am facing and I just have to give myself credit when I make progress.

So it involves some compromise. I have to tell my heart or my feelings that they are not the boss and I have to work on gradually tutoring myself to take more action. On the other hand, I have to compromise with the goal oriented ambitious part and like say it is a gradual process. I can't just flip a switch and suddenly become a hardcore go-getter. I also have to admit that a lot of the big long-term specific goals don't work out. So my specific goals should be more short term and like easily accomplished and my long term goals should be more general and open ended. This isn't very satisfying when I am in the mood that I want to be super intentional and like plan and goal oriented. It feels too loose and not motivating enough. But I feel like it is really a trap to think that some kind of like high pressure long term plan with a lot of specific details is motivating for me. In fact the more pressure I put on it and the more I make a lot of shoulds the more demotivating it is.

I think it is just tricky to kind of maintain this clarity though. But I feel like I am gradually getting there. I am gradually getting more clarity that this is the main problem right now, meaning these two extremes and the paralysis. Just have to keep working on it.

Why games matter

 Games matter because they are symbolic of the struggle.

What is this "struggle"? I am thinking of struggle here in terms of Emanuel Lasker's book "Struggle" where he tries to talk about struggle as a general category and extends it to basically all fields of human endeavor. Basically the struggle is personal and polyvalent. Everyone's struggle is different. And people's struggle takes place over many different fronts. The struggle can be spiritual or it can be political or both. It can be physical in terms of like doing physical training. It is basically about how one proceeds in the world and deals with issues that are arise.

So games are symbolic of the struggle. But this can be said of all art. Art expresses conflict and resolution. So what is special about games. C. Thi Nguyen argues that games are an art of agency. So for me, games are actually practice for the struggle. In games we try to resolve conflicts ourselves. These conflicts take a wide range of forms.

So, meaning in games comes about through the expression of these conflicts and resolutions. In a sense these conflicts are limited to the mechanics of the game. But for a lot of gamers the choices they make in the games are more than just simple calculations of win loss percentages although there are gamers like that also. Basically the choices are part of their identity. This has both to do with the games we choose to play and the strategies we choose to adopt in playing. Just like in the real world, these identities can become traps. But in games like chess or go or magic, even though at the top level players have to be able to handle a variety of situations we still talk about style. Players still have an identity. Jesse Kraai is a GM and also has a PhD in philosophy. In a video I can't seem to find anymore he talks about players style as representing their chosen ways of interacting with the world.

It is possible to abuse this notion to some extent. Perhaps to overstate it or to interpret gaming choices that are primarily practical in terms of Freudian psychology (as Fine did in one of his books). I think at some level this symbolism is often quite personal. So it is impossible to look merely at someone's games of chess or go and tell what kind of personality they have. But for the person playing the games they are representative of conflicts and resolutions that can't help but have personal meaning.

In times of darkness

 Just thinking today that basically there is no way to stand against the tide of history. So the only thing I think I can do is just try to keep my own individual candle from going out. So this means just taking care of myself and continuing to do the things I am supposed to do on a daily basis. Just have to find some ways of kind of keeping the candle lit and not giving into despair or hopelessness. The future is unwritten.

 

Goals Accomplished, New Goal

 Ok, in my first post I set two goals. One was to let some real people know about this blog. So I accomplished that. My second goal was to create ten posts. So I did that with my last post. (I am not counting the two posts I copy pasted from my previous blog).

So, time for a new goal. I decided my new goal is to write a review of Suzerain. As a part of that I intend to play it some more. Basically I want to play it until I get tired of it. I would like to complete a playthrough but all I am really committing to is ten total hours. I feel this is in the spirit of "small, manageable goals." I feel like if I am sick of it by ten total hours then I should have enough for a review albeit a somewhat incomplete and negative review.

So basically this kind of goes along with a project of playing and reviewing so called Double A or indie titles. Triple A games are games that were produced by big studios with large budgets and aim for large sales. These games are usually pretty expensive. By contrast, Double A games are made by smaller studios. They are usually more niche in their appeal and aim for smaller sales figures. These games are also usually less expensive. But these games also have polish and are nicer than some of the indie games out there. Indie titles is a bit more fuzzy. I kind of see it as including at least some Double A titles but also much smaller budget games or even single developer games. Indie games in my understanding span a pretty broad range of stuff. So, I kind of would like to focus on reviewing Double AA or indie titles. I am not opposed to playing or reviewing Triple A games but generally these are less interesting to me and I feel more attracted to less well known games. For example Baldur's Gate 3 is a Triple A title that I am interested in playing. I just feel to some extent there is not a whole lot of point in reviewing it because so much has been written or recorded about it and it is widely considered one of the greatest games ever. So unless I played it and really felt like I had something specific to say I might not want to write about it.