The Impact Factor

“So Alex, why is TIF such a terrible blog?”: Aggressive Interviews and Appealing to an Outrage Culture

Article

Abstract: The culture surrounding video games is becoming increasingly antagonistic: to developers, to publishers, and to enthusiasts. This antagonism takes the form of outrage. Issues that arise in video games, big or small, are likely to transform into heated arguments laced with insults and threats. Harassment occurs via Twitter, Facebook and message boards. Much of this stems from a sense of entitlement when expectations are not met. An outrage culture shapes a lot of the current discussion of games and, recently, seems to have passed over into games journalism as well. Though they were possibly a well-intentioned attempt at hard hitting journalism, two recent video game interviews come off as adversarial and unprofessional, and appeared to exist solely to engender camaraderie between the interviewer and outraged game enthusiasts. I hope that these interviews are exceptions, and not indicative of the type of video game journalism to expect in the years to come.

It can be a trying act to keep up with video game news recently. As I mentioned in my article about the Evolve DLC controversy, news cycles today are rife with fiascos, scandals, controversies. Whatever you want to call it. It seems that a week cannot go by without heated arguments about, well, any topic. The week I am writing this, there still exists a sourness over The Order: 1886, concern that Sony is not focused enough on exclusive titles with Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End being delayed until 2016, and even message board threads about how new & unskilled game developers are ruining GDC. I suspect this anger stems from a central origin. Foremost is this sense of entitlement that arises when expectations aren’t met. As an entertainment industry, video games rely fairly heavily on marketing and PR. You need to sell your game to your intended audience. In the process of doing so, many find themselves backed into a corner. To get your game to stick in an increasingly competitive market, you have to bring something new and extraordinary to the table. To convince others you are doing just that, games are often “over-hyped.” Lofty goals and even loftier promises can come back to bite you when you are not able to deliver. These “promises” create expectations, and you erode trust with your audience when these promises are broken, leading to anger and frustration. Expectations do not have to be solely derived from developer or publisher promises, however. As the industry grows, the game playing community as a whole creates an unwritten list of expectations based upon industry trends. For example, when it was discovered The Order: 1886 was a 6-8 hour long game, people were mad because, when comparing The Order: 1886 to the slew of other recent $60 AAA single player only third-person shooter releases, the average length “should” be around 10-12 hours. This brings up a whole other issue in video games today, the notion of a game’s value proposition, but that is for another time.

There are whole groups of people really mad about everything. 

Regardless of the origin, what results is impactful and widespread. Fans complain on message boards, Twitter and Facebook. Deluges of e-mails are sent to publishers and developers, asking (read: demanding) them to address their concerns. Criticism is good for any discipline, but the extent to which many in the video game industry face is far beyond anything resembling constructive feedback. This anger usually becomes harassment. Twitter in particular has become home to some of the most vitriolic comments. There are whole movements of people who attack those who work in games. It has gotten so bad that some game developers have even quit working in games entirely. Sites like Polygon post articles with advice from game developers on how to get through harassment. All of this is a long winded way to say that outrage directed towards games and game makers has gotten so bad, and so saturated, I argue an entire culture has formed around it. It certainly makes up a sizeable portion of the conversation about video games that take place online.

The games media has certainly capitalized on this phenomenon. With every new controversy comes a slew of coverage. Video game sites around the web offer news stories, opinion pieces, and group conversations surrounding the heated topic of the day. Thankfully this kind of content, and the attitudes behind it, has not affected the way video game media interacts with game makers so far. As both an art form and an entertainment industry, video game journalism has taken a lot of inspiration from film writing. Game writers speak with developers and allow them to talk about their game: the plot, the gameplay, their inspirations, what they are doing that is new, etc. Essentially allowing the game makers to sell their product and explain their art. And this works. A cordial relationship with game makers does not mean writers cannot levy criticisms for the games, far from it. Critical hands-on pre-release impressions are par for the course, and video game reviews criticize and dissect impending releases. All of this can be, and has been, done while preserving a respectful approach to speaking with game developers. That was until I came across the two articles / interviews that acted as the inspiration for this piece.

The first of these two interviews was done by John Walker at the gaming news site Rock, Paper, Shotgun. In the piece he interviewed Peter Molyneux, a big name in games who was behind titles like Black & White and Fable. The interview covered the subject of his game company, 22 Cans, and the tumultuous development of their new game, Godus. Controversy had arisen over its continued delays, not fulfilling promises to Kickstarter backers, and neglecting a contest winner promised a unique reward. Obviously, the situation is tense. But the resulting interview was just appalling. The first question Walker asked Molyneux was, and I quote: “Do you think that you’re a pathological liar?” Throughout the rest of the interview Walker went on to accuse Molyneux of the intentional misuse of Kickstarter funds, claim Molyneux treated development with an almost criminal negligence, tell Molyneux that he was not working hard enough to release the game, and more. Walker is combative, telling Molyneux “People gave you half a million pounds and you’ve taken their money—.“ Several times throughout the interview Molyneux has to cut Walker off from his tirade, and other times in which he tries to calm an enraged Walker down. The nicest way to put this interview is that it was aggressive—but in reality, Walker was completely unprofessional.

 

Godus, pictured here, the source of so much outrage.

The second was an interview performed by David Jenkins for Game Central on Metro.co.uk. during which he spoke to Jim Ryan, president of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe. The purpose of the interview is not exactly clear, aside from asking Ryan about all the controversies du jour (namely, broken games and the PlayStation Network Christmas outage). Again, bear in mind, Ryan is the president Sony Europe. While marginally less combative than Walker’s interview with Molyneux, Jenkins does his best to be outraged. Jenkins rants about how 2014 was a disappointing year for games, saying, “…to me it’s no wonder that smartphone gaming continues to expand given how shambolically the entire industry has handled this latest generational leap… there’s no point arguing about the quality of the games last year as we’ve discussed that before, although it’s clearly awful.” Over the course of the interview Jenkins accuses Ryan / Sony of not doing proper quality assurance testing, attacks Ryan for the instability of the PlayStation Network and makes sure to emphasize how better Microsoft handled the Christmas Day network outages, and demands Ryan force 1^st and 3^rd party publishers to limit day one maintenance patches for games. Much like Walker before him, Jenkins’ adversarial approach comes off as unprofessional and unnecessary.

 

It was a rough holiday for Xbox Live & PSN. Sony didn't get their network
back up until December 27th. Still, blaming the company for the effects
of malicious DDOS attacks hardly seems fair.

In my attempt to give both interviewers the benefit of the doubt, I can see where (I hope) they thought they were coming from. As I mentioned earlier, much of games journalism is cursory impressions, promotional pieces and friendly discussions. For the most part, there aren’t any hard-hitting journalistic pieces, where games writers stick it to the man and get them to divulge secrets or talk through the PR mask many wear. By being so combative, perhaps Walker and Jenkins thought they would get to the heart of the issues at hand. To find out the truth. Walker even says to Molyneux that, “My purpose is not to hang you out. My purpose is to get to the truth of what’s going on here.” But their approach simply does not work for games journalists. Or at least the style by which Walker and Jenkins conducted their interviews. Games are an art, and a piece of entertainment. Can you imagine interviews like these for a new blockbuster movie or album release? They might exist, but I certainly have not seen any. Games, like movies or music, don’t carry the same gravity that more serious journalistic subjects carry. Not for me, at least. I do not think we need to live in a world where game developers are as scrutinized and attacked as, say, bank executives who have stolen millions upon millions of dollars. And even if the criticisms Walker and Jenkins levy were valid, and many of their points were, the way by which they went about asking them was uncalled for. Other interviews have addressed similar questions but done so without leading off the interview by insinuating the interviewee is a pathological liar. That crosses the line.

If the two were hoping to come off as ruthless journalists doing whatever it takes to get the story, neither interviewer succeeds. Walker and Jenkins come off more as impassioned message board fans, the same people who post lengthy rants about how horrible Evolve’s DLC plans are or The Order: 1886’s length. Perhaps the reasoning behind each interviewer’s approach was something more insidious. The outrage culture surrounding games seems to be growing every day. Clearly, a lot of video game discussion covers these hot topics. By displaying this same frustration that so many of the enthusiasts online do, Walker and Jenkins throw their lot in with the masses. Their interviews, consciously or not, likely appeal to this culture of outrage. The two come off sounding exactly like their pissed off message board and Twitter counterparts. Interviews like this could engender camaraderie between the game journalists and the impassioned game enthusiasts, resulting in more page views and more discussion about the piece. Again, this was likely not intentional and more a result of Walker’s and Jenkins’s passion for the subject, but the secondary ramifications of these interviews should not be overlooked.

As a scientist, I certainly recognize an n of two does not make for a statistically significant trend. These could easily be two outliers in a year filled with conventional interviews with developers and producers. For the sake of everyone involved, I hope this is the case. I am hopeful for a future where controversy does not gobble up such a substantial share of video game headlines. Regardless of what is to come in the months and years following, the interviews performed by Walker and Jenkins left a bad taste in my mouth. Each reminded me of the current culture of hardcore video game enthusiasts, where hurt feelings and personal attacks run rampant. Video game writing is capable of levying criticism while maintaining professionalism and should strive to be better than these two interviews. I guess we will just have to wait and see.