
As social networking has surged, I've found myself blogging less. When I began SVGL, I used to post sometimes multiple times per day, if my time permitted; I was full of ideas and I loved having the opportunity to regularly connect and engage with the community that was building itself here.
So I've observed the slowdown in my blogging habits with some concern. Has it meant I have fewer ideas now? Am I just too busy with my pro work to keep up my dear little blog anymore? Am I less interested in video game conversation than I used to be, now that the majority of my waking hours are spent in that space? Am I burning out, or something?
Then I realized I still produce just as much community content as I did before; it's simply taking a different shape. Many of you have transitioned with me from SVGL to the venues I use with far more regularity: Twitter and Formspring. I imagine that if one accumulated the sum total of text related to the video game community that I place on Twitter and Formspring on a regular basis, the result would be pretty parallel to the amount of content that I used to produce blogging. I'm still sharing my ideas with the community; it's just taken on a different shape.
I remember when N'Gai Croal, one of the most venerated writers doing the work that I hoped to join, began to post less on his Level Up blog. Alongside that, he was becoming a real power Twitter user. I didn't see the point of Twitter at the time; "why would anyone be interested in what I am doing all day, and what do I care what all these strangers had for breakfast," I wondered. When I heard trendy folk saying that Twitter was anything close to "journalism", I was scornful. It seemed preposterous.
I teased N'Gai a lot about his early-adopter Twitter evangelism. But he is well-reputed among us all for his prescience and his big-picture thinking, and I now realize that at the time, he had immediately realized something that took me a lot longer to grasp: Twitter is a brilliant communication platform, and it does, in fact, serve the same function for many that a lot of blogs do.The first time I attended events like GDC or E3, people came up to me and said, "oh, I read your blog." The most recent time I attended these events, people came up to me and said, "oh, I read your Twitter." I found it bizarre, but it makes sense.
Twitter and Formspring are quick-hit, instant-access experiences. 140 characters are more effective than 1400, sometimes. Rather than cull my RSS feeds and read sprawling forum threads to discover what the community is interested in and speak to it, you use these social networking venues to bring your interests to me directly (that plenty of Formspring questions are about my sex life and shoe size or whatever is an unfortunate side-effect).
And I realized recently that these new media are having a similar transformative effect on the video game industry. We're being trained in this socially-networked era of bite-size communications, and all media are evolving alongside it. I used to read music blogs to discover new songs, but now I simply follow those bloggers on Twitter and when they post a new track, I just pick and choose what links to click from their feeds. My favorite book right now is a reflection of these new fashions of interaction.
When it comes to video games, sales of traditional 60-hour packaged software video games are declining, but sales of smaller, easy-access digitally-distributed titles are on the rise. Even someone who was a "light" gamer before has new options: instead of downloading and installing some kind of PC executable, they're playing iPhone apps while they wait for the subway.
Much conversation takes place in the social gaming space about how they will cannibalize the console industry, as if the two platforms were mutually exclusive. This message is often reduced to its barest bones, and translated as "Facebook games are the new 'video game', and console video games will cease to exist."
Certainly that message is worth scoffing at; gamers still want depth. But the way they want it delivered is definitely evolving; social media is gaining steam, and we, the primary 'gamer generation', are growing older. Maybe the adolescents of the coming era are begging not for a gaming console, but for a Steam account. We want our content available in an accessible, jump-in-jump-out way. We want it always on, always there, living intangible and persistent on invisible digital strings.But these rising trends are having massive impacts on the economic models of the businesses they're enabling. To use the music example again, I can listen to 20 new songs a day if I want to, just by following artists and music bloggers on Twitter. Do I spend money, though? Not too often. I buy records often when I'm in love with a band, but I listen to free digital music much more. Most of the music I own, I found or someone gave it to me. How are bands supposed to make any money?
That the game industry is so high-risk has been my greatest lament regarding traditional games; when success is so hard and so much cash is required to even give it a shot, no one wants to lose millions because they tried something new and interesting that didn't work. If people are buying fewer console titles -- and they are -- then the game industry becomes even more hit-driven than it used to be.
We've always looked to indies to use their freedom and agility to create real innovation, but independents have long had challenges of their own -- low risk doesn't mean no risk, and lower cost doesn't mean "affordable." If indies can't reach their audiences, they're still disabled. And broke, probably. The upside of this online shift in the way we consume is that the indie scene becomes even more relevant. When the real good content is discovered by crowdsourcing on social networks and obtained by a one-click download, the playing field of AAA guns and indie developers looks a lot more even.
That doesn't mean I feel convinced we're not losing something in the transition. My least-favorite phrase in developer interviews used to be "bite-sized chunks." Not only is that aesthetically unappealing, but to me it spoke of a design philosophy that eschewed depth in favor of accessibility. I'm still not so sure it doesn't.
I hope I never stop blogging, and I hope game developers will still make hours-long walled gardens for me to escape into, just like I've done since I was a little girl. There's hope for console devotees in games like the rightfully-flourishing Red Dead Redemption, which seems to face an easy skate from here to Game of the Year for pretty much everyone. One can play that game for hours. One can also play it for five minutes.
The chronology of the gaming consoles I've owned is now finished over at Thought Catalog. I notice a marked decrease in sentimentality from the first installment to the last. Chalk it up to nostalgia, but my changing relationship with the landscape has a lot to do with it, too.
22 comments:
Interesting insight, especially regarding how we want our games.
Growing up primarily as a PC gamer, I'd much rather fiddle with my Steam account than have to get up and walk to the couch, turn on my TV, boot up my console, wait for loading, etc, mainly because a PC does so much more, and at the same time as I can game. Instant and constant access is likely the future.
But with regards to games blogging, I certainly hope you (or anyone else really) do not neglect "long-form" writing in favor of Twitter or Formspring.
Why? Because the tweets and formspring questions don't last. I can't bookmark a tweet the same way I bookmarked your Aberrant Gamer articles or that thing you did on Kotaku.
Aw, you bookmarked my Aberrant Gamer articles? Thanks, man.
I really wish I still had time to do those. I haven't ruled out reviving that column someday.
^ I use Instapaper a lot with Twitter to save tweets/links/whatever, gives it a little permanence. Although I love the strange flow of tone within a Twitter stream that comes from it being so impermanent.
As for the post, the great thing about social network games/iPhone games getting more attention is that it can hopefully get publishers away from the current 10+ hour, hugely expensive game model. With cheaper, shorter games they can take more risks, and hopefully drag in some of the previously more 'casual' gamers. Plus, I'm waiting for the day when a stunning new game evolves on Facebook, because there's so much potential there we dont quite know what to do with yet.
Count me as someone who basically doesn't use twitter. Oh, I have an account, that I did mainly to grab my name in case I ever change my mind, but I just don't see that happening.
Twitter, for most folks, is guild chat from an online MMO, talking amongst their friends. And I just don't have time for that in general. How in the world do those folks who tweet all day get anything done at all?
On the other hand, twitter for content providers is essentially the scroll you see at the bottom of a news channel. And it's ok for that, but it sucks as the primary mechanism to provide that information, because if I happen to miss it scrolling by, well, I missed it.
On the gripping hand, blogs, with an RSS feed, means that I don't miss anything. And sure, I could add twitter feeds to my reader, but they're really unsatisfactory that way, because even most content provider feeds are too chatty, seeing only one side of a conversation.
Providing your content via twitter is like forcing folks to watch TV live, rather than on the Tivo. And the Tivo experience is just better.
*LOADING answer*
That list of game systems played is pretty awesome.
(Even if the REAL reasons to own a PS3 are high res backwards compatibility on the old ones, Little Big Planet, and Valkryia Chronicles.)
Though I have to say I still ignore Twitter. To me its sort of like a non real time IRC channel.
Except in IRC we can have live discussions about Rose of Versailles and play the odd online RPG if someone brought in a dicebot.
It mostly seems like Twitter is just a permanent way to do the irrelevant stuff one would say in forums or IRC really.
Not much worth the point.
Hell, the only reason I am even on Facebook is because the local funnybook shop lists what tabletop games are being played this week and I can attempt to promote games that aren't Magic, Warhammer, or D&D. (Which still doesn't seem to much work in my reason. But like dating I seem to refuse to give up even though its depressing and largely a waste of my time and getting hopes up for no valid reason.)
(And sadly this means constant LOOK AT DUMB FARM GAME sorts of things in my FB inbox. I sort of want to be allowed to reply to these with a link to whichever Harvest Moon game just came out.)
To me, blogs are where ya put the GOOD STUFF. No asinine random thoughts, no non researched spur of the moment rants.
It should be meaningful to some degree.
Course mine tends to be 90% photos of crap I bought turned into comic strips with whatever dumb opinions I currently hold.
Except 27 people sort of like those things and its less effort than a Youtube video. So I keep doing it.
(I guess if I posted more, pimped my site more, and was a hot woman in the photos more I could have more success, but none of the above is much in the cards. Heck, I feel slimy linking my blog in a forum when I have a post pertinent to the discussion at hand!)
Besides, when I unbox the Ravenloft board game some other guy did it on the Youtubes 3 months ago, same with next week's Red Box D&D. And my reviews of each will be even later.
I suppose I could post a picture of my Phantasy Star 2 Nei figurine and blat on about how awesome that game was but maybe 5 people worldwide would care.
*All of the above is sort of things that are better suited to forum/irc/commentary type things as opposed to a proper blog posting IMHO.*
"But the way they want it delivered is definitely evolving; social media is gaining steam" - Pun intended? :p
I feel that is how Facebook games have been able to prosper and become so widespread: not because of the quality of the games, but the quality of the distribution. Casual players aren't just 'clicking cows' because they are dupes who will play anything, but because the current Facebook games have just figured out how to reach them the best way. I'm looking forward to the day when Facebook games nail the quality of the game as much as the distribution. And with peeps like PopCap entering into things, I don't think that will be too far away.
As for Twitter, I am so happy I stumbled into that network of people when I did. It was an absolute fluke. I had no real idea what 'game writing' even was, but I just read one of Thomas Cross's "Diamond In The Rough" pieces on GSW and saw a link, and he became the first person I ever added on Twitter. Things just compounded from there, and I discovered this entire network of blogs and websites and writers through this social networking back door. It was really amazing.
Having read most of your blog stuff for the last few years I would be really disappointed if you stopped blogging. As far as Twitter, it's all right but I find I can't all ways say what I need to say on there. 140 words sometimes isn't enough. I hope we can find a middle ground between blogging and twitter. Because I don't think having only one or other is a good thing.
All that said, Twitter is MAGIC for Japanese game blogging, and Chinese, once that scene picks up.
You can say SO much more in 140 characters in those languages.
I've been worrying about this hypermediation increasingly for the last few years. It was only a nagging doubt at first, but as I've accumulated media channels and accelerated the frequency of switching between them, I've felt this ever-present anxiety growing in the background of my mind. I feel stupider, less able to concentrate or form extended ideas.
It turns out I'm not the only one. By coincidence, just yesterday I came across someone who argues the way digital natives use the internet is making us, not stupider exactly, but shallower thinkers: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/
Part of the advantage of a long game is not that it allows us to see more stuff, but that it makes us digest the game for longer, so we end up with a more thoughtful understanding of it. (That might be different for games reviewers, who practice critical thought while playing, but you still need sustained thought to really process a game properly; I imagine tight deadlines work strongly against that.)
DevilsAlias years, huh? Thanks for the support. I'll not stop blogging anytime soon, for sure :)
*LOADING complete*
I've been thinking about this for a while...
I have many acquaintances that read but I'm almost the only one that has the patience for a long book on a regular basis (let's say "the Miserable Ones") or that actually gets excited when confronted with a one thousand pages book. Some aunts or cousins read too but only "light" books. And I have to say that I'm labeling Harry Potter as a "heavy" one...
I'm not saying that nobody reads or anything like that (I'm aware that I can't speak for the whole globe just because my family doesn't read that much). It's just that I kind of wondered: from all the people around the world that read, how many of them actually read "heavy" books because they want to?
So... these "little-chunks" of content maybe aren't exclusive to videogames but to.... let's say... everything on these days?
How many movies are labeled as boring because they don't have a car chase/explosion exactly timed every thirty minutes?
I don't want to use twitter. Not because I wouldn't like it. On the contrary, I'm sure I would get too hooked on it. But I want to save some time to do slow things...
There's so much information out there... are we really enjoying it? Do we need more information at even a higher speed?
Can't I just slowly taste what I'm reading. Taking my time rolling all those delicious new ideas around my head... Just like I like to play and then wonder about what I just played and all those possibilities and feelings...
My gaming habit is to play from one to two hours, even if what I'm playing is a "casual game" I like to at least immerse myself for an hour. I don't like playing more than that and I usually stop playing after I've gone across something that I think it's "significant".
But, games like that are starting to be fewer and fewer... Games that give "something" to think or fantasize after... so I wonder if it's going to happen the same thing that already happens with books...
Right now we still have plenty of AAA titles (even if I don't most of them; "Oh FPS how I despise you!!!") but there are already many signs that these titles are the last of a certain golden era of videogames (now comes a new golden era that I don't really look forward too).
And I'm not saying that I don't like casual games, heck!! Almost all the games I've played lately are casual ones! But I do feel like the games that I always waited for aren't going to come out anymore... Gigantic games where I can loose myself exploring and living some grind-less tragic story that is NOT about saving the world.
But maybe this is a good thing after all, I'll have time to play all those classics I couldn't play on the last twenty or so years and maybe revisit some of the ones that made me shiver back then... even though I'm a little scared about all the grinding I'll have to go through : P
Times are changing... will we be able to get more meaningful experiences along with the casual ones and the power fantasies that right now reign? I mean, right now games have the most desirable budgets ever... and I wonder if that will ever happen again.
PS: Just finished reading your article about all the consoles you've had and I almost started writing a mail to tell you what consoles I had myself and what wonderful memories of them I had... then I realized that that would have been pretty creepy °__°. Still, I just wanted to tell you that you made me want to write a big long rant.... I've always had a soft spot for those : P
I don't really have any gauge for how out-of-touch I am with modern gamers, but I far prefer the long-form game as much as I prefer the long-form prose article. My constant fear is that software will become 100% online, and that both my entertainment and productivity will be screwed the moment some apocalypse wipes out networked capabilities altogether.
I see where digital content is going, I've even acceded to it somewhat, but I still don't like these new mediums yet. I want availability without the impermanence inherent to online content consumption. Obviously there is a trade-off, and content producers are going to use the medium that allows the highest profit-to-risk ratio, but I want my content consumable offline, dammit. I want juicy chunks of awesome that I can keep for years and years without worrying about service providers maintaining their servers or platforms being phased out. I want the things that I love built to endure.
That's the primary reason I don't follow Twitter, even when my favourite artists have embraced it, and why I am still leery of downloadable content and online-only games, even if they are getting more sophisticated. I don't feel like the content, or the copies I'm consuming, belong to me. I don't feel like I can hold on to it before it changes or disappears. It may be an old-fashioned viewpoint, but I have a collector's impulse to keep and preserve things, to enjoy them at any point in that remembered moment of beauty.
I've actually found myself neglecting Twitter quite a bit lately, for the exact reason you you touch upon here. I noticed it a while back, but it only 'gelled' after reading an exchange between Michael A. and Andrew S. (via Tales of a Scored Earth). The staying-power of a blog is kind of resolute in my eyes, but I won't retread what some of your comments here have already addressed.
It was beginning to transform the content I produce, which was (and kind of still is) fairly irritating to me. I'm not big enough of a baby to just up and leave, but I have become increasingly aware of how detrimental it becomes towards my own blogging (this is someone who likes 'long-form' and drawn-out EVERYTHING). Twitter does serve a somewhat useful and impressive purpose now however, so I won't be getting rid of it anytime soon (I've just had to subtly change how I use it). That Twitter can even do these things is a testament to its 'power'; for all the annoying things that Facebook does, it rarely impedes upon my blogging space. Though I suppose I'll still end up kicked off Facebook soon at the rate I'm going anyway (dumb story)...
I also noticed last night how 'trapped' some of us have become in various social networking sites as well. I'd much rather exclusively use the likes of Raptr instead of Facebook, but functionality and friend-use is like a ball and chain now. It keeps me anchored to the site to such an extent, it's actually more trouble to up and leave than to stay. If nothing else, the only social site I've been able to completely knock off my bookmarks is MySpace (for obvious reasons).
What used to go into Twitter for me has shifted pretty seamlessly into my Tumblr(s) now. It's probably the artist-bias in me talking, but it's become more expressive and isolated in comparison to my Twitter stream. I of course, love that. Posting a quickly 'shopped picture, quote, or link says more coming from me than it would were I using Tweetdeck.
I'm NEVER getting a Formspring though, my Tumblr-ask is essentially the same thing and I'd much rather chat with someone directly via AIM if they truly wish to engage me.
If the times are truly changing THAT drastically, they can have a good time dragging my ass along, as I'm not going down without a fight. I've never been the one for the self-compressing society of 'gamers on the 'net' and I'll fight that to a bitter end, even if it's just my own.
I love that you guys are all sort of sharing your similar nagging concerns... especially in re becoming 'shallower thinkers' and less able to pay attention. I'm spending more time online than ever because I can connect more instantly, but I do not at all feel I'm having a richer experience.
It's funny to see how many people still completely disregard Twitter when it's such an invaluable tool. It's such an easy and efficient way to find new content (or, rather, have it delivered to you) not to mention a vital networking tool.
I've only just started to see its full potential, when Chris Dahlen re-tweeted a blog post I wrote, which was then re-re-tweeted by one of his followers. That kind of exposure just wouldn't have happened without Twitter.
HOWEVER, I can definitely sympathize with the concern that it breeds a certain lack of an attention span.
Whenever someone gives me a lesson about writing for the web--use lots of pictures, two-or-three sentence paragraphs, etc.--I always want to call "bullshit."
In my own head, I whine and grumble that I don't want to deal with any of that web stuff--that I just want to write. Yet, I can rarely be bothered to really read long articles or posts by others (save for writers I truly worship).
I consume so much info through tweets, lists, rants, etc. that I'm as much a part of the problem that forces me to write in that short-form web format that I hate to make but love to consume.
Leigh says: "...especially in re becoming 'shallower thinkers' and less able to pay attention."
Hate to sound retarded, but what does "re" mean?
I also gotta wonder how much more I could get done in the day if I didn't have everything that falls under the "social networking" umbrella as a constant distraction/procrastination excuse...
In context, "in re" would be short for something like "in regards to". "In re" is also Latin for "in the matter of", and it's used as a legal term.
Are you being serious here? I tell you your Twitter is boring and you delete the post? Are you, like, seriously laboring under the assumption that people are falling over themselves to read about what you ate for dinner? Nobody gives a shit. Most people don't really care much about their own dinners let alone some Internet stranger's.
Nice Post.
Marquez vs Katsidis | Chavez vs Gomez | Pacquiao vs Mayweather | Rampage vs Machida @ UFC
Post a Comment