Read on Twitter
The latest NYTimes video game piece hits all the expected notes:
A sub-headline about games as art
An explanation of “mechanics”
A comparison to Pac-Man
A Fornite namedrop
A paragraph on how much money games make https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/business/last-of-us-2-review.html?referringSource=articleShare
A sub-headline about games as art
An explanation of “mechanics”
A comparison to Pac-Man
A Fornite namedrop
A paragraph on how much money games make https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/business/last-of-us-2-review.html?referringSource=articleShare
I think the author did a good job, all things considered, including interviewing @leighalexander and linking to a handful of game blogs.
The issue is a larger editorial problem for the outlet. Game stories have to be *everything.*
The issue is a larger editorial problem for the outlet. Game stories have to be *everything.*
The piece is a review. Then it’s a business report. Then a history of game play. An explainer on how games literally function. Then a profile of Naughty Dog and Neil.
Hundreds of millions of people play games. Let each of these be stories. There’s an audience!
Hundreds of millions of people play games. Let each of these be stories. There’s an audience!
And PLEASE let’s stopping explaining the basics of the medium in every NYTimes story, along with the obligatory “games make money so they matter.”
The NYTimes covers dance (way smaller audience). Each story doesn’t mention the Nutcrackers ticket sales and explain how to dance.
The NYTimes covers dance (way smaller audience). Each story doesn’t mention the Nutcrackers ticket sales and explain how to dance.
