I recently read ‘A Trilogy in 7 Parts’ over at Hit Self-Destruct (heart!). In the first part, Mitch Krpata exposes—rather earnestly—his feelings about the diminishing allure of video game journalism. But unlike his contemporaries in the field of lit criticism, he doesn’t bemoan any so-called death of journalism. Instead he credits game journalism with having become more informed and educated over recent years. And I, for one, agree with him. But why is it that while the standards of general journalism decrease in many other fields due to mass layoffs of editorial and support staff [1] [2] the standards of game journalism increase?

I think the coinciding of Web 2.0 and the rise of game criticism have had something to do with it. Where other types of writing have struggled to keep their heads above the surface of the ever-rising deep that is the ‘new media’, a school of game critics have formed itself within its boundaries and dexterously utilized its components. The high quality of online game writing produced has thus kept game writers—both print and web—on their toes.

But what can Web 2.0 offer writers that print can’t? Well, here are a few ideas:

1. A new peer-review process: Game critics can post an article and have the whole internet fact-check, theory-parse and critique it. This is a new incarnation of the peer-review process.
2. Journals 2.0: They are forming left, right, above and behind, just not in the form we’ve previously known. In fact, many members of them have never met. Community game blog Critical Distance, for example, essentially functions like a think tank by bringing amateur critics together and releasing podcasts and articles. Coupled with the peer-review process discussed in points 1, I’d argue we can consider this a type of journal.

3. Direct contact between author and reader: In traditional academic fields, writers can rarely receive direct feedback from their audience but depend on the guidance of editors. But in the world of Web 2.o, writers who keep blogs get direct feedback and often in abundance. How does this apply to game critics? Well, because a lot of game critics are putting their work straight onto the internet, they put themselves at the critical behest of the entire community, often coming face-to-face (sort of) with people who know a lot more than they do. This results in a hell of a lot more accountability.

For many years, I’ve been involved in lit writing —both academic and journalistic—and the presence of critical lit writing online is non-existent save the traditional institutions (New Yorker, McSweeney, Paris Review). As such, lit journalists generally don’t have much pressure on them from online writing. Nonetheless, this issue is in the minds of many people in publishing [1] [2].

Game criticism, on the other hand, is far more prevalent on the net. And coupled with the above components, is of a generally high quality. By embracing the faculties of the new media, web-writers have consequently forced established journalists to improve and effectively save themselves.

When talking about Web 2.0, people tend to talk about how it is set to destroy traditional medias. Seldom do you hear how it can produce good writing. Hopefully, though, I’ve illustrated some of the ways faculties of the internet have helped produce good writing in game criticism and (arguably) incidentally improved game writing at large.

So why not start looking to the future instead of bemoaning the present? It seems to be accepted that all types of medias are changing rapidly. If you ask me, this means we should start preparing for a near-future that will be utterly different to the recent-past. Besides, I don’t think it looks that bad at all.