Last week Nick outlined the failings he saw in games journalism. After Conor calling for more a more subjective approach, we return to Nick, and some solutions to the problems outlined initially.

Gutless reviews and unchecked subjectivity are major problems in gaming and games journalism. Our alternative is called Civic Games Journalism, and is based on the following:

1) Reclaiming objectivity

We all know that a review is only one person's opinion, and we all have differing views. This is not an excuse to present one's truth as fact however. And there are gaming facts: things that can be demonstrated to be true. We owe it to the gaming community to detail these facts.

If, for example, a game struggles with poor frame rates, I owe it to the gamers who have not played it to assert this. Whether or not those frame rate issues affect my enjoyment of the game is my opinion � I may still like the game, or I might find the choppiness too distracting � either way, it does not change the fact that those issues exist. Any gamer neglecting to mention intrinsic flaws is failing their fellow gamers, and should be banished to the GameSpy forums as punishment.

Journalists and gamers should not present their opinion with no explanation, evidence or reasoning as to how they reached that view. Let us halt this slide into "This-game-is-really-decent-8-out-of-10-don't-worry-about-the-inept-design." Our role should not be to pass off individual truth as universal: rather, we should provide as much factual information about games as possible, so that others can make an informed decision for themselves. It's time to call a spade a spade.

2) Reclaiming critique

On a review scale, 5 � not 6 or 7 � should mean "average". Inflated scores render reviews worthless: they are a waste of bandwidth. Games journalists will need to think more critically though, if they are serious about using the full scale. This is not to say we should shred games for the sake of it, but that we should be ready to call flawed design when we see it. Too often we try to explain it away. This has blunted our ability to think critically.

Likewise, it has become common for some uninformed gamers to lambast the classics. Great retro games are vital � they are the benchmarks. If we forget classic gaming past, how will we recognise brilliance in the future?

So, let's think critically; and perhaps we should consider a scale in keeping with movie reviews, such as 0-5.

3) Subjectivity

New Games Journalism has many plus points, but reviewing games is not one of them. NGJ can work for the personal aspect of gaming, in recounting unique experiences. But games remain products, and their technical components must be reviewed as such. We wouldn't appraise a car in the same way that we often appraise video games. For the personal element of gaming, NGJ seems better suited to opinion pieces or features where the writer is free to roam throughout game worlds and describe their thoughts. Also, New Games Journalists might benefit from sorting out their grammar.

As for the fanboy menace? The surge of fanboyism cannot be stopped: the best we can hope for is to shore up gaming using little things like "reason" and "logic".

4) Civic duty

If gaming is a community, that makes us all citizens. Why then don't we look out for one another? Rather than defending big games companies and attacking "rival" fans, we should consider our fellow gamer. They will be influenced, to some degree, by others' thoughts on games.

So, as we present our views to gamers, do we always provide the complete picture? Or do we omit flaws, either intentionally through brand loyalty, or maybe because we simply are not critical enough? We can't hide behind subjectivity � "it's my truth!" � as a defence. We have a duty to other gamers to give them the full picture. Challenging our views of gaming, as with anything in life, is crucial.

If this has not convinced you, consider this: gaming is not a cheap pastime. Hundreds are spent on systems and games. Being able to pick out a great game is a cost-cutting ability then, since inspired design is ageless. Or, as Graham Douglas at GoldenEye Forever said of the N64 James Bond classic: "Games like this don't need to be replaced, which saves money since you don't need to buy the latest version."

Conclusion

Perhaps real objectivity is impossible to achieve � we all bring bias, no matter how hard we try to be balanced in our outlook. But this should not be an excuse to prattle on about our opinions with no related reasoning. Strive for impartiality. Call it like it is. Critique and question. And let's do our duty to fellow gamers by providing them with the facts, not truths.

Nick Bennett
[email protected]