The Game Writing Club

This is an incredibly sad thing to read: an aspiring writer is forced to reconsider their passion as a career. Though perhaps what is more sad is how often it happens without any blog post to mark the occasion. Having questioned the viability of writing as a career choice more times than I can count over the past 2 years (heck, I think just yesterday was the last time I did so), I feel for him. And considering the caliber of the average “help for aspiring writers” advice being offered, I feel for him even more.

This is difficult, because I want more than anything to respond to his piece, but I fear that any attempt to do so will be seen as arrogant, condescending, mean-spirited, and just downright rude. But he raises some interesting issues that I would at the very least like to provide a second perspective to. I have no illusions that anything I say will actually be useful advice to other aspiring writers, it’s just something to get off my chest. This is my personal blog after all.

Christian Higley called games writing a “club,” and perhaps there is some truth to that. However, I think the way I would define it as a club is quite different from how he does. His club definition is one of exclusion, which it can certainly seem to be when first starting out. I wrote for GayGamer.net for 2 and a half years on a volunteer basis, sending pitches out to the bigger sites almost every day in hopes of breaking in to writing as a career. It wasn’t until the ever-wonderful Kat Bailey at GamePro took a chance on me to write about homosexuality in Mass Effect 3 that things took off. And even then, it wasn’t as if editors were suddenly responding to my emails. It wasn’t until 2 months  after my first GamePro feature of constantly sending emails that their reviews editor gave me my first assignment. That was just within the same publication, it wasn’t until 2 more months after that that I landed an assignment for a feature with a new outlet, and yet another 2 months before writing my first review at another new one. I strongly believe that my ever-growing portfolio at that time helped, but it certainly wasn’t an instantanious “hey, you’re one of us now” across the whole industry. Even now that I’m fairly better established I’m still struggling with each pitch to a new outlet.

And yet, my “club” definition for games writers comes from a sense of inclusiveness. Somewhat surprisingly, that inclusiveness comes from other freelance writers, the people who should be my hated competition for each and every assignment. Instead I consider them my closest friends. They’d help steer me toward the right editors to contact at any given site, or give pointers on how to target pitches. And as I talked to them more and got to know them, the writers I once idolized became a whole lot more human.

Like Christian, I thought people who were writing freelance already had it all figured out. They were getting consistent work, so they must be successful in making a living as a writer! But that’s just not the truth. Many of them have second or third jobs aside from their writing (I recently started as second job of my own), and talk about, as Christian put it in his article, “drinking problems, crippling social anxieties, self-hatred, depression, or involuntary predilection towards general fuck-upery” on a fairly regular basis. Twitter for me, and it seems for many other freelance writers as well, is just as much a support group as it is a networking tool. When pitch #874 comes back with a series of not interesteds or no replies, it is vital to have those friends who have been there and can understand exactly what you are going through.  Maybe they’ll even know an editor you hadn’t thought of who would be more interested in your topic. From the sound of it, Christian didn’t have that, or at least enough of it.

As for the particular advice that Christian says he received, that’s actually some of the best advice out there for an aspiring writer. “Don’t even try” is the barometer of advice. Writing about games is hard, inconsistent work that pays like shit, and someone thinking sanely about their career should avoid it. It’s self-selecting advice that weeds out those merely interested in it and those who will endure the numerous hardships involved to succeed. It should be noted that success does not mean the end of hardships. More important, though, there’s the business-minded advice. There is a very good reason he received mostly business advice rather than writing advice: few writers took business classes or consider themselves as a business. At least starting out. This was a mistake I made getting started, and got paid less than I probably should have for some assignments or wasted money on attending events without thinking whether it was financially viable. It is a point that recently is being driven home quite clearly as I fill out my taxes and owe more than I was expecting because I’m considered self-employed. If it’s not something you’re aware of as a writer, it’s an area of advice you should get immediately acquainted with. And if you’re starting out and passionate about writing, there’s a good chance it’s not an area you know very well yet.

But even with the importance of business advice, he also received no actual writing advice. There is, as I see it, a very good reason for that too. An aspiring writer won’t receive writing advice because the assumption is you already know how to write. That’s why you want to be a writer, right? Writing is the easy part. It’s the business of it – pitching, networking, building relationships with editors, knowing the right editors, and just maintaining yourself as a business – that most beginning writers struggle with.

There is also the fact that, for professional writing, I’ve found it’s a far more valuable skill to be a versatile writer than a good one (though admittedly to be versatile you must first be good). Each site that I write for has it’s own style guide, so even the sentence structure I use tends to change from site to site. The idea of general writing advice simply doesn’t work, since that advice won’t apply to every site. Hell, sites can’t even build a consensus on whether they’re writing about videogames or video games. The only piece of writing advice I could offer that would apply universally is to single-space after periods. Editors hate double spacing after a period.

The last point I want to say is the elephant in the room: how hard was he trying? Now, I don’t mean to question his passion or work ethic, or anything of the sort. I’m just noticing that the immediate response to that article on twitter was for several editors, some of whom I have worked with for freelance assignments, was: “who is this person? He’s never sent me a pitch email.” I admit it irks me a little when someone considers gaming writers to be an exclusive “club” without actually talking to the people who could grant membership.

Games writers most certainly can be a club, it’s just a matter of knowing what that club means. Being a “member” doesn’t mean you’ve made it. Hell, I still don’t consider myself to have “made it” yet. The club’s entry fee is simply a twitter account and contributing to the various conversations games writers have on a daily basis.  There are no guarantees beyond that, but there are also no limits to who can join.

To end this on a positive note, I would like to give a special thanks to Michael Rose, Brad Gallaway, Rowan Kaiser, Kat Bailey, Jason Wilson, Matthew Reynolds, Phil Kollar, Susan Arendt, Taylor Cocke, Mitch Dyer, Francesca Reyes, Brittany Vincent, Mattie Brice, Nathan Meunier, Kevin VanOrd, and countless other writers and editors who have been the friends and support I have grown to rely on in my own writing endeavors. This is just a small fraction of the list of people I owe tremendous thanks to, so if you aren’t on it please don’t be angry with me. If we know each other and you’re a writer, you belong on this list as well.

GDC 2012 – “How Games Get Reviewed” panel: Review

At GDC 2012, former IGN Executive Editor Erik Brudvig gave a talk on “How Games Get Reviewed.” To be honest, I expected it to be a bit silly, so I attended in hopes of writing a satirical “review” of the review panel. However, instead I’m shifting gears to do something a little more… shall we say, productive.

The talk was geared primarily toward people in PR, as a means to illuminate what goes on behind the scenes when a game review is written from which writer is assigned a review to playing the game and the process of writing a review. I can certainly see why someone in PR would be curious about that process, much like how I would be curious to hear about the process of which freelance pitches are approved by various outlets. In both cases there is a sense of sending a piece of yourself into the ether, waiting for a mysterious “black box” to produce something in response. So it was a bit sad to sit in the audience and listen to Erik expound on a process that, as a reviewer myself, sounded entirely foreign to me.

Despite both working in games media and writing game reviews, Erik and I both obviously have very different perspectives – him being an executive editor for 6 years at IGN whereas I have been a freelance writer for half that time. So I would never presume to say that his talk on reviewing games was incorrect; it was merely hyper-specific to IGN.

Some parts of his talk did ring true to my experience. For example, when discussing which games get reviewed by outlets and who reviews them. Every outlet that I write reviews for has first asked me which game genres I’m best versed in and which I’m not, which reinforces his point that sites try to fit game reviews with someone familiar with the genre. I have also had editors tell me they were not interested in reviewing certain games that I have pitched, which goes to a point Erik made about sites curating which games to review based on time limitations and audience interest.

However, one point Erik made in particular irked me. In his talk, Erik discussed several “sticking points” that may influence reviews. One of those points was that games are reviewed in a busy office cubicle versus a natural gaming environment. This was made into a fairly major point, emphasized with a picture of Erik with his cat at home on his couch and controller in hand next to a picture of a cluttered IGN desk with three monitors, only one of which was for playing a game. I stared at the slide and simply though, “what?” This seemed utterly bizarre to me, since my own reviewing is done on the same couch as any game I would play for fun. Yes, I’ll have a notepad on hand for review notes, but even when playing a game for fun I am never far from twitter’s reach for a quick quip on something I just experienced.

In general, scanning the bylines on nearly any gaming publication (with the exception of Game Informer) more and more you will see freelance writers showing up for reviews. So it seemed a bit disingenuous to speak on behalf of “how games get reviewed” without mentioning the freelance factor. I’ll admit that the behind-the-scenes discussions about who reviews what and a site’s target audience may take place, but as a freelancer I am not part of those conversations. The only hint I get that those conversations exist is when an editor approaches me asking my familiarity with a franchise before a review. But even then I do not know how my experience stacks up to other writing candidates, having never spoken to them on the subject and usually not even knowing who I would be potentially speaking to. There is an aspect of team collaboration in reviews that Erik alluded to that as a freelancer I have yet to experience.

Never once has an editor asked me to review a game in a certain way for their site’s audience, at least not beyond the standard style guide of the site which is really more instructive on how to format a review and things like whether to use first, second, or third person voice. Erik suggested something of this nature happens in reviews, using the example that IGN and USA Today would review Gears of War 3 and Just Dance 3 very differently; overall making it sound like the reviews and accompanying scores would be more reflective of their audience than the individual reviewer. That may be the case as a staff writer for either publication, but freelance provides a different perspective.

While my reviews are seen as the expressed opinion of whichever outlet publishes them, they are also first and foremost my own opinion. They are my portfolio, used as examples of my expertise in this field when I approach new outlets for written work. The wording and style may differ from site to site, but the overall review and sentiment I write for one outlet will be the same as what I would submit to any other. Maybe that makes me a bad reviewer, but editors seem to have been pretty happy with it so far. Some good information can be gleaned from Erik’s GDC talk, but the message is far from complete. Freelance writers have become an integral part of the industry, so to ignore their impact in a talk about how games get reviewed is a failure of its stated goal.

I rate “How Games Get Reviewed” from GDC 2012 a 3 out of 10.

How To Write About How To “Break In” To Games Writing

There has been much discussion among games writers as of late regarding how aspiring writers can best pursue this wonderful career. With so many voices already lending advice to aspiring writers, it has come to my attention that some may need guidance in how to best give that advice. To that end, I have compiled a few helpful tips for writers on how to best advise and inspire new voices into the industry.

Develop an opinion on paid vs volunteer writing. It doesn’t matter which side of this debate you fall on, really, but you must know in your heart that only one of these options is a viable career choice. If you favor volunteer writing, remember that all paid games writers and journalists are elitist sellouts and hacks lacking in even the slightest shred of decency or integrity. If you favor the paid path, keep in mind that volunteer writers are a blight that is destroying the value and credibility of all writers, everywhere, forever.

You know best. The most valuable advice you can provide to aspiring writers is your own experience as a road map for them to follow. What was it that was the key to your success? Persistence? Networking? Building a portfolio? Filling a niche? Pure writing talent? Luck? Whatever it was, drill that point into every aspiring writer’s head. As a bonus, belittle whatever efforts the aspiring writer has already made. Clearly whatever they’re doing isn’t working, otherwise they wouldn’t be reading your advice in the first place. If they say they’re already doing what you advise, they’re just not doing it hard enough, so belittle them for that instead.

Pick fights with your peers. Remember, giving advice is a competition. If a new writer breaks into the industry it only counts if they did so using the exact method you prescribed, so argue with any writer offering advice that differs even slightly from your own. Picking fights is also an important career move, as it will show the other professionals you argue with that your opinions and experience are better than theirs, leading to valuable new writing opportunities. If, by some freak chance you manage to anger another writer, just remember that the pool of writers in this industry is huge, so there’s very little chance of ever encountering them again, and certainly no chance of them some day becoming an editor to whom you need to send article pitches.

Be dogmatic. Regardless of what advice you give, stick to it. Flexibility of ideas is a weakness for any writer, and others in the industry will tear you apart for showing even the slightest willingness to compromise. This point ties back into the previous three, but really deserves special mention; it’s that important to giving advice about writing.

Digital Homosexuality And Player Responsibility

This article was originally published on GamePro’s website June 22, 2011. Since GamePro shut down and its web archives are no longer available, I have decided to re-post it here so that it is still available online as a resource. The article’s published title was “Mass Effect 3 Romance: Shepard’s Choice”, which honestly I was never very fond of, so I have given it back the original title I had intended when submitting it. The content of the article is identical to what was published.

As we learned last month, Mass Effect 3 will (finally) include same-sex romance options for both male and female Shepard. To say the least, the announcement left the Internet aflame with both supporters and detractors. And while the reactions aren’t exactly surprising, they are, how should I say, curious given the circumstances. After all, the Mass Effect series is built around player authorship. How could giving players more choices be a bad thing?

Well, if you ask the detractors, it’s all for the sake of a consistent story. After all, even in a science fiction universe with sentient jellyfish, monotone elephant-creatures performing Hamlet, and ancient robo-organic hybrid monsters from deep space, the idea that even one character could turn out to be gay or bi in the third act would really push a player’s suspension of disbelief.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be so quick to make flippant remarks. Both plot and character consistency are an important part of any narrative. However, saying that an option shouldn’t even be in the game implies that Bioware is solely responsible for the game’s narrative, and that simply isn’t true. Mass Effect isn’t the type of game where you can play it once and say definitively “yes, this is what happened.”

Sure, in the end players will always fight Saren and the collectors, but leading up to those confrontations are events with various outcomes due to their choices. Really, the series is already littered with potential inconsistencies. Did you use both paragon and renegade actions throughout the course of the game? That’s a potential inconsistency. Did you rescue the last rachni, a species that almost destroyed the galaxy, while fighting to stop the similarly galaxy-destroying Sovereign? That’s another potential inconsistency. Did you choose a romance option in both games? Depending on what you think of Commander Shepard that could be a potential inconsistency too.

Note that I said they are only potentially inconsistent though. That’s where the player’s narrative responsibility comes in. With a game built around choice, it is the player’s responsibility to ensure that inconsistencies don’t occur just as much as it is the developer’s. And if they do occur, it is then solely the player’s responsibility to justify those actions.

But what of the other characters? Commander Shepard’s actions and choices are decided by the player, but Bioware executive producer Casey Hudson told PC Gamer that “we’re not introducing any new characters that are going to be love interests.” Clearly this means that Bioware will have to change existing characters to retroactively make them gay or bi and accommodate offering both male and female same-sex options, right?

Well, no, not necessarily. And I’m not just talking about the fact that Hudson corrected himself two days later on Twitter, saying that there would be new same-sex love interests after all. Having existing characters as same-sex options could still be possible without changing them, because in order to change the characters their sexuality would have to already be defined.

I know, I know, Garrus already can hook up with female Shepard and Ashley seems to fancy male Shepard. But when playing as a male Shepard, I can’t recall a single time when Garrus or Kaiden made any reference to their sexual orientation. Likewise with Ashley when playing as a female Shepard. As far as relationship options go, these characters are blank slates.

Perhaps Garrus is still trying to figure out his feelings, calibrating if you will, or was intimidated by male Shepard constantly flirting with female crewmates (or more accurately, the female crewmates constantly flirting with Shepard). Meanwhile, Ashley’s bigotry and xenophobia toward alien races could be an outward projection of her difficulty coming to terms with her own sexuality. Nothing that has already been established about the characters would need to change, it would simply be a matter of filling in the blanks.

I’m not saying that this is how same-sex romances in Mass Effect 3 will play out, but it does illustrate how they can be integrated into existing characters without inconsistencies. At that point, it becomes the player’s responsibility how Shepard interacts with each character. If you don’t want Garrus to hook up with a male Shepard, then don’t flirt with Garrus.

If a same-sex romance option ruins a character’s consistency in Mass Effect 3, you only have your own choices to blame.