Assignment #1: Superlative Journalism

Example 1: ‘Good’ Article

I chose this article as an example of good journalism because while it technically isn’t ‘news’, it offers a deeper look into a game that has been out for quite a while and provides incentive for readers to check out older games they might have passed up during its initial offering. This article is part of a series where the author dissects an aspect of the game and how it bolsters the atmosphere and provides sound logical reasoning for the game’s design choices. It is not a review of sorts or an update to one, but a investigation of how a game utilizes a certain art style or design choice to strengthen the game’s core mechanics. In this particular example, the utilization of 2D combat in the rogue-like Darkest Dungeon aids players in understanding positioning while in combat, certain weapon mechanics and differentiating between different types of classes. While not all readers are interested in this sort of article, it does give solace to designers and aspiring workers in the game industry that articles concerning design aspects of a game are still being produced. It may also intrigue players who have not been interested in a game before a second chance to explore what they have missed.

Example 2: ‘Bad’ Article

I chose this article as an example of ‘bad’ journalism because while the execution of the article in regards to syntax and formatting are acceptable, the content seems out-of-touch. While it is labeled as an ‘opinion’ piece and thus cannot be explicitly incorrect, this article makes large jumps in logic and presents a somewhat incredulous proposal on a concept that has not fully been explored in-depth (in this case virtual reality). The author’s ban-happy approach to violence in virtual reality is a knee-jerk reaction to new technology that has not had the chance to develop fully. Banning is not going to solve the issue as technically nothing illegal is being done, and the prospect that VR violence is going to lead to more violence is nothing but a haphazard guess that prevents growth of new mediums and technologies. The large leaps in logic from being cautious of a new technology and outright banning it is questionable. While the article was published in a magazine that is ‘for digital ideas and culture’, the author certainly seems to be actively working against such things.