Network now...BLOG
TV Go Home
"This building is what we call a ‘church’,” Aled Jones explains at the beginning of Songs Of Praise every week. “It’s a meeting place for public worship, within which the socio-religious group called ‘Christians’ frequently manifests elaborate vocalisations we call ‘songs’.”
Delia Smith is making jam rolypoly: “In order to stay alive, we convert ‘food’ into a substance suitable for use by the body.”
Or so it would be if any other specialist subject matter got the short shrift that videogaming does on British TV. Despite being one of the world’s most popular pastimes, our programme-makers routinely approach gaming from first principles, as though it were some inscrutable alien ritual. In a rare and fleeting moment of attention, we were delivered Gameswipe – a programme by the acerbic writer and broadcaster Charlie Brooker, whose previous series have seen him slop through the torpid backwaters of TV and expose the black arts of the newsroom.
But no sooner had Brooker highlighted the mixture of terror and incomprehension with which television beholds gaming than he embarked on a basic explanation of terms like ‘platformer’ and ‘shoot ’em up’. So was Gameswipe even for gamers at all? If the intent was to introduce game-naïve people to the medium, then it could not have been helped by the curious selection of Wolfenstein for review – hardly representative of the medium or a good ambassador for its merits. Wolfenstein’s charmless slaughter aside, did it make sense to dismiss Nintendo’s recent output in a single gesture?
Not that Brooker has any remit to evangelise – Screenwipe was hardly a ringing endorsement of TV’s output. But nor was that series an effort to explain television to people as defiantly, happily ignorant of it as film critic Mark Kermode is of videogames.
Our chagrin isn’t based on a sense of entitlement, as gamers, to see Brooker champion our hobby. This is Brooker’s platform for his own opinions and, scattershot though it may have been, it owes us no more than entertainment. But it is sad to see Gameswipe join that long list of programmes which it itself decried: those that presented gaming with apology, and patronising those people who would be most interested in its discussion.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Does any remember the name of the game show that was on cbbc in the mid nineties ['95] they had kids review games. They reviewed a lot games on PS1 and Saturn, I remember vividly virtua fighter review among others and the Miyamoto interview when he was talking about data and yoshi island.....
Well there was "Bad influence" that was presented by Violet Berlin and some dude i dont remember (though i can picture his face) If my memory serves me right, they used to let some children review some of the games, and there was "Games master" presented by Felix dextor or Dominic Diamond and on that show the would let some of the kids give their oppinion of games.
Andy Crane was a presenter on Bad Influence, but it was an ITV show. I think that must be what the poster is referring to - I don't remember a videogame show ever being on children's BBC.
I remember Bad influence was really good and GamesMaster but this was a different show, I seen Patrick Moore the other day on a astronomy show on BBC two, that man looks exactly the same....
Another problem gameshows have is their inability to update themselves. So whilst someone can, with credibility and justifaction, one week state that the problem with videogames are their poor story-telling, along comes something like Uncharted 2, making the statement all but irrelevant.
Being a regular watcher of 'The Wright Stuff' (okay, okay), it seems to me that this might be a good format for videogames. You have an informed, but non-biased (and non-irritating) host and a circulated guest panel (mix of celebrity and industry people).
What would be different to other gameshows, would be the telephone lines, inviting gamers to phone in to give crits and opinions on topics of the day. Heck, instead of reading the papers, the panels would read out from games mags, etc - inc. EDGE.
The input from viewers would give a sense of balance and relevance that having a talking-head spouting to the audience currently lacks.
It would be light-hearted, but sincere and without the gimmicks of silly presenters trying to be hip and stupidly vulgar.
Just a thought.
What do you mean "Another problem gameshows have is their inability to update themselves. So whilst someone can, with credibility and justifaction, one week state that the problem with videogames are their poor story-telling, along comes something like Uncharted 2, making the statement all but irrelevant."? I would put Mass Effect in place of Uncharted 2, But hey, just a thought ;)
Sorry, I was reading a post by hasan, and I noticed your query here. I know it's old, but for the sake of closure....
I think I was feeding off a comment I heard a TV programme maker say, which sort of formed the basis of an excuse he was making as to why there aren't many progs about videogames. It was something like: no sooner are games progs made and aired, then they're out of date, meaning there is little in the way of replay value in them.
So what is current and relevant one week, becomes yesterday's news the next. My idea was, if there was more discussion in the prog about related industry issues, in the format of phone-ins and a guest panel, there may be more reason to re-watch and re-air the progs.
BTW, I was only using U2 as it was/is a current off-the-top-of-my-head example of the day, not really squaring it up to other games. I haven't really played much of Mass Effect to argue, but what I have played, it's fair opinion.
That's a valid point, and I think it also solves the issue of a lack of interesting formats- Games Night, which was a discussion programme, performed better than Playr (review show) does now, despite being in a much more (for want of a better word) hostile environment- Playr's current channel has a much more full and diverse schedule than Games Night's ever did, and only had a new episode every fortnight, where Playr is weekly.
edshot!! you're back!!
where have you been?!
(Whispers) Damn, didn't think anyone would notice me sneaking back in, lol.
Nah, just been a bit ill, is all. I've forgot my note, is that ok?
I actually cant imagine a worse show than The Wright Stuff with a bunch of Fan boys phoning in.
Does anyone remember that god awful games channel on SKY a few years back, eventually it just turned into people paying £1.50 a txt for cheats!!!!!
That's fair comment, Ben, and with the usual effort TV producers put into games progs, that's EXACTLY what it would be, lol.
Nonetheless, I still feel the format offers the opportunity to air industry news, game/industry critisism with gamer input. With the right people on the show and the right producers, it could be sort of like a less-stuffy Review Show.
As for the phone-ins. Again, with the right approach, I would like to think it would attract industry-brass on the panels and give mature and learned people like EDGE readers ; ) a chance to speak to them directly. Irreverently (and comically) cutting off obvious fanboyists would be a hoot.
Industry grievances with the governments lack of support would be an ideal topic, for one.
Maybe having a show where colourful industry personalities can have some TV airing (crunch times permitting), with the gaming public talking to them, might also help give the industry a badly needed PR face.
I think a major problem with games TV is a lack of support for shows- by and large we've only ever had one programme at a time across all of television to cover the entire form. At best we've had two programmes at the same time that are fundamentally the same: at present, we have Playr on Film24 and GameFace/Ginx Files on Bravo, which in terms of format are all but identical, so they both wind up showing a lot of the same content, as opposed to one show being about games in one way, and the other in another way, the same way Top Gear and Fifth Gear co-exist. As such, one show can only really be watched at the expense of the other, and neither really get to go in depth about anything in particular enough to maintain anybody's interest.
What doesn't help is that these programmes are both produced before reaching a network, and are little more than filler, networks not really being willing to put production resources into anything interesting. The only time it does happen is when a dedicated channel launches, and then either due to a lack of funding or simple lack of effort the channel simply doesn't get enough content on-air to support being a channel- as was the fate of xLeague earlier this year, which despite a few decent programme ideas was only ever showing about seven or eight hours of new content a week- leading to the channel's owners to give up after only a few months broadcasting.
Games TV can- and indeed will- work, but it involves effort and a long-term plan- two things lacking in pretty much every attempt so far.
I believe TV video game shows are rather irrelevant these days with widespread internet access & broadband.
Although I agree that the programme was a bit of a let down in the fact it felt the need to explain what types/genres of games are available, I think that as a whole it brought forward some points that mainstream gamers generally don't care about. For example Graham Linehan's views on characters and scripting (the appaling Call of Jaurez 2), or the review of Wolfenstein that tried to prove the shallowness of the game itself.
Granted, it may not have been the best programme for hardcore gamers (or more precisely Edge readers), it was something that if you were wanting to try and expand casual gamers perceptions of the industry you could show them as an alternate viewpoint.
I think if it was made into a full series, Charlie Brooker would have a really good platform to try and change people's views of gaming and maybe get some people to lighten up and not be so zealot-y about their hobby/past-time.
No one under 20 watches the BBC. Check out the i-player for their catalogue of mediocrity. They cant even make a decent games programme. It has to be smug & patronising. Spike TV & Geoff Keighley manage it and they dont have a budget of 4 billion every year ***4 BILLION EVERY YEAR*** where does all the money go? Who knows because the BBC dont publish any accounts. Its a black hole of money
Korea's already got the games on TV thing figured out, to keep in mind.
I've given up hope to find something on terrestrial television and look online instead, The 1UP Show which has now become CO-OP on Revision 3 as well as a few other video podcasts fulfil my video gaming appetite. (Link: http://revision3.com/coop)
Good shout. Of course there's no reason why anything made for television couldn't be broadcast on the net as well (as GameTrailers TV is), and also no reason why something like Co-Op couldn't be put on TV.
I have mixed feelings about your criticisms of Gameswipe.
Although the parallels you drew with Songs of Praise and any Cookery programmes concisely highlights my own teeth gnashing with 'serious' attempts to put videogames onto mainstream TV, it has to be acknowledged that the Charlie Brooker's 'wipe' format (including Screen + News) all have this comedic introduction to genres that should need no introduction (for example News broadcasts on Newswipe were very effectively introduced with a "what is a News broadcast" examining how it has evolved over the past 50 years).
I think this approach has worked far more effectively for TV programmes (especially with the concept of the 'mission' documentary programmes popular on BBC3) than with videogames. Maybe this was because we are already familiar with intricacies of videogames and/or wanted to see videogaming discussed with more credibility (or maybe it was just because the intros to the videogame genres were just not as funny/well observed as the TV programme intros).
Well done on the blog title! (if anyone doesn't get the reference, it is well worth googling).
You have to put that programme in context while remembering that Charlie Brooker started his journalistic career as a games journalist on PC Zone, so is a real gamer himself.
His programmes are written for the already converted, but for those who enjoy a caustic (good word Gavin) joke at the expense of the more trashy/obscure examples of, as well as the coverage of, their chosen interest - in the case of Screenwipe, television. Therefore, Gameswipe is basically a programme, written by a gamer, for gamers to laugh at the poor/obscure examples of their medium, as well as lampoon the poor coverage by other media, most notable television. To complain that the programme focused on a trashy game and then resorted to basic explanations of genres is to miss the joke somewhat.
Having said that, you're absolutely correct that games need some serious coverage, but that won't happen until the people that make television programmes, and more importantly, those that commission them, have been avid gamers themselves - which is still a few years off yet.
Boy, do I ever agree with this. I'm of the seeming minority that think Brooker's 'journalism' is nothing more than content-free causticness, and Gameswipe did nothing to alter my opinion.
Theory: Games on TV will never work because why on Earth would gamers watch programmes about games when they could be playing them instead?
"Theory: Games on TV will never work because why on Earth would gamers watch programmes about games when they could be playing them instead?"
I know the channels in question aren't on the subject of games, but on the same principle, have you seen some of the channels in the 900+ range on Satellite?
>>> Theory: Games on TV will never work because why on Earth would gamers watch programmes about games when they could be playing them instead?
You could extend that theory to almost anything though. Why watch a gardening programme, or a cooking programme, or a culture programme. I don't think it makes any real sense.
At the moment gaming television is in the same boat as poker television used to be. 'Can't work on TV'. Then somebody does it well and everyone realises how wrong they were.
That's a fair point, especially regarding cultural programming. Cookery / gardening shows are ostensibly educational / vocational (here's how to cook meal X / stop bug Y from nibbling your shrubbery) but something like the Culture Show offers previews, reviews and (usually) well-informed discussion, much like a good gaming magazine.
Could this format work as a gaming programme? With the right presenters, I don't see why not. But it would be going head-to-head with the internet in a way that the Culture Show doesn't, and that's another problem entirely.
And with regards to your poker example, some enterprising producer obviously realised the inherent drama in the game and worked out how best to present that in a TV format. What would the key elements be for a good games show that could offer something different to the mass of online content on the subject?
The trouble is games provide little interest to people outside of gaming.
I watch "Master chef the Proffesionals" as i cant cook world class food, i dont drive sports cars yet i watch "Top Gear", because they are things that are out of my reach, games arent, if i really wanted to i could buy any game i want.
So again we come to the question of why watch a programme about something you could be experiencing?
Add to that the horrendous choice of presenters that have been selected in past programming, you either get cocky nerds (dominic diamond), or mildly attractive but mostly chubby emo girls. The plain fact is gaming television mirrors the gaming worlds obsession for big titted girls, nerdy guys, guns and bondage gear. Its weird and its nasty and it should stay off TV.
Brooker's show on the other hand felt, to me, like a breath of fresh air. A programme made by a gamer, for himself, as all of Brooker's material appears to be.
The thing about Top Gear is that it's watched by people who have no interest in cars. And yet they watch a show, about cars. Why do they do this?
Because it's entertaining. Top Gear is viewed by many as less a show about cars, and more an entertainment show that features them. The trick it seems to me, it to emulate that format. Get some likable presenters with obvious chemistry and they will be the attraction as much as the content of the show. Make the show entertaining and accessible even if you don't know about the technical side of things.
Gameswipe suffered partly because it was a one off, but seemed to suggest it was part of a series. I believe even Brooker himself criticised it for that. But a fully fledged series wouldn't suffer that pitfall. I believe that games on TV could work, it just hasn't been done right yet.
Good points. I suppose, in television terms, there's a difference between cultural appreciation, industry gossip and simply playing the games themselves. Or even being a game or a game tie-in. So there are lots of potential choices for what to show and how to show it.
My worry is that in TV terms you end up with stuff like Gamesmaster. Where the actual games themselves are largely irrelevant compared to the 'TV event'.
Perhaps the wider issue is promoting just a wider acceptance that gaming even exists. Why shouldn't it feature on the current Culture Show, rather than having to invent a new format to accomodate it?
At the same time, it offered some discussion of World and British videogame history, and personal endorsements (of sorts) from celebrities who play them. For that alone it was a worthwhile step in the right direction.
Overall, the current (low) level of exposure on television, and in the media in general, for the medium that is set to dominate popular culture in the near future (if it doesn't already) is bizarre in the extreme.
I agree in part. I thought the show was good in that it didn't solely focus on the hardcore gamer. Also bear in mind its pretty hard to work out what to put into a 55 min show all about games. Brooker used to be a staff writer for CVG i think so knows his games.