[Editor's note: After a brief hiatus Media Coverage is back--and with a new author. GameDaily BIZ would like to wish Kyle Orland all the best in his future endeavors, and we welcome Gus Mastrapa into the role.]

There's a fair bit of navel-gazing going on when we talk about the way the media covers games. After all, we're writing about writing. This kind of self examination can easily devolve into tail-chasing. And yet I understand the appeal. The moment I was offered the opportunity to write the Media Coverage column I instantly knew what my first subject should be -- Peter Olafson. Olafson is the reason I write about games today. His "Game Theory" columns in The New York Times were forward-thinking, experimental and frequently intensely personal. Peter was doing "New Games Journalism" before the term was coined. He wrote reviews in first person, relating his experience of playing the game like a reporter embedded, not in Iraq or Afghanistan, but the mess hall complex in the PSOne game Alien Resurrection. Shortly after September 11th he wrote an impassioned column for the San Jose Mercury News detailing the crisis of conscience he was experiencing as a writer about video games when it seemed like the world was falling apart around him. His last major piece about gaming was "Learning to Love Mass Murder" – a first-person narrative for Salon detailing an attempt to play Postal non-violently. As a young writer I found his passionate and personal video game writing inspiring.

Olafson is a veteran reporter with game-related clips dating back as far as 1989. Prior to his stint at the gray lady he contributed to Amiga World, PC Games, Computer Gaming World, Compute!, CD-ROM Today, GamePower.com, GameProWorld.com and Amazing Computing. Many gamers may be more familiar with his game guides. His voluminous Prima guide for Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is on more than a few gamer bookshelves.

In the winter of 2000 he walked away from a job as an executive editor and threw his hat in the ring with The New York Times. His time with the paper was brief; his first column saw print in May 2000. His last ran in April 2001. I caught up with Olafson via e-mail to learn more about writing for The New York Times and find out what he's been up to since leaving the paper of record.

GameDaily BIZ: What was your assignment at the Times?

Peter Olafson: One column of about 1,000 words every other week (alternating with Charles Herold). I could write about any game for any platform. All I had to do was coordinate my plans with my editor so I didn't bump up against Charles's plans. (As I recall, the editor had to play Solomon only once--over EA's Majestic.)

BIZ: What was the editorial staff's understanding of games and the pieces you were writing?

PO: It's hard to distinguish a grasp of games from one simply of coherent writing and reporting, but it seemed excellent. I had few complaints. The questions I received from my editor and copy editors were on the money.

BIZ: Did you get any editorial direction?

PO: I think something was said early on about painting with a broader brush than the games magazines where I'd made my bones. Otherwise, they just sort of opened the cage and let me loose.

BIZ: Any criticism?

PO: Not from the Times. But my first Game Theory column (on the shooter Soldier of Fortune) was mocked on the web by a conservative columnist. It stung a bit--mainly because it was my own fault. I was trying to make a point about how the game's elaborate wound system distinguished it from play-alike shooters in which every player's experience is more or less the same and I hadn't explained myself as well as I should have.

BIZ: Was there ever the concern that what you were doing was too subjective for technology writing? Too technical for entertainment writing?

PO: Apart from the nugget above about games magazines, none I can recall being raised with me.

BIZ: How did your relationship with the Times come to an end?

PO: Suddenly. The paper reduced the size of its Circuits section in spring of 2001 and cut back its games coverage. That meant keeping only one of the Game Theory columnists.

BIZ: Why do you think you were let go?

PO: I was given to understand later on that my tastes were thought to be less varied than my colleague's.

BIZ: Do you think there's room in criticism or games journalism for people who don't, say, play sports games? Somebody like Roger Ebert has to be pretty omnivorous in their appreciation of their medium. Why do you think games might be different?

PO: I'm a generalist, but it's unreasonable to expect every game critic to be a Jack of All Trades. There's room for specialists. What's important is that a game reviewer is well-matched to the game and genre he's reviewing.

BIZ: Do you feel like readers and editors are ready for first-person or more experiential writing about games?

PO: That's hard to say as to readers. I haven't had much contact with them since the Times gig ended. However, I haven't seen much interest at game publications. One editor wrote to me a few years back that he wouldn't run such pieces. The topic also comes up now and then in a gaming forum populated by a lot of writers and editors, and there seems to be a good-sized contingent that finds first-person writing self-indulgent--which it can be. It has to be a good fit to the subject matter. And space is certainly at a premium in magazines (though these pieces don't have to be ultra-long). Hence, much of the best writing of this type has appeared on the net. Even so, I wish this young industry would experiment more often. The basic format--news, features, previews, reviews--hasn't changed appreciably in 25 years.