I don't trust anyone who only cites other academics in their writing. Especially in game studies where the majority of critical and smart writing about games is NOT academic writing. If ppl say there is "nothing written about X" chances are they mean nothing written by academics.

It's WAY more work to actually read through (and engage with) what has been written about a game/ event (G@merg@te for example) by critics, journalists, and activists than to just read and cite the academic stuff but it's the right thing to do and your work will be better for it.

I am tweeting about this for the 100th time because I still hear constantly that grad students in game studies are getting feedback and reviews from mentors saying that they are spending too much time engaging with non-academic critics! I've heard this feedback myself many times!

This is especially fucked when you consider the lack of diversity in games academia vs the rest of the games criticism world! Citing only academics is going to mean you end up with a very specific type of perspective in your work from a (mostly) specific type of person.

This is just yet another type of feedback that senior academics give without really thinking about the larger implications of such feedback. It is one of the "rules" therefore you followed it and now you tell other people to follow it without really questioning why it exists.

The last thing I'll say is something I've said many times before. People in academia constantly get credit for saying something "first" when in reality they are just the first person to publish about it in a low-access peer-reviewed journal. That's fucked. break down those walls.

I shit on journals all the time but it's not just that I want all academic writing and work to be seen equally it is that I think all criticism should be considered equally. Your article in a peer-reviewed journal deserves no more of my attention than the newest Polygon video.