Settling Video Game Arguments, Part 1: Game Reviews(jeff-vogel.blogspot.com)
jeff-vogel.blogspot.com
Settling Video Game Arguments, Part 1: Game Reviews
http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2017/11/i-settle-all-video-game-arguments-part.html
113 comments
> then being attacked for being greedy or selfish by the games media
This is called the "Hostile Media Effect" [1]
All I saw was the press uniformly calling EA out for their monumentally stupid mistakes and disregard for customers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
This is called the "Hostile Media Effect" [1]
All I saw was the press uniformly calling EA out for their monumentally stupid mistakes and disregard for customers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
I don't think I saw a single article about EA that painted them in a favorable light over this one. "You paid like $60 for this game and would have to spend like $90 on average to unlock Darth Vader, or grind for [some large number of hours]" is not a good look.
This isn't the first thing EA's fucked up by being greedy for microtransactions, and it won't be the last time they roll it back after their customers reacting loudly enough that someone who doesn't give a damn about whatever franchise they're running into the ground by doing this hears about it - I mean, I don't give a shit about SW, much less SW:BF2, and I'm aware of this, and my entire mental picture of the story is "EA is a bunch of greedheads as usual".
This isn't the first thing EA's fucked up by being greedy for microtransactions, and it won't be the last time they roll it back after their customers reacting loudly enough that someone who doesn't give a damn about whatever franchise they're running into the ground by doing this hears about it - I mean, I don't give a shit about SW, much less SW:BF2, and I'm aware of this, and my entire mental picture of the story is "EA is a bunch of greedheads as usual".
> then being attacked for being greedy or selfish by the games media.
By who? I saw plenty of games media joining the EA-bashing, and none opposing it.
EA deserves the pummeling they're getting. I'm just annoyed because I wish we could get people to devote half the energy to serious issues that they'll spend on getting angry about video games.
By who? I saw plenty of games media joining the EA-bashing, and none opposing it.
EA deserves the pummeling they're getting. I'm just annoyed because I wish we could get people to devote half the energy to serious issues that they'll spend on getting angry about video games.
The sticker price for games has stayed rock steady for decades now while budgets have only exploded (not to mention inflation). AAA budgets, $60 titles, and no microtransactions or subscriptions is absolutely a 'pick two' scenario, and will continue to be.
> while budgets have only exploded
This is not really true. This is easy for us to check since many of these companies are publicly traded and are required to report their financials.
As one example, EA claims in their public filings that EA's cost for AAA game development has decreased over the last ten years (roughly $300 million less dev costs per year today, inflation adjusted, than they spent in 2009).
> AAA budgets, $60 titles, and no microtransactions or subscriptions is absolutely a 'pick two' scenario.
It's not -- and again, we can know this for a fact from their public financials. EA claims their traditional AAA games (sales only, explicitly excluding any microtransactions or lootboxes) carry roughly 60% profit margin all on their own.
They definitely don't need the extra gambling revenue, but it's obvious why they want it.
This is not really true. This is easy for us to check since many of these companies are publicly traded and are required to report their financials.
As one example, EA claims in their public filings that EA's cost for AAA game development has decreased over the last ten years (roughly $300 million less dev costs per year today, inflation adjusted, than they spent in 2009).
> AAA budgets, $60 titles, and no microtransactions or subscriptions is absolutely a 'pick two' scenario.
It's not -- and again, we can know this for a fact from their public financials. EA claims their traditional AAA games (sales only, explicitly excluding any microtransactions or lootboxes) carry roughly 60% profit margin all on their own.
They definitely don't need the extra gambling revenue, but it's obvious why they want it.
That completely ignores the fact that audience and number of sold copies had grown as well. Games that have once sold 1 million copoies now sell in 5-10x as much. If anything the profits are now higher than ever.
And budgets have exploded 200x from the 1-3M N64 game days. It's utterly disproportionate. If you look at the most profitable games (Blizzard, Valve, Riot) they're moving away from sticker prices altogether.
I'm not talking N64 days, e.g. typical EA example is Dead Space - the first one sold 1 million copies and was considered a huge success. Such a success that they bootstrapped a whole franchise. And that's not a N64 type game.
It's third installment, Dead Space 3, was slated to sell minimum of 5 million copies. With less than 5 million, EA decided that it's not going to be profitable enough. It also had microtransactions and DLCs on top of those required 5 million copies sold.
Who's greedy here?
It's third installment, Dead Space 3, was slated to sell minimum of 5 million copies. With less than 5 million, EA decided that it's not going to be profitable enough. It also had microtransactions and DLCs on top of those required 5 million copies sold.
Who's greedy here?
> The sticker price for games has stayed rock steady for decades
Where I am, AAA games used to cost €40 at the top end. Then €50. Then €60 and now I see them for €70 (more if you buy bullshit deluxe editions that give you extra skins or somesuch; more still for collectors editions, but they've always existed).
So, at least where I am, I'm not seeing it staying "rock steady for decades".
Where I am, AAA games used to cost €40 at the top end. Then €50. Then €60 and now I see them for €70 (more if you buy bullshit deluxe editions that give you extra skins or somesuch; more still for collectors editions, but they've always existed).
So, at least where I am, I'm not seeing it staying "rock steady for decades".
katastic(3)
What 'specific political agenda' are people who write about games part of?
One might cite news sources which oppose Gamergate as having a political agenda, since Gamergate quickly stopped being about the "five guys" allegations and became about the party lines that both sides drew.
Increasing the $ per entertainment hour games provide.
That's not a political agenda.
>Politics (from Greek: Politiká: Politika, definition "affairs of the cities") is the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
It's not a political agenda in the context used by the poster I'm replying to and the original article. Your use of the term would be equally silly (and 'supported' by the same helpful wikipedia article) if you'd said a review of SimCity has a political agenda because it talks about 'the affairs of cities'.
SimCity is hardly apolitical; it takes influence from the work of Jane Jacobs and Christopher Alexander.
Politics is, broadly, anything to do with interacting with other people. It's a recent phenomenon that only electoral politics is considered politics.
When gamers organize, usually the press will mysteriously start making up a barrel of salacious lies about them. Some subset of the public then gets a nasty impression of them, and life goes on. This time, something of an organized boycott (by way of large numbers of people realizing that to purchase the game or its DLC is to be complicit in EA's merchandising choices) it really hit EA's bottom line, so they'll say whatever they can to discredit and play down the consumer's opinion of their product and practices.
This is nonsensical.
In the first instance, all of the coverage at sites like Waypoint, Polygon, RPS and so on has been critical of EA's choices vis-á-vis Battlefront II.
In the second, how can the press make up "salacious lies" about a demographic as varied and numerous as gamers?
In the first instance, all of the coverage at sites like Waypoint, Polygon, RPS and so on has been critical of EA's choices vis-á-vis Battlefront II.
In the second, how can the press make up "salacious lies" about a demographic as varied and numerous as gamers?
How do you know if it hit their bottom line or not, until their earnings report comes out?
They received so many returns that they removed the return page from their website, to force their customers to request returns over their rather poor telephone call centre. They then went on damage control, disabled (until this cools down) some of the features which were upsetting customers, and made sure everyone knew about it.
None of which actually proves that it meaningfully affected their revenue.
You're assuming that the games media is actually defending EA, which isn't actually true as far as I can tell.
Gamers rebelling against micro-transactions, then being attacked for being greedy or selfish by the games media.
Do you have an example of these attacks? Are they representative of the games media? Everything I've read was critical of the approach chosen by the dev/publisher. And there was no shortage of these articles, because I'm sure, like all controversies, this one generated a generous amount of clicks.
Do you have an example of these attacks? Are they representative of the games media? Everything I've read was critical of the approach chosen by the dev/publisher. And there was no shortage of these articles, because I'm sure, like all controversies, this one generated a generous amount of clicks.
Jeff's article is spot-on as always. I'm a bit surprised that any of this still has to be mentioned, but I guess people forget. It's the same reason why I would never go to Roger Ebert for a movie review: he and I like drastically different things.
That said, please allow me to make two suggestions to anyone reading this:
1) Check out more of Jeff's blog. His writing is fun, excellent and educational. Even if you only care about tech it will be interesting for you to read Jeff's frank discussion of his game sales numbers and the challenges he has overcome almost single-handedly coding and writing his many games.
2) Give Jeff some of your money. His games are unapologetically targeted at people who enjoy rpg elements, turn based combat and an interesting story. If that sounds like your cup of tea then buy one of his games if you like the gameplay video.
That said, please allow me to make two suggestions to anyone reading this:
1) Check out more of Jeff's blog. His writing is fun, excellent and educational. Even if you only care about tech it will be interesting for you to read Jeff's frank discussion of his game sales numbers and the challenges he has overcome almost single-handedly coding and writing his many games.
2) Give Jeff some of your money. His games are unapologetically targeted at people who enjoy rpg elements, turn based combat and an interesting story. If that sounds like your cup of tea then buy one of his games if you like the gameplay video.
Jeff's blog has been amazing for as long as I can remember. I've been reading his stuff on a regular basis since I was in college and I've been playing his games since I was seven, downloading them off of AOL and getting mad at the Shareware Demon who told me I couldn't go any further.
Exile II remains the only game I ever cracked (I don't mean with-a-keygen, I mean with-a-hex-editor; I never got into games pirating from other people), because I was like nine years old and hex editors were easier to come by than credit cards, but I'm pretty sure I've made up for that by buying everything he's released since. Blades of Exile was the first game I ever bought through the mail, Geneforge was never my jam but I bought them all anyway on principle, and I still want a Nethergate 2.
Exile II remains the only game I ever cracked (I don't mean with-a-keygen, I mean with-a-hex-editor; I never got into games pirating from other people), because I was like nine years old and hex editors were easier to come by than credit cards, but I'm pretty sure I've made up for that by buying everything he's released since. Blades of Exile was the first game I ever bought through the mail, Geneforge was never my jam but I bought them all anyway on principle, and I still want a Nethergate 2.
You should send Jeff a quick email explaining how you became a life long customer. I am sure he would get a kick out of it! Jeff wouldn't be writing games after all these years if he was in this strictly for the money.
We've corresponded before. ;) I tried to get him on a podcast once, but he's not big on them. Maybe someday!
(This is unrelated, but loads of people find it very difficult/intimidating to reach out to people who do interesting stuff. I love shooting emails to people who've done stuff that I find awesome and just about everyone is responsive and extremely gracious.)
(This is unrelated, but loads of people find it very difficult/intimidating to reach out to people who do interesting stuff. I love shooting emails to people who've done stuff that I find awesome and just about everyone is responsive and extremely gracious.)
I agree strongly with (1). Jeff is brilliant, and wise, and his writing is terrific. I wish him success.
(And yeah, this article is spot-on, as always.)
But there's a problem with (2): his games are fucking terrible (for context, I've played 3 of his games, for a total of perhaps 50 hours, because I was really trying to like them). I mean, I'm super glad that someone that I admire so much has an audience, and I hope that some people continue to give him some money, but I could never recommend any of his games to anyone.
Then again, the things I think are terrible about his games, perhaps lots of people won't mind.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, just because Jeff Vogel is a wise dedicated respect-worthy guy, doesn't mean his niche will work for you. But then again, maybe you should give him some money anyway, and then just burn the game.
(And yeah, this article is spot-on, as always.)
But there's a problem with (2): his games are fucking terrible (for context, I've played 3 of his games, for a total of perhaps 50 hours, because I was really trying to like them). I mean, I'm super glad that someone that I admire so much has an audience, and I hope that some people continue to give him some money, but I could never recommend any of his games to anyone.
Then again, the things I think are terrible about his games, perhaps lots of people won't mind.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, just because Jeff Vogel is a wise dedicated respect-worthy guy, doesn't mean his niche will work for you. But then again, maybe you should give him some money anyway, and then just burn the game.
I did encourage folks to watch some gameplay videos (there are plenty of streamers, "Let's Play" bloggers for folks to choose from) before making up their mind.
I'm genuinely curious: what makes you say Jeff's games are terrible? Honest question. Personally I played Geneforge and Avadon series and enjoyed both.
I'm genuinely curious: what makes you say Jeff's games are terrible? Honest question. Personally I played Geneforge and Avadon series and enjoyed both.
Coming at it from the other end, I'm pretty sure that if my experience with Jeff's games was Geneforge and Avadon, I'd think they were terrible. I don't enjoy the gameplay pretty much across-the-board and while Jeff can tell a good story I don't like having to chew my way to it.
On the other hand, I literally grew up with Exile, Nethergate, and Avernum (1-3, I'm not as hot on 4-6), and I will give that guy money for all his stuff (I will buy the Avernum 3 remake day-and-date, and it'd have been the only game I've preordered this year if I could) just because those work for me so well.
On the other hand, I literally grew up with Exile, Nethergate, and Avernum (1-3, I'm not as hot on 4-6), and I will give that guy money for all his stuff (I will buy the Avernum 3 remake day-and-date, and it'd have been the only game I've preordered this year if I could) just because those work for me so well.
Many times I've read a game review by someone who has no interest or experience in the genre. While a different point of view is always interesting, I personally enjoy reviews and writing by someone at least knowledgeable about the subject matter and its context.
An example was a review for the Crash Bandicoot remakes by someone who has never played or been into classic platformers. Therefore, the review was mostly complaining about how you go back to the beginning if you lose all your lives (!?).
--
Personally, like others have said, I rely on friends and communities devoted to a few specific genres I like (turn based JRPGs make up 80% of my game library).
An example was a review for the Crash Bandicoot remakes by someone who has never played or been into classic platformers. Therefore, the review was mostly complaining about how you go back to the beginning if you lose all your lives (!?).
--
Personally, like others have said, I rely on friends and communities devoted to a few specific genres I like (turn based JRPGs make up 80% of my game library).
Similar to what seems to constantly happen on AV Club with their TV reviews. A reviewer who has no interest in the material is assigned and their reviews are awful.
The saving grace, though, is that the comment threads on those shows are often wonderful anyway. They somehow have a solid community despite their terrible review strategy.
Possible something like that could happen with a game review site.
The saving grace, though, is that the comment threads on those shows are often wonderful anyway. They somehow have a solid community despite their terrible review strategy.
Possible something like that could happen with a game review site.
See, that Crash Bandicoot review sounds useful to me. I also did not play the originals, and vaguely wondered if I should play the remakes to see what I missed out on. Knowing that it is a frustrating experience without the nostalgia factor is quite valuable to me.
Going back to the beginning isn't necessarily a frustrating experience though. It depends on other factors such as how far back you go and how frequently it happens. I personally don't find Crash frustrating or particularly hard.
If you don't play platformers (I do), then perhaps it would be frustrating for you. But.. yes, games have become more accessible than they were in the 90's when Crash was created.
If you don't play platformers (I do), then perhaps it would be frustrating for you. But.. yes, games have become more accessible than they were in the 90's when Crash was created.
If you really think about it game reviews are outdated. This isn't the 90s anymore.
Go to YouTube and search for the title of the game followed by gameplay. Example: "cold steel gameplay". Now go to page 3 of the search results to make sure you're NOT getting advertising or ecelebs. You're looking for that random guy who is just recording the game. And doesn't talk. Very important detail. You want that video with sub 100k views. And now you can see for yourself exactly what you will get and can make an informed purchase.
But I suppose its just one of those things people want to do that has nothing to do with practicality.
Go to YouTube and search for the title of the game followed by gameplay. Example: "cold steel gameplay". Now go to page 3 of the search results to make sure you're NOT getting advertising or ecelebs. You're looking for that random guy who is just recording the game. And doesn't talk. Very important detail. You want that video with sub 100k views. And now you can see for yourself exactly what you will get and can make an informed purchase.
But I suppose its just one of those things people want to do that has nothing to do with practicality.
I really like ACG's "Buy, Wait for Sale, Rent, Never Touch?" review videos. He talks about graphics, sound, gameplay etc separately and then rates the game as either "buy", "wait for sale", "rent" or "never touch".
My process is typically to look at a gameplay video (as you suggest) first. If the game looks like something I might like, then I check if ACG did a review. Gameplay videos alone aren't enough. They show you a quick snapshot of the action, but it can be super hard to see how much fun it actually is, how good the design is, how well it plays out throughout the course of the game, if there are any bugs, glitches or gotchas, what the overall writing is like, if the graphics or sound are consistently as they are in the gameplay video, etc etc.
Its a good starting point, but its not enough on its own.
Having said that, I have not made a purchasing decision based on more traditional reviews in a long long time and don't personally find "magazine-style" reviews (or their video counterparts) to be useful at all.
My process is typically to look at a gameplay video (as you suggest) first. If the game looks like something I might like, then I check if ACG did a review. Gameplay videos alone aren't enough. They show you a quick snapshot of the action, but it can be super hard to see how much fun it actually is, how good the design is, how well it plays out throughout the course of the game, if there are any bugs, glitches or gotchas, what the overall writing is like, if the graphics or sound are consistently as they are in the gameplay video, etc etc.
Its a good starting point, but its not enough on its own.
Having said that, I have not made a purchasing decision based on more traditional reviews in a long long time and don't personally find "magazine-style" reviews (or their video counterparts) to be useful at all.
There's a lot you don't learn from watching gameplay videos. You don't learn what the controls feel like, how responsive it is. Many games look like a confusing mess if you haven't played through the tutorial stages yourself to understand what the player is doing and what drives the decisions they make. And unless it's a first-time playthrough, you don't learn what it's like for a new player. There's a great big pile of streamers who've been playing Dark Souls for thousands of hours, and you will get a very very wrong impression of the game's difficulty if you just watch them.
A good review gives an accurate impression of a game's strengths and weaknesses in 5 minutes of reading. I've bought games based on overall negative reviews before, because the writer was even-handed enough for me to judge exactly how my tastes differed from his, and see that I could live with the bits he hated and love the bits he thought were just decent.
A good review gives an accurate impression of a game's strengths and weaknesses in 5 minutes of reading. I've bought games based on overall negative reviews before, because the writer was even-handed enough for me to judge exactly how my tastes differed from his, and see that I could live with the bits he hated and love the bits he thought were just decent.
I agree with this. The Dark Souls reference is so true (but applies to every game)
> here's a great big pile of streamers who've been playing Dark Souls for thousands of hours, and you will get a very very wrong impression of the game's difficulty if you just watch them.
Hell, when I play dark souls now, I just kinda ignore all the enemies. They're like flies that get swatted if they get too close, but that's it. This is NOT the experience a first time player will have. Instead of flies, each enemy is an angry bear with a time bomb strapped to its back, with robot claws. Every enemy strikes them with fear and apprehension. All of this goes away as you become accustomed to the game.
When you watch an experienced player play, you obviously see the former and not the latter and what you see is NOT the experience you will have. (Although, you can of course watch a video where someone new to the series is playing... but the majority of videos are by existing fans)
> here's a great big pile of streamers who've been playing Dark Souls for thousands of hours, and you will get a very very wrong impression of the game's difficulty if you just watch them.
Hell, when I play dark souls now, I just kinda ignore all the enemies. They're like flies that get swatted if they get too close, but that's it. This is NOT the experience a first time player will have. Instead of flies, each enemy is an angry bear with a time bomb strapped to its back, with robot claws. Every enemy strikes them with fear and apprehension. All of this goes away as you become accustomed to the game.
When you watch an experienced player play, you obviously see the former and not the latter and what you see is NOT the experience you will have. (Although, you can of course watch a video where someone new to the series is playing... but the majority of videos are by existing fans)
Reviews consider the game in its entirety, not any single X-minute segment. It would be incorrect to assess MGS5 on base-management sections of gameplay, for example.
And I don't think you can always get a clear idea of what it's like to play a game just from footage of it
Alternatively, do the same thing with Twitch.
I watched some random streamer with 3 viewers play Skyrim an hour or so a day for several days, asking him what he liked/disliked about it, before purchasing it.
I watched some random streamer with 3 viewers play Skyrim an hour or so a day for several days, asking him what he liked/disliked about it, before purchasing it.
Often, a good reviewer will give a good description of gameplay, and a good idea of how steep the difficulty curve is, how the game changes, whether it gets repetitive later on, etc.
These things are really hard to get from someone doing a several minute video. That said, I do pretty much what you said (although I just pick one of the first page results, since I don't seem to get the 'ecelebs' (?) you get.)
Although, once I read a review of Jak and Daxter II, and the reviewer said it was fantastic up to a particular point, which was impossible to get through, and thus it ruined the game for him. So when I played it, I kept waiting for this unbearably difficult bit... and made it all the way through the game! I went back to the review, and (having played the game) recognized the area he was talking about. It was slightly difficult, in that it might have taken me three tries to get through... :-)
These things are really hard to get from someone doing a several minute video. That said, I do pretty much what you said (although I just pick one of the first page results, since I don't seem to get the 'ecelebs' (?) you get.)
Although, once I read a review of Jak and Daxter II, and the reviewer said it was fantastic up to a particular point, which was impossible to get through, and thus it ruined the game for him. So when I played it, I kept waiting for this unbearably difficult bit... and made it all the way through the game! I went back to the review, and (having played the game) recognized the area he was talking about. It was slightly difficult, in that it might have taken me three tries to get through... :-)
Interesting - I've never cared for professional reviewers or anything of the sort - instead I just look for the biggest user review site around, which is currently probably Steam and read the comments a bit and then if I'm on the borderline I'll watch a YouTube video of actual gameplay. I can understand why they existed before, but what's the benefit of professional reviewers in this day and age, when it's far easier to determine what the common opinion of something will be?
Video game reviews usually have opposing goals: journalists want to elevate video games to an art and to elevate their criticism to art criticism, but users want them to quickly provide a helpful recommendation (which is represented by a number score).
Steam reviews are concise by design and give you a better idea of whether you'll have the same kind of positive opinion (for example, if all the positive reviews are memey, that says something significant). So I'd say they're definitely better.
I think some people who were video game reviewers will go on to become popular youtube "video essay" producers like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/user/Matthewmatosis and the rest will get new jobs.
Steam reviews are concise by design and give you a better idea of whether you'll have the same kind of positive opinion (for example, if all the positive reviews are memey, that says something significant). So I'd say they're definitely better.
I think some people who were video game reviewers will go on to become popular youtube "video essay" producers like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/user/Matthewmatosis and the rest will get new jobs.
The games press doesn't "want to elevate video games to an art". Games are art. And there are both game reviewers and game critics and the distinction is pretty clear once you've spent a few minutes figuring out if that particular person's thinking matches your own enough to be worth considering.
> users want them to quickly provide a helpful recommendation (which is represented by a number score)
Speak for yourself. I'm a "user". I also appreciate criticism that places a game in a historical, textual, and social context and that often tells me more about whether I'll like the game than "oh yeah, it runs at 60fps solid on my 1080Ti". A game reviewer might have put me off of Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossus or NieR: Automata because of gameplay ephemera they didn't like; game critics turned me onto both games because they were must-play experiments in how we tell stories.
> users want them to quickly provide a helpful recommendation (which is represented by a number score)
Speak for yourself. I'm a "user". I also appreciate criticism that places a game in a historical, textual, and social context and that often tells me more about whether I'll like the game than "oh yeah, it runs at 60fps solid on my 1080Ti". A game reviewer might have put me off of Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossus or NieR: Automata because of gameplay ephemera they didn't like; game critics turned me onto both games because they were must-play experiments in how we tell stories.
> Games are art.
This is really off topic but simply put, not all games are art. And I don't mean that in the way you might guess. Soccer is a game, it is not art. And games in general are not going towards a future where they are considered closer to art. The most popular game in the world is League of Legends, which people would think of as closer to an esport than art.
There's a small section of games which try to be pieces of art. Maybe they are. But most people playing games don't think of them as art, they think of them as games.
There's a small section of games which try to be pieces of art. Maybe they are. But most people playing games don't think of them as art, they think of them as games.
Appeals to "most people" are ugly. Most people reading books and watching films don't think of them as art, either. What they think their nature is and what their nature is wonderfully different things.
The only reason to sniff at any game, even something like League of Legends, and declare it to Not Be Art is to deny the active artistic intent of the creators involved. It is exclusionary for no good reason.
The only reason to sniff at any game, even something like League of Legends, and declare it to Not Be Art is to deny the active artistic intent of the creators involved. It is exclusionary for no good reason.
Videogames use art but its not art. Or more specifically, its not created for their artistic value. Videogames are a amusement product over an artistic product.
For example, a stunning artistic videogame but boring versus a ugly game but funny.
For example, a stunning artistic videogame but boring versus a ugly game but funny.
There are many types of videogames with many different audiences, similar to movies. You can argue that videogames aren't art by pointing to Call of Duty, just as I can argue that movies aren't art by pointing to Suicide Squad. If you argue that movies are art by pointing to Citizen Kane, I'll point to Spec Ops: The Line or the Stanley Parable.
I also think you're conflating "art" and "visual design".
I also think you're conflating "art" and "visual design".
Even within Call of Duty, I would certainly call the single-player campaigns, from the original game up through today, successive iterations on a presentation of a narrative message even completely divorced from the ephemera of play (which is itself artistic in nature, though less universally obviously so).
Quake would be a better example, but I'd hold, too, that the decisions and the ephemera of that are art as well. Nothing says you can't play art.
Quake would be a better example, but I'd hold, too, that the decisions and the ephemera of that are art as well. Nothing says you can't play art.
This argument has been used against many media now very readily accepted as art: that they're just amusements, they're not art. They frequently come from critics of other media that don't want to expand the club, and they are invariably demonstrated to be incorrect over even the short term.
As for your example, there are boring but beautifully shot films--2001: A Space Odyssey certainly fits that bill for me. There are engaging films with crude cinematography--the original Clerks comes to mind, for a certain time and audience. You are drawing a distinction without a difference.
As for your example, there are boring but beautifully shot films--2001: A Space Odyssey certainly fits that bill for me. There are engaging films with crude cinematography--the original Clerks comes to mind, for a certain time and audience. You are drawing a distinction without a difference.
Depending on reviewer, the review could be equal to a recommendation by a friend or colleague. This can give you more insight into the reason for a particular review.
This article reflects an opinion I've long held about game reviews - it's okay for other people to have different opinions. All a review can be is one person's opinion. It might be insightful, helpful, great, terrible, but it's all just an opinion.
There should be room within artistic criticism for critics to have different opinions. If Polygon wants to analyze games through the lens of left-leaning politics, that's fine! Readers who want games examined in that way will find that useful. If Totalbiscuit wants to rate games based on their PC ports and framerate, that's also fine! He has an audience that enjoys that.
It is acceptable and even valuable for there to be a wide variety of opinions and criticism for an art form. Forget Metacritic bonuses. It's not our job to worry about that. When you read criticism you disagree with, have the confidence to say, "I understand why you didn't like that game, but I did and that's okay."
There should be room within artistic criticism for critics to have different opinions. If Polygon wants to analyze games through the lens of left-leaning politics, that's fine! Readers who want games examined in that way will find that useful. If Totalbiscuit wants to rate games based on their PC ports and framerate, that's also fine! He has an audience that enjoys that.
It is acceptable and even valuable for there to be a wide variety of opinions and criticism for an art form. Forget Metacritic bonuses. It's not our job to worry about that. When you read criticism you disagree with, have the confidence to say, "I understand why you didn't like that game, but I did and that's okay."
As a counter arguement to the one put forward in the blog, it's also ok to care deeply about how journalists in the game industry behave because it's ok to care about stuff, even if it's not politics.
The article doesn't say "Nobody should care deeply about game reviewers"; it says "If a game reviewer gives a game you like a bad score, that's okay; it means that you and the reviewer disagree and you should disregard their opinions on games because you are probably looking for different things than they are".
If a reviewer gave a game a bad score, it could also mean that the reviewer is being paid to write a bad score.
And a good score could be paid for, too.
And I think it's OK to care about who is being paid to say what.
And a good score could be paid for, too.
And I think it's OK to care about who is being paid to say what.
> If a reviewer gave a game a bad score, it could also mean that the reviewer is being paid to write a bad score.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until then, this is static.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until then, this is static.
Why do you feel that's an extraordinary claim?
Because I'm familiar with both the games press and games PR. I understand how those interactions work well enough to be very, very skeptical. There is some minor possibility of good reviews in exchange for advertising--except that sales and content at any outlet significant enough to be called the "games press", from Kotaku to Giant Bomb, has a wall between sales and content and publishers (when they bother to notice the games press at all) know that bad scores are, occasionally, just part of the package. The last major break of that I can think of was Gamespot and Jeff Gerstmann, and the people involved in causing that were so roundly shredded that I don't even think most of them are in the industry anymore. So while vanishingly unlikely, sure, there's a possibility of payola there. But getting paid for bad reviews? Come on. Substantiate--with evidence--those wild claims or don't make them.
If he'd said "games YouTube"--now, that's a different thing, as the interactions between influencers and publishers (in ways that are deleterious to the public, to be honest) are pretty well-documented across the board in ways that are not "some rando with an anime avatar said so". But even they aren't incentivized in any way that I've ever, not once, seen substantiated to give bad reviews. So, again, that's a put-up-or-shut-up.
If he'd said "games YouTube"--now, that's a different thing, as the interactions between influencers and publishers (in ways that are deleterious to the public, to be honest) are pretty well-documented across the board in ways that are not "some rando with an anime avatar said so". But even they aren't incentivized in any way that I've ever, not once, seen substantiated to give bad reviews. So, again, that's a put-up-or-shut-up.
Good scores often are paid for, perhaps indirectly through influence, access and advertising. Not exclusive to games, of course; eg Telegraph /HSBC.
Credible allegations that bad scores are paid for are very rare.
Credible allegations that bad scores are paid for are very rare.
"Look, I love laughing at game professionals flailing at games as much as anyone. Remember when that unnamed Polygon writer tried Doom and showed no signs of ever having played it (or any video game) ever before? That was a hoot.
(My favorite bit is when the player unloads a full shotgun blast into a health pack resting on the ground, in what I can only assume is a post-modern deconstruction of late-stage capitalism.)
But some people watched that video and said, "Wow, I should never buy this game," and were right to say it. So the video was useful after all."
I feel like he brushes this criticism off without really confronting it.
A reviewer who's experienced with gaming and good at it can gauge difficulty, one who's inexperienced and terrible can't reliably. Reviewers shouldn't be perfect mirror images of the people they represent. They need to be above average to have cogent criticism and to communicate that to gamers effectively. Terrible analogy: No one is arguing that war correspondents don't need to know anything about geopolitics because "most people who read about geopolitics don't understand it, and they deserve correspondents who advocate for them."
(My favorite bit is when the player unloads a full shotgun blast into a health pack resting on the ground, in what I can only assume is a post-modern deconstruction of late-stage capitalism.)
But some people watched that video and said, "Wow, I should never buy this game," and were right to say it. So the video was useful after all."
I feel like he brushes this criticism off without really confronting it.
A reviewer who's experienced with gaming and good at it can gauge difficulty, one who's inexperienced and terrible can't reliably. Reviewers shouldn't be perfect mirror images of the people they represent. They need to be above average to have cogent criticism and to communicate that to gamers effectively. Terrible analogy: No one is arguing that war correspondents don't need to know anything about geopolitics because "most people who read about geopolitics don't understand it, and they deserve correspondents who advocate for them."
Yeah, that part seemed particularly bizarre. I would never accept a gig writing reviews for Jazz performances -- I don't know anything about Jazz and I can't fathom why anyone would care about what I have to say.
I don't care about "critics'" reviews or most media reviews for that matter. To evaluate something, I prefer to ask those who like given genre and can express an educated opinion.
You don't care about critics, you care about critics. I understand what you're trying to say, but I think you're dismissing criticism at the same time.
You want a critic who has a familiarity with the genre that is beyond superficial, and preferably on a deeper level. You want that critic to express an educated opinion, which should be a minimum for any form of criticism.
There are some critics who take a larger frame of reference, who might try to represent general audiences who are less familiar with a genre. Some critics can shift in an out of different perspectives. A good movie critic can talk about the merits of an over-the-top action movie without dismissing it.
It is perfectly reasonable to find the general critic less useful than the niche critic, both forms are still valid criticism.
You want a critic who has a familiarity with the genre that is beyond superficial, and preferably on a deeper level. You want that critic to express an educated opinion, which should be a minimum for any form of criticism.
There are some critics who take a larger frame of reference, who might try to represent general audiences who are less familiar with a genre. Some critics can shift in an out of different perspectives. A good movie critic can talk about the merits of an over-the-top action movie without dismissing it.
It is perfectly reasonable to find the general critic less useful than the niche critic, both forms are still valid criticism.
What I meant is that I don't care about "professional critics" most of the time, unless they are well informed. I'm more interested in informal reviews coming from actual gamers.
I think professional critics are more useful in fields with a longer traditional of quality criticism. I haven't really found a set that are useful when it comes to video games for myself, and rarely even touch a game anymore.
Part of the problem might be that the time required to become fully versed in video games is immense, if finishing the games are required. One can get up to speed on the history of multiple film genres in less time than it would take to play through the genre of RPGs. Some games are meant to be disposable rehashes (e.g. modern war FPS) that just push the edge of graphics tech (which is OK), so it's easy to judge if the graphics suck or not.
I think another issue is that some people want the experience of the critic to match their own. A kid growing up will find a lot of ideas to be fresh that are tired and cliche to anyone with a childhood of [gaming,movies,etc.] experience. The drawback is that though peer reviews are useful, they don't always challenge you to think critically beyond what your peers think.
Part of the problem might be that the time required to become fully versed in video games is immense, if finishing the games are required. One can get up to speed on the history of multiple film genres in less time than it would take to play through the genre of RPGs. Some games are meant to be disposable rehashes (e.g. modern war FPS) that just push the edge of graphics tech (which is OK), so it's easy to judge if the graphics suck or not.
I think another issue is that some people want the experience of the critic to match their own. A kid growing up will find a lot of ideas to be fresh that are tired and cliche to anyone with a childhood of [gaming,movies,etc.] experience. The drawback is that though peer reviews are useful, they don't always challenge you to think critically beyond what your peers think.
I agree, games are a more complicated medium to review because they require more time. That's why opinions of those who actually play them make more sense. They can evaluate game approach and highlight strong and weak aspects of it, in game design, story branching, writing and etc. I suppose technical aspects are easier to review for those who don't invest that much time in it.
It's for sure difficult for RPGs, but even for FPS, take something like Shadow Warrior (remake). Without finishing the game, one can't know the story twist and full evolution of the main character which kind of puts the whole game in a different light. It's just a work of art IMHO. For any critic to adequately review it, they need to finish the game.
It's for sure difficult for RPGs, but even for FPS, take something like Shadow Warrior (remake). Without finishing the game, one can't know the story twist and full evolution of the main character which kind of puts the whole game in a different light. It's just a work of art IMHO. For any critic to adequately review it, they need to finish the game.
How is that different from what a no-airquotes-needed,-thank-you critic does when it comes to media?
Find ones who like the genre and can express what you consider to be "an educated opinion" (and that one does get the airquotes). They're probably out there.
Find ones who like the genre and can express what you consider to be "an educated opinion" (and that one does get the airquotes). They're probably out there.
The difference is, I can get way more valuable input about games from some gaming forum, than from a media site. That was my experience at least. May be I was just lucky and found interesting communities.
Here's the thing: Game journalism corruption has been a thing for decades now. When Bubsy first came out, there was a media blitz in magazines like GamePro, who had fulsome praise and promoted Bubsy as the next Sonic. Of course anyone who's played the game knows it's rather terrible. So I think when we see outrage against games journalists, what we are really seeing is a skeptical audience and that's a sign of health in the community. Games journalists who praise a bad game as good because they were paid to, or who criticize a good game as bad because they can't be arsed to learn to play it and somehow, to them, it's the game's fault, are not fulfilling their ostensible function of informing the potential audience for these games.
That said if you're going to call out a games journalist, it's important to be gentlemanly and civilized and not act like a rabid chimp.
That said if you're going to call out a games journalist, it's important to be gentlemanly and civilized and not act like a rabid chimp.
One thing I still try to understand is the anger flared when a game/movie sucks. I think the only thing anyone should do when a game sucks is not buy it, and not watch it anymore. But for some reason some people make it their mission to make it a vendetta against the developer.
The problem is you usually don't know if a game sucks until you spend $60 on it. The younger gamers who are more likely to participate in mob action can't afford to waste $60 on a shitty game. If someone takes your money for a product that is obviously broken and shouldn't have made it past QA, it's hard not to feel burned.
If this was genuinely the case, wouldn't documenting ways to get a refund be more worthwhile? I believe in the UK you can return anything bought online within 2 weeks. There's plenty of other large stores that pride themselves on no quibble refunds.
I've never felt money was a key driver here.
(Unlike say, platform rivalry, which I've often put down to the fact that it's a massive investment for young kids when they choose to buy one platform and a bunch of games and peripherals, so hearing they've made a bad choice may inflame emotions)
I've never felt money was a key driver here.
(Unlike say, platform rivalry, which I've often put down to the fact that it's a massive investment for young kids when they choose to buy one platform and a bunch of games and peripherals, so hearing they've made a bad choice may inflame emotions)
I tried to return a game I bought on playstation network and Sony flat out refused because I had played it (how else would I have known it wasn't good? If reviews etc had helped, I wouldn't have bought it to begin with). They told me to direct any further complaints about it to their legal department. I didn't bother.
In the US, you essentially can't return games if bought physically, you can only exchange it for the same product if it's broken physically (i.e., not just buggy). Steam has a 24 hour return policy? I haven't used Steam in a while.
It makes a ton of sense when you think about all the hype, preorders, franchises, exclusive IP grants, etc. that go into these events.
Battlefront 2 (2) is a great example. AAA game, so people felt comfortable preordering. Has the Star Wars IP, one of the most famous universes there is. Is continuing the old Battlefront 2, an insanely popular game and likely a cherished childhood memory of a large part of the now adult population making the purchases and complaining. And despite all the bad press, it is generally considered a good game, it's just that greedy policies ruin it for a lot of people.
Battlefront 2 (2) is a great example. AAA game, so people felt comfortable preordering. Has the Star Wars IP, one of the most famous universes there is. Is continuing the old Battlefront 2, an insanely popular game and likely a cherished childhood memory of a large part of the now adult population making the purchases and complaining. And despite all the bad press, it is generally considered a good game, it's just that greedy policies ruin it for a lot of people.
With exclusive IP rights, the anger is that "This is the best Star Wars game we're going to get, and it's complete crap."
I thought an important part of this article was to avoid sites where a different reviewer reviews games chosen seemingly at random (like the mainstream IGN, Gamespot, Polygon). Just because you agree with/like John's IGN review of game A doesn't mean you'll agree with Mark's IGN review of game B. Instead find a review site with consistent reviewers whom you like or agree with and read them.
For me, I like RockPaperShotgun and Destructoid. Both of those sites seem like they are written by gamers who love gaming, not paid critics. I'd be interested in hearing about other high quality game review sites.
Good video summing up "outrage" that occurred around Cuphead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-P9_oUV9Gw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-P9_oUV9Gw
The author(Shaun) is very reasonable, as are the SJWs who expand on the vid in response to 'secretagentlucario'. But even after that user's efforts to discover what the problem in problematic is, they fail to make it clear. Everyone ends at "it's worth talking about", everyone denies wanting anything loony like inserting PSAs before videogames that want to use a 30s american animation aesthetic. What is there to talk about? I don't blame gamers for concluding those tweets were an attack on Cuphead; that's what 'problematic' is, an airheaded attack.
I can't speak for the people having the discussion, but if I were to put a "game critic" hat on I would say that Cuphead seems to have missed an opportunity to borrow an art style but subvert the racism of the genre, but instead chose to sweet it under the rug. That's a shame, it could've made a great game even greater to smartly acknowledge the fire it was playing with.
I agree that "problematic" should be retired because it's lazy shorthand that has gotten out of control. But to "academic" types saying something is "problematic" is really banal: literally everything is problematic, in some way or another to a critic. That's okay though, and it's true of all other forms of art that are criticized and theorized. So I agree that the language and jargon of academia is, well... problematic :)
> I don't blame gamers for concluding those tweets were an attack on Cuphead; that's what 'problematic' is, an airheaded attack.
I blame the people like the youtuber in at the beginning of Shaun's video, which I think is the point: there are people out there stoking the flames of outrage for profit based on misreading (on purpose or otherwise) of fairly banal things said by academics and critics.
I agree that "problematic" should be retired because it's lazy shorthand that has gotten out of control. But to "academic" types saying something is "problematic" is really banal: literally everything is problematic, in some way or another to a critic. That's okay though, and it's true of all other forms of art that are criticized and theorized. So I agree that the language and jargon of academia is, well... problematic :)
> I don't blame gamers for concluding those tweets were an attack on Cuphead; that's what 'problematic' is, an airheaded attack.
I blame the people like the youtuber in at the beginning of Shaun's video, which I think is the point: there are people out there stoking the flames of outrage for profit based on misreading (on purpose or otherwise) of fairly banal things said by academics and critics.
Thanks for the response, I posted to a non-front-page thread knowing you specifically (if no one else) might see it.
I would like to know what you mean by subverting the racism / acknowledgeing it, without tinkering with the developer's vision. I believe the video that the plot (which brings with it the dice character) was inspired by racist cartoons, but I don't think the art style alone should have to excuse itself.
I would like to know what you mean by subverting the racism / acknowledgeing it, without tinkering with the developer's vision. I believe the video that the plot (which brings with it the dice character) was inspired by racist cartoons, but I don't think the art style alone should have to excuse itself.
I don’t think the developer of cuphead should HAVE to do anything. They made a really good game, which I paid for because I loved the art style. And honestly they’ve been very straightforward about saying “yes we were aware that the cartoons were drawing from were very racist but we loved the style so much we wanted to seperate it from the racism.” But once the audience is aware of where the tropes come from it’s hard to look at the games features and not think about where it came from.
To borrow a review on cupheads Wikipedia page:
> Brandon Orselli of Niche Gamer defended the game as a tribute to that art style, writing that it was not meant to deliver narratives, or "go anywhere beyond where it needs to go in terms of its basic and child-like storytelling"
That is a perfectly fine defense of cuphead IMO. But personally I like games that go a little bit beyond “child like storytelling.”
I’m having trouble thinking of an a way that the tropes could’ve been subverted or a game that does this really well. But ultimately what it comes down to is that, personally, I think great games go beyond simple stories and simple pastiche of art styles. Copying the style is and creating all of this art is a marvelous technical achievement. But if you just swap out the racist characters for cups and dice, have you not missed an opportunity to also write a story that borrows from the past while also subverting or otherwise questioning its tropes?
And I acknowledge that plenty of people will read this and think “who cares, it’s just a game?” And I will admit that if it’s all “just games” then my thoughts will seem pretty irrelevant. That’s okay. But I’m going to keep taking about games as if they were any other form of art, because that’s how I see them.
To borrow a review on cupheads Wikipedia page:
> Brandon Orselli of Niche Gamer defended the game as a tribute to that art style, writing that it was not meant to deliver narratives, or "go anywhere beyond where it needs to go in terms of its basic and child-like storytelling"
That is a perfectly fine defense of cuphead IMO. But personally I like games that go a little bit beyond “child like storytelling.”
I’m having trouble thinking of an a way that the tropes could’ve been subverted or a game that does this really well. But ultimately what it comes down to is that, personally, I think great games go beyond simple stories and simple pastiche of art styles. Copying the style is and creating all of this art is a marvelous technical achievement. But if you just swap out the racist characters for cups and dice, have you not missed an opportunity to also write a story that borrows from the past while also subverting or otherwise questioning its tropes?
And I acknowledge that plenty of people will read this and think “who cares, it’s just a game?” And I will admit that if it’s all “just games” then my thoughts will seem pretty irrelevant. That’s okay. But I’m going to keep taking about games as if they were any other form of art, because that’s how I see them.
A journalist is like a Lawyer, they think that they are good at everything but they should be specialized, for example, a business lawyer trying to act in a criminal case.
In this case, a game journalist should be specialized in some kind of games. Its not as simple as "i play xbox" or "playstation". For example Flight Simulation games or Wargaming. All of them are niche, and if you don't get it, you could considers it as a boring game, and yes, they are bore if you aren't part of the target market.
Cuphead is an example, a apparently good journalist trying to play a game where hes clueless. IT WAS PATHETIC.
In this case, a game journalist should be specialized in some kind of games. Its not as simple as "i play xbox" or "playstation". For example Flight Simulation games or Wargaming. All of them are niche, and if you don't get it, you could considers it as a boring game, and yes, they are bore if you aren't part of the target market.
Cuphead is an example, a apparently good journalist trying to play a game where hes clueless. IT WAS PATHETIC.
It really brought into picture that various interests of major players in that community are not inline creating a huge amount of tension. The journalists are basically a PR arm of the bigger corporations or a specific political agenda.
This article seems to ignore the fact that often groups or tribes often form to protect their own interests by creating various forms of economic and/or social moats. The various groups are all trying to reduce competition by creating monopolies or gatekeepers, which in turn increases the tension or hostility between gamers and the mainstream journalists.
It's pretty interesting seeing this occur in real-time. I'm still not sure how the "gamers" are organizing or whether its just an emergent reaction.