Not Recommended for Children Under 5

[Russ Pitts]

Not Recommended for Children Under 5

This one could be filed under Editorial, Rant or Filling the Quota, but for now we'll call it Highfalutin Theory of Reviewing Games, and I'll save you the trouble of speculating: Yes, it is directly in response to a number of comments we've received regarding a certain review [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/lounge/view/66347-Gears-of-War-I-Wouldnt-Buy-It] of a certain game.

"Multiplayer" used to mean "sitting huddled around the Atari 2600." Back then, as today, the best multiplayer games were the sports titles, and Summer Games was the king of that castle. In-between doing actual things in the sunshine, we'd get together with a few other guys and crowd around the TV while one or two of us whacked the joystick rapidly up-and-down or from side-to-side. From a distance, this looked just like it sounds like it looked, and the fact that none of us were aware of that at the time explains a great deal about why gamers often have trouble mating.

Multiplayer has come a long way since then, and we can now sit huddled over our machines in the comfort of our own, private homes, whacking our joysticks without opening ourselves to such embarrassing analysis. It's called progress people, but it's also, oddly, created a bit of retrograde movement in game design; away from games that can be enjoyed without a bevy of fellow joystick-humpers.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Today, as before, some of the best games are played with others, and it'd be a shallow sort indeed who eschewed all social activity, even in digital form. I have to believe that the same applies in reverse. Moderation, in other words, in all things - even multiplayer.

Allow me to suggest that it is ridiculously absurd it is to consider a game lacking a multiplayer component a "lacking game," or, on the other hand, to consider a game, like Gears of War or Chromehounds, which purports to contain a single-player component and a multiplayer component in the same game, but which, in fact, only contains one and (at best) a half-assed attempt at the other a "good game."

Similarly, there are a number of games guilty of the opposite: offering strong single-player modes with a completely worthless multiplayer game tacked on. Gun I'm looking at you. Gun, Chromehounds and Gears all fall short because they try to do too much, but even that would be forgivable if it weren't for the fact that they "promised" to be more than they are.

Allow me to explain.

Have you ever tried to play poker without a second player? Or solitaire with a table full of them? Some games are made to be played with others and some aren't. Baseball, for example, can be played with as many as 18 players (or more), but as few as about five, realistically. Football? Let's call it 4-22. Pac-Man? One. It sucks if you've got eight guys wanting to all play Pac-Man at the same time (and no quarters to stack on top of the cabinet), or one who just really wants to throw some pigskin around (protip: dogs make poor receivers), but those are the breaks. If you've got too many for Pac-Man, throw on Halo. Too few for poker? Solitaire.

We base our choices on known quantities and experience and when we're misled about what kind of game we're buying, it makes it awfully hard to make good choices. When we're sold a game claiming to have a "rich single-player campaign," which then turns out to be little more then 6-8 hours of training for the online multiplayer mode, we've been lied to, and that blows.

Let me spell this out so that there's no misunderstanding: Chromehounds, Gears of War are not good games. That's not to say that their multiplayer components aren't good - they are. Quite good, in fact. Multiplayer gamers will (and do) have a great deal of fun playing those games online. But for gamers who do not intend to use the game thus, they are a complete rip off. Not because what's inside the package is lacking, but because it is lacking what's been suggested is inside the package.

A game maker's worst fear is to spend millions developing a title and have it sit on the shelves for lack of interest. And I feel for them. Game making is a rough racket, and many a talented developer has broken his will against the rocks of consumer demand. But that doesn't excuse lying or misdirection.

A game designed to be played in online multiplayer should be marketed as an online multiplayer game. And vice-versa. In fact, some of my favorite games from this year have made no pretension to being other than what they are: either a good, rich single-player game, or a frenetic, fun-filled online game. Very few are both. Let's stop pretending, shall we? If Milton Bradley can stoop to slapping a "For 2-4 Players" sticker on the side of the Hungry Hippo box, game makers can do so as well, and I don't think they'd lose a cent in sales.

And gamers, you can help us all out a little by being a bit more discriminating. You don't have to buy every game. Not even when all of your friends are doing it.

Permalink

 

[Ian Dorsch]

And gamers, you can help us all out a little by being a bit more discriminating. You don't have to buy every game. Not even when all of your friends are doing it.

Dude, you forget the [/troll] tag on that line.

 

[Adamus [deprecated]]

Oh, I helped trigger a rant. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside now.

To single out one specific part of your rant (I so love to employ logical fallacies), every single game is marketed as a "rich single-player campaign" or "rich multi-player campaign" or something similar. That's what marketing is for - convince you that it's an awesome game so you'll go and buy it. They all promise you superb gaming experiences.

A game reviewer's role, imo, is not to judge how accurate a game's marketing is. On the contrary, a game reviewer should ignore the marketing entirely when judging the value of a game. That's why independent reviews are so important - they (should) give an honest, thorough look at a game, devoid of the marketing hype and sales propaganda the not-so-independent reviews serve up.

And that puts a game reviewer in a position of some responsibility. At least, if he wants to do a good job. A reviewer must look at all aspects of the game, see how good or bad they are, and base the review on that. Ignoring part of a game's features, or focusing too much on another part, because that's how the game is marketed, is what company-paid reviewers do. It's not good reviewing.

 

[TomBeraha]

I'm gonna disagree here Adamus, the game reviewer isn't truly helping his audience in their decision whether or not to buy the game if he isn't explaining what the game is with relation to what the game is marketed as. Saying Gears of War has the most amazing multiplayer he's ever played doesn't stop him from saying he found the single player campaign to be lacking and not living up to what the marketers had led him to believe. I think that if the reviewer is ignoring the marketing's suggested thrust "We are selling this game as the best singleplayer and multiplayer experience evar!!1!1" or some other such nonsense then he's doing his readers a disservice.

I wouldn't mind knowing where my reviewers were coming from either. If the reviewer only plays multiplayer in his free time, perhaps he's not the best judge of single player games. That sort of thing can be built up over time through honest opinionated reviews unlike the ones we find on gamespot or other major sites. One with a voice if you will.

- Tom

 

[Ajar]

Saying Gears of War has the most amazing multiplayer he's ever played doesn't stop him from saying he found the single player campaign to be lacking and not living up to what the marketers had led him to believe.

I think what Adamus is saying is that that sentence should stop after the word "lacking." That is, he's saying that the game should be reviewed without reference to the marketing. The reviewer should certainly still say -- as Fletcher did -- that they found the single-player lacking, if that's the case. The reviewer should also give an opinion on the co-op and multiplayer.

I think the issue is that many reviews -- Fletcher's Gears review included -- are more like op-ed columns than formal reviews or critiques. Adamus seems to be saying that that's a bad thing, but I'm not sure I agree. While I'm not much for op-ed demagoguery in the political sphere, blog-style reviews (where the reviewer elaborates a bit on their taste in games and where they're coming from with their opinion on a particular game) do appeal to me. I also like those kinds of reviews in music.

 

[Ajar]

i hate the idea that a game shouldn't be criticized for its short comings but that the reviewer should merely praise whatever marketing stick is popular to further support the deception of the consumer.

Nobody has made that suggestion in this thread. I specifically went out of my way to say that I liked the op-ed style Fletcher took, and that I appreciated reading his opinion.

However, it's just that: an opinion. You're writing as though there is some single Platonic Form, the Video Game, that all games can be judged against absolutely -- that is, the perfect 10. I don't agree. I do think Fletcher's got a point in this particular rant; I'm not a big fan of false advertising either. On the other hand, I don't agree that not living up to the hype inherently makes a game bad. I think the question of whether a game is good or bad should be mostly (though not necessarily completely, as Adamus is suggesting) independent of whatever hype may surround it. Failing to live up to created expectations may well merit some criticism, but that failure alone doesn't mean a game isn't a good game, or that people won't enjoy it.

The question of what makes a given game "good" is complex, and I think you're doing it a disservice by oversimplifying.

 

[Echolocating]

maybe you would all be happy if they did like over at 1up with the never winter nights 2 review, pull it and have it rewritten to appease the likes of short sided fanboys as if you cant read more then one review and that all reviews should litter praise to a game even if undeserving and never take into account that what you as a gamer might think a good game may not necessarily fit another gamers personality.

The original 1up review for NWN2 was poorly written (and I mean, really bad) and read like a rant against the current state of RPGs (clearly not the place to do so in a review about a specific game). They also originally scored it 5/10. The updated review was a much better read and scored the game 6/10. There was no "pleasing the fanboys", in your example... just saving face on a published piece that didn't reflect quality.

Speaking of single-player vs. multi-player qualities and NWN2, the original NWN was always designed to be a multi-player online game (arguably, the core of pen and paper D&D is a group scenario), but a marketing analysis told them to include a stronger single-player campaign. Now we have NWN2 which offers a supposedly better single-player campaign, but a lack-luster (and questionable) multi-player aspect. The only reason people are playing the original NWN today is because of the online scene. The majority of reviewers scored this game high, but never took the time to test it online... a huge disservice to existing fans of NWN and ultimately the biggest complaint against the game (other that the game-stopping bugs, questionable GUI, poor system performance, and unattractive character designs, etc).

In the recent news of Sony's viral marketing failure (desperate times call for desperate measures, I suppose), I'm reminded of a person who posted on a persistent role-playing server I was a part of. He praised NWN2, said our multi-player concerns were not an issue, said that he had inside access to the game and even claimed to be a part of the development of NWN2. When questioned about his role with Obsidian and Atari, he mysteriously faded from the community. He was clearly a shill... and a poor one at that. It's not surprising, as Atari was in serious financial trouble prior to NWN2's release. It was in their best interest to lie to gamers and boost initial sales. They even had a short initial run of boxes with listed features (that NWN fans wanted) that weren't in the game. Scary stuff!

 

[Ian Dorsch]

do any of you people who criticize game reviewers actually review games or just dislike the reviewers opinion based on "nu uh this game is the bestest ever"?

Is it a binary option? Do you need to be either a game reviewer or a stupid 10-year-old?

P.S. Punctuation is your friend. Or at least, it wants to be.

 

[heavyfeul]

I find lately that game reviews have become more and more meaningless and scoring is ridiculously inconsistent. I can read a review that gave a game a 9 and another that gave it a 6 and see that both had the same criticisms, but one reviewer was willing to overlook the flaws for some reason. Not only that, but I have played several highly regarded games that I just did not enjoy. Thus, I have come to realize that we all must take all reviews with a grain of salt, be they positive or negative. For example, if I am looking at reviews of a shooter, I am easier to please. So, a game like Gears of War does not need to deliver on its pre-release hype for me to warrant a buy. As long as it is a good third-person shooter with good multiplayer and co-op I am sold. I think all of Fletcher's criticisms were valid, but for me they are not deal breakers.

Take, for instance, Fletcher's criticism regarding the graphics. They certainly are gorgeous graphics, as every reviewer has pointed out, but the art concept is very unoriginal. Their art design concepts are pretty standard post-apocalyptic scenery. The Gears of War team was certainly successful in achieving their initial vision of "destroyed beauty," but maybe they should have rethought their initial vision. I go crazy for gorgeous graphics, but if the art team is not going to even make an attempt at coming up with something I have not seen before, they should be taken to task for it. It is lazy uninspired visual design.

In many aspects, not just art design, Gears of War is very conventional game, but it is, in my opinion, a very good game. It does not break any new ground, really, but it is a well executed game that feels comfortable and somewhat familiar. Is it worth a buy? I think so and people will likely have many hours of fun playing it. When it comes down to it, that is what is important. Not whether the game lives up to the hype. I give it an 8. No wait! I give a 6. Well...how about a 7.327. Yeah, that sounds good.

 

[Ajar]

I think in part LordCancer's reaction stems from the sheer size of the hype juggernaut that Microsoft and Epic created for Gears. Fletcher mentioned in the other thread that he actually felt pressured to like the game, which really took me aback -- I went over my previous posts to make sure I'd been explicit that I liked his review even though I had a different opinion, and that the handful of comments I offered were intended to be constructive and general, and in no way suggesting that he should like the game, or that he's wrong to dislike it. He isn't. My posts in this thread haven't even been about Gears, though this one will have to touch on the game since LordCancer brought it up directly in a reply to me.

Personally, I didn't notice the Gears hype machine. I watched a couple of trailers on Live, which I do for any game I'm at least moderately interested in, and that was the extent of it. I read some reviews when it was released, looking specifically for information about the co-op play because that was what interested me the most. Everything I read about the co-op play was positive, so I bought the game. I had no idea just how huge the hype machine was until well after the fact. Because I ignored the hype, I had pretty low expectations for Gears. I figured I'd get a fun co-op experience and not much else. I had misgivings about the game before buying it, but was very impressed when I played it; I posted about both of those things here. I've since played a lot of it -- Act One solo, close to two complete parallel co-op run-throughs, and countless multiplayer matches with a small group of people from another forum.

i haven't actually bought gears of war, don't even have a 360 yet but what concerns me is when the industry decides to evangelize a video game it dictates what kinda games publishers are willing to bring to the market.

Have you played it at all? If not I'm kind of surprised, given the number of absolute pronouncements you've been making about it.

I actually think Gears of War is a bit more subtle than most people (including those who sing its praises) have given it credit for. The over-the-top machismo in the dialogue and stylized burliness of the male human character models belie the characters' desperation and fear, which become increasingly obvious as the game progresses. They put on a brave face because it's that or death. They aren't even fighting for anything anymore, they're just fighting because they'd be dead if they stopped. Note the "No Blood for Imulsion" posters scattered throughout the city -- they're clearly old, suggesting that when the war began there was dissent and protest. That's past. What few civilians remain in the city -- the "stranded" -- are embittered and hostile toward the Gears. The only time any quantity of "imulsion" has any effect on the Gears, or anyone, is when they descend underground and discover a vast lake of it. Short of that, they just don't care about imulsion anymore, despite the fact that it appears to be part of the reason why the war was being fought, at least in the beginning. From a story standpoint, it certainly isn't Marathon, or even Halo, but it also isn't Doom.

I agree with heavyfeul in that this stuff isn't at all original, but I actually liked that Gears wore its sci-fi tropes on its sleeve right along with its other influences. I think there's something to be said for building a game from existing narrative, art, and gameplay blocks, if it's done well. Having said that, though, how well Gears accomplishes it is clearly open to debate. I'm not saying all of this to change anyone's mind about the game, because it's mostly down to taste.

Interesting tidbit: Marcus Fenix is voiced by John DiMaggio, who also voices Bender on Futurama.

like flether said "And gamers, you can help us all out a little by being a bit more discriminating. You don't have to buy every game. Not even when all of your friends are doing it."

That was one part of his rant I disagreed with. I agree fully with the last two sentences; where I disagree is the first one. Specifically, the implication that because Gears of War wasn't to his taste, anyone who bought it and likes it not "discerning." That was why I specifically raised the issue of this Platonic ideal of the "Good Video Game" against which all games should be measured. I don't think that's how it works, but when you and Fletcher throw absolutes around like this, it makes me think that you guys do look at it that way.

I read his original review like an op-ed column, as I've already noted. I liked it for that reason. While I agree with the thrust of his point in this rant as well, and have said so several times already, I disagree with the absolute language he's used to couch it.

Also, you and Fletcher have avoided defining the term "good game" other than by giving examples of them and examples of what they are not (Gun, Gears, Chromehounds). Like the Platonic forms, then, we're expected to know them when we see them, and those whose opinions differ are not "discerning."

To be perfectly clear, I disagree with Plato, too.

That's part of why I liked Fletcher's original review. I think this kind of "opinion review" -- which is the kind of review I write myself, actually, for both music and games -- is very useful, because it gives you an opinion filtered through the lens of the reviewer's taste. For example, I look closely at games Tycho posts about on Penny Arcade, because over the years I've learned that his taste and mine are somewhat similar. I put more weight on a passing comment from him than I do on most of the major review sites. I bought Chromehounds largely on the strength of what he wrote about it, and, as with Gears, was not disappointed.

I find lately that game reviews have become more and more meaningless and scoring is ridiculously inconsistent. I can read a review that gave a game a 9 and another that gave it a 6 and see that both had the same criticisms, but one reviewer was willing to overlook the flaws for some reason. Not only that, but I have played several highly regarded games that I just did not enjoy. Thus, I have come to realize that we all must take all reviews with a grain of salt, be they positive or negative.

Yeah, I was glad to see Fletcher didn't give it a score. I'd rather read a meaty review, complete with the reviewer's biases, than a bullet-point feature list taken from the back of the box and a numerical score.

If I had one sentence to sum up this entire post, I'd say this: I think Adamus' point merits consideration, but I don't completely agree with it.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Fletcher SAVE me!

You're on your own, kid.

And watch the tone. We can disagree without disrespect. (In theory at least.)



/mod

 

[Russ Pitts]

how many mods does it take to ban a cancer?

Let's not find out

 

[Echolocating]

P.S. Fletcher i am not a kid, you turn coat.

I made the mistake of calling a younger person a "kid" as well... apparently, they prefer to be called "young adults". ;-)