While it is a multi-million dollar plan I believe that gamers would even appreciate an unpolished or unperfected attempt at something new, to encourage people in the industry to make similar things.
David Jaffe Calls on Game Critics to Get Tougher
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
I think it's mostly the publishers that fear him. Yahtzee has stated on record that most of the members he spoke to, of dev teams of the games he reviewed, agreed with him, but that the pulishers never gave them time to fix all the issues. I can't quite remember where I saw it, but it must've been in one of the Extra Punctuation and Extra Consideration articles.creationis apostate said:
Ya see, the problem with the "gaming press" is that the vast majority are all but owned by these massive gaming companies. Objective gaming journalism can no longer be found anywhere in the mainstream "gaming press". The reason being because each and every one of these magazines and websites know that if they don't trip over themselves trying to see who can heap the biggest pile of praise on the latest AAA game then there will be repercussions. Anymore you have to look in some seriously obscure corners of the internet to find truly objective and unbiased reviews for any of the big releases.
The "gaming press" relies on these huge game companies for everything from advertising dollars to the very content they provide. They can cut off advertising to any given site or not send them early copies for review and make them all but irrelevant at the drop of a hat. You'd have to be soft in the head to believe that they don't exploit this at every given opportunity. I'm sure it's not directly in the "give us good reviews or else" sort of way but I'd wager they find a way to remind them who is in charge none the less.
Anymore the "gaming press" are nothing more than the whores of the gaming industry. They have long since been bought and paid for and know better than to step out of line lest they get less and less content/access. As long as the gaming press remain attached to the tit of these big gaming companies for their very survival then objective reporting and reviews will remain a myth right up there with bigfoot.
The "gaming press" relies on these huge game companies for everything from advertising dollars to the very content they provide. They can cut off advertising to any given site or not send them early copies for review and make them all but irrelevant at the drop of a hat. You'd have to be soft in the head to believe that they don't exploit this at every given opportunity. I'm sure it's not directly in the "give us good reviews or else" sort of way but I'd wager they find a way to remind them who is in charge none the less.
Anymore the "gaming press" are nothing more than the whores of the gaming industry. They have long since been bought and paid for and know better than to step out of line lest they get less and less content/access. As long as the gaming press remain attached to the tit of these big gaming companies for their very survival then objective reporting and reviews will remain a myth right up there with bigfoot.
Jaffe seems like an interesting fellow, but he is sometimes a tad hypocritical and smart-mouthed. I think the guy needs to sit and think about what he believes in.
As has already been mentioned, though, the real problem is how publishers treat the game critics and writers (and where is the line drawn between a journalist's review and a critic's review?). It's well known about Gerstmann and GameSpot, but that knowledge hasn't really helped much. Part of it is the readers themselves, complaining if a review isn't up day one. In that case, however, I'd make an announcement well ahead of time for people to know. Ars Technica didn't have a day-one review of Brink up, and Ben Kuchera made his reasonings very clear. It worked well enough for them since their audience is willing to forgive and understand their reasoning.
I think a lot of game publications are worried about ad money, though, which is just a lack of imagination. I don't think a game publication should be searching out JUST games to advertise. There are plenty of ads to be found from educational institutions looking to boost their game design programs, computer hardware or game accessory companies looking to push their product, and it can be assumed that gamers also watch television and film and eat food like pizza. In the end, losing ad money to one publisher is going to suck, but it should just mean you allow the next highest bidder to drop cash on your site or magazine.
What I'm more worried about is the future of game criticism itself. I've been a part of "game journalist" communities (which tend to be populated with amateurs looking for work, go figure), and they're basically just a bunch of regular old gamers tha happen to have proper spelling and punctuation. None of them have any sort of insight into game (or even software) design and development, or the intricacies of story-telling. I know there's the old saying "those who can, do, and those who can't, critique", but at least those who can't have an understanding of the process from the inside.
Most sites I read don't seem to actually critique a game as someone who understands good design and narrative, but as a player with a serious sense of entitlement.
Of course, I'm also bitter because I'd love to be a professional games critic, but I've got to compete with a lot of other amateurs that happen to love finding and reposting game news from major publications.
Everything about the games industry seems determined to weed out all new talent, rather than trying to pluck and find the gems amongst the chaff.
...sorry, this became a bit off-topic, but I do feel like there are too many people that are just "gamers" writing (how else would you explain the common myth that the only games on the Wii are first party titles? Considering how little press Silent Hill: Shattered Memories and Dead Space Extraction got compared to similar games on 360 and PS3, it's no wonder no one knows about those games).
As has already been mentioned, though, the real problem is how publishers treat the game critics and writers (and where is the line drawn between a journalist's review and a critic's review?). It's well known about Gerstmann and GameSpot, but that knowledge hasn't really helped much. Part of it is the readers themselves, complaining if a review isn't up day one. In that case, however, I'd make an announcement well ahead of time for people to know. Ars Technica didn't have a day-one review of Brink up, and Ben Kuchera made his reasonings very clear. It worked well enough for them since their audience is willing to forgive and understand their reasoning.
I think a lot of game publications are worried about ad money, though, which is just a lack of imagination. I don't think a game publication should be searching out JUST games to advertise. There are plenty of ads to be found from educational institutions looking to boost their game design programs, computer hardware or game accessory companies looking to push their product, and it can be assumed that gamers also watch television and film and eat food like pizza. In the end, losing ad money to one publisher is going to suck, but it should just mean you allow the next highest bidder to drop cash on your site or magazine.
What I'm more worried about is the future of game criticism itself. I've been a part of "game journalist" communities (which tend to be populated with amateurs looking for work, go figure), and they're basically just a bunch of regular old gamers tha happen to have proper spelling and punctuation. None of them have any sort of insight into game (or even software) design and development, or the intricacies of story-telling. I know there's the old saying "those who can, do, and those who can't, critique", but at least those who can't have an understanding of the process from the inside.
Most sites I read don't seem to actually critique a game as someone who understands good design and narrative, but as a player with a serious sense of entitlement.
Of course, I'm also bitter because I'd love to be a professional games critic, but I've got to compete with a lot of other amateurs that happen to love finding and reposting game news from major publications.
Everything about the games industry seems determined to weed out all new talent, rather than trying to pluck and find the gems amongst the chaff.
...sorry, this became a bit off-topic, but I do feel like there are too many people that are just "gamers" writing (how else would you explain the common myth that the only games on the Wii are first party titles? Considering how little press Silent Hill: Shattered Memories and Dead Space Extraction got compared to similar games on 360 and PS3, it's no wonder no one knows about those games).
People do not know how to review games in this industry. I'm sorry, but you don't.
Here's a scale:
1. Garbage, Unplayable.
2. Very bad.
3. Bad.
4. Below average. Some enjoyment, but not very little.
5. Average. Insert games like Singularity here. Games that can be fun but have equal problems as much as good bits.
6. Above average. Most games in this industry. Very fun, has less problems than the average game, but still has plenty.
7. Good. Most great games fall here, such as Mount & Blade or even AAA games that don't innovate, like Call of Duty. Might not resonate with everyone and have problems, but good vastly outweighs the bad.
8. Must-buy. An 8 title is a truely amazing game. Possibly GOTY material, with few problems. Might suffer from lack of innovation or a few design issues and such.
9. Outstanding, possible masterpiece. These are the games that not only deserve to win GOTY, but are incredibly difficult to overtake in terms of quality, such as Grand Theft Auto III, Portal 2, etc.
10. Genre-defining. A genre defining game has almost no issues. It has to be innovative. The point of a perfect score is that the game brings something new and pulls it off masterfully. It is supposed to blow you away. No, this is not FUCKING DRAGON AGE II. IT IS NOT INFAMOUS. IT IS NOT ANYTHING RELEASED THIS YEAR SO FAR. This is Amnesia: The Dark Descent (personal choice), Half Life 1 & 2, the original Portal, Starcraft, etc. A 10/10 could come ONCE A DECADE, not for EVERY SINGLE GAME YOU GODDAMN CLUELESS REVIEWERS.
Personal preferrence comes into all of these of course.
Reviewers nowadays do not deserve to be reviewers. You can tell by looking at their style of review. They rarely analyse the mechanics and always take price and quantity into account, while gushing over what it might do right. Reviewers expect their hand held all the time and so rarely look at innovation that it is ridiculous. No, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 does not deserve its metascore. It doesn't do anything new and it has the same giant flaws of its predecessors, not to mention ugly graphics. Also, if a game's campaign is shit, no amount of multiplayer makes it 9/10 material. You cannot ignore the broken campaign because it has replay value. You cannot ignore the story and its plot points and you cannot selectively choose to judge indie and AAA titles on a different scale, where you harshly destroy an indie game while praising "AAA" shooter 157 or even excuse an indie game while criticising AAA titles. Everything has to have the same review scale.
So ask yourself: Does this game work? If it does, how well does it work. Are there parts where it works and where it doesn't? Are there parts where your personal preferrence affects the score slightly that you should point out?
The only reviewer I really trust is Yahtzee, because his cynical style of review contains a lot of grains of truth behind the various metaphors, and his show is a COMEDY.
When an online review that makes comedy reviews outclasses almost every single reviewer in gaming today, you need to SERIOUSLY rethink your profession. Not everyone can objectively review a game. Maybe you should stick to just giving a quick synopsis without a score if you can't review games.
Also, Total Biscuit gave a fantastic analysis of Duke Nukem Forever, for instance. He pointed out that the two weapon restriction and regenerating health don't complement the fast paced action and care-free style of the game. This is the sort of objective analysis that needs to be done more.
I've given up on reviewers really. If the situation improves, then great. If it doesn't, I'm still not going to read your reviews.
(No offense to any reviewer, I'm sure you're all very nice people, but a great proportion of you do not know how to review games and do not know how to attach a score to them)
Here's a scale:
1. Garbage, Unplayable.
2. Very bad.
3. Bad.
4. Below average. Some enjoyment, but not very little.
5. Average. Insert games like Singularity here. Games that can be fun but have equal problems as much as good bits.
6. Above average. Most games in this industry. Very fun, has less problems than the average game, but still has plenty.
7. Good. Most great games fall here, such as Mount & Blade or even AAA games that don't innovate, like Call of Duty. Might not resonate with everyone and have problems, but good vastly outweighs the bad.
8. Must-buy. An 8 title is a truely amazing game. Possibly GOTY material, with few problems. Might suffer from lack of innovation or a few design issues and such.
9. Outstanding, possible masterpiece. These are the games that not only deserve to win GOTY, but are incredibly difficult to overtake in terms of quality, such as Grand Theft Auto III, Portal 2, etc.
10. Genre-defining. A genre defining game has almost no issues. It has to be innovative. The point of a perfect score is that the game brings something new and pulls it off masterfully. It is supposed to blow you away. No, this is not FUCKING DRAGON AGE II. IT IS NOT INFAMOUS. IT IS NOT ANYTHING RELEASED THIS YEAR SO FAR. This is Amnesia: The Dark Descent (personal choice), Half Life 1 & 2, the original Portal, Starcraft, etc. A 10/10 could come ONCE A DECADE, not for EVERY SINGLE GAME YOU GODDAMN CLUELESS REVIEWERS.
Personal preferrence comes into all of these of course.
Reviewers nowadays do not deserve to be reviewers. You can tell by looking at their style of review. They rarely analyse the mechanics and always take price and quantity into account, while gushing over what it might do right. Reviewers expect their hand held all the time and so rarely look at innovation that it is ridiculous. No, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 does not deserve its metascore. It doesn't do anything new and it has the same giant flaws of its predecessors, not to mention ugly graphics. Also, if a game's campaign is shit, no amount of multiplayer makes it 9/10 material. You cannot ignore the broken campaign because it has replay value. You cannot ignore the story and its plot points and you cannot selectively choose to judge indie and AAA titles on a different scale, where you harshly destroy an indie game while praising "AAA" shooter 157 or even excuse an indie game while criticising AAA titles. Everything has to have the same review scale.
So ask yourself: Does this game work? If it does, how well does it work. Are there parts where it works and where it doesn't? Are there parts where your personal preferrence affects the score slightly that you should point out?
The only reviewer I really trust is Yahtzee, because his cynical style of review contains a lot of grains of truth behind the various metaphors, and his show is a COMEDY.
When an online review that makes comedy reviews outclasses almost every single reviewer in gaming today, you need to SERIOUSLY rethink your profession. Not everyone can objectively review a game. Maybe you should stick to just giving a quick synopsis without a score if you can't review games.
Also, Total Biscuit gave a fantastic analysis of Duke Nukem Forever, for instance. He pointed out that the two weapon restriction and regenerating health don't complement the fast paced action and care-free style of the game. This is the sort of objective analysis that needs to be done more.
I've given up on reviewers really. If the situation improves, then great. If it doesn't, I'm still not going to read your reviews.
(No offense to any reviewer, I'm sure you're all very nice people, but a great proportion of you do not know how to review games and do not know how to attach a score to them)
Although critics should probably be more harsh on unoriginal games that won't fix the problem of the lack of innovation in the industry. What really matters is the consumer. And the consumer wants generic crap that's the same as everything else before. That's what sells and sales dictate whether a new idea catches on, but that's not what's happening right now. Perhaps publishers are the only ones powerful enough to force developers to innovate, but they won't. They want low risk generic crap too.
Like it would have any impact at all if the gaming critics got together and decided to set their new benchmark for games at 5/10, as opposed to where it currently is at 7/10. The publishers would simply go: "Oh no, it's tougher to get a good score? Well in that case, we'd better not take any kind of risk; in fact, let's only make clones of the previous GOTY. And while we're at it, let's spend more money that could go into development to instead fund a stupidly extravagant marketing campaign so that everyone will buy it regardless of what score it gets."
Not to mention that with the open nature of the internet, any review that is less than a 9/10 is an invitation for fans of the game to trash the critic. "How dare you have an opinion that differs from my own! This reviewer clearly should not be reviewing this game if he is incapable of seeing it for the shining beacon of innovation that it is, and their review will single handedly drag this game's average down on Metacritic and force the developer into receivership! I am never coming back to this site ever!"
Sure it would be nice if they exercised higher critical standards, but when you get railed upon like this and nothing you say ever has any impact on the industry because of a bunch of suits who think they know everything about how to make games, it really does seem like just beating at a brick wall.
Not to mention that with the open nature of the internet, any review that is less than a 9/10 is an invitation for fans of the game to trash the critic. "How dare you have an opinion that differs from my own! This reviewer clearly should not be reviewing this game if he is incapable of seeing it for the shining beacon of innovation that it is, and their review will single handedly drag this game's average down on Metacritic and force the developer into receivership! I am never coming back to this site ever!"
Sure it would be nice if they exercised higher critical standards, but when you get railed upon like this and nothing you say ever has any impact on the industry because of a bunch of suits who think they know everything about how to make games, it really does seem like just beating at a brick wall.
Oh I completely agree with you, I much prefer Yahtzee's harsh standards to the usual wishy-washy reviewing you get. But I don't believe that changing their standards would have any effect on the game industry, and the price Yahtzee pays for having his standards is having 600+ comments of hatred spewed at him for not liking The Witcher 2. Heck, with that game, I even saw people complaining on PC Gamer's website that they ONLY gave it 89.Astalano said:
Everyone is allowed to love and hate things. Fanboys should ignored. The only reason they feel justified in whining is BECAUSE the review system for AAA games is such that they get unbelievably high scores and when reviewers are inconsistent, it feeds the fanboys.Shamanic Rhythm said: