Game Critics Should Embrace Friction, Personal Analysis
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Ok great more people shouting their vitally important opinion, yup thats just what game journalism needs. If gaming journalism wants to be taken seriously, having a sense of proportion about your opinions is vitail. Otherwise things will just degenerate into slanging matches between people with overblown sense of their own importance.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to have the importance of an opinion's worth regardless of the context explained to me again or something, I find it hard to believe that introducing more noise into the process is going to result in something we needed to see.
Fuck, no.
A review is there to tell me about everything I need to know about a game from a consumer's perspective. It's a technical report on what's in the game, how the mechanics work, what kind of storytelling is there, how the controls work, how it performs, etc.
What this dude is talking about is a blog post. And that's fine; it has its place. But trying to replace an actual review with details about how it made the reviewer "feel" is utter garbage. It's useless to a consumer who needs information before making a purchasing decision.
A review is there to tell me about everything I need to know about a game from a consumer's perspective. It's a technical report on what's in the game, how the mechanics work, what kind of storytelling is there, how the controls work, how it performs, etc.
What this dude is talking about is a blog post. And that's fine; it has its place. But trying to replace an actual review with details about how it made the reviewer "feel" is utter garbage. It's useless to a consumer who needs information before making a purchasing decision.
It's actually very useful information-- certainly moreso than the "sound" and "graphics" categories that you see on a lot of game reviews.SKBPinkie said:
Saying "this game was fun when it did X, but Y part was boring" is vital information in a review.
On the other hand, I think reviewers like Angry Joe are a good example of what they mean. Yes he lets his emotions get the better of him, but as a trade-of you can always rest assured that his opinions will always be fully honest. And in that regard they're more trustworthy than a lot of reviews from major outlets like IGN and Gamespot.
Another example would be Totalbiscuit, although he adamantly insists he doesn't do reviews but first impressions videos, he doesn't hide it if he doesn't care for a particular title, or even entire genre, but he'll give credit where credit's due.
And these kind of reviewers are very valid ways to get informed about whether you should buy a title, you learn their personalities, their likes, and dislikes and contrast them against your own. I know there's things that I like that TB doesn't like, so if he doesn't like a particular feature for a specific reason I know that I'll probably like it, so that's useful information for me.
You can be angry without being a raging twit. I'm pretty sure many of us here wouldn't keep on tuning into Moviebob's reviews if he never went on his disgruntled rants about why a movie fails to perform, but he remains well spoken, so again, his anger is a very useful source of information to us.
And with these rants we actually learn something that you don't get in more "formal" reviews who'll at best say they didn't care for the graphics or thought the mechanics could be tighter, rather than explaining and showcasing why that's the case. (Yet another reason why the text review is probably going to continue to lose ground to the video as you can immediately show what you mean)
Another example would be Totalbiscuit, although he adamantly insists he doesn't do reviews but first impressions videos, he doesn't hide it if he doesn't care for a particular title, or even entire genre, but he'll give credit where credit's due.
And these kind of reviewers are very valid ways to get informed about whether you should buy a title, you learn their personalities, their likes, and dislikes and contrast them against your own. I know there's things that I like that TB doesn't like, so if he doesn't like a particular feature for a specific reason I know that I'll probably like it, so that's useful information for me.
You can be angry without being a raging twit. I'm pretty sure many of us here wouldn't keep on tuning into Moviebob's reviews if he never went on his disgruntled rants about why a movie fails to perform, but he remains well spoken, so again, his anger is a very useful source of information to us.
And with these rants we actually learn something that you don't get in more "formal" reviews who'll at best say they didn't care for the graphics or thought the mechanics could be tighter, rather than explaining and showcasing why that's the case. (Yet another reason why the text review is probably going to continue to lose ground to the video as you can immediately show what you mean)
Of course it is, but what exactly makes it fun / boring is crucial. And what I get from this dude's speech is that they need to focus more on the "emotion" side of things rather than the gory details.UltimatheChosen said:
What a reviewer may find boring may happen to be something I like. But if he just says it's boring, I get nothing out of it.
If I may rant for just one moment;
I tuned into the Critical Proximity Twitch stream at around 8:00pm EST and I ended up catching a presentation that was already half-over. I honestly had no idea what the talk was about, although if I had to take a guess it probably had to do with video game criticism backlash. A very short while after I tuned in, the speaker brought up the examples of the backlash against Gone Home and Dear Esther reviews along with Carolyn Petit's GTA V review. The speaker then said, quite bluntly, that the people who complained over those reviews "shouldn't be confused for having enthusiasm for video games," (or something to that effect) and he quickly continued to indirectly insult those people. The moment he finished his current sentence, the crowd gave a loud and enthusiastic applause.
That really pissed me off.
Rather than showing a willingness to talk or reason with the dissenters, that whole moment showed that the critics were completely ready to engage in the same group-mentality hatred that had been thrown their way. No-one is going to get anywhere if both sides determined on hating each other, and the people who have professional stakes in the matter (the critics) should know better.
I tuned into the Critical Proximity Twitch stream at around 8:00pm EST and I ended up catching a presentation that was already half-over. I honestly had no idea what the talk was about, although if I had to take a guess it probably had to do with video game criticism backlash. A very short while after I tuned in, the speaker brought up the examples of the backlash against Gone Home and Dear Esther reviews along with Carolyn Petit's GTA V review. The speaker then said, quite bluntly, that the people who complained over those reviews "shouldn't be confused for having enthusiasm for video games," (or something to that effect) and he quickly continued to indirectly insult those people. The moment he finished his current sentence, the crowd gave a loud and enthusiastic applause.
That really pissed me off.
Rather than showing a willingness to talk or reason with the dissenters, that whole moment showed that the critics were completely ready to engage in the same group-mentality hatred that had been thrown their way. No-one is going to get anywhere if both sides determined on hating each other, and the people who have professional stakes in the matter (the critics) should know better.
Oh wow, I didn't even know about the ban-happy Twitch chat situation. That makes me respect the group even less.Tenmar said:
And, you know, I'm not even mad that the critics are angry. When thousands of anonymous people tell you that your work is stupid and undeniably incorrect, I have no right to say that you're wrong for being upset. But counteracting those points with responses that echo the original hate-filled comments accomplishes nothing, makes the reviewers look petty, and at worst only fuels the flames of the argument.
Sorry but since when did game journalism catered to any academic standards? It's nothing personal but I believe you guys could never maintain any degree of objectivity often proving prone to hype and developer promises. If game journalists want to embrace more personal style in their writing fine by me, we still have video sites and message boards to provide us with necessary feedback concerning games we wish to buy. Just don't complain when people will start labelling you propaganda tubes for developers and spoiled children that cannot maintain any degree of professionalism.Greg Tito said:
Yes because this is what journalism should be, an objective analysis. If you want to write something much more personal write it on your blog or make a video series (jimquisition comes to mind), don't pollute gaming press with more unhealthy habits.
The article is discussing the more scholarly sort of criticism. Specifically excluding reviews and media bits. Think the guys who sit around discussing the symbolism of the color red in movies in 1986, and write books on it and so forth.
So they're not talking about consumer reviews, or even VLOG type stuff like Jimquisition.
Past that, I really have no interest in the topic at hand, so I didn't really read the rest.
So they're not talking about consumer reviews, or even VLOG type stuff like Jimquisition.
Past that, I really have no interest in the topic at hand, so I didn't really read the rest.
Imagine if books were reviewed purely on quality of paper used, security of binding, typeface, number of individual words used etc. Still doesn't give a sense of whether I want to buy the book.
Also, criticism =/= review. There is a place for writing-about-games that isn't consumer advice. If that writing is good, or thought-provoking, why should it not be published professionally?
Also, criticism =/= review. There is a place for writing-about-games that isn't consumer advice. If that writing is good, or thought-provoking, why should it not be published professionally?
I strongly disagree, we have too much of that already. Half of what's damaging gaming right now is that the gaming media (as a whole) allows too many people to yell and scream their dissenting opinions, at a time when people need to step back and consider things a lot more rationally. Games tend to get tied into a lot more issues than they really should, especially seeing as they have unfortunately become a platform some people like to use to express their own idealogy and politics, and then get all upset when someone else who does the same and happens to disagree with them vehemently.
As a sort of point, look at the current state of games where all the yelling, screaming, and political posturing has created an environment where pretty much the only enemies you can safely use are zombies, Nazis, and aliens. Try and do a game involving say Russians, Chinese, Arabs, or whatever else, then all of a sudden screaming dissenters will appear from the woodwork and try and tear you down for being an evil bigot. The kind of reaction which hit say "Resident Evil 5" for showing tribesmen as tribesmen (and nothing all that different from national geographic) and pretty much ensured game companies aren't going to be in a big hurry to set many more games in Africa. Not to mention comments (some joking, many not) about Uncharted being racist, and the "pulp" type adventure vibe used in that game and Lara Croft being "offensive" to indigenous peoples because these guys raid ancient ruins and treasures for their own benefit.
"South Park: The Stick Of Truth" actually skewered this, and even outright spelled out what they were mocking. Not to mention even making a joke that when using the most sanitary and politically correct enemy available: the tired "Nazi Zombie" someone STILL objected (a german doctor who claims it was an offensive stereotype before getting gunned down), perhaps kind of ironic given that even with something this tired Germany called for this to be censored, making that scene even more funny given how oddly prophetic it was of the entire thing.
The point is more academic detachment is what's needed, not people shouting fire about how this is offensive, or that's offensive, or how a game shouldn't do this, or that, or the other things. It gets to the point where if current trends continue we're going to probably have to go back to pong. What we need actually is more of a concerted effort to keep that kind of thing out of gaming entirely. An actual effort should be made to pretty much deny any kind of large platform to people who want to make a message about video games and their content, whether it's sexism, racism, graphic violence, actual sex, or whatever else. Talk about the game, what it does, and whether it works, not what your opinion is about Nathan Drake stealing an Incan treasure, followed by a paragraph of hang wringing about the rights of indigenous peoples, people who don't like old school pulp-treasure hunting probably aren't considering the game to begin with, in order to want to know if it works or not, which is what they are looking to the game media for information on.
In short what I think we need is far more reviewers, and a lot less critics. Sure a modern FPS shooter might absolutely reek of pro-American jingoism and seemingly encourage military adventurism, especially to someone who doesn't like the US. The heroic American Flag imagery in the promotions, voiceovers by guys like Oliver North (in some cases), and similar things make that bloody obvious. The guy who bothers to look it up wants to know if the game is decent at what it does, not your opinion of the subject matter, and whether or not it should be selling millions upon millions of copies globally in your opinion. My opinion is exactly the opposite of what's posited in the article.
I say this largely because I've occasionally found it hard to really get good information on a game (including one that has already sold tons of copies, making opinions about content irrelevant), because it seems every source wants to spend the majority of the time ranting about the premise/content either to attack it or defend it. I'm not a big fan of shooters though, I just use them as the common example of a game type that falls prey to this.
As a sort of point, look at the current state of games where all the yelling, screaming, and political posturing has created an environment where pretty much the only enemies you can safely use are zombies, Nazis, and aliens. Try and do a game involving say Russians, Chinese, Arabs, or whatever else, then all of a sudden screaming dissenters will appear from the woodwork and try and tear you down for being an evil bigot. The kind of reaction which hit say "Resident Evil 5" for showing tribesmen as tribesmen (and nothing all that different from national geographic) and pretty much ensured game companies aren't going to be in a big hurry to set many more games in Africa. Not to mention comments (some joking, many not) about Uncharted being racist, and the "pulp" type adventure vibe used in that game and Lara Croft being "offensive" to indigenous peoples because these guys raid ancient ruins and treasures for their own benefit.
"South Park: The Stick Of Truth" actually skewered this, and even outright spelled out what they were mocking. Not to mention even making a joke that when using the most sanitary and politically correct enemy available: the tired "Nazi Zombie" someone STILL objected (a german doctor who claims it was an offensive stereotype before getting gunned down), perhaps kind of ironic given that even with something this tired Germany called for this to be censored, making that scene even more funny given how oddly prophetic it was of the entire thing.
The point is more academic detachment is what's needed, not people shouting fire about how this is offensive, or that's offensive, or how a game shouldn't do this, or that, or the other things. It gets to the point where if current trends continue we're going to probably have to go back to pong. What we need actually is more of a concerted effort to keep that kind of thing out of gaming entirely. An actual effort should be made to pretty much deny any kind of large platform to people who want to make a message about video games and their content, whether it's sexism, racism, graphic violence, actual sex, or whatever else. Talk about the game, what it does, and whether it works, not what your opinion is about Nathan Drake stealing an Incan treasure, followed by a paragraph of hang wringing about the rights of indigenous peoples, people who don't like old school pulp-treasure hunting probably aren't considering the game to begin with, in order to want to know if it works or not, which is what they are looking to the game media for information on.
In short what I think we need is far more reviewers, and a lot less critics. Sure a modern FPS shooter might absolutely reek of pro-American jingoism and seemingly encourage military adventurism, especially to someone who doesn't like the US. The heroic American Flag imagery in the promotions, voiceovers by guys like Oliver North (in some cases), and similar things make that bloody obvious. The guy who bothers to look it up wants to know if the game is decent at what it does, not your opinion of the subject matter, and whether or not it should be selling millions upon millions of copies globally in your opinion. My opinion is exactly the opposite of what's posited in the article.
I say this largely because I've occasionally found it hard to really get good information on a game (including one that has already sold tons of copies, making opinions about content irrelevant), because it seems every source wants to spend the majority of the time ranting about the premise/content either to attack it or defend it. I'm not a big fan of shooters though, I just use them as the common example of a game type that falls prey to this.
I find it ironic, that these people even dare to run this attitude. After all, a game critic is actually dependant on people reading his stuff, otherwise hes just a pretentious ponce with too much freetime.Tenmar said:
On a more serious note, I can understand why some of the more vile responses to certain Reviews can prompt a critic to be upset. Stuff like Dear Esther prompted a whole shitstorm, with people insulting each other's standards or Reviews. But there WERE actually people writing reasonable reponses, and making arguments and good points on why they disliked the Game and would disagree with certain Reviews. Bunching them together with the common Troll, and then driving some half-assed snarky attitude is not one IOTA better than the Troll himself.
I think games criticism needs more 'show, not tell'. Indeed, that's what games do best.
More than being 'angry', or even emotional over being academic, critics need to vary the ways that they get their voice out, otherwise you end up unconvincing.
I largely don't hold to certain reviewers, but Jim is a notable exception. I feel as though I CAN see his perspective on things, because he has the additional outlets of his Youtube channel. Jimquisition helps too.
A large reason why I think Let's Play's are popular these days is due to their simple nature of 'pick up a game, blabber over it' reveals both the game and the gamer. It's an interesting take with a plethora of perspectives.
If more reviewers, say got around to streaming the games they like to play, so that their gaming perspective was better understood, I think I'd follow more closely. Conversely for LP'ers too; If some LP'ers, say Arin of Game Grumps could get around to some good writing on games, I'd be in love. XD
Ultimately, variety is the spice of games criticism life these days.
EDIT: I also think that games criticism could stand to pull its head back a bit from the 'games industry'stink cloud. Focus more on the games, instead of getting us to buy or not buy.
More than being 'angry', or even emotional over being academic, critics need to vary the ways that they get their voice out, otherwise you end up unconvincing.
I largely don't hold to certain reviewers, but Jim is a notable exception. I feel as though I CAN see his perspective on things, because he has the additional outlets of his Youtube channel. Jimquisition helps too.
A large reason why I think Let's Play's are popular these days is due to their simple nature of 'pick up a game, blabber over it' reveals both the game and the gamer. It's an interesting take with a plethora of perspectives.
If more reviewers, say got around to streaming the games they like to play, so that their gaming perspective was better understood, I think I'd follow more closely. Conversely for LP'ers too; If some LP'ers, say Arin of Game Grumps could get around to some good writing on games, I'd be in love. XD
Ultimately, variety is the spice of games criticism life these days.
EDIT: I also think that games criticism could stand to pull its head back a bit from the 'games industry'