The Story Doesn't Matter
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
I'm glad that you pointed out how the story isn't always really relevant when you review a game, and that it's the actual gameplay that matters, considering that there's usually more time put into fine tuning it.
However, I will make the argument that in RPGs the story does matter to a certain extent. The story has to be at least a little decent to get yourself invested enough to roleplay. Either that, or it has to be well told. I'm perfectly okay with a bad story as long as it's well told. I haven't played ME 3 yet, but I assume the latter is the most true when it comes to the story = Meh, but well told.
But I'm still glad that you pointed out that there's more factors that goes into reviewing a game rather than analyzing a story. You can have a good story, but if you have craptacular gameplay in your game, it can really ruin the experience [small](*cough cough* Force Unleashed *cough cough*)[/small].
However, I will make the argument that in RPGs the story does matter to a certain extent. The story has to be at least a little decent to get yourself invested enough to roleplay. Either that, or it has to be well told. I'm perfectly okay with a bad story as long as it's well told. I haven't played ME 3 yet, but I assume the latter is the most true when it comes to the story = Meh, but well told.
But I'm still glad that you pointed out that there's more factors that goes into reviewing a game rather than analyzing a story. You can have a good story, but if you have craptacular gameplay in your game, it can really ruin the experience [small](*cough cough* Force Unleashed *cough cough*)[/small].
I'm loving your logical, honest pieces Shamus!
I also think presenting a story in a review (especially game reviews) can be dangerous.
Say I wrote a Mass Effect review, and stated that I found it moving, emotional, funny and the romantic options were deeply touching, those statments relate to my playthrough and can be different for each and every person to play the game.
Hell on my second playthrough with a different Shep and a different love interest, I didn't find the romantic interactions to be as touching or special as my first playthrough.
I also think presenting a story in a review (especially game reviews) can be dangerous.
Say I wrote a Mass Effect review, and stated that I found it moving, emotional, funny and the romantic options were deeply touching, those statments relate to my playthrough and can be different for each and every person to play the game.
Hell on my second playthrough with a different Shep and a different love interest, I didn't find the romantic interactions to be as touching or special as my first playthrough.
Shamus asked a question,
That's so nice. And surprisingly rare.
The answer does, though, again raise the question: why do we, as gamers and consumers, so frequently succumb to marketing pressure to buy new games as quickly as possible?
I know some of the answer myself, as someone who often buys games later: it's incredibly hard not to get parts of a popular game "spoilered" for you if you wait if you have any interest in keeping up with game-related media, and harder the longer you wait.
Also, your friends are playing the same games, there may be various incentives offered by retailers, and we (pardon the presumption) just seem as an audience to have a sort of ego stake in being on the cutting edge, whether it's in hardware or software.
But, man, do we end up taking a bath on this tendency with a disturbing frequency, from being treated as unpaid beta-testers for games full of bugs to being charged extra for DLC that people getting the "game of the year edition" six months down the road will get for the same price we paid for the bare-bones edition.
And Shamus' points regarding what is and isn't in early reviews just seems to add fuel to that fire.
and then answered it. Thoughtfully, eloquently, and concisely.
That's so nice. And surprisingly rare.
The answer does, though, again raise the question: why do we, as gamers and consumers, so frequently succumb to marketing pressure to buy new games as quickly as possible?
I know some of the answer myself, as someone who often buys games later: it's incredibly hard not to get parts of a popular game "spoilered" for you if you wait if you have any interest in keeping up with game-related media, and harder the longer you wait.
Also, your friends are playing the same games, there may be various incentives offered by retailers, and we (pardon the presumption) just seem as an audience to have a sort of ego stake in being on the cutting edge, whether it's in hardware or software.
But, man, do we end up taking a bath on this tendency with a disturbing frequency, from being treated as unpaid beta-testers for games full of bugs to being charged extra for DLC that people getting the "game of the year edition" six months down the road will get for the same price we paid for the bare-bones edition.
And Shamus' points regarding what is and isn't in early reviews just seems to add fuel to that fire.
I love your articles (and your blog). I can post this when someone wonders why critical reaction is so different to the fan reaction of something.
Agreed. I was never annoyed by the launch-day reviews not mentioning the ill-conceived ending. But the way the majority of the gaming press reacted to the fan criticisms was just terrible. I still don't know why they decided to be quite so condescending. It was very unprofessional.Mr.Tea said:
See also: multiplayer shooters being evaluated on the merits of their tacked-on singleplayer mode.
Your reasoning for the lack of critical and journalistic outrage over the ME3 Ending seems to largely boil down to the fact that reviewers have a tough job and hard and fast deadlines, which makes it difficult for them to delve into reviewing something so time-intensive as story. While the pressures of the job are doubtlessly true, and your point about mechanics being easier to critique than story makes a lot of sense, I'm not sure that I entirely buy the argument that reviewers should be given leeway for missing a major failure of a game just because they didn't have enough time to fully explore it.
In my opinion, a broad, general review of a game that only covers the basic gameplay elements and mechanics is a waste of both the writer's and the readers' time. If anything, game reviews need more "nitpicking," not less. If, while playing a game, you find some little quirk or plot element that continues to bug you throughout your playing experience (or in this case essentially negates your previous 100 hours of story decisions), chances are that 1) you're not the only one and 2) the people relying on you for an appraisal of the game probably want to hear about it.
In a normal career if you present a cursory and incomplete report and give the excuse of "well I didn't have enough time" or "this is the best I could do because I was busy," chances are you're going to be looking for a new job rather soon. Even if these excuses are entirely truthful and do in fact justify your incomplete work, that does not excuse you from your responsibility of doing a thorough job. And I doubt the intention of game journalists is to marginalize the importance of story in gameplay; if it's an important part of the game, I want to hear about it, regardless of your time constraints. It's easy for me, having no experience with their career, to give some general (and obviously naiive) advice like "work harder on the review" or "spend more time on the game," but honestly, that's what they're being paid for. :/
The fact that the single glaring flaw in ME3 was largely ignored by most game journalists does not, unfortunately, make me pity their lot in life, but instead makes me question, if not their integrity, their dedication to their craft. And even if we excuse reviewers for all of these reasons, how do we explain those people writing weeks after the fact who still miss the point (like Yahtzee and Bob) whereas journalists like you (even if you don't consider yourself one, I do) are able to perfectly capture and explain why fans are truly angry with such a great degree of tact and detail?
Anyways, it's almost eerie how exactly you matched my reaction-over-time to the ME3 ending.
In my opinion, a broad, general review of a game that only covers the basic gameplay elements and mechanics is a waste of both the writer's and the readers' time. If anything, game reviews need more "nitpicking," not less. If, while playing a game, you find some little quirk or plot element that continues to bug you throughout your playing experience (or in this case essentially negates your previous 100 hours of story decisions), chances are that 1) you're not the only one and 2) the people relying on you for an appraisal of the game probably want to hear about it.
In a normal career if you present a cursory and incomplete report and give the excuse of "well I didn't have enough time" or "this is the best I could do because I was busy," chances are you're going to be looking for a new job rather soon. Even if these excuses are entirely truthful and do in fact justify your incomplete work, that does not excuse you from your responsibility of doing a thorough job. And I doubt the intention of game journalists is to marginalize the importance of story in gameplay; if it's an important part of the game, I want to hear about it, regardless of your time constraints. It's easy for me, having no experience with their career, to give some general (and obviously naiive) advice like "work harder on the review" or "spend more time on the game," but honestly, that's what they're being paid for. :/
The fact that the single glaring flaw in ME3 was largely ignored by most game journalists does not, unfortunately, make me pity their lot in life, but instead makes me question, if not their integrity, their dedication to their craft. And even if we excuse reviewers for all of these reasons, how do we explain those people writing weeks after the fact who still miss the point (like Yahtzee and Bob) whereas journalists like you (even if you don't consider yourself one, I do) are able to perfectly capture and explain why fans are truly angry with such a great degree of tact and detail?
Anyways, it's almost eerie how exactly you matched my reaction-over-time to the ME3 ending.
Wow, err...I went in expecting more of the gaming press circlejerk, but that was a good article on an aspect of this that a lot of people aren't considering. Something for both the more extreme haters and BioWare's retarded "the reviews validate everything!" party line to chew on.
That said, if this were the only cock up in the press's coverage of ME3, game journalists everywhere would look a damn sight better than they do at the moment. Their fucking appaling behaviour lately dwarfs this one fairly understandable shortcoming.
That said, if this were the only cock up in the press's coverage of ME3, game journalists everywhere would look a damn sight better than they do at the moment. Their fucking appaling behaviour lately dwarfs this one fairly understandable shortcoming.
This is very accurate.. I was wondering why Yahtzee had so little to say about the ME3 ending with this huge outrage, and the very obvious flaws Shamus brought up in his blog, and this seems to hit it on the nail.
Also, what do the people read who actually care about the story? Personally, I don't buy games on launch date, but I feel sorry for those who bought a game for $60 looking for a great story/ending, only to be disappointed the way all those ME fans apparently were.
Also, what do the people read who actually care about the story? Personally, I don't buy games on launch date, but I feel sorry for those who bought a game for $60 looking for a great story/ending, only to be disappointed the way all those ME fans apparently were.
Here are the facts: reviews said how it's the great and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.
There are only two reason they would say that:
1. They are retarded.
2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!
Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!
It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.
There are only two reason they would say that:
1. They are retarded.
2. THEY ALL GOT PAYED TO GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW!
Seriously, who would buy this game if any major reviewer were to say how the ending destroys the entire trilogy and makes you feel empty and dead inside? NO ONE!
It's so fuckin' obvious what happened in those reviews. There is no justification.
I write reviews and features for a small games website. It's not my job, I started it as a student and I still do it voluntarily as does the whole team, but I do hope that in the future it might lead to something more concrete.
I happened to get the review of ME3, and whilst I didn't have the problem of a release-day deadline (I reviewed my own purchased copy, since we've only just started to get EA sending us review copy, and very rarely at that), I did come across some significant problems. The ending controversy was well underway by the time I was writing the review, but I felt that any review that sought to discuss the ending would be riddled with spoilers and thus would not be the best thing for someone to read as consumer advice.
So my own solution was to write a standard review, taking in mechanical aspects of the game as well as the story, but preface it with a promise to follow this up with a feature dedicated to the ending. This feature was published yesterday, effectively acting as an optional supplement to the main review, published last Friday. The result was a 9/10 for the game itself, but also a supplement that tried to justify that score, and the tone of the review as a whole, in light of the discussion on the ending.
Do people think this was a good solution? I'll link to the website if people ask, otherwise I'll probably be in breach of the Escapist's rules on advertising in the forums.
I happened to get the review of ME3, and whilst I didn't have the problem of a release-day deadline (I reviewed my own purchased copy, since we've only just started to get EA sending us review copy, and very rarely at that), I did come across some significant problems. The ending controversy was well underway by the time I was writing the review, but I felt that any review that sought to discuss the ending would be riddled with spoilers and thus would not be the best thing for someone to read as consumer advice.
So my own solution was to write a standard review, taking in mechanical aspects of the game as well as the story, but preface it with a promise to follow this up with a feature dedicated to the ending. This feature was published yesterday, effectively acting as an optional supplement to the main review, published last Friday. The result was a 9/10 for the game itself, but also a supplement that tried to justify that score, and the tone of the review as a whole, in light of the discussion on the ending.
Do people think this was a good solution? I'll link to the website if people ask, otherwise I'll probably be in breach of the Escapist's rules on advertising in the forums.
It's also funny how all these people are quick to forget that the precedent has already been set by Bethesda with Fallout 3. They changed the original ending with paid dlc.
I don't know but it seems to be a flaw IMHO if we just discuss the technical side of things. It would be like if people just talked about the editing, lighting and audio quality in films rather then the plot, characters, soundtrack and the like. We are in a young medium so I suppose it's natural to be like this but I think we should colelctivly strive for something better, something more. As we are doing a disservice to the future if all we can talk about is how the game function mechanically.
Fair enough, I was never angry at the reviewers anyway. I'm a little miffed that many people I enjoy reading and listening to keep telling me I'm somehow a moron for thinking bioware should fix it, but whatever.
I agree with your points.
I agree with your points.