Slashdot Mirror
Game Reviews Not Stuck In Pac Man Era?
Thanks to GameSpot for their 'GameSpotting' column discussing critics who say videogame reviewing is still much too basic an art. Quoting a subscriber-only Wall Street Journal article with similar comments to a recent Slashdot story, the author warns against overly conceptual game reviews: "Look at it this way: Would you prefer for me to wistfully tell you how Final Fantasy XI made me feel, or would you prefer for me to tell you how it works, what about it works well, and what about it doesn't work well?" And, although he thinks the WSJ piece has many good points, he takes issue with comparisons between game reviewing and film reviewing: "When was the last time you decided to see a movie based on a movie review? Film critics write to each other."
Now why, oh why, didn't the reviewer come right out and say Kill Bill sucked, instead of dancing around it. (/me holds head in hands)
..all the time. In either case, you have to find a specific reviewer that enjoys the same kind of things you do. Once you do, you can avoid a lot of crud you wouldn't like, and find stuff you may have otherwise missed.
Right now, there's game reviewers that talk about the things important to me. The WSJ guy may be interested in other stuff about games, or discussion from other angles. I can see that, but it's silly to pretend that this different coverage he wants would be better across the board.
Similarly, I'm happy with Ebert for film. Others may want more esoteric information or deeper analysis than Ebert provides. Or more shallow. But that doesn't mean that Ebert is somehow wrong - he gives many people (including me) precisely the information they want about a picture.
If you look beyond the mainstream, there's plenty of different review sources for games out there - just as there are for film. You can't review criticism based just on the Eberts of the world. To do so is just lazy.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Film critics may write to each other, but game reviewers carry a different purpose.
If you see a film because the previews made it look interest, but it turns out sucking, you're only out $9 - maybe $4.50 during an economy showing. If you get a game because the box looks good and it turns out to be a piece of crap, you're out $45 to $75.
A lot of this discussion seems to be missing the point that there are (at least) two kinds of movie critics. One kind is the Ebert kind, who tells us which movies to go see. The other kind is that academic kind like Cahiers du Cinema which doesn't serve as a viewing guide but acts as a way to analyse films beyond their entertainment value for the dollar.
Both kinds of critics are valuable. They are valuable at different times. During the times when you are standing around in a store with money burning a hole in your pocket, the Ebert kind are the ones you want to listen to. During the times when you want to increase your appreciation for the artform, or see trends or underlying symbolic themes that some movies might share, or learn about the artistic effect of certain new techniques and technologies, or consider the relationship between the story of a film and the political environment that spawned it, or weigh the merits of attributing a collaborative medium like film to the vision of a single director, then maybe Ebert isn't your man.
It's partially true that the academic critics are mostly writing to each other, but they are also writing to students of film and to creators of film. You can learn a lot from them. It would be nice to learn similar things about games. By all means, let's continue to have buying guides like GameSpot and so on. But maybe it would be nice to have the other kind, too.
I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
I noticed a trend lately that reviews will actually downgrade a game if it's too normal. FPS's (first person shooters) are extremely susceptible to this. The game play can be great, the weapons a good variety, maps decent, but the game play is solid, it gets a mid range to sub-par rating. Not everything had to be ground breaking to be a good game, and game reviewers are biased on personal experience to such a degree, that games can be rated negatively just on its genre.
I agree with the article, that some standards should be put in place, more technical than feeling should be the first rule, then give a mandatory Fun factor.
Also, I'd like to see a review site with more on 3rd party budget games, ones that cost 9.99, kid games, educational, more complete, and links to buy. And a link to the developer and distributor, may sites seem to skip putting who made the darn game.
Specifically, the purpose of a game review is to allow the reader to determine whether or not to plunk down ~$50 for it. If games were free, there would be no need for reviews - people could try them out and keep or discard them at whim. But since $50 is real money to most people (and EB Games is cracking down on it's generous return policy), folks need to be careful not to spend their money on something they wouldn't enjoy.
And there's one other thing I kept in mind: there are games that some people will enjoy but others will dislike, and a review should be of use to both people. In other words, the same review must both clue-in people who will enjoy the game and ward off those who will not.
As much as I'd like to watch movies or play games for a living, I don't really envy reviewers their job, because no matter what a reviewer writes, there's always going to be a number of people who disagree (and will be inclined to share their feelings with the reviewer in question).
I assume this is why sites like IGN write long winded reviews detailing every technical aspect of a game, while often avoiding subjective claims such as whether it's actually fun to play or not. While this will keep them out of trouble with their advertisers, I find it pretty unhelpful when I'm trying to determine whether I should buy a game or not. I'd much rather have someone tell me whether an RPGs battle system (for example) is enjoyable or tiresome to use, rather than detailing every minute detail of how it works. Of course, it helps if the information is coming from someone with similar philosophies on gaming as myself.
It's important to recognize the difference between reviews and criticism of films and games. It seems that NYT article is decrying the lack of actual video game critics, but unfortunately they're not really in high demand (yet). Gaming hasn't been around long enough to really develop any schools of critical thought, although I'm sure that will change.
In terms of film, the majority of the criticism I've seen usually focuses on movies that are at least 10-20 years old, and games have only very recently begun to reach the level of movies in terms of story telling capacity (although I think they still often fall short).
I would very much like more "high brow" game criticism available to me (I'd even consider writing some myself in the future), but I don't think such critics have a place in game magazines or web sites that are dependent on game industry advertising revenue. That would be like film academics writing for People magazine.
Also, any game critics who crop up will immediately face negative stereotypes from the majority of gamers who just want to get in a game and shoot things (or build things) and have a good time. Just look at Gamespotting article. I know it's for humorous effect, but the article presents critics as stuffy old men wearing monocles.
Anyway, I think video game reviewing is still a basic art because games themselves are still relatively basic (despite their constant stretching of technical barriers). From a film perspective, game designers have to constantly reinvent the "camera" rather than just using an already-made camera to redefine storytelling.
There will always be reviewers who only treat games as a commercial product, since to many developers they will always be just that; but I agree with the article that as time passes we will see an increase in academic writing on videgames. I'm glad that Kasavino treats this as a positive thing.
--- "Yeah, I'm a bit stressed out. I have a research paper due tomorrow and it has to be +5, Insightful."