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."
I hardly ever pay to see movies any more; since our local art houses have gotten into the "business" (think internet bubble) of pre-release screenings, I get several invitations a month to go to free shows. Not to mention that my local film festival gets me other invites, simply for being a member.
I actually do read reviews, mostly online, when I can get them, simply because there's no local word of mouth nor advertising for these things, before I get the invites. Otherwise I just have to rely on what the email or card says about the plot of a movie. Basically in the last month I've turned down "Sylvia" because of horrendous reviews and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" because I don't do horror stories. This week I have 3 free movies to go see, including "Bad Santa," which I'll see ONLY because it got good reviews, "Shattered Glass," which sounds interesting but which I may pass up for an astronomy club meeting (don't laugh), and "Mona Lisa Smile," which sounds sappy, but which I'll probably watch anyway.
If I do pay to see movies, it's usually because of trailers I've seen in the theater that pique my interest, like "Veronica Guerin," which I'll pay for if I don't get a pass.
Get off my launchpad!
I was actually surprised when I read a review from The Rundown with the wrestler the Rock, and the reviewer (Ebert, I think) gave it like 2 1/2 to 3 stars. He said it wasn't a good movie, but it was solidly entertaining and kept him interested.
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
I always find reviews extremely useful on the nuts and bolts side to decide what platform would be best to get a given game for. Frequently, the PC/PS2/GC/XBox versions will have certain advantages/disadvantages that you just flat out can't tell from reading the package or watching someone play it for 5 minutes. Since reviewers usually point out the differences between versions of a given game, it allows me to make a much better decision on how I can most enjoy that game.
But more to the subject, I absolutely would rather know how a game works, how the controls are, how the graphics are as opposed to how it makes someone 'feel.' If I'm bothering to read a review on something, the odds are good I'm already interested in it, and am basically making sure there's nothing terrible about it. Besides, everyone is going to derive different feelings from games...what one reviewer is bored by, I may get really into. However, playability, graphics, and other technical aspects are much more objectively measureable, and therefore a better focus for reviews.
Personally, I could not enjoy it because it just didn't make any SENSE! 200 bodyguards in a powerful crime syndicate, and none of them bring a gun!?! Trained assassin comes in by the front door, politely waits for her enemies to get organized before attacking?!? Sorry, without some sort of rational underpinnings, an internally consistant system if you will, I can't enjoy a movie. For this reason I found Kill Bill 1 to be a waste of time, and definately won't be seeing the second one.
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.
Still, Ebert does tend to give light to some of the deeper form of criticism. In fact, it tends to get in the way of his judgment on films from time to time, where he spends too much time analyzing how the movie fits in it's genre or how it made him feel rather than telling people it's a good movie (or he doesn't notice it's a good movie because he pigeon-holed it wrong at the start).
I think that's the point, though, because current game reviewers don't even bother trying to be Ebert, they don't ground their reviews well in context, they simply review the points, and in many cases a particular magazine's (or site's) review system will get in the reviewer's way as much as anything else (score on graphics, sound, etc).
Part of the problem is simply that games aren't ready for this yet. We still read reviews to find out whether or not a game is buggy (or well-executed) rather than whether or not we want to play it. In fact, most of us know we want to play a game before we read a review of it. If the technology can mature to a point where we aren't worried about the mechanics, I think it will be much more likely that reviewers can go a little deeper in their reviews and give us more information than simply whether or not the developers screwed up the controls and the game crashes 5 times in 10 minutes (hell, I had no problems with C&C Generals, but with the expansion I get a crash to desktop every 3rd game or so), and whether or not the game engine takes advantage of the technology, or whether or not the game actually runs on that minimum system listed on the box.
With more developers sharing and re-using technology, as well as productions costs rising for games, it's very likely that things will become more stable (as people realize they don't need to build their own engine every time they make a game), and then reviews can get away from the mechanics and talk about the game, for once.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Delaney's absolutely right, but he didn't seem to offer any solutions. Here's one:
First of all, there needs to be a sort of academic overhead to video game analysis. I think our great hope in this is the imminent rise of Ludology and video game theory. By and large, video games are still generally regarded within the academic community as, well, non-academic. This notion needs to be challenged, by academics and professional review writers alike. When this "aura" of justification occurs, it will result not only in better writing within game reviews, but also a focus on critique, or true critical analysis, and less focus on screenshots or graphics. At a recent video game developer's conference, the head of Naughty Dog stated that the industry had reached a point of diminishing returns in respect to graphics, and that the focus now ought to be on storyline and character development. Likewise, so too should reviewers begin to shift focus away from the technical aspects of the game, despite Kasavin's insistence that these are "indelible qualities of gaming." He's technically right, but he's also wrong. They're indelible, true, but only because the entire focus of the game media (Gamespot very much included) is on these same indelible qualities of gaming. Don't believe? Open up your favorite gaming magazine or website, and see how much of a focus there is on screenshots. That kind of visual attention doesn't even happen in film media, which is at least as visual as gaming. When it does occur, it is done so with focus and intent by the studios, not the sprawling bi-daily update of screenshots that is so emerged within the game industry.
Secondly, we need a new word. Moving pictures found the word "film" to escape the pure entertainment association, video games need something akin to "film" but still connotative of the properties of video games. I know there are some, including John Carmack, who think that video games cannot and should not attain to anything higher than entertainment. And indeed, entertaining games is no less noble than games "with purpose." Nevertheless, saying that video games' sole purpose is to entertain is like saying that all paintings should be pretty and nice to look at, or that all books should be "fun" to read. Video games are a method, a medium, a means unto an end, and not the end itself. Can they communicate "entertainment"? Obviously, but the realization among game developers should also be that they can communicate or impart other abstract ideas as well, apart or alongside entertainment.
Thirdly, the industry itself needs to allow padding for games that are not purely entertainment driven. I think that the Japanese have this idea, hence games like REZ or Pikmin; games that I'm sure the publishers knew won't sell GTA3 numbers but they publish and develop as an expression rather than an attempt to make sales. The Japanese, and European to some degree, do this with intent, whereas American gaming companies do it completely unintentionally. This needs to change.
Basically, the entirety of the industry needs a swivel towards an overall awareness of "abstract gaming." Reviewers, whether they are aware of this or not, lead the vanguard in this respect. Why is there a need of, for lack of a better term (and the complete aversion to using the word "artistic"), purpose-oriented or abstract gaming? Because the gaming industry is at a crossroads now. The comic book industry found itself at very much this same point in its journey and it took the wrong path. Instead of creating what was considered "niche" titles, as a whole the industry instead moved towards a purely sales-driven strategy. The end result is that it quickly quarantined itself within a subculture that it has never really moved out of, requiring nearly 20-30 years and Frank Miller and Alan Moore to deconstruct the genre so it could be reinvented. The movie industry was also at the same point, much earlier than comic books of cour