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."

Comments

when I see movies

[Artifex]

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.

I use film reviews and game reviews...

[JMZero]

..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.

Film reviews?

[Violet Null]

"When was the last time you decided to see a movie based on a movie review? Film critics write to each other."

I use film reviews all the time. Unless I'm already heavily predisposed to see in the movie (eg, Bubba Ho-Tep), if a movie comes out where the reviews are real stinkers, I won't go see it.

(Notice that that's reviews, plural. Rotten Tomatoes is your friend.)

Granted, word of mouth is more important than reviews, but that doesn't make reviews useless.

Back on the subject of game reviews, though: I certainly want reviewers to tell me about the game, not about their interpretation of the game. The worst offendor I think I've ever read is here. Allow me to quote:

Sigmund Freud argues that all living things are governed by two basic instincts: the life instinct called Eros or the death instinct called Thanatos. Eros is the energy that tries to build social ties, fueled by the body, which floods the mind. Thanatos destroys ties and is the wish for destruction and death. All social activity can be reduced to complex forms and interaction of these two instincts. However, when civilization and socialization disrupt the normal ebb and flow of instinctual living, the mind breaks up under the demands. The threefold self is the id, the collective genetic inheritance of the species; the ego, which acts to meet the demands of the id; and the super-ego, which represents the internalization of the demands of society. Humans struggle to find an outlet to meet the demands of their instincts, but in ways that are socially acceptable. War is a perfect justification when Eros fails to tame Thanatos. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is another.

And that's just the beginning, folks.

Re:Film reviews?

[jermyjerm]

Rotten Tomatoes is handy for deciding what movies to see, and I often consult Game Rankings when trying to decide on games, as well.

Oh, and I find the GTA:VC reviewers logic hilariously absurd. That entire passage is hard to follow, but if I'm right in thinking he's trying to say that playing Vice City, like fighting wars, is giving into man's basest desire for violence... I'd have to vocally disagree! It could be easily argued that a game like VC is another manifestation of man's desire to find an acceptable and safe outlet for violence, whereas fighting wars is very unsafe and often unnacceptable for those involved.

Reviewers shouldn't confuse their roles with critics. Rotten Tomatoes is a review site, and so that person's attempt at analysis seems out of place, although I guess this underscores the fact that there really is no acceptable forum for video game criticism yet.

Simple Philosophy for Game Reviewing

[MBraynard]

I use to write game reviews for the now defunt Well Rounded. It was very challenging to write for some games, especially games that I didn't like, but keeping a simple philosophy in mind was a lighthouse that helped guide me.

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.