Slashdot Mirror
More NavelGazing About Game Journalism
An anonymous reader writes "FiringSquad has just posted an article going into 5 problems with videogame journalism. The author says that since it wouldn't be polite to point the finger at other journalists, he wrote this racing-game shootout and this DOA4 review to provide the evidence. Great article made even better because the writer is using his own work as evidence for why things have gone terribly wrong."
Video game reviews aren't the only ones suffering from these problems. It's movies, music, and pretty much everything else that gets reviewed.
I could definitely follow everything this guy had to say about reviewers and video games. I almost can't stand to read the review anymore because they are all cliche and focus far too much on useless things like graphics and sound and not enough on gameplay. I personally think the bigeest perpetrator is Gamespot. Nearly every review I read by them is complete and utter garbage. It is riddled with bias and focuses on everything but how much fun the game is to play. I really don't give a shit if the sprite animations aren't as clean looking as they should be. I want to know simple things when I read a game review, which are mainly, A) Is the game fun and, B) is it worth my X amount of dollars.
Seems to me that the average score for games revieved is 80%+, and given that most new games are pure trash, I was wondering if anyone knew of a games revies site that had the actual reviews and scores at about 50% or less?
"NavelGazing"? I thought the booth-babes were banned?
This article was written by a person assuming that game reviewers ACTUALLY play the game, I can say this isn't always the case.
I know of a few Canadian game reviewers in some popular newspapers, grey haired guys or even a few women, that review games, and it is obvious they simply browse through the game's menus and probably spent only a couple of hours playing the game. Just looking at the guys suggest these people can't set their VCR clocks (and the fact they most likely still use VCR's suggests something as well). I actually remember reading a game review where the writer spend more time criticizing the confusing game menu rather then talking about game play. Sure, these are not solid sources for game reviews, but it also suggests that as Wall Street and commercial news services begin to recognize video gaming as being a huge money making industry suddenly your going to get journalists with little to know gaming experience having to review these products. The grey hairs on Wall Street want to read what the grey hairs in the New York Times think of Grand Theft Auto. They of course do not have perspective as to how or why games are played, they are payed to do a job.
But I agree. Like with movie critics, reviewing 100's of products a year probably leaves you with an acid tounge and dried up wit. With so many BAD games on the market, and only a few gems, having to constantly find something positive to say about a game could become strenuous and difficult to accomplish in most cases.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I posted this on the article's comments section but it'll probably get more attention here so I'm reposting it. I hate all the ads on that site too.
From the article:
Second, a short but intense experience is definitely better than a long game that's repetitive.
I don't think that is a universal truth. It depends on the way you play games.
Take "God of War" for example. An excellent game by most standards, and one that definitly falls into the category of "short but intense". I bought it because of the great reviews. After playing for a couple days I was dissappointed. Not because I didn't like it; it was an excellent game. Rather, because I felt it should have been a rental. It was short, intense, great fun, but had little replay value.
Most reviewers reserve the phrase 'it's a rental' for mediocre games; it generally indicates a bad review. I think that's completly wrong. Bad games don't get better just by renting them. I think the perfect rental game is short, intense, but with limited replay value. "God of War" is the perfect rental. You can pay $5 to rent it and have the same experience as the guy who bought it for $50.
That fact that a game is "long and repetitve" is only a bad thing if you overemphasize the goal of finishing it. You don't have to finish games to enjoy them. I prefer spending my money on a longer game. I'll play it for a week or two, I'll have fun, and then I'll stop playing for a month or two. Then I'll come back and play for a few more weeks, and have just as much fun as I did when the game was new. These types of games give me the greatest value for my money and are the ones I feel are really worth the $50.
Aw crap, ninjas!
I strongly disagree with the idea of innovation bias in the firing squad article. Yes, you are going to write about a game differently having played every other game in the series, or even having played a few games in the genre. However, this is not a bad thing. Do you think a movie or book critic is hired by a major newspaper or other publication without ever having watched a movie of a particular genre before? I doubt it. One of the most important aspects about game journalism is knowing what's come before. If I can insightfully compare and contrast between Project Gotham Racing 3 and Mario Kart DS in an article it's going to add a lot of useful perspective for the audience.
I'd also like to wholeheartedly agree with his second and third points on playing through a game too quickly and rushing out the final copy of the review. There is an easy solution for this, however. Quit playing through the games so fast. You can still get an article out on release day, but don't let that be the final word on the game. Write two or even three follow-ups, so your audience can see how your feelings evolve as you play through the game. For instance, there is a big difference between a game like Starcraft, which I still play regularly, and a game like God of War, which I played through twice. Both are excellent titles, but a longer form review process would bring out the differences in the long term value between the two games. I never understood the similarities between movie reviews and game reviews with respect to length. A single game is an endeavor you could easily spend 100+ hours on. I can't think of any movies that offer that kind of replay value.
I know I've already mentioned this recently on Slashdot, but I'd also like to point out that there are plenty of review sites out there that are taking the time to relax and play through games. http://www.thegamechair.com/ which I write for being one of many. So if the major review sites aren't giving you the kind of coverage you'd like, take the time to search for a more personal, less frenzied experience.
only one everything
From the article on Dead or Alive 4:
In the game, a counter often does substantially more damage than a standard attack with extra points being awarded for better timing. The difficulty is predicting the opponent's attack and timing your counter. This produces a very challenging and varied experience where it is crucial that your attacks remain unpredictable, making it difficult for your opponent to compete, and where it's also crucial to be familiar enough with your opponent's fighting style so that you can time your holds and counters appropriately.
He gives this as an example of something that shows DOA4 is an improvement over other fighting games, but isn't this just a different version of SoulCalibur's Guard Impacts, or (if I have my facts straight) Street Fighter 3's Parries?
Second, a short but intense experience is definitely better than a long game that's repetitive.
Certainly not universal, though definitely opinionary. Say, soda for example... I want something to drink, but only have the options of having either a 12 oz. can of Coke or a 24 oz. bottle of Pepsi per day. Personally, I prefer the taste of Coke, but after that 12 oz. is gone I'm done... whereas with the Pepsi I would have more to drink, but it wouldn't be as thrilling. Which one would I pick? Depends on if I'm just looking for something good to drink, or I'm just really thirsty.
Ideally, if I had it my way, I would just take two cans of Coke and put them together to get 24 oz of drink, so in effect I have the flavor of my favorite soda with the same "length" as the bottle of Pepsi. Except, unfortunately, it's going to cost me twice as many days to achieve this goal, as my resources are restricted (that is, I can only take one can/bottle a day). If I just say "what the hell" and drink two cans a day, eventually I'll run out as it's costing me twice as much to do so.
My point is... I guess it just comes down to what a developer's available time and resource is in determining the quality and length of a given title, and what the gamers buying these games are going for - are they thirsty, or are they just going for flavor? (Or... will they just come out disappointed in either case?)