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.
There is no role playing here. I'm not castic a magic spell to slay a rat. I'm not using my space pistol to shoot a rat. I'm not swinging my sword to kill a rat. I'm conversing with a wide array of people in a digital world, that just happens to have buggies, bikes, boards, and so forth.
You're being represented by an avatar which you create, and interacting with others through that avatar. Despite the fact that you're not taking on the role of a hero (or as someone who kills rats), you're still taking on a role that is different from your own in real life. Role playing, in other words.
I think the fact that I (writer of the article) treated There as a game when its original intent was not to be one might be more of a problem, but I still think that point is debatable.
Hm, that's actually interesting. I wasn't aware of the force field thing. It wouldn't make me want to play that insipid game, but I'm glad they left people soccer a possibility... it was one of the more exciting aspects of There.
Funny, I never considered myself an actual griefer until you and another self righteous AC pointed it out. If it ever came up, I'd probably argue that the sterility created by There, as well as the lack of true goals, encourages such behavior in people like me raised on competitive/violent video games.
I would never think of griefing in a game where it could actually cause damage, but in There a) you couldn't run over people who were in a conversation group, and b) doing so had absolutely no negative effect other than causing the people the momentary annoyance of being knocked over and having to walk back to where they were previously. This might even be an incentive for them to "buy" those "Nike sneakers," so they could get back to where they were more quickly!
Also played the beta. I had fun with it until they made it impossible to hit people with buggies and send them flying. For a while it was as good as I'd expect an online GTA could be!
They created a really large persistent land mass, which was interesting for about a week. After that, it's like... "Hmm, do we want to stand in a semi-circle and talk next to a pyramid, or in a spooky castle??" Who cares!
I think There is the ideal society Hitler would have striven for if he lived now and spent too much time watching MTV. There's a huge array of avatar configurations (I know, because I created a rather er... lumpy and ugly one), but most people in the game seemed to pick very similar appearances. When I played, the game was populated completely by a host of trendily dressed caucasian characters. It was spooky.
And something just doesn't seem right when you're paying money to buy a shirt that will give your character a six pack.
It's simple. Just like with other entertainment forms, often the makers are backed by large companies who have a vested interest in the success of the game. It's even magnified in the case of these games since they're paying to set up servers, hire support staff, (etc) in addition to the development of the game. They're not going to try anything risky, but rather take the existing model and change a few elements as systematically as possible.
That's how Hollywood's operated since... always.
The sad thing is that MMORPGs likely have operational costs that are too high for independent developers, so the chances of seeing massive innovation in the genre isn't especially high, IMO.
The claim that they're same-ish because of men developing them is frankly retarded, and I'm sad to see it get any sort of exposure. We're in this situation because both men and women want money, and part of the current formula for a successful MMORPG is physically appealing avatars. The sexual politics that created the situation aren't even really an issue.
Yep. After playing UO for a year, no other MMOG I've played has really lived up. The newer games never seem to deliver what they promise, and all seem to lack in content. They all obviosuly surpass EQ/UO technologically, but end up falling flat anyway. In my estimation this happens because the developers spend WAY too much time on game balance. Looking back on UO it seems like they just set the game in motion and waited to see how it would pan out, which led to some annoying problems (like houses covering every free pixel of land) but overall made the game seem much more vibrant.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time or money (or hardware) to try them out anymore, so I may never find an MMORPG that could beat my great UO experiences.
I had a problem with this being included at all, simply because the "is video game art?" (or similarly, "what is art?") debate is way too broad to even begin to be covered by that blurb.
I wonder if the Director of Photography or designers of Ace Ventura would consider their work to be art. Fashion designers might find Jim Carrey's zany wardrobe and hair to be pretty artistic!
I don't really see how distinguishing art from "media" really helps raise credibility any. Doesn't art by nature convey one or more of the following: expression, emotion, ideas, information?
If you have media without artistic intent, you end up with journalism, and I think current journalism (in the U.S. anyway) is met with as much skepticism as anything else (or should be, if it isn't.)
Slashdot Mirror
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.
There is no role playing here. I'm not castic a magic spell to slay a rat. I'm not using my space pistol to shoot a rat. I'm not swinging my sword to kill a rat. I'm conversing with a wide array of people in a digital world, that just happens to have buggies, bikes, boards, and so forth.
You're being represented by an avatar which you create, and interacting with others through that avatar. Despite the fact that you're not taking on the role of a hero (or as someone who kills rats), you're still taking on a role that is different from your own in real life. Role playing, in other words.
I think the fact that I (writer of the article) treated There as a game when its original intent was not to be one might be more of a problem, but I still think that point is debatable.
Recent ones, with all their focus on balance issues, are either games or good examples of totalitarian societies.
Hm, that's actually interesting. I wasn't aware of the force field thing. It wouldn't make me want to play that insipid game, but I'm glad they left people soccer a possibility... it was one of the more exciting aspects of There.
Funny, I never considered myself an actual griefer until you and another self righteous AC pointed it out. If it ever came up, I'd probably argue that the sterility created by There, as well as the lack of true goals, encourages such behavior in people like me raised on competitive/violent video games.
I would never think of griefing in a game where it could actually cause damage, but in There a) you couldn't run over people who were in a conversation group, and b) doing so had absolutely no negative effect other than causing the people the momentary annoyance of being knocked over and having to walk back to where they were previously. This might even be an incentive for them to "buy" those "Nike sneakers," so they could get back to where they were more quickly!
Oh, and I completely forgot to mention the disturbing number of people who sit around and "make out."
Also played the beta. I had fun with it until they made it impossible to hit people with buggies and send them flying. For a while it was as good as I'd expect an online GTA could be! They created a really large persistent land mass, which was interesting for about a week. After that, it's like... "Hmm, do we want to stand in a semi-circle and talk next to a pyramid, or in a spooky castle??" Who cares! I think There is the ideal society Hitler would have striven for if he lived now and spent too much time watching MTV. There's a huge array of avatar configurations (I know, because I created a rather er... lumpy and ugly one), but most people in the game seemed to pick very similar appearances. When I played, the game was populated completely by a host of trendily dressed caucasian characters. It was spooky. And something just doesn't seem right when you're paying money to buy a shirt that will give your character a six pack.
It's simple. Just like with other entertainment forms, often the makers are backed by large companies who have a vested interest in the success of the game. It's even magnified in the case of these games since they're paying to set up servers, hire support staff, (etc) in addition to the development of the game. They're not going to try anything risky, but rather take the existing model and change a few elements as systematically as possible.
That's how Hollywood's operated since... always.
The sad thing is that MMORPGs likely have operational costs that are too high for independent developers, so the chances of seeing massive innovation in the genre isn't especially high, IMO.
The claim that they're same-ish because of men developing them is frankly retarded, and I'm sad to see it get any sort of exposure. We're in this situation because both men and women want money, and part of the current formula for a successful MMORPG is physically appealing avatars. The sexual politics that created the situation aren't even really an issue.
At this rate, they'll all be in a landfill in New Mexico within a month.
Yep. After playing UO for a year, no other MMOG I've played has really lived up. The newer games never seem to deliver what they promise, and all seem to lack in content. They all obviosuly surpass EQ/UO technologically, but end up falling flat anyway. In my estimation this happens because the developers spend WAY too much time on game balance. Looking back on UO it seems like they just set the game in motion and waited to see how it would pan out, which led to some annoying problems (like houses covering every free pixel of land) but overall made the game seem much more vibrant. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or money (or hardware) to try them out anymore, so I may never find an MMORPG that could beat my great UO experiences.
You'd also have to care about PA's opinion. Sorry for trolling, but for me PA isn't the be-all end-all of video game related commentary.
I agree.
I had a problem with this being included at all, simply because the "is video game art?" (or similarly, "what is art?") debate is way too broad to even begin to be covered by that blurb.
I wonder if the Director of Photography or designers of Ace Ventura would consider their work to be art. Fashion designers might find Jim Carrey's zany wardrobe and hair to be pretty artistic!
I don't really see how distinguishing art from "media" really helps raise credibility any. Doesn't art by nature convey one or more of the following: expression, emotion, ideas, information?
If you have media without artistic intent, you end up with journalism, and I think current journalism (in the U.S. anyway) is met with as much skepticism as anything else (or should be, if it isn't.)
Just my $.02
God forbid you should have to be modded informative or insightful based on your own comments, rather than a link to someone else's opinion.