Yantelope V2 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Some interesting articles on Giant Bomb. I have some thought's I'd like to weigh in on later. http://www.giantbomb...sm-part-1/3912/ http://www.giantbomb...sm-part-2/3915/ http://www.giantbomb.com/news/on-games-reviews-and-criticism-part-3/3918/ Edited January 17, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Why the new account? I think game reviews and game criticism need to be two separate things. Reviews are so the consumer can decide whether a particular product is worth their time/money, criticism is much more intellectual/philosophical. If criticism starts merging with reviews then the games industry will end up like the film industry, with the professional reviews being almost entirely useless to the end consumer. I like reading games criticism, but it's for an entirely different purpose than why I read reviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Yeah, I think that's the part the articles have brushed upon but haven't really been getting into too deep. I think there's really two different things between "Is this game functional?" and "Is this game enjoyable?" and the second question is far more subjective. Reviews kind of mash the objective part and the less objective parts into one big mess and slap a number on it. Edited January 17, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMW Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I think it's a fair question that they're tossing back and forth. A video game "review" has the base purpose of informing a consumer whether investing in the software is a good investment. If you're going to write a deep insightful analysis into video game design, content, or philosophy then that doesn't necessarily inform consumers whether or not the game is something they should purchase. Reviews also have the function of showing a games merit to a publisher through metacritic. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Developers live and die based on metacritic scores. Carefully considered analysis of a product ("criticism") may well argue a negative point in regards to an overall great game or vice-versa. I don't think it does either the developer or publisher any good for numbers attached to criticism to muddy the metascore waters. Complex ideas can't be reduced to a number. Kotaku, actually, is WAY ahead of the curve here. Kotaku not only avoids numbers, but has been pushing more and more towards criticism in their reviews of late. With Stephen Totilo in charge now, I imagine they'll continue that trend. It wounds me somewhat that anything too smart, anything with too much thought behind it, doesn't have a place in the review ecosystem. But the linked articles make a fair argument that it doesn't. Why, I wonder, are video game enthusiasts so different from film snobs? Film snobbery is an almost academic matter - paying attention to cinematography, special effect construction, lighting, and a whole host of other elements that most consumers ignore. Video game snobs tend to be a different beast, concerned with competitive advantages, corporate maneuverings, and (shudder) metascores. The way that elitists of these two mediums separate themselves from the "casual" pedestrian is totally different. If criticism tackling more academic and cerebral matters existed, would more people concern themselves with those aspects of games? Would that be a good thing? By the way, this criticism DOES exist. It's all at kill screen. Visit it some time. Seriously. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Yeah, I think that's the part the articles have brushed upon but haven't really been getting into too deep. I think there's really two different things between "Is this game functional?" and "Is this game enjoyable?" and the second question is far more objective. Reviews kind of mash the objective part and the less objective parts into one big mess and slap a number on it. Why would a game's being enjoyable be objective? I'd say that's the real subjective part. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Sorry, Subjective is what I meant. You are right. Part 3 just hit. http://www.giantbomb.com/news/on-games-reviews-and-criticism-part-3/3918/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) I think the comparison to film is great because well.....so those who write game reviews are game reviewers whereas film reviewers are....film critics. Maybe that's the problem. Reviews should become critiques but we are so used to the traditional game review that its hard to just switch to that, so I think the slow turning of reviews into something more than just a simple review, like the Eurogamer Uncharted 3 review is a good thing. There are plenty of film critics who use a scoring system as well, so I think forcing reviews to not use scores shouldn't automatically make things better, but it would probably help in all honesty. I like the PXOD format, and I think maybe a plus and negative system at the end of reviews is where things are headed. maybe having a piece after a review, where a discussion about certain aspects of the game in a more critical fashion with other writers is the way to go. Edge do a thing like this already, and sometimes discuss it with the developers themselves. Edited January 17, 2012 by excel_excel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Well, film critics still mostly all use some sort of scoring system. Also, film doesn't usually have a component of functionality in the way a game has. You usually don't ask if the film actually works like you do with a videogame. I think that whole component is what makes game reviews more complex than just a simple critique. Epic Mickey got dinged on reviews for it's dreadful camera system. Uncharted 3 got dinged for being linear. One is a critique while the other is more of a review or report. Edited January 17, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I most definitely do NOT think game reviews should become critiques. Critique is interesting and definitely something that should happen more, but I also think the more informative review should stay, as it serves a very valuable purpose in informing consumers about the product. Reviews as they are now should not be done away with. Why do people act as if critiques and reviews are mutually exclusive, and we have to do away with reviews in order to have critique? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Well maybe not become critiques, but reviews should definitely not be afraid to approach that territory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I disagree, I think reviews should stay the hell away from that territory. If they don't they'll become like film reviews, completely useless as a measure of entertainment value. Critique and review are both things that should be happening, but I do not think they need to get mixed in with each other. Okay, now I sound racist... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) But some film reviews aren't completely useless as a measure of entertainment value, some are, but then some reviews are useless as a measure of entertainment value like IGN's review of Deadly Premonition, which trashed it and awarded it 2.0 but took the game for something it wasn't a survival horror when it was something more than that. We can have critiques of games just as we can have normal reviews of games. Edited January 17, 2012 by excel_excel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) We can have critiques of games just as we can have normal reviews of games. Oh I agree with this wholeheartedly. I just don't want the critiques masquerading as reviews. *Edit* - Okay, why all of a sudden is the forum not putting an empty line after a quote box? I liked that it did that. Edited January 17, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Film reviews are useless to the end consumer? I read quite a bit of film critics and usually their reviews are useful in figuring out if the film is something for me, while still remaining interesting with their criticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) I apologise because I've not read all of the links but I do think critiquing has a place in game reviews. Maybe it's just because I'm sick of 'This game does a thing. Is it a GOOD game or a bad GAME? > Describe setting of game > Describe all the features and whether you like them or not > Do a conclusion.' It just seems a little dry. Obviously not all reviews are like this, but rarely do they attempt anything more. I also find there's that huge problem of trying to assess 'Is it worth the cost?', and most reviewers play games in a drastically different way to regular people. They will rush through a game to get it out of the way, plus they received it for free so couldn't really assess whether someone would pay full-price or half-price and whether it's a game best enjoyed in shorter sessions. I like to get a bit more insight. I can tell a lot more about a writer from some kind of attempt to put the game into some perspective, to try and capture the 'feeling' of playing the game. We probably know better than anybody that some of our favourite games are more than the sum of their parts. Of course, there is going to be that conflict of writing for your audience or merely 'assessing' a game. I go to Eurogamer because I like to hear something a bit more thoughtful and I go to Gametrailers to see an actual video and a bit-by-bit breakdown of a game's elements. There's room enough for both. I think it is more about finding where best matches either your tastes or mindset. Why the new account? It must be because he had 117 rep. The number of his favourite Spartan. Edited January 18, 2012 by Hot Heart 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted January 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Another point I was happy that the articles pointed out is how MW3 got criticized harshly for bing linear but Uncharted 3 didn't really (something Eurogamer did though). I find it funny that some people love MW3 and hate Uncharted 3 and vice versa without realizing just how similar they can be. I know they're very different games in terms of story characters setting, etc. They are also extremely linear shooters which don't do anything particularly special outside of being the best over-the-top cinematic experience. It must be because he had 117 rep. The number of his favourite Spartan. This is a good reason. I'll go with this as my official reason. Edited January 18, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.