Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Cobra on January 03, 2015, 06:50:15 pm
-
I found myself reading a recently-released game review and it made me realize I that I hadn't read a "professional" game review in quite some time.
In the past several years I've come to notice that almost every single game reviewer I used to read has become increasingly *****y about whatever game they're reviewing. Most don't seem to compare good and bad of a decent game; they zero in on whatever problems that most people don't notice and complain about it in the entire review. And they're so biased. If a game doesn't look absolutely perfect, they complain about how the graphics are shoddy. If there's a quirk in the AI that can be exploited (because heaven forbid nobody do the thing they've done since 3D action and stealth games were conceived), the AI has a huge problem.
I dunno. I'm pretty sure game reviewers are losing the ability to look at things objectively and instead whine and ***** about something because it wasn't exactly to their expectations. I've thoroughly enjoyed games that reviewers at places like Gamespot and IGN gave mediocre reviews.
Am I the only one thinking this?
-
You may need to just find a different source of reviews.
I still subscribe to PC Gamer, and really enjoy the entire magazine, including the reviews. They really do seem unbiased, point out good and bad things, and recommend games if you like something specific about them.
Also TotalBiscuit.
-
I hadn't thought about it until you mentioned it, but I no longer regularly read reviews from the likes of Gamespot and IGN. I tend to gravitate more toward real user experiences, such as Steam reviews or things I read at HLP and elsewhere. I have never had top-end hardware, so I never cared what Crysis looked like maxed out, and like you said, I can enjoy a game that the "pros" don't care for.
-
I have never read professional reviews. In video games, or anything else. They almost never agree with the majority of actual gamers. Go to metacritic and see how many you can find with the critic and player scores close to each other.
-
Ever since the "gamers are dead" debacle, I've only read Steam reviews.
-
To be honest with you, the problem is what I call the 'Catholic Church' problem.
What I mean by this is that, back in the 1970s, Irish Comedians were making jokes about certain Priests and other public figures doing very unpleasant things. Now they are saying sarcastically 'Oh look, that thing we were making jokes about for over 30 years because we knew it was happening, was happening'.
Now, I'm not trying to compare the behaviour of the Computer Gaming industry with those acts, not in the slightest, but we've got a market that advertises in the magazines that review its games, that have almost monopolized a 'buyer beware' attitude on refunds that completely removes almost any quality requirement from the manufacturer, run systems that give you no choice but to share information with their servers, which circumnavigate the data protection laws, and even are attempting to normalize an attitude towards resale that means that your property is never truly your own.
To summarize, the Gaming Industry has been allowed to run rings around conventional consumer rights for years, and they quite firmly have their claws in the 'professional' gaming sites and magazines, this is why I get annoyed when people make a fuss about things like Gamergate, it's pretty irrelevant on the grand scale of things.
When I want to find out what a game is like the best way, I have found, is to watch someone else play it on youTube or the like. It works for someone like me, who doesn't mind waiting till a price drops before buying a game (....but GTA 5 is coming out this month... and it tests me...). This has led to some good buys for me, such as Minecraft and Banished, and to be fair it's also led to some really bad choices, such as Towns, but that was more the matter of the developer pulling the rug out mid development than the game being 'bad' per-se.
-
When I want to find out what a game is like the best way, I have found, is to watch someone else play it on youTube or the like. It works for someone like me, who doesn't mind waiting till a price drops before buying a game (....but GTA 5 is coming out this month... and it tests me...). This has led to some good buys for me, such as Minecraft and Banished, and to be fair it's also led to some really bad choices, such as Towns, but that was more the matter of the developer pulling the rug out mid development than the game being 'bad' per-se.
I also tend to use Let's Plays as surrogate reviews, since that way you actually see the game being played. I have a few LPers I generally trust, but LPs in general are not immune to shady marketing deals (e.g. Microsoft (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stealth-marketing-microsoft-paying-youtubers-for-xbox-one-mentions/)'s xbone promotion). Just something to keep in mind.
There's also the question of whether a Let's Play is available for a specific game - some developers/publishers are actively hostile towards uploading footage of their games, and anyone can exploit youtube's hilariously broken copyright takedown system.
-
Ever since the "gamers are dead" debacle, I've only read Steam reviews.
Which is hilarious, because neither Gamasutra nor Leigh have ever actually done straight up reviews of recently released games (though I would surely read them if they did).
I stopped reading mainstream game review sites a while ago. They seemed too cookie cutter and unwilling to state a real opinion on anything for a while now (though there still are a few particular writers like Kevin VanOrd who I respect). Or maybe they were always like that but I expected more as I got older. Nowadays I rely on a few trusted indie critics like Steerpike who have tendencies I know. His site Tap Repeatedly has a nice small group of critics, if you're mainly into story-centric and indie games.
-
It is an advantage if you are into the non-AAA titles, since you are far more likely to get an honest opinion of those.
I also occasionally use Zero Punctuation as a good source of reviews, for one he approaches almost everything from an initial position of contempt, which helps level the playing field, and for two, whilst his tastes in gaming are actually pretty removed from mine I can't actually deny the issues that make him hate a game I like. He is NSFW and sometimes the reviews are a little too comic over content, but in his own way he is pretty reliable.
-
I haven't read a formal game review in ages. I tend to trust word of mouth from people I know far more, coupled with user reviews, Steam reviews, aggregators, and the occaisional trip to PC Gamer who I still mostly trust. Mostly. And I watch some ZP for both amusement and I for action, though I've disagreed with Ben on several titles.
This is one of the reasons I delay most game purchases until there are crazy sales - ample time for general impressions to form and bugs to be fixed.
-
I used to disagree a lot with Zero Punctuation until I realized that he doesn't tend to point out anything good about a game unless it's actually really good. He's much more of focused on the negative aspects, because those are the funny parts.
I still disagree sometimes.
-
I'm not sure how to answer the question posed in the topic when I never started.
I mean, I'll occasionally search for the name of the game to gauge the general tenor of people's opinions, but mostly I don't care what random people on the internet thought about a game; it won't tell me if I'll enjoy it. Gameplay footage on youtube is good; finding somebody who already owns it so I can try it myself is better. Of course, nowadays I have such a backlog of unplayed games that if I want to try something new I have dozens (...okay, hundreds) of games that I already own and have never played, so I can't even recall the last time I looked up a youtube video of someone playing a game. I think the last gameplay footage I went looking for was... well, FSO, but not counting that, then the last time I can remember doing it was... Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. Technically only looked at the gameplay footage in the trailer that was on Steam, but if it hadn't been there I would've gone looking anyway, so I suppose it counts.
-
Me neither. Aggregate ranking like Steam reviews or Metacritic (a lot of people ranking eliminates personal bias) and Youtube playthroughs (you see how the game actually looks in action - the next best thing to actually playing it) are the way to go.
-
I agree with the consensus here, which seems to be rightfully unanimous.
-
I used to disagree a lot with Zero Punctuation until I realized that he doesn't tend to point out anything good about a game unless it's actually really good. He's much more of focused on the negative aspects, because those are the funny parts.
I still disagree sometimes.
I'll disagree with Yahtzee about a fair few games but I do agree that he always comes at a game with a unbiased starting opinion. Admittedly that opinion is "This game is probably going to be ****, now impress me" but at least it's fair.
-
I never used gamereviews. thoguh I have found zero punctuation to be quite entertaining in a 'parody of games' sense.
-
I will occasionally read so called professional reviews, and sometimes do it simply to see what other people think of a game I already own rather than to determine if I should own a certain game. But my go-to source of information these days is definitely actual gamers, and while I'll read their reviews too, let's play footage is easily my favourite source of information on games I want to learn about.
-
Damn I don't know ZP, now all of these comments about him got me interested.
-
If you're going to start watching Zero Punctuation, I'd advise picking the oldest game on his list you didn't particularly like.
-
I never thought game reviews good for finding the best games, but they do help in avoiding the absolute disasters.
Reviewers tend to get impressed by things that are irrelevant to me, then ignore the actual interesting aspects. Yeah, don't read them much these days.
-
To me pro reviewers tend to be too positive and "indie" ones are too negative. I actually tend to see what people are talking about. Threads and memes and other things on the internet are a good indicator on if a game is good. Tough to find small gems though, but big name reviewers aren't touching those anyways.
-
If you're going to start watching Zero Punctuation, I'd advise picking the oldest game on his list you didn't particularly like.
I'm gonna watch his mass effect 2 video coz I'm that maso.
-
Welp, if the idiocy of the GameJournoPros leak reveals, the general consensus among gamers is that we jumped ship to citizen Youtube.
A number of game journos were complaining about AngryJoe and Totalbiscuit, but it should be no suprise the "Gaming Media," has pretty much gone the way of the Dodo in the wake of Youtube, twitch.tv, and streaming. I stopped reading many gaming review sites because I found more relevancy from Let's Play commentary, Totalbiscuit, and the satirical yet rewarding antics of AngryJoe.
And the biggest death knell that was declared when Games Media attempted to assassinate their own audience with those stupid "Gamer's are dead" articles that popped up like the plague. The death wasn't even gamers, it was the death knell of the traditional gaming press as we understood it. My reasons for declaring such are pretty opinionated, but it comes down to the fact that game's media not only became less about games, reviews, and providing services that a consumer would find helpful, they decided they could dictate the course of the conversation with neither the tact, nor the wit.
Scholars they are not, artists they wish to be, but properly, writers they will never be.
It should be no surprise that despite claims of "scholarly" discourse, that we find a number of "progressive" sites focused more on politics than the spirit and culture of gaming. Though I try to remain factual and even neutral, I no longer read Polygon, as an example, because the editors and reviewers have gotten so full of themselves they've decided they can start waxing poetic like Noam Chomsky, but lack the eloquence, verbatim, and most cases nuance.
It's essentially trying to spout artistic nonsense without the actual visual medium to back it up and the critical process of objective criticism.
But with Youtube, we have "reviewers" and "critics" we can relate to; they still bear a strong link with their viewership, and it's that "link" which has made them relevant.
-
Welp, if the idiocy of the GameJournoPros leak reveals, the general consensus among gamers is that we jumped ship to citizen Youtube.
A number of game journos were complaining about AngryJoe and Totalbiscuit, but it should be no suprise the "Gaming Media," has pretty much gone the way of the Dodo in the wake of Youtube, twitch.tv, and streaming. I stopped reading many gaming review sites because I found more relevancy from Let's Play commentary, Totalbiscuit, and the satirical yet rewarding antics of AngryJoe.
And the biggest death knell that was declared when Games Media attempted to assassinate their own audience with those stupid "Gamer's are dead" articles that popped up like the plague. The death wasn't even gamers, it was the death knell of the traditional gaming press as we understood it. My reasons for declaring such are pretty opinionated, but it comes down to the fact that game's media not only became less about games, reviews, and providing services that a consumer would find helpful, they decided they could dictate the course of the conversation with neither the tact, nor the wit.
Scholars they are not, artists they wish to be, but properly, writers they will never be.
It should be no surprise that despite claims of "scholarly" discourse, that we find a number of "progressive" sites focused more on politics than the spirit and culture of gaming. Though I try to remain factual and even neutral, I no longer read Polygon, as an example, because the editors and reviewers have gotten so full of themselves they've decided they can start waxing poetic like Noam Chomsky, but lack the eloquence, verbatim, and most cases nuance.
It's essentially trying to spout artistic nonsense without the actual visual medium to back it up and the critical process of objective criticism.
But with Youtube, we have "reviewers" and "critics" we can relate to; they still bear a strong link with their viewership, and it's that "link" which has made them relevant.
Yo, if you're still around here in five years, I'm going to repost this proclamation and see how funny it looks in hindsight.
I love that you think progressive critics aren't already flooding the likes of Youtube. It's not enough for you to think we're wrong, you have to believe we're stupidheads with technology too to be satisfied?
-
Welp, if the idiocy of the GameJournoPros leak reveals, the general consensus among gamers is that we jumped ship to citizen Youtube.
A number of game journos were complaining about AngryJoe and Totalbiscuit, but it should be no suprise the "Gaming Media," has pretty much gone the way of the Dodo in the wake of Youtube, twitch.tv, and streaming. I stopped reading many gaming review sites because I found more relevancy from Let's Play commentary, Totalbiscuit, and the satirical yet rewarding antics of AngryJoe.
And the biggest death knell that was declared when Games Media attempted to assassinate their own audience with those stupid "Gamer's are dead" articles that popped up like the plague. The death wasn't even gamers, it was the death knell of the traditional gaming press as we understood it. My reasons for declaring such are pretty opinionated, but it comes down to the fact that game's media not only became less about games, reviews, and providing services that a consumer would find helpful, they decided they could dictate the course of the conversation with neither the tact, nor the wit.
Scholars they are not, artists they wish to be, but properly, writers they will never be.
It should be no surprise that despite claims of "scholarly" discourse, that we find a number of "progressive" sites focused more on politics than the spirit and culture of gaming. Though I try to remain factual and even neutral, I no longer read Polygon, as an example, because the editors and reviewers have gotten so full of themselves they've decided they can start waxing poetic like Noam Chomsky, but lack the eloquence, verbatim, and most cases nuance.
It's essentially trying to spout artistic nonsense without the actual visual medium to back it up and the critical process of objective criticism.
But with Youtube, we have "reviewers" and "critics" we can relate to; they still bear a strong link with their viewership, and it's that "link" which has made them relevant.
Yo, if you're still around here in five years, I'm going to repost this proclamation and see how funny it looks in hindsight.
I love that you think progressive critics aren't already flooding the likes of Youtube. It's not enough for you to think we're wrong, you have to believe we're stupidheads with technology too to be satisfied?
No, I think it's a critical flaw in understanding the methodology of criticism. That flaw is a critical understanding of theorem that builds criticism, not so much "good" or "bad."
Game critics need to perpetually ask themselves what they think builds the foundation of solid criticism and commentary. In a sense, the criticism and critic should be aware of one another. That's why I agree with an increasing number of gamers and critics in the elimination of numbers in traditional scoring methodology. Unless one is explicitly looking for technical prowess, then critiquing artwork requires more than just numbers and if they want to push it higher, then it requires knowledge normally outside the realm of gaming.
-
Can we at least stop the equating of old monoliths like IGN and Gamespot sucking at the teat of AAA corporate advertising cash and writing the blandest articles possible with freelancers and semi-freelancers like Alexander (many of whom were making the same points years and years before any of you took notice and offense at them) who make no money (really, they don't make jack **** doing what they love) having the gall to think games have grown up enough that they can do what film and literary critics do? To suggest these two issues are one in the same is to be completely dishonest.
-
Can we at least stop the equating of old monoliths like IGN and Gamespot sucking at the teat of AAA corporate advertising cash and writing the blandest articles possible with freelancers and semi-freelancers like Alexander (most of whom were making the same points years and years before any of you took notice and offense at them) who have the gall to think games have grown up enough that they can do what film and literary critics do? To suggest these two issues are one in the same is to be completely dishonest.
Well, the problem is many critics want games to be like "high art,", but to understand that "high art" is a pretty stupid line to use. I spent a good portion of my BFA criticizing, dissecting and destroying my fellows (and them, me). Very quickly the line of "high art" disintegrates when the sober realization that art is about use of materials, design principles, and its relation to the viewer. Games are an artistic form of expression, and perhaps its time we adopt abstracted thinking into our normal technical and very anachronistic methods of reviewing it.
As an artist, and pseudo-critic, I realize that perhaps we bark up the wrong tree in believing what art "should be" rather than understand as "it is."
I tend to do both abstract and realistic work, and the more I think and dissect games, I'm beginning to understand that as an artistic medium, we need to "drop" this futile intention of "maturity" and perhaps that our notions of maturation are the problem to how we approach it.
-
I tend to do both abstract and realistic work, and the more I think and dissect games, I'm beginning to understand that as an artistic medium, we need to "drop" this futile intention of "maturity" and perhaps that our notions of maturation are the problem to how we approach it.
When I say "grown up", what I mean is the medium is big and established enough that we can finally decide we don't want all reviews to treat games like any other consumer product. And try as you might to deny it, all we're hearing from your camp is how unhappy you all are with the gaming media as consumers. "It's a consumer revolt! A consumer revolt!" Pardon me when I say this, but **** that ****. I want me some interesting, personal, well thought out perspectives on the stuff I care about for my reading material. You didn't answer my question btw.
My FAVORITE thing is people who play the consumer revolt card while using a Fight Club avatar. I've run into that a half dozen times. That is the absolute best.
-
It has to be borne in mind that every review is subjective, I get more concerned about a reviewer who will forgive a failing rather than attack it because it makes me suspicious.
For example, a comment like 'Multi-player can be difficult to connect to, but no doubt these teething problems will be resolved' always make me think that the review is no longer a summary of what the game is, instead it is a summary of what the developer wants it to be.
That's why I tend more towards negative reviewers I suspect, I'd rather think 'well, I was warned[/i] if the game turns out to be a disappointment.
-
I tend to do both abstract and realistic work, and the more I think and dissect games, I'm beginning to understand that as an artistic medium, we need to "drop" this futile intention of "maturity" and perhaps that our notions of maturation are the problem to how we approach it.
When I say "grown up", what I mean is the medium is big and established enough that we can finally decide we don't want all reviews to treat games like any other consumer product. And try as you might to deny it, all we're hearing from your camp is how unhappy you all are with the gaming media as consumers. "It's a consumer revolt! A consumer revolt!" Pardon me when I say this, but **** that ****. I want me some interesting, personal, well thought out perspectives on the stuff I care about for my reading material.
My FAVORITE thing is people who play the consumer revolt card using a Fight Club avatar. I've run into that a half dozen times. That is the absolute best.
Well, without players, a game is nothing, unless "nothing" is meant as a subversion of how we understanding the gaming-player relationship. And no, I'm not talking any GG ****, the potential flame war is not worth destroying this thread. But I'm quickly establishing that if we want games to be taken seriously, perhaps its not the games that are at fault, but our perception and reception to it. To understand something in the "artistic" sense, you've got to change how you perceive and react to it. Great games still have flaws, so do great movies. We call them great because they pull off strong execution that "pulls" it altogether, and generally we lampoon bad games and movies because, because they don't have enough cohesion to pull them together.
Now, why am I calling out some game critics? Well, pet peeves aside, but it's because they're trying to say "what" games should be, now I'm saying its time to ask "What could they be?"
The more we want to call games art, the more we need to be willing to accept what they could be. Doesn't necessarily mean it'll be a good game though and yes, criticism does exist for that very reason.
-
For example, a comment like 'Multi-player can be difficult to connect to, but no doubt these teething problems will be resolved' always make me think that the review is no longer a summary of what the game is, instead it is a summary of what the developer wants it to be.
Which is something you won't see among essays by "progressive" critics, because what they write about has nothing to do with that stuff! Unethical reporting and conflicts of interest with publishers have nothing to do with indie writers writing in an openly subjective manner about what in the medium that interests them. The biggest absurdity of this whole controversy is that so many people are demanding we take it for granted that the two are related, almost as if the former issue is being used as a "shield", enabling them to attack their real target, which is the latter "issue".
-
Well, without players, a game is nothing, unless "nothing" is meant as a subversion of how we understanding the "gaming-player relationship", whatever the hell that means.
I didn't know critics giving their heartfelt personal perspective on various issues in gaming is an attack on the gaming-player relationship. I didn't know that the proper rebuttal to a post pointing out that there's a very big difference between a "consumer" and a reader/player/filmgoer, and that maybe it's 100% ok that more and more "journalists" (really, even if much of journalism is itself inescapably subjective, to not call them critics is to do them a disservice) are writing to us as players instead of consumers, is to respond by saying that this is somehow destructive to the "gaming-player relationship".
-
Whilst I do not doubt that there is a conflict of interest when developers are advertising on sites (see what happened to Jeff Gerrstman), I agree you cannot lay the blame at the feet of 'professional reviewers' as an entity, but the problem is that these organizations have created the very situation they now face, of people not trusting some reviewers because of the behaviour of their managers.
I suppose the long and the short of it is that you find a couple of reviewers who you can use as a compass, watch Yogscast or someone play it, maybe Google it and see what the general consensus is, you can usually get a pretty firm idea of what to expect if you are thorough.
-
Whilst I do not doubt that there is a conflict of interest when developers are advertising on sites (see what happened to Jeff Gerrstman), I agree you cannot lay the blame at the feet of 'professional reviewers' as an entity, but the problem is that these organizations have created the very situation they now face, of people not trusting some reviewers because of the behaviour of their managers.
There is not a monolithic brotherhood of "professional reviewers". The writer who has the biggest bullseye on her back, Leigh Alexander, is a dirt-poor semi-freelancer. The biggest publication she writes for, Gamasutra, doesn't even write for "consumers" - its main audience is the developer community. Her best stuff is posted on her own blog. The vast majority of progressive critics who Atomic despises with such vigor simply don't live anywhere near the center of wealth and power in the gaming media. You will never see her, or anyone like her, end up in a photo like this (http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--z_J-h7p6--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/184dvvfh7vf9dpng.png). But if AC acknowledged and admitted this he couldn't score points by falsely lumping in all the critics he doesn't like with incidents of actual corruption fueled by AAA publisher money.
And yes, if you haven't already guessed, I was a fan of hers long before this all started. The idea that a girl who can't stop writing gushing personal pieces about her favorite games (MGS3 above all) being at the forefront of some anti-gamer assault is absolutely hilarious if I weren't so tired of the abject stupidity and ignorance involved.
-
Well, without players, a game is nothing, unless "nothing" is meant as a subversion of how we understanding the "gaming-player relationship", whatever the hell that means.
I didn't know critics giving their heartfelt personal perspective on various issues in gaming is an attack on the gaming-player relationship. I didn't know that the proper rebuttal to a post pointing out that there's a very big difference between a "consumer" and a reader/player/filmgoer, and that maybe it's 100% ok that more and more "journalists" (really, even if much of journalism is itself inescapably subjective, to not call them critics is to do them a disservice) are writing to us as players instead of consumers, is to respond by saying that this is somehow destructive to the "gaming-player relationship".
Well, I don't ingraine my personal beefs into my art. And every review is subjective. Hell, Totalbiscuit did a video making it clear that there's no such thing as a "non-subjective" video. Now I share a space as both a critic and a producer, and even to an extent as a consumer. The problem is that a small number of critics have decided that they can assume the role of a "producer" without the actual work involved. I heavily frown on this sort of mentality; they don't produce games, but then attempt to dictate what subject matter, and to an extent, the viewership, should be acceptable. Now understand, as a critic, we can criticize whatever elements we don't like, but that doesn't preclude us from counter-criticism, rebuttals, and perhaps re-thinking out positions.
Criticism needs counter-criticism to function fully. And frankly, with Games Media, counter criticism has slowly started to make itself felt. A little bit late, but its about time it happened. Eric Kain of Forbes was pretty solid on this, but he's been spouting this for quite some time: in order to be an art, perhaps the criticism has to function like artistic criticism instead of a one-trick pony.
Though, in defense of the notion of the consumer: Games are a consumer product, also, a modern form of "Pop Art." Games need players to function in their full artistic form, without players, the game ceases to exist as its intrinsic value. Without a player, a game is no longer a game. Without out that critical component, game theorem as art ceases to function.
-
This discussion turns away from gamergate or it *gets* turned away.
You two can choose which.
-
Though, in defense of the notion of the consumer: Games are a consumer product, also, a modern form of "Pop Art." Games need players to function in their full artistic form, without players, the game ceases to exist as its intrinsic value. Without a player, a game is no longer a game. Without out that critical component, game theorem as art ceases to function.
I foster Golden Retrievers for a North Texas rescue organization. I've been doing it for 4 years and I've personally fostered over a hundred dogs with my now wife. I've been to enough Meet-and-Greets for potential adopters to meet my dogs to be able to pick out red flags immediately as we start talking. You know what my single biggest pet peeve is with some of the people who come up to talk to me? When they start looking at my dog like it's a piece of furniture. Checking it for dinks and scratch marks, wondering how many miles it has on it, comparing it against the others like they're holding up a ****ing spec sheet as they're looking it over. I see that look on their face and I'm ending that conversation as soon as I can. If you want my ****ing dog, if you want to even think about getting a home visit set up, you're going to look at my boy with eyes of love. You're gonna say hi to him and love on him and ask me what he's like like he's an actual living thing with emotions and wants and needs that you want to give him. My dog is not a thing for you to purchase.
I don't give a **** about games because they're wonderfully nice products to have. If that's all they were, I wouldn't be here staying up late arguing about them. They are a form of artistic expression, and like all art, they have an interplay between the art itself and the viewer/reader/watcher/player. That is NOT the same thing as a consumer, just as a work of art is not a "product". If they are also the other thing, that is incidental to why we care about them. The game critics I like don't pander to those who, like you, demand that they stick to an incredibly narrow subject matter even as they claim they are trying to enforce their own views on everyone else. They seem to be the only ones who actually understand and embrace the inherent subjectivity of art in games, the actual, in the moment interaction between the game and the player that produces the things that we actually care about. Reading their articles has considerably increased my enjoyment of certain games by showing my something I hadn't thought of myself. And as for looking at social issues in games, god forbid they think their chosen art form of study be used to talk about, however obliquely, the actual world they live in. You know, like every other art form in existence.
Just admit you don't see games as anything more than products, accept that the critics you don't like aren't looking for you as an audience for that reason, and we will all get along much better.
-
Well, I'm trying to argue theory, not GamerGate.
Games are entertainment - and a consumer product. That doesn't say it can't have soul. In fact, it does, but a game is still a consumer product that is produced and sold for a profit, at least by one definition. Games can be made for free, others are made explicitly for political purposes and exactly function as propaganda. And what's so wonderful about it? A game is only a game when someone is playing it. There's a uniquely disturbing truth of gaming being an inherent consumer product, even if its free or not made for sale: it's still distributed with the intention of being played.
That's the beauty I love about gaming. It is our true interactive art form. Even performance art pales in comparison to that majesty of interactive compulsion. No other medium has managed to pull it off like gaming.
However, I do give two ****s about games as an actual artistic medium, and more than ever, I'm starting to call out its need for a mature, intellectual framework to guide us into the next evolution. Whether they be producers, critics, gamers and yes consumers, it's about high time we start demanding the same intellectual frameworks that enshroud the other arts. A critic can be a critic, but well nuanced and versed critic? That's why I'm calling for. We need our scholars, we need our historians, and most importantly, we need to build a mature framework. But the Old Guard can't provide quite like Youtubers, which should be interesting to say at least. Totalbiscuit and AngryJoe scholars? Yes, it sounds ludicrous at the get go, but to an extent, it's something that we may need to consider down the road.
Edit: Well, the problem is that your viewpoint on games as art is lacking in plurality. I've always viewed games as a consumer product: but a product can be a work of art, it can a singer of souls, and it still can be sold for a buck. I feel frustrated that critics try to divorce it of this notion, which, I hate to say, reveals how little they understand of actual artistic theory.
But I'm going to shut up before Kara hits me with a banhammer.
-
But if you are calling for a diversity of opinions, doesn't that also require the existance of opinions you disagree with?
-
The argument about Leigh Alexander was getting too close to GG territory. The rest is fine.
But to be honest, I'd rather see the argument return to Cobra's original premise that reviews are too negative these days. It says something that several people have help up Zero Punctuation as good reviews when they are almost always negative in tone.
-
Thanks Kara, I was beginning to wonder what everyone was getting a bee in their bonnet about. Turns out it was something I couldn't care less about.
-
I just went and watched several of Zero Punctuation's videos. I struggle to think of them as reviews. Seems to me like a video game themed video blog with a schtick of over-the-top bashing intended mostly for entertainment (or view count). So far I have found nothing that would be of any benefit in deciding about a game I don't already have.
-
exactly, and tried as i did, I couldn't be offended by any of it even when it mocked by fav games ever.
-
It took about two years before I got tired of his shtick and realized that two thirds of his videos are actually pretty ****ty as reviews.
-
Because they're not reviews and never were?
-
Because they're not reviews and never were?
And yet they try to be! He wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
-
So you don't like him?
Here's an amazing new hint then. Don't watch him.
Can't believe I'm having to tell people not to read or watch reviewers they don't like, have we really sunk to that level where we just sit there going 'this is terrible, I wish there were, like, thousands of other reviewers I could watch until I found one I liked...oh wait'.
-
Yep. Personally I find them very entertaining. Great humour. Completely inadequate to inform me if the game he's reviewing is any good for me, the only thing I can take out of it is if he likes it or not (mostly). For actually addressing if the game is good or not we have the ENTIRE REST OF THE INTERNET :D
-
So you don't like him?
Here's an amazing new hint then. Don't watch him.
Can't believe I'm having to tell people not to read or watch reviewers they don't like, have we really sunk to that level where we just sit there going 'this is terrible, I wish there were, like, thousands of other reviewers I could watch until I found one I liked...oh wait'.
I don't watch his stuff anymore. I made two short posts explaining why I don't like him now. Humor me. And enjoy the honeymoon Dias.
-
So, does anyone have a game critic they are comfortable with? Someone where you at least know what they're a sucker for and who doesn't waste your time or write like they're trying to be some sort of transparent automaton for ranking things? I enjoy the ZP videos too, but I agree they are more about him being clever than giving an honest recommendation.
As for critics being too positive/negative, I like Roger Ebert's (http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/you-give-out-too-many-stars) writing on the topic. Hopefully we're now developing game critics who can communicate as openly as he did. Also, props to the Little Man.
-
The thing that annoys me Vega is the fact that the complaint was that he was exactly as I described him, contemptuous of what he reviews and often lapses into comedy over content, that was in the first post I made about him. If he's not for you, that's fine, but it's not as if you didn't go in there fore-warned.
-
So, does anyone have a game critic they are comfortable with? Someone where you at least know what they're a sucker for and who doesn't waste your time or write like they're trying to be some sort of transparent automaton for ranking things? I enjoy the ZP videos too, but I agree they are more about him being clever than giving an honest recommendation.
As for critics being too positive/negative, I like Roger Ebert's (http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/you-give-out-too-many-stars) writing on the topic. Hopefully we're now developing game critics who can communicate as openly as he did. Also, props to the Little Man.
He doesn't write often enough, but again, Steerpike. Fellow obsessive lover of Looking Glass games and Dishonored. Writes fantastic articles like this one (http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/05/the-eleventh-colossus/). Even thinks FS2 is great!
-
The thing that annoys me Vega is the fact that the complaint was that he was exactly as I described him, contemptuous of what he reviews and often lapses into comedy over content, that was in the first post I made about him. If he's not for you, that's fine, but it's not as if you didn't go in there fore-warned.
He also really annoyed me when he said Thief 2 was the peak of the series and that Thief 3 sucked. So there. :p
-
In fairness though, he did say that he found himself still awake at 4am playing Minecraft and wasn't sure why, which, I'm sure, is an experience that many people can sympathise with :P
-
Tom Francis has written a ton of good stuff, though these days his focus is on making his own games
-
So, does anyone have a game critic they are comfortable with? Someone where you at least know what they're a sucker for and who doesn't waste your time or write like they're trying to be some sort of transparent automaton for ranking things? I enjoy the ZP videos too, but I agree they are more about him being clever than giving an honest recommendation.
As for critics being too positive/negative, I like Roger Ebert's (http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/you-give-out-too-many-stars) writing on the topic. Hopefully we're now developing game critics who can communicate as openly as he did. Also, props to the Little Man.
Opening note: I judge games on gameplay. I do enjoy stories and plot, but you could have the most amazing premise and story in the world but if your gameplay sucks, I'm going to hate it.
I actually enjoy watching TotalBiscuit videos. He knows his stuff and isn't afraid to talk about it. Case in point, Tribes Ascend. Being an old Tribes player, I was nodding along with a lot of his points and it inspired me to pick up the game myself. Until the developers started getting microtransaction-happy, I loved it.
Even then, I watch his videos rarely. I also don't waste time with official reviews anymore. Often I'll look at the aggregate on Steam or gameplay trailers and listed features. Then I combine that with word of mouth and wind up making a smart choice.
The problem with reviews is that player tastes are subjective. If I did read game reviews instead of doing my usual thing, I would have bought Gone Home. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy games that tell a story, but it turns out I dodged a bullet with Gone Home because from what my mates told me, I would have found it boring and far too short. It just wasn't a game for me.
In the end, player tastes are too subjective and there's too many alternatives to Kotaku/Polygon/Whathaveyou style reviews for them to hold much sway anymore.
-
I'm also gonna chime in for TotalBiscuit. I like how upfront and honest he his with his viewers. He also injects a lot of personality into his videos while still being extremely rational.
-
These days it's pretty much just Steam user reviews for me, and even then I only use them as a rough gauge; ultimately every game purchase, I see it as a "risk it and buy, or hold back?" proposition.
But even that has all the pointless "xx/10 will (do whatever) again" troll reviews.
-
For my favorite reviewers, like a few others, its Totalbiscuit.
He carries both flare and personality that many gamers can agree with, and the majority of his reviews are filled with both mundane and actual snippits of insight. Plus, he doesn't hesitate to point out the flaws with many games or releases, like his discussion of HD remakes like AoEII HD (which, is pretty pathetic for an HD remake) and his pretty spot-on dissection of Rise of Nations as actually being a good measurement of remakes.
Angryjoe and ProJared are my other favorites. And ProJared is a Monster Hunter player.
-
I do enjoy Campster's Errant Signal reviews, they are the perfect anti-Total Biscuit reviews, in which they focus on the more immaterial cultural aspects of the game, its experience as a cultural event and not as a "field-of-view" antialiasing, frame-per-second concern. Not that I don't enjoy TotalBiscuit as well, I do. (And I also note the curiously similar taste that these two youtubers actually have despite everything). But given how little time I have to actually play games, I'm not as concerned with game play of every single game out there, I'm always more interested in the wider picture.