Game Reviews Not Stuck In Pac Man Era? 56
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."
film reviews (Score:3, Insightful)
Now why, oh why, didn't the reviewer come right out and say Kill Bill sucked, instead of dancing around it. (/me holds head in hands)
Re:film reviews (Score:2)
uhmmm... because it's brilliant? It was the most fun I've had at the movies in ages.
Re:film reviews (Score:2)
Well put--I agree thoroughly. It was hilarious. Good thing I got to go see Matrix: Revolutions to dampen my fervor for movies for a long time to come.
Got Causality? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Got Causality? (Score:2)
the point (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:film reviews (Score:2, Insightful)
I only trust one reviewer. Roger Ebert. He's the only critic whose taste seems to match mine.
Well, of course there's that stupid wanker Leonard Maltin. I like his reviews. If he hates a movie, I know it must be good because he's an idiot.
why I hate the hulk (Score:2)
Ultimately, the Hulk's enemy was "the military industrial complex". Did the Hulk confront it? No, he moved to Columbia instead. Reasonab
Re:why I hate the hulk (Score:1)
Re:film reviews (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I like those 3 movies too, but I don't like everything that comes to Independent Movie Theatres and stuff.
Re:film reviews (Score:1)
Re:film reviews (Score:2)
You must be a real asshole in the real world.
Re:film reviews (Score:2)
Re:film reviews (Score:2)
Kill Bill Vol 1 was brilliant. Easily the best movie I've seen since... well, to be blunt, since Pulp Fiction. What didn't you like about it?
reviews are worthless (Score:1)
Re:reviews are worthless (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:reviews are worthless (Score:2)
But it was funny.
It held my interest.
It was fun.
So- it was very watchable crap. Along the lines of Triple-X.
Bah (Score:2)
Who's the most popular film critic right now? Probably still Ebert. And look at his reviews. Sure he scores some movies high that you might find boring. But he also gives good scores to movies that are technical and artistic voids - if they're done well and entertaining.
If you haven't found a critic out there that likes the same things you do, you're
Re:reviews are worthless (Score:1)
That's really what any review is about. The theory is that there are general charecteristics that make for a "good" (e.g. entertaining) book, movie, or whatever, as well as charecteristics that make for a "bad" one. Thousands upon thousands of pages have been written over hundreds of years about what these charecteristics are for speeches and books. A lot less has been written about movies. Almost nothing has been written about video games. As the article mentions
when I see movies (Score:4, Interesting)
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" [imdb.com] because of horrendous reviews and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" [imdb.com] because I don't do horror stories. This week I have 3 free movies to go see, including "Bad Santa," [imdb.com] which I'll see ONLY because it got good reviews [aintitcool.com], "Shattered Glass," [imdb.com] which sounds interesting but which I may pass up for an astronomy club meeting (don't laugh), and "Mona Lisa Smile," [imdb.com] 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," [imdb.com] which I'll pay for if I don't get a pass.
I use film reviews and game reviews... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Maybe it's tangential to this issue... (Score:2, Interesting)
But more to the subject, I absolute
Film reviews? (Score:4, Informative)
I use film reviews all the time. Unless I'm already heavily predisposed to see in the movie (eg, Bubba Ho-Tep [bubbahotep.com]), 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 [rottentomatoes.com] 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 [rottentomatoes.com]. 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? (Score:2)
What is word of mouth, other than amateur reviews? If your friends tastes are similar to yours, then they're probably more useful. I tend to find that my tastes run closer to certain film critics than my friends (I need new friends, I guess!) and that tends to influence what I see (or add to my netflix queue) a lot more.
But the trick is to know how to be a smart consumer. Understand what you like about movi
Re:Film reviews? (Score:1)
Find some good reviewers (that say _why_ they liked it in clear terms), and decide if you tend to like those elements, and you end up seeing a lot fewer movies you don't enjoy.
This is very true. A reviewer in my local paper does this most of the time. I have almost the opposite taste in movies, so if this reviewer loves it, I'll most likely pass.
The same thing goes for game reviews too, although that tends to work more on a per site basis than individual reviewers (at least, that's what I've found).
Re:Film reviews? (Score:3, Informative)
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 accepta
critics write to each other (Score:1, Insightful)
If you see a film because the previews made it look interest, but it turns out sucking, you're only out $9 - maybe $4.50 during an economy showing. If you get a game because the box looks good and it turns out to be a piece of crap, you're out $45 to $75.
Re:critics write to each other (Score:2)
Missing the Point (Score:2, Insightful)
Both kinds of critics are valuable. They are valuable at different times. During the times when you are standing around in a store with money burning a ho
Re:Missing the Point (Score:2, Interesting)
Game reviews are really off center (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the article, that some standards should be put in place, more technical than feeling should be the first rule, then give a mandatory Fun factor.
Also, I'd like to see a review site with more on 3rd party budget games, ones that cost 9.99, kid games, educational, more complete, and links to buy. And a link to the developer and distributor, may sites seem to skip putting who made the darn game.
Re:Game reviews are really off center (Score:1)
Try Blowout [gamestop.com]. Its only $9.99 for ps2. Its pretty cool, especially for the price. Be warned though - I'm a little biased because I was one of the developers.
Re: (Score:2)
I like EGMs format (Score:1)
The guy who loves FPSs is going to review a RPG alot different than the guy who loves RPGs.
The personal angle shouldn't be removed from reviewing but it definately should take the backseat to the actual game play aspects.
Re:I like EGMs format (Score:2)
Simple Philosophy for Game Reviewing (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
what's the problem exactly? (Score:1)
On the other hand, smaller fansites like Insert Credit [insertcredit.com] have reviews that aren't based on the normal categories, but unfortunately the reviews are not timely enough to make the important purchasing decision on
on game reviews (Score:1)
it's difficult... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
offensive statement (Score:2)
Listening to a film critic is much more informational and elightening than going based on what the previews look like. The film critic's job isn't to appear snooty and elitist, but to know about film what makes the movies work.
I don't know... (Score:1)
There are other options. (Score:2)
Let's face it, we don't really know much about a game review past what it says. We don't know the conditions under which the game was played. We don't know if it was a preview build that the reviewer played in a warehouse for 20 minutes somewhere or if he got to spend the 80+ hours it takes to go through some of the longer RPGs. And isn't that important?
The obvious difference between a game and a
Who's the audience again? (Score:1)
"At the risk of understatement, The Matrix Revolutions sucks."
- Peter Travers, Rolling Stone (review online [rollingstone.com])
3 Not-So-Easy Steps to Better Reviews (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, there needs to be a sort of academic overhead to video game analysis. I think our great hope in this is the imminent rise of Ludology [ludology.org] and video game theory. By and large, video games are still generally regarded within the academic community as, well, non-academic. This notion needs to be challenged, by academics and professional review writers alike. When this "aura" of justification occurs, it will result not only in better writing within game reviews, but also a focus on critique, or true critical analysis, and less focus on screenshots or graphics. At a recent video game developer's conference, the head of Naughty Dog stated that the industry had reached a point of diminishing returns in respect to graphics, and that the focus now ought to be on storyline and character development. Likewise, so too should reviewers begin to shift focus away from the technical aspects of the game, despite Kasavin's insistence that these are "indelible qualities of gaming." He's technically right, but he's also wrong. They're indelible, true, but only because the entire focus of the game media (Gamespot very much included) is on these same indelible qualities of gaming. Don't believe? Open up your favorite gaming magazine or website, and see how much of a focus there is on screenshots. That kind of visual attention doesn't even happen in film media, which is at least as visual as gaming. When it does occur, it is done so with focus and intent by the studios, not the sprawling bi-daily update of screenshots that is so emerged within the game industry.
Secondly, we need a new word. Moving pictures found the word "film" to escape the pure entertainment association, video games need something akin to "film" but still connotative of the properties of video games. I know there are some, including John Carmack, who think that video games cannot and should not attain to anything higher than entertainment. And indeed, entertaining games is no less noble than games "with purpose." Nevertheless, saying that video games' sole purpose is to entertain is like saying that all paintings should be pretty and nice to look at, or that all books should be "fun" to read. Video games are a method, a medium, a means unto an end, and not the end itself. Can they communicate "entertainment"? Obviously, but the realization among game developers should also be that they can communicate or impart other abstract ideas as well, apart or alongside entertainment.
Thirdly, the industry itself needs to allow padding for games that are not purely entertainment driven. I think that the Japanese have this idea, hence games like REZ or Pikmin; games that I'm sure the publishers knew won't sell GTA3 numbers but they publish and develop as an expression rather than an attempt to make sales. The Japanese, and European to some degree, do this with intent, whereas American gaming companies do it completely unintentionally. This needs to change.
Basically, the entirety of the industry needs a swivel towards an overall awareness of "abstract gaming." Reviewers, whether they are aware of this or not, lead the vanguard in this respect. Why is there a need of, for lack of a better term (and the complete aversion to using the word "artistic"), purpose-oriented or abstract gaming? Because the gaming industry is at a crossroads now. The comic book industry found itself at very much this same point in its journey and it took the wrong path. Instead of creating what was considered "niche" titles, as a whole the industry instead moved towards a purely sales-driven strategy. The end result is that it quickly quarantined itself within a subculture that it has never really moved out of, requiring nearly 20-30 years and Frank Miller and Alan Moore to deconstruct the genre so it could be reinvented. The movie industry was also at the same point, much earlier than comic books of cour
hmmm (Score:2)
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
If you have a bunch of crappy games laying around the house, gather up 5-10, and bring them to EB Games when you are going to buy one of these 'bonus' games. Even a game that they were going to give you $1 for, suddenly becomes a $4 game.
What I *really* hate is not game reviews that are bad- but all the game preview hype. I don't care what the concepts sounded like while
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
Also- I think that reviewers rush to get their review out- to be first, or at least not to be last.
Oh no doubt, but they also receive games before they get released. I'd imagine if a developer thinks a ga