Game journalism and criticism

C14N

I saw a few posts in the GTA 5 thread on the topic of its reviews and I didn't want to reply there because I felt it would break away from the original topic. I'll quote the posts I was replying to here instead:

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think it speaks more about the dreadful state of games journalism out there. Far too many of them are immature 20 somethings that fall for the hype everytime and therefore can't give an impartial opinion.

I couldn't agree more. After reading that long Kotaku article about gaming journalism a few months ago, I'm inclined to take Metacritic scores with a pinch of salt. I don't think there's any corruption or bribery (like everyone was being accused of after ME3), I just think game journalists tend to get on the hype train too easily.

Just imagine if a few years back, Roger Ebert was writing articles about how cool the Dark Knight Rises looked and how he was totally stoked because he's been a fan of Batman for years.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

This is why more publications need to do away with review scores...

...As for The Escapist review, the main complaint seems to be that the reviewer didn't like playing as a psychopath...I think a psychopathic player character actually suits the world and gameplay of GTA better than an 'allegedly' well-adjusted one like Nico, creating a contradiction in the process.

That said, I'd love a world where critics were brave enough to voice sensible dissent without facing the inevitable backlash. I've read excellent reviews I've completely disagreed with - the fun part of criticism, and the bit that can help improve our own analytical skills, is proactively engaging and accepting alternate opinions: a trait the most vocal gamers have yet to adapt.

Interesting idea, although doing away with review scores would undoubtedly hurt a lot of publications financially, especially in the score-driven industry of games. I can't think of anyone who I would consider to be Sight and Sound levels of criticism and who could therefore get attention no matter what. There is the matter though that the quick scores make us lazy.

I think a sign of this is in the Escapist review. There were a lot of commenters who just glossed over the review accusing him of just being a troll and for making up stupid reasons to dislike the game, mainly "the character is a bad guy".

Really though, I think he was more criticizing the handling of the anti-hero character in that the characters were completely unsympathetic in any way (unlike other anti-heroes he mentioned). If you look at The Last of Us or Spec Ops: The Line, they handle anti-heroes well and show us why they do what they do. I think it could even work if you play a completely unsympathetic character, depending on how the game frames it. If the game tries to portray someone who is objectively a scumbag as someone we're supposed to like then it messes up, which was one of my biggest quibbles with GTA 4.

And I definitely agree with your last point. Critics like this guy need to be allowed to have opinions. There were loads of comments (some of which seem to have been deleted) about how the commenter will never trust the Escapist reviews again and how they can't be trusted. This is about a game they haven't even played yet. If everyone takes the attitude of "I'll only read outlets that give big scores to the hype games" then it kills the incentive to actually be critical about heavily-marketed games.


Anyway, sorry for walls of text.

TL; DNR what do you think about the current state of game journalism and criticism?

Might add a poll to this at some point.

COYVB

Put it this way, I didn't bother reviewing GTA V personally because I don't like the series, and I'm fairly sure I'd have been absolutely destroyed by fanboys for giving it 3/5

The flip side to that is that I'd rather have someone who doesn't have a predisposition to disliking the franchise look after it, because I believe my stance handicaps the game from the get go, even if I don't mean to

bizmark

who do you review for coyvb ?

COYVB

Couple of magazines in North America

K.O.Kiki

Until games journalists learn to not accept thinly-veiled bribes on a daily basis, they'll find it hard to evolve beyond being PR monkeys.

Messageboard/commenter "criticism" is more worthless* than used bog roll -- doesn't matter what subject we're talking about.

*yes, I appreciate the irony of this post

SmurfX

Personally I stick to reviewers that establish their opinion well (Gametrailers, Giant Bomb, Joystiq) and avoid the sensationalist drivel from "journalists" trying to push an agenda more than provide you with useful information on the game (Gamespot, Polygon, Kotaku)
Everyone has their tastes in what they want to see from reviews and columns so it's difficult to generalise content and focus as widespread focus without just concentrating on what I personally don't like.

Impartiality is a serious concern, given who they rely on for details, exclusives, previews and especially advertising revenue.

Agricola

There are a handful of well respected games journalists whos opinion I always seek out because they are almost always on the money. They don't get on the hype train and they arent cynical or contrarian for the hell of it. You just get a well informed, honest appraisal of a game from someone with a love of gaming.

The internet is full of misinformed people who dont really have a clue what they're on about. Some of my favourite podcasters fit that description. They can be great in other ways but not people you'd go to for "serious games journalism"

BeerWolf

I don't read reviews by game journalists... Instead, I read up the various reviews off regular players and the game's forums to get a more balanced view.

e.g. - GameFaq

Retr0gamer

BeerWolf wrote: »

I don't read reviews by game journalists... Instead, I read up the various reviews off regular players and the game's forums to get a more balanced view.

e.g. - GameFaq

Christ that's even worse than biased reviewers.

I find a bunch of reviewers I trust and look at what they think of the games and ignore the other idiots at the likes of ign, giantbomb and gametrailers.

BeerWolf

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Christ that's even worse than biased reviewers.

I find a bunch of reviewers I trust and look at what they think of the games and ignore the other idiots at the likes of ign, giantbomb and gametrailers.

I'd take the opinion of someone that's played hell of a lot longer than a journalist that's only played the game for a few hours...

Retr0gamer

BeerWolf wrote: »

I'd take the opinion of someone that's played hell of a lot longer than a journalist that's only played the game for a few hours...

A good journalist will not review a game if they haven't played enough of it. I've seen a lot of good reviewers do that, the bad ones won't.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i pretty much only rely on youtube videos these days, i'll read the odd review just for something to read but I rarely put any stock in them. one exception i remember recently was a review on omerta, a game i was looking forward to.. it just got slated and pretty much turned me off buying it.

Jim

COYVB wrote: »

Put it this way, I didn't bother reviewing GTA V personally because I don't like the series, and I'm fairly sure I'd have been absolutely destroyed by fanboys for giving it 3/5

The flip side to that is that I'd rather have someone who doesn't have a predisposition to disliking the franchise look after it, because I believe my stance handicaps the game from the get go, even if I don't mean to

Surely though, as a reviewer, it's part of your job to be able to see beyond your own personal taste and objectively rate a game on it's own merits?

deathrider

Oddly enough, I don't read reviews until after I finish a game, because I don't want the reviewer's opinion lurking at the back of my mind while I'm playing through. As for the scores, they really don't mean squat to me. I've seen ten out of tens that I've hated, and I've seen 5 out of tens that I've absolutely loved. It's all a matter of opinion. I write a lot of reviews myself, and base them on what I thought of the game. If I liked it, I'll say why. If I didn't, I'll say that too. I won't base them on what others think the game should or shouldn't be like though. I think that would defeat the purpose. I also don't use any kind of score system, as they seem pointless to me. The only time I really read/watch reviews is after I've written and published my own, as a way of comparing notes and seeing other people's reactions to the sane game that I just played.

Mr.Saturn

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Until games journalists learn to not accept thinly-veiled bribes on a daily basis, they'll find it hard to evolve beyond being PR monkeys.

Messageboard/commenter "criticism" is more worthless* than used bog roll -- doesn't matter what subject we're talking about.

*yes, I appreciate the irony of this post

Had this discussion quite some time ago, and for such an accepted given, it amazes me how little evidence exists to substantiate it.

There's the Eurogamer and Gamespot issues from the last couple of years, and Charlie Brooker has referenced how awkward he found when criticizing a game in PC Gamer, whilst game's company bought advertising in said publication, and the consequences that came in tow. Fine examples, but it doesn't point at any epidemic, merely key exceptions.

Is there any other cases that folk can cite?

On the subject of Youtube reviews, or well, user-generated reviews, 4 out of every 5 seem to quote major publications verbatim, instead of raising their own points, and then sprinkle it with a smidge of undercooked personal experience.

COYVB

Jim wrote: »

Surely though, as a reviewer, it's part of your job to be able to see beyond your own personal taste and objectively rate a game on it's own merits?

Easier said than done. A review is about personal preference. I genuinely couldn't give GTA V any more than 3/5, because IMO it's not that great a game. It scores that highly because it's a great technical achievement, is huge, has loads to do and has pretty spot on mechanics. It loses the 2/5 because it's dull, repetitive and devoid of any enjoyment after 5-10 hours. All IMO

That IS me rating the game on its own merits, but I'm someone who doesn't particularly like the game, finds the series boring and isn't a genre fan. You wouldn't have someone who's got no interest in football review FIFA, for example

BeerWolf

COYVB wrote: »

You wouldn't have someone who's got no interest in football review FIFA, for example

All FIFA games suck - they're all the same since the very first, etc. !!!

/Rabbles on...

IMO

COYVB

BeerWolf wrote: »

All FIFA games suck - they're all the same since the very first, etc. !!!

/Rabbles on...

IMO

That'd essentially be the crux of any GTA V review I would do, so you see my point

Grumpypants

I only look at the score .

I don't like to read reviews as like trailers they tend to ruin the story or set an expectation that I don't want set. They also for the most part commit the biggest sin of all give their personal opinion.

Unless I know them personally their personal opinion is worthless to me.

Gbear

I think that critics as a whole are probably put on too much of a pedestal. That goes for all media.

There's plenty of games I've played that have been panned by critics but I loved and vise-versa. The same goes for films. I don't read book reviews.

You need to be getting info from a variety of sources and take the good and bad points on board.

Ultimately, it's not like buying a car or a house. It's a trivial expense and I think more can be got from giving your own opinion and having a debate then can be got from blindly following the opinion of another, whether you trust them or not.

Skerries

BeerWolf wrote: »

All FIFA games suck - they're all the same since the very first, etc. !!!

/Rabbles on...

IMO

yeah football games suck since Sensible Soccer and I don't even like football games
cue someone coming on and saying something like Kick Off 2 FTW!

Dravokivich

Jim wrote: »

Surely though, as a reviewer, it's part of your job to be able to see beyond your own personal taste and objectively rate a game on it's own merits?

Actually, it's a breath of fresh air to see he'll pass on something he feels he can't review so openly. A lot of the problem I have with reviewers/critics is that they not only review things from their sense of bias, but throw that in your face.

C14N

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I find a bunch of reviewers I trust and look at what they think of the games and ignore the other idiots at the likes of ign, giantbomb and gametrailers.

I may have asked this before so sorry for repeating but which specific critics do you think do a good job?

BeerWolf wrote: »

I'd take the opinion of someone that's played hell of a lot longer than a journalist that's only played the game for a few hours...

Game journalists often get a few days to devote to just playing the game and most publications won't review it until they've played to the end (where possible). A person on the internet, unless you're already familiar with them, could have never even played the game. I remember seeing a huge comment thread where a guy kept coming back to bash Mass Effect 3 and eventually conceded that he had not even played it once and was basing his opinion on a video walkthrough.

Mr.Saturn wrote: »

Had this discussion quite some time ago, and for such an accepted given, it amazes me how little evidence exists to substantiate it...

...Is there any other cases that folk can cite?

There was Doritogate too which was pretty infamous.



It doesn't suggest a sort of Gamespot-like "we were paid by these guys so we're going to give them a good score" situation but it isn't good when journalists get involved in promoting anything at all, whether its Mountain Dew or Halo (or both as in this case).

Like I said, I don't think there's any actual corruption going on here but there's a perception that the people we depend on to tell us if games are good or bad are being marketed to the same as us before the game even comes out. Opinions can be swayed by things such as exclusive interviews, good relations with the magazine, free merch and so on.

COYVB wrote: »

Easier said than done. A review is about personal preference. I genuinely couldn't give GTA V any more than 3/5, because IMO it's not that great a game. It scores that highly because it's a great technical achievement, is huge, has loads to do and has pretty spot on mechanics. It loses the 2/5 because it's dull, repetitive and devoid of any enjoyment after 5-10 hours. All IMO

That IS me rating the game on its own merits, but I'm someone who doesn't particularly like the game, finds the series boring and isn't a genre fan. You wouldn't have someone who's got no interest in football review FIFA, for example

That sounds like a valuable review to me though. If all of these publications giving GTA full scores put their biggest GTA fan on the job then that is even worse (just an example, can apply equally to any franchise). The opinions of someone who hasn't been impressed by previous iterations matter, because at least then gamers who also weren't impressed with the previous iterations will have someone to take on board.

Personally, my own favourite critic is Ben Crosshaw of Zero Punctuation. I know he's not perfect and his reviews take more time out for jokes but even then, I find them a lot more helpful than the stuff from the IGN, Gamespot et al crowd. I don't always agree with him but he usually makes good points even then. He has a reputation for just picking out the worst parts of games and exaggerating them but most people seem to skip the fact that he does actually recommend plenty of games, just that he points out flaws in these ones.

• He gets no benefits from the devs, even having to buy the game he's reviewing himself on release date in most cases.
• He almost never talks about the technical stuff that others devote way too much time too (imo), at best giving a sentence to say "it looks really nice/like ass".
• He never seems to get sucked into hype, even making a chart to demonstrate why.
• He tends to just come down harder on sequels to games he liked for not living up to predecessors and his biases against certain games are generally pretty clear and consistent.
• Finally, no scores, just words.

So yeah, I would like to know any reputably sources to check out for other reviews too though.

nesf

BeerWolf wrote: »

I'd take the opinion of someone that's played hell of a lot longer than a journalist that's only played the game for a few hours...

You're wonderfully naive if you think the reviews on there consist of gamers who've played the game for a long time. Fan and company organised campaigns to up or down vote games are depressingly common.

Personally, Let's Plays on Youtube and the opinions of friends who are experienced in the genre are what I go on usually. Posts on here by established users are useful too.

johnny_ultimate

I'm probably repeating myself here from past threads but anyway...

Basically, we need fewer 'reviewers' and more 'critics'. Its the same with film and literary writers. Unfortunately, when it comes to games, all both journalists and readers seem interested in is the question of 'should I buy this?' (I find it amusing that mantra has literally replaced review scores on Kotaku: from one problematic simplification to another).

Now, given the not insignificant cost of gaming, there'll always be a place for reviews - Im sure we can all identify cases where consensus has led us to a hidden gem of helped us avoid a stinker. But few gaming outlets offer more than bog standard reviews, treating games like mere electronic goods than a cultural creation. You can see this in the way absurd concepts like 'replayability', 'lasting appeal', 'value for money' and simple tech specs are still granted such reverence. Critics in other forms have long moved on from such concepts - there's a damn good reason film reviews don't dwell on rewatchability (and length only factors in when it adversely affects the film). Much more interesting are reflections on why a game does or doesn't work, and how it does or doesn't work. I glance at reviews before playing a game or watching a film, but I get so much more out of good writing after the fact, when I can understand the context and engage from my own perspective.

What we need more of are writers who delve deeper into the design, narrative and language of gaming, helping establish the kind of discourse the likes of Cahiers du Cinema did back in the day (it's no coincidence some of the most interesting viewpoints come from developers turned critic or vice versa). Games need to be taken seriously, not just a distraction where we desperately wring every second of entertainment out of the thing.

She's public enemy number one around these parts (ie the Internet), and she's hardly the most persuasive, revolutionary critic who ever lived and she can be infuriating at times. But Feminist Frequency is the kind of thing Id like to see more of. Criticism that places games in a wide cultural context and conducts actual content analysis of them. I'd ideally like to see more specific writing and discussion, though - focused on individual games and creators instead of sweeping, medium-wide ones.

There was an interesting and surprisingly productive debate between Fem Freq and Derek Yu (Spelunky) recently where the latter acknowledged some of the former's observations gave him some serious food for thought about how he could address the concerns in future games. That's a small example of how criticism can matter - encouraging game makers to examine and strive to improve on their creations. It has happened in cinema with the likes of the French New Wave, and fingers crossed we'll see the same sort of thing happen in gaming.

Also, its absurd to dismiss an opinion because you don't agree with it. Some of the smartest, most insightful criticisms I've read have come from people I absolutely disagree with, even if 90% of the time our views tend to align. The other 10% is almost the more valuable percentage. I love reading an impassioned, well argued oppositional viewpoint that helps us develop and articulate our own response to the game in question. That's what criticism is all about, and what the comment section and forum warriors will seemingly never understand.

nesf

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

She's public enemy number one around these parts (ie the Internet), and she's hardly the most persuasive, revolutionary critic who ever lived and she can be infuriating at times. But Feminist Frequency is the kind of thing Id like to see more of. Criticism that places games in a wide cultural context and conducts actual content analysis of them. I'd ideally like to see more specific writing and discussion, though - focused on individual games and creators instead of sweeping, medium-wide ones.

Actually no, we need a lot less of what she does. Critics need to actually know the genre they're dealing with. They need to speak with a voice of experience and hard earned knowledge about the history of it. Critics like her really just stir ****. Which is good for making money off ads but not very interesting really in terms of contributing to the genre. Criticism from out the genre can be very funny, I remember certain literary fiction writers taking J.K. Rowling to task many years back. Their essays were interesting sure, did they have any impact on the young adult fantasy genre? No. Not a bit.

Gbear

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You can see this in the way absurd concepts like 'replayability', 'lasting appeal', 'value for money' and simple tech specs are still granted such reverence. Critics in other forms have long moved on from such concepts - there's a damn good reason film reviews don't dwell on rewatchability (and length only factors in when it adversely affects the film).

There is nothing absurd about any of those concepts.

Games often share elements with literature and film but that is by no means the whole story.
They also share elements with sports or other hobbies.

Every game doesn't need to be a narrative masterpiece. You could have a brilliant game that has no story at all. Equally you can have a game that doesn't seem much like a traditional game - more of an interactive story.

A game just needs to be true to itself and acheive what it sets out to do.
Is Crysis 3 a masterpiece of storytelling? Of gameplay? Probably not.
Is it a technical marvel? Absolutely. That's why it's a lot better than some people give it credit for. It routinely took my breath away at how amazing it looked.

You could just as surely have a game with an engrossing plot, complex and interesting characters but if all the game mechanics are ****e and you don't want to play it then the game could well be terrible.

Dismissing some of the technical aspects of gaming when they are every bit as important as the cultural aspects is very narrow-minded.

Grumpypants

I would like to see a lot less of critics to be honest. The majority of them don't understand how to critique something and end up just being negative for the sake of it and so much of it is personal taste.

Let’s take GTA as it is so new, two online storms at the moment the first from Gamespot that the game is sexist and from the Escapist that the characters are not nice!

You play as three different scum bags who are embroiled in the criminal underworld. Last time I checked it the criminal underworld was not a place for nice guy feminists.

nesf

Grumpypants wrote: »

You play as three different scum bags who are embroiled in the criminal underworld. Last time I checked it the criminal underworld was not a place for nice guy feminists.

I remember dying a little inside when the lack of female protagonists was brought up about a squad based wargame set in WW2. Yeah, the vast number of female GIs has been hidden from us for generations.

Retr0gamer

C14N wrote: »

I may have asked this before so sorry for repeating but which specific critics do you think do a good job?

The guys at USGamer are all very good, in particular Jeremy Parish who is fantastic. They have a guy there Pete Davison who I completely disagree with and likes some awful crap but he's a great reviewer and backs up his views really well.

I really like Ellie Gibson from Eurogamer. She gets to review an awful lot of crap and yet she always does entertaining reviews.

Freelancers I like would be Kat Bailey, Bob Mackey and Ray Barnholt.

I really like Adam Sessler from Rev 3 games. His co-hosts and reviewers are pretty poor but the Sess is fantastic and really goes in depth on games.

That's just a few off the top of my head.

johnny_ultimate

nesf wrote: »

Actually no, we need a lot less of what she does. Critics need to actually know the genre they're dealing with. They need to speak with a voice of experience and hard earned knowledge about the history of it. Critics like her really just stir ****. Which is good for making money off ads but not very interesting really in terms of contributing to the genre. Criticism from out the genre can be very funny, I remember certain literary fiction writers taking J.K. Rowling to task many years back. Their essays were interesting sure, did they have any impact on the young adult fantasy genre? No. Not a bit.

I'm a little confused about what you mean here. As in any critic who comments on a specific genre needs to an expert? Sure there's always a place for the specialist, but there's also a need for more general observers and commentators here. A film critic might specialise in, say, Asian or horror cinema, but they could have incredibly interesting things to say about the romantic comedy they stumbled into by accident. There's tonnes of great writers out there with a narrow, particular focus, but equally there's lots with an extremely broad, all-encompassing one. Both, IMO, are needed in a robust landscape.

Just to restress I don't think Feminist Frequency is a great critic. I think she makes some interesting points and often very well, but I can see her approach taken to a completely different level in different hands.

Gbear wrote: »

There is nothing absurd about any of those concepts.

Games often share elements with literature and film but that is by no means the whole story.
They also share elements with sports or other hobbies.

Every game doesn't need to be a narrative masterpiece. You could have a brilliant game that has no story at all. Equally you can have a game that doesn't seem much like a traditional game - more of an interactive story.

A game just needs to be true to itself and acheive what it sets out to do.
Is Crysis 3 a masterpiece of storytelling? Of gameplay? Probably not.
Is it a technical marvel? Absolutely. That's why it's a lot better than some people give it credit for. It routinely took my breath away at how amazing it looked.

You could just as surely have a game with an engrossing plot, complex and interesting characters but if all the game mechanics are ****e and you don't want to play it then the game could well be terrible.

Dismissing some of the technical aspects of gaming when they are every bit as important as the cultural aspects is very narrow-minded.

Didn't make myself clear enough on this point either, apologies. I am not for a second denying technical details are important (personally, I'd put a little more emphasis in the cultural experience, but that's just the way I approach media). Some games are technical marvels, and there's a lot that could be said about the way the likes of Crysis build worlds in giddy, geeky language (I mean that in a nice way). I do take particular issue with replayability though I'm often amazed how people will dismiss a game almost entirely because the designers haven't built the game with multiple playthroughs in mind. That is, I'll use the word again, an absurd way to look at things.

I think I object more to box ticking reviewing. As in the way some publications read like they're just going 'Graphics. Check. Longevity. Check. Voice acting. Check.' These are no doubt worth considering, but in a way every single game needs a unique approach. I can't write about Gone Home and GTA V in the same way. Many publications and many gamers absolutely refuse to acknowledge this, though. IGN used to be the worst, although they seem to have (thankfully) changed - using a specific set of criteria to judge and rate every single game. That's an extraordinarily limited approach to writing about games. The graphics in some games might warrant a brief, throwaway remark, but the mechanics justify 100s or 1000s of words. Writing needs to be much more adaptable depending on the circumstances. It's why ideas like the 'post script' section in Edge are a great idea - allowing the writer to focus on what they really want to talk about, and expand on their ideas without being tied to a rigid 'review' formula.

Alas, one doesn't need to look far (metacritic, gamefaqs etc...) to see how narrow-minded some gamers are when it comes to discussing games in any depth. They get hung up on things like price and length, and have an inability to discuss the core game itself in any depth. Honestly, a lot of the problem is that games journalists react to the gamers - and the gamers that speak up are often the ones not worth listening to.

nesf

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm a little confused about what you mean here. As in any critic who comments on a specific genre needs to an expert? Sure there's always a place for the specialist, but there's also a need for more general observers and commentators here. A film critic might specialise in, say, Asian or horror cinema, but they could have incredibly interesting things to say about the romantic comedy they stumbled into by accident. There's tonnes of great writers out there with a narrow, particular focus, but equally there's lots with an extremely broad, all-encompassing one. Both, IMO, are needed in a robust landscape.

Just to restress I don't think Feminist Frequency is a great critic. I think she makes some interesting points and often very well, but I can see her approach taken to a completely different level in different hands.

Feminist Frequency is more like a Restaurant Critic trying to write a Poetry column.

Retr0gamer

I don't get the whole deal with replayability either. Dark Souls I've played twice so far and find it one of the best games I've ever played for the 170 hours I sunk into it between the PS3 and PC. Similarly Journey cost me a tenner and I got 2 hours out of it. I never want to play it again because those two hours were also some of the best I've ever had with a game.

Really value for money is only an issue if you are broke but I'd still rather play a 6-8 hour game than a massive grind fest that lasts 80+ yet doesn't have the gameplay mechanics to sustain it. If you are looking at the artistic merits of the game value for money shouldn't play a part at all. However it still is important to people, bit of a quandary there. It always annoys me to see people ignore games because they are short but again if money is tight what's for me to say what they should or shouldn't buy.

richymcdermott

I do not like the inconsistency with journalist reviews

sometimes they make the claim the game is repetitive or it does not offer enough innovation yet they give assassin creed or call of duty high scores.


I feel alot of it is down to brand sometimes than he actual game

C14N

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Basically, we need fewer 'reviewers' and more 'critics'. Its the same with film and literary writers. Unfortunately, when it comes to games, all both journalists and readers seem interested in is the question of 'should I buy this?' (I find it amusing that mantra has literally replaced review scores on Kotaku: from one problematic simplification to another).

I completely agree. Reviews need to spend more time digging deeper into the games. Someone else mentioned that they like to read reviews after playing and I'm quite the same. When I finished the Last of Us, I decided to check out some reviews and one of the first I read was the Gamespot one. It was a dreadful review though, at least 60% of it was just description, briefly giving the setup for the plot and then going into describing all the mechanics to the point that it sounded more like a series of gameplay tips than a review.

Gbear wrote: »

There is nothing absurd about any of those concepts.

Games often share elements with literature and film but that is by no means the whole story.
They also share elements with sports or other hobbies.

Every game doesn't need to be a narrative masterpiece. You could have a brilliant game that has no story at all. Equally you can have a game that doesn't seem much like a traditional game - more of an interactive story.

A game just needs to be true to itself and acheive what it sets out to do.
Is Crysis 3 a masterpiece of storytelling? Of gameplay? Probably not.
Is it a technical marvel? Absolutely. That's why it's a lot better than some people give it credit for. It routinely took my breath away at how amazing it looked.

You could just as surely have a game with an engrossing plot, complex and interesting characters but if all the game mechanics are ****e and you don't want to play it then the game could well be terrible.

Dismissing some of the technical aspects of gaming when they are every bit as important as the cultural aspects is very narrow-minded.

Regardless of what the game is, "replay value" or "longevity" or whatever should never be a factor in a review. In a single-player narrative game, it's completely ridiculous to bring it up. In a multi-player focused game like Team Fortress 2, it will depend entirely on how enjoyable the game is. In any case, many review break downs have this category regardless of the game type, even though it's completely preposterous in games like Braid or Portal.

Nobody is saying the review should just focus on the story, the mechanics are of equal importance generally in video games and should be discussed too. The technical aspects (things like graphical quality and game performance) simply aren't as important though. The majority of games all look okay and are on about the same level. A small number (such as Crysis) should get a mention for achievement but it's not something worth dragging into every review. If the game really did take your breath away, that was an achievement of aesthetics overall, not just the technical side of things and that's not something exclusive to games.

Grumpypants wrote: »

Let’s take GTA as it is so new, two online storms at the moment the first from Gamespot that the game is sexist and from the Escapist that the characters are not nice!

You play as three different scum bags who are embroiled in the criminal underworld. Last time I checked it the criminal underworld was not a place for nice guy feminists.

The Escapist review wasn't just saying "I don't want the player character to be a bad guy". It was making the point that yes, your character is a bad guy and we all know that coming in, but in his opinion there was no time spent on why the characters are they way they are and that they really have no redeeming qualities. Basically, he was saying the leads were poorly written. If you look at some really well-done fictional anti-heroes, you'll see that it's pretty much always shown how they got to be so bad because in real life, non-insane people don't just do terrible things for no reason.

Retr0gamer

Dan Houser has never been a good writer so I'm not expecting much from the writing in GTAV. I wouldn't be surprised if the Escapist guy is on the money. Not like anyone plays GTA for the story anyway.

COYVB

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Dan Houser has never been a good writer so I'm not expecting much from the writing in GTAV. I wouldn't be surprised if the Escapist guy is on the money. Not like anyone plays GTA for the story anyway.

I do, which is probably why I never liked it

C14N

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Alas, one doesn't need to look far (metacritic, gamefaqs etc...) to see how narrow-minded some gamers are when it comes to discussing games in any depth. They get hung up on things like price and length, and have an inability to discuss the core game itself in any depth. Honestly, a lot of the problem is that games journalists react to the gamers - and the gamers that speak up are often the ones not worth listening to.

Another HUGE user review hang-up is stuff like day one DLC or DRM, especially on PC. I know these are annoying but it's also annoying seeing a fantastic game get 2.5 stars on Amazon because there was a week 1 DRM issue that has since been solved.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Dan Houser has never been a good writer so I'm not expecting much from the writing in GTAV. I wouldn't be surprised if the Escapist guy is on the money. Not like anyone plays GTA for the story anyway.

Yeah, I remember on Charlie Brooker's Games Wipe there was an interview with Graham Linehan who basically put the problem down to the fact that GTA is written by people who get their inspiration from gangster movies (unlike the likes of The Godfather or Goodfellas where the writers knew about what they were writing).

I think people should be able to go to GTA for the story though, and I do myself. I know it's a sandbox game and plenty of people like it for the sandbox elements but the simple fact is that they usually include a pretty extensive story. GTA 4 had loads of emphasis on story, it was just very poor. I think there's a good space for a crime game with a good narrative too, it's really not a very hotly contested space. There's Saints Row but that's pure slapstick comedy and then GTA has very infrequent releases.

Regarding games as value: I get that some people are on tight budgets for games but the simple fact is that when the review is written, the game is the most expensive it will ever be. The game and the review will survive years later when they price has dropped to a tenner and anyone can buy the game.

Retr0gamer

GTA's story is serviceable, it gets you from mission to mission. That's all it really needs to be though. Would be nice if it tried to be something more lik red dead redemption but rock star north don't have the writers.

Radiosonde

Gta V sounds like its tackling a problem that is key to games evolving as a narrative medium: how can you tell a cohesive story when the gameplay has you killing scores, even hundreds, of people?

Last of Us got around it by having an antihero, Gta gets round it by having antiheroes, though in a different, much less serious way.

Its a big problem for the medium. Most AAA games will involve violence as the main gameplay. Realistically, we cant have sociopathic leads in EVERYTHING, but we dont just want big budget games to be just mindless action with any old story either.

I dont know if the Escapist reviewer is right to criticise the game so harshly for it, but hes not the only one unhappy with the story and characters.

Fnz

Perhaps we should stop throwing around the "journalist" label. I'm sure many of the people we speak of would identify themselves more as 'gaming press'. Journalism is a somewhat loaded term. It implies investigation into subjects that truly are in the 'public interest'. Gaming-related news seldom falls into that category.

Mr.Saturn

richymcdermott wrote: »

I do not like the inconsistency with journalist reviews

sometimes they make the claim the game is repetitive or it does not offer enough innovation yet they give assassin creed or call of duty high scores.


I feel alot of it is down to brand sometimes than he actual game

GamesTM's approach to FIFA could be cited as a particularly annoying example. January to July, there's editorial after editorial calling EA to task for producing the same dirge year-in/year-out; August through December is spent is buried in EA's arse.

C14N

Fnz wrote: »

Perhaps we should stop throwing around the "journalist" label. I'm sure many of the people we speak of would identify themselves more as 'gaming press'. Journalism is a somewhat loaded term. It implies investigation into subjects that truly are in the 'public interest'. Gaming-related news seldom falls into that category.

That's true and it's a good point too. Gaming news outlets are basically a proxy PR device for the big game publishers. For the most part, they don't go and search down stories and do investigations, they just relay information sent to them by EA or Ubi or whoever and put their own spin on it and it's probably part of the problem that it's generally the same people doing the PR job as are the ones criticising the games. Like I said, they're being marketed to and getting things like exclusive pre-release looks at the games will taint the final opinion to an extent.

Fnz

C14N wrote: »

For the most part, they don't go and search down stories and do investigations, they just relay information sent to them by EA or Ubi or whoever and put their own spin on it and it's probably part of the problem that it's generally the same people doing the PR job as are the ones criticising the games. Like I said, they're being marketed to and getting things like exclusive pre-release looks at the games will taint the final opinion to an extent.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, the critic/reviewer is not engaging in PR for the game, in that they have no stake in how well a game sells. The sites that basically republish press releases do so for their own traffic, but those article are not reviews/criticism.

Everyone is being marketed to, all the time. Getting exclusive pre-release access to games really is just part of the job, and probably loses it's magic rather quickly. I don't think a critic's credibility is a cheap and meaningless thing to them. Accusing the gaming press of selling out at every opportunity is the lazy ad-hominem you see a lot of by people who don't agree with a review, or score.

johnny_ultimate

Film writers and book critics routinely get early access to new releases, and that doesn't skew their objectivity.

Unless they're Empire. Ahem.

C14N

Fnz wrote: »

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, the critic/reviewer is not engaging in PR for the game, in that they have no stake in how well a game sells. The sites that basically republish press releases do so for their own traffic, but those article are not reviews/criticism.

Everyone is being marketed to, all the time. Getting exclusive pre-release access to games really is just part of the job, and probably loses it's magic rather quickly. I don't think a critic's credibility is a cheap and meaningless thing to them. Accusing the gaming press of selling out at every opportunity is the lazy ad-hominem you see a lot of by people who don't agree with a review, or score.

I think you are misunderstanding me, I should have been clearer. I was talking about the "journalism" side of it. The part that is supposed to be dedicated to news. I was agreeing you that it isn't really journalism because it's not often you see any actual investigation, most gaming news comes from press releases (unlike in regular current affairs where journalists often have to actually seek out stories).

I'm certainly not accusing the press of selling good scores, and it's definitely not in response to a review I don't agree with. I was defending them from just those accusations when the entire gaming community went berserk about Mass Effect 3 (there was barely an organisation I know of who weren't accused of getting some of EA's apparently bottomless pit of money).

The point I was making was that the "news" section of most games websites often just purely relays information given to them by the PR departments of the companies involved. Let's take a look at some of the top news stories on (admittedly easy target) Gamespot:

Sony aiming to sell five million PS4 consoles before March 2014 - based on an announcement by SCE president at Toyko Games Show
First screens for ex-Bulletstorm dev's new game - officially released by the developers
New GTA: London unlikely, says Houser - coming from an interview in the Guardian with the writer himself
GTAV PC petition surpasses 450,000 signatures - not from the developer, but not really news either

I could go on (seriously, here's the link if you don't trust me), but just about everything comes from official releases of information. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, someone needs to do this and I can't really see what else they could do but it still doesn't change the fact that the press is a big part of the PR for the people who make the games.

By exclusive pre-releases, I don't mean the copy of the finished game a few days in advance. I was referring more to the stuff you see particularly around E3 where there is loads of coverage of games that aren't even out yet. The press often get to play and see unfinished versions of the games months ahead of the actual release, which I think does change how they review it. If anyone does something like this then they will go into the review with some sort of opinion already there. I just think that the people who review something like that should know as little as possible before they play it.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Film writers and book critics routinely get early access to new releases, and that doesn't skew their objectivity.

Unless they're Empire. Ahem.

I don't mean getting things ahead of release (which is completely understandable since they have to get their reviews out on time). I mean that with film and books you don't tend to get big coverage in the months leading up to releases like games magazines do. You wouldn't see Sight and Sound (for example) going into detail covering trailers and getting exclusive looks at the film months before release like you do with games. The people who write the reviews for the broadsheets are usually the same. You get some reviews of the latest films and maybe an article.

C14N

I know I'm resurrecting my own thread here but recently, I've really noticed a huge shift in the state of game criticism lately. It seems the press has generally become a lot more critical of the massively hyped games in the last year or so. In 2014 and early 2015 have been a slew of games with big marketing pushes and a lot of pre-release buzz that still end up with much lower than expected review scores. The examples that come to mind would be The Evil Within, Destiny, Assassin's Creed 5, Evolve, Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel and most recently The Order 1886, none of which cracked an average score of 80 which, on gaming's longstanding 7-10 point scale would have once been considered a game to ignore. Once upon a time it seemed a sub-80 score was the kind of thing you'd expect a quick movie tie-in or something with too many bugs to get.

Even ones that do well now like Watch Dogs, Titanfall, Dragon Age Inquisition and Battlefield 4 are rarely ever breaking the 90-score Metacritic mark and many also seem to get large backlashes from fans. In fact, the only games to get over 90 on PS4 or Xbox One so far are re-releases of games from the previous gen like The Last of Us and GTA 5. The only original AAA games to break 90 at all in 2014 were Smash Bros Wii U, Bayonetta 2 and Dark Souls 2 and even then they max out at 92. If you include non-mobile indie games then that only expands to include Shovel Knight on 3DS and Kentucky Route Zero on PC.

It's hard to pinpoint a time when this started happening but I'd say it seemed to be at around late 2013 following the overwhelmingly positive GTA 5 reviews. 2013 in comparison had twice that number with 10: GTA 5 (97), Bioshock Infinite (94), The Last of Us (95), Mario 3D World (94), Rayman Legends, Fez, Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, Spelunky, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons and Dota 2 (2012 had 13, lest people think 2013 was just a particularly high-scoring year).

What was the cause of this sudden increase in criticism for games? Why have so many more reviewers started using the lower numbers on the scale? Not to mention things like the recent Eurogamer decision to remove scores entirely. I was kind of thinking that maybe they took a step back and realised that they probably were being a bit too nice too GTA 5 but then they went and did the same again on the re-release so that got me thinking that wasn't the reason.

I personally find this a very good swing, not just because I like that devs aren't getting so stoked about every game with a cool trailer, nice graphics and fully-functioning mechanics, but also because we might finally be moving away from the point where maybe 7/10 is considered a pretty good score to get and actually indicates a recommendation. Maybe we'll even start seeing more criticism based upon things like original mechanics and engaging story instead of what essentially amounted to product reviews to help make sure it works properly. Anyone else think the same?

pablomakaveli

Well with the amount of broken and unfinished games we've had over the last year or two i think gamers in general have become a lot quicker to call developers out on this bull**** regardless of the hype and are a lot more vocal about it. Naturally the reviewers are following the trend.

nesf

The rise of Twitch, the continuing gain in market share by Youtubers. A generation growing up expecting video not just written content. The whole thing is in flux at the moment, we're still seeing how the whole clickbait thing will pan out as well as things like native advertising. It's not restricted to games media either.

Grumpypants

The "younger gamer" who got caught up in the pre order/preview click bait that sites used to bank on have moved onto Youtube. Just look at the alarming number of attacks on Youtubers from sites and their own move to video content and podcasts in the last year to see just how worried they are about this shift.

The "older gamer" who just wants to buy a game and play it wants to read about what games are like to play. This is the last demographic interested in the written word.

Notice the number of sites now scrambling to appeal to this demographic by removing review scores, waiting for full retail release before releasing reviews, cutting down on previews coverage etc etc.

It has been happening in the background at sites but is now coming to the surface with the likes of Eurogamer dropping review scores and removing their site from meta critic, and the Escapists decision to remove the more vocal "political" writers and replace them with content that "focuses on the games". This is just the start more will follow.

There has also been an alarming number of sites closing down (or are on the verge of it) as the money dries up (Joystick, Gamespy, CVG), or had to at least endure a big reductions in staff.

Like everything in the industry it is ever changing and evolving, in five years time it will be as different as it was when you compare now to five years ago.

nesf

Grumpypants wrote: »

The "younger gamer" who got caught up in the pre order/preview click bait that sites used to bank on have moved onto Youtube or just grown up a bit. Just look at the alarming number of attacks on Youtubers from sites in the last year to see just how worried they are about the shift.

The "older gamer" who just wants to buy a game and play it, just wants to read about what games are like to play. This is a demographic sites were happy to ignore while they made their money elsewhere but now it is the only remaining marketable group interested in the written word. Notice the number of sites now scrambling to appeal to this demographic by removing review scores, waiting for full retail release before releasing reviews, cutting down on previews coverage etc etc.

It has been happening in the background at sites but is now coming to the surface with the likes of Eurogamer dropping review scores and removing their site from meta critic, and the Escapists decision to remove the more vocal "political" writers and replace them with content that "focuses on the games".

You can see it also with the likes of Polygon coming out and saying they were a progressive site and their reviews would contain progressive views and not just a focus on gameplay. Which I assume there's a market for (personally I don't want it in the reviews I read but the op-eds). There's also more sites pushing video content as an adjunct to their written reviews and the better sites do different things in both, exploiting the benefits of the different mediums.