Jeff's comment concerning Dave Halverson of Play

Jeff has brought to my attention an article written by Dave Halverson of Play magazine concerning the current state of videogame criticism through reference towards the professional reception of Golden Axe: Beast Rider. Here is the article if you are interested: http://www.playmagazine.com/index.php?fuseaction=SiteMain.showGamePage&Game_ID=887
I am curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Jeff has brought to my attention an article written by Dave Halverson of Play magazine concerning the current state of videogame criticism through reference towards the professional reception of Golden Axe: Beast Rider. Here is the article if you are interested: http://www.playmagazine.com/index.php?fuseaction=SiteMain.showGamePage&Game_ID=887
I am curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.

I think Dave Halverson is a douche nozzle.  In essence, what he's saying in that article is that his opinion matters more than anyone else's, and anyone that disagrees with him  is either wrong, a moron, or both. 

MB, how do you really feel?

"I think Dave Halverson is a douche nozzle.  In essence, what he's saying in that article is that his opinion matters more than anyone else's, and anyone that disagrees with him  is either wrong, a moron, or both. "

this is an intervention mb

I haven't played the game, so I can't judge if what he is saying about the game are true, but I do agree that there are allot of preconceptions about this game, that are likely to influence the less professional members of the gaming press. Although his later pert of the argument, saying that they are not valid opinions is just bollocks. He's basically saying "If you don't agree with me you shouldn't be allowed to voice you're opinion".

@MB:
I don't think he feels his opinion matters more than anyone else's and what spurned your reaction was probably his reference towards the lack of any kind of "real" rationing device to ensure the competency of those who are positing videogame criticisms on the internet in the guise of so-called "professionals". Dave also concedes to the fact that there are many who are qualified. And yes, I can safely assert that Dave agrees most with his own opinion. If you don't agree with yours the most, I fear your faith in yourself.

Reading his article made me remember that the way Giant Bomb handles its reviews is the best way to review a game.


MattyFTM said:

He's basically saying "If you don't agree with me you shouldn't be allowed to voice you're opinion"."

And yes, I can safely assert that Dave agrees most with his own opinion. If you don't agree with yours the most, I fear your faith in yourself."

Beast Rider doesn't look that great to me.

"Dryker said:

And yes, I can safely assert that Dave agrees most with his own opinion. If you don't agree with yours the most, I fear your faith in yourself."

That's not what I take exception to.  The problem with Dave Halverson's article is that not only does he put forth his own opinion, he simultaneously discounts the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him as "irresponsible".  As far as I'm concerned, the only thing irresponsible here was Play allowing this hack to publish this article in the first place. 

Mr. Halverson, if you're reading this, I invite you to go fuck yourself, you self-righteous prick.  Good day, sir!"

"MattyFTM said:

He's basically saying "If you don't agree with me you shouldn't be allowed to voice you're opinion"."

I think it is more like "if you did not play the game in its entirety you should not voice your opinion""

"Endogene said:

"MattyFTM said:

He's basically saying "If you don't agree with me you shouldn't be allowed to voice you're opinion"."

I think it is more like "if you did not play the game in its entirety you should not voice your opinion""

I understand thats what he's trying to say, but he's saying it badly."

I shall refrain from rebutting any comment from MB, for he seems to be doing a fine job of it himself.
Perhaps I'm partial, but I think Dave gave a rather clear description of the slippery slope he feels videogame criticism is on. I think the main point of the article was that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can start criticizing games on the internet... and people receive their opinion as gospel. Yeah, yeah, I know, people should know better, but they don't. He feels it is having an adverse reaction to the scope of games that are being created. Why is the Wii such a huge success? It has been argued and widely believed that it is because the games are more accessible than so-called "hardcore" games and are easier to figure out. Dave fears this trend as he sees more and more "professionals" falling into the same trap of not being willing to learn a new scheme and just fault the game for not being like what they are used to. Dave was specifically referring to Golden Axe: Beast Rider, but similar complaints have arisen concerning Too Human and its unorthodox control scheme. I must admit, I rented Beast Rider and thought it was horrible, but continued to play because I wanted to see more beasts and get my money's worth. Guess what? I started to get it and my opinion of it began to rise. I eventually gave it an 8 on Gamefly. My point is I too am succumbing to what Dave fears for the industry as a whole and understand his fear. I don't want all my experiences to be Gears of War and Call of Duty (although great games), but the hardcore industry seems to be leaning that way. Which is a natural evolution, sure, but those of us who can and do appreciate arguably deeper gameplay will miss possible favorites because so-called leading critics either don't care for the subject matter, do not have the time to invest in learning an entirely new scheme (understandably, but true none the less), or both, and end up rating a game abysmally, discouraging those who have the time and do like the subject matter. Anyways, I think it is a rational concern. I, for one, attempt to avoid the pitfalls by getting a feel for a reviewer's tastes in order to decide whether or not they are fit to judge a game that has caught my attention, but I don't think the majority of readers do. Perhaps, but my money's on no.

I have never heard of this Dave Halverson figure until today, but he sounds like a bitch.

The game spcifically is horrid, but that guy is a fucking moron.

*sigh* I fear for our future...
I suppose this is how George W. Bush got elected in the first place.

"*sigh* I fear for our future...
I suppose this is how George W. Bush got elected in the first place."

Good day, sir!"

He's like the Anti Greg Kasavin of games reviews

What a cunt.  While I did read the artlcle, his MUG SHOT at the top pretty much told me everything I need to know about this guy.

Dave Halverson is an iconoclastic wanker.  I admire the guy on a few different levels, but his insistence in this article that any review for the game below a 7 is wrong or misleading smacks of the worst kind of smug internet elitism and self importance, and overshadows any kind of greater overall point he was trying to make in the article.  Also, he led me into buying some of the worst games ever made with his poetic reviews, like some kind of completely evil pied piper.  So I take everything he says about the quality of any game with a grain of salt, lets face reality here, Beast Rider is not a game worth picking up at new game asking prices in this holiday season.  It simply is not.  No matter how good a job Dave does of making you think it is.

I think a lot of people assume a game with a high score should automatically warrant a purchase by a gamer, or that the gamer will definitely like the game. This is not true, there are many high scoring games that I don't like; but the opposite is also true, just because a person doesn't like a game does not mean it should recieve a low score, or not warrant a purchase by a gamer. People have different tastes. Most of the videogame critics are arguing that they are "objective" in their reviews, but that simply is not true. They are critics, not inspectors. They are judging a creative endeavor and not an assembly-line product for structural integrity. I'm not siding with Dave or Jeff. All I know is that Dave has come out and said that he puts forth his personal opinion towards a game as a gamer, and not a critic claiming to approach it as an objective observer. I feel Dave is being more realistic and forthright.

Unless half way through Golden Axe the game magically turns into God Of War I don't see how playing it all the way will make a difference.
And if you want a reviewer to refrain from using personal opinion you might as well eliminate the profession.

I read this whole this article, and boy did I get angry. So let me go on a Rant:
Dude really, Fuck Off. First thing that you did wrong was dog on all other critics. WHY would you do that., just WHY. You try and call other CRITICS out, and successfully failed.
You said that you "Can't really call these people critics." yeah sure when your dumb ass comes to realize you were stoned during the later half of the game, because the first half was so damn bad you needed something to do before you killed yourself. Second, It sounds like you were paid off by Sega. They just really wanted a good comment to refer to. This isn't the first time Play magazine and a Sega game has had some kind of relationship like this. I remember Sonic the Hedgehog for the X360 got a 8.5 in an Issue Of Play. I picked that game up and almost upchucked a whole meal on the console, you can't control that shit or even worse see whats happening. So your in no position to call out other Critics before you look at your career and make a statement. Also don't question others credibility before you're own.