@Brendan said:
@damnable_fiend said:
Games designers feel that their games shouldn't get low scores. gotcha.
That is literally the simplest and most unintelligent way you could have possibly understood that article. Well done.
probably the most cynical, at any rate.
@dvorak said:
@patrickklepek said:
@DFSVegas said:
Game journalists love to navel gaze. As an avid game site visitor and podcast listener for years, I can say I am WAY over this topic.
Just write, if it's interesting, I'll read it. It's not that fucking complicated. How many times are we going to have to rehash this, frankly boring and meaningless, story?
I'm with you on that, which is why I'd hoped to avoid that somewhat by involving a developer directly.
It's still boring, and masturbatory.
I'm in the same exact boat as @DFSVegas. The only reason I can see for this article existing, is that if Mass Effect 3 ends up getting less than expected scores, this is the article that everyone will link to when discussing the internet hiccup that that will create. That situation of course being completely trite and totally uninteresting, as well.
I like a lot of what you do Patrick, but these invented news articles are total garbage. You might as well run all the rumor articles that the the other sites do, it's just as wrote.
While you're entitled to believe these articles are uninteresting, your statements put people like me -- people who LOVE this stuff -- in a compromising position. It may be navel-gazing and masturbatory, but it isn't disingenuous. These are real problems facing a young form of criticism, games criticism. The dialog needs to take place, if just for garnering a level of understanding between both parties. Publishing the dialog allows people like me, people with an interest in games criticism but no real access, to be a part of that discussion. If you think all of this 3-part article's value boils down to an excuse for a potentially low Mass Effect 3 score, I think you've missed the point.
Once again, an interesting read. I agree with some comments in that I think this particular subject matter isn't the most interesting for someone who hasn't really been interested in any game's review scores for years now.
But I love this format. I hope you can get some more developers on board to do discussions like this more often. If only because it's awesome to hear developers speak, instead of PR people. It's always great when GiantBomb hands the microphone to people actually building the games and catches them talking openly about subjects like this.
I've gotta say, just from the first few pages of comments, the GB crowd was waaaaaay more supportive of Patrick when he wasn't giving Zelda a perfect score...
I really like the concept of these news posts, and it's interesting enough, I just feel like both of you were saying "there must be a third way, but I know that the current system is the way it is because... well, it works". Democracy is the worst form of governance except for all other options and all that.
At the end of the day the problem is that this is two media savvy, industry smart individuals discussing the nature of criticism for video games, and I have to wonder how much of the review system is about that. Obviously GB and gaming websites all have knowledgable crowds (and thats probably why they're so keen to bitch about this whole debate; they think its beneath them because they get it), but you're never going to get rid of the numbered review system for non-enthusiasts. And I don't just mean that in a "tl;dr" sense. I like films, but I scan reviews for a number at the bottom to see if its a 3 or higher and so worth my time, and at best skim read it to see if the hot girl can act.
Once you accept that a great deal of people are interested in that, then some companies are going to lean into it, and in a competitive market you don't create an advantage by having less features than your tabloid equivelent. Once you accept review scores exist and aren't going away, there's not going to be a unified system for the same reason. Tilt was stupid, but it was differentiating.
The level of criticism in a review is a different matter, but I think that at least is above my pay grade!
@Nardak: I'm pretty sure what he meant in terms of that specific case was sequel fatigue. I also don't think it's going to break that score because it's the third game in the series. In a way that makes you automatically lose some points that you need to make up for in areas like innovation or story.
I agree with you that saying Mass Effect 3 will be better than 2 in EVERY single way is a bit of hyperbole. I thought Mass Effect 2 was a better game than ME1, but I also thought that some things were done better in the original.
While he didn't say it explicitly, I got the sense from Heir that because his team worked hard and believed that Mass Effect 3 was a better game than Mass Effect 2, that it possibly getting lower ratings is a fundamental injustice.
And maybe it is - but it would be less of one if publishers didn't use reviews as a benchmark - why can't they simply use sales as a benchmark - are sales and ratings so closely aligned? If games are anything like movies, being the best rated is not the same as being the most profitable.
I think the reason it bugs me is that I'm sure the majority of people who write books or make movies or make music or really anything creative don't intend on those being failures either - but that's the nature of entertainment media - how your audience (and critics) react is entirely subjective. That's simply the beast you wrestle with when you do creative work - effort does not always equal success.
I think this is what separates GIant Bomb from other video game websites - Original, thought provoking content.
It's all to easy to say X game comes out in Y or to speculate over new consoles, I don't usually see other websites do this sort of stuff. Take it with a pinch of salt, or as hyperbole, but these articles are fantasic. Ever since you've come along Patrick you've gotten me 100% more invested in what gets posted to the front page.
You're without a doubt deserving to be a part of everything here.
Thank you.
I don't understand... What's wrong with breaking down a game into categories like story (if they have one), gameplay, presentation and so on? I mean, I did it for all MY reviews, and nobody yelled into my ear, saying that I am a complete noob in the business and I am straying down a wrong path. I thought I made my arguments clear with some specific examples, and people in fact AGREED with my assessments. Can someone please explain why breaking the game down in those categories is like a crime or something... or something that is like IGN or Gametrailers and it should not happen?
Thank you,
RayCarter
@happymeowmeow said:
Does criticism have to be "fair" to be valid? Interesting question. I would lean towards...no. The idea of "fairness" is pretty subjective. Probably depends on how well the critic backs their arguments, right? It's amazing how much a well reasoned argument can change someones definition of fair.
Should broad criticisms that could be addressed to a whole generation of games be included as part of a review of one game? That seems to be the question Manveer is worried about. But let me put it another way... should a reviewer NOT bring up an issue just because other games are guilty of it?
Liked the point about reviewers falling into the trap of being backseat designers too.
I agree with this completely, and believe that Parkin's review and others like it are reflective of 'game fatigue' at the end of a console cycle where titles are often iterative and there's truly nothing new under the sun. It's not the game reviewers that need to step it up, it's the game designers.
Great series, GB! You guys are becoming one of my go-to sites for games' discussion. More please!
@downtime58 said:
@Archaen: Just like the nature of reviews, reader's reaction to reviews are entirely subjective.
When I read the review, I didn't interpret his criticism of UC3 as a fundamental mismatch between his expectations and the game's linear conventions. What I saw in Parkin's review was the idea that - yes UC3 is well produced and more often than not of excellent quality, but the linearity of the game occasionally worked against the player's experience.
Parkin wasn't alone on this - I read other reviews (and it came up a couple times in discussions in Bombcasts) where critics, while acknowledging that UC3 was a mostly great game, also noted that it suffered gameplay hiccups (instant deaths, unclear paths) because of its rigid linearity.
It's not that Parkin was refuting linearity in games - it's a case of him pointing out that the balance between player choice and linearity had been tipped in UC3 in such a way that it led to more frustrating moments - it's likely one of the reasons why as great a game as UC3 is - it wasn't as well received as UC2.
Here's a quote from the conclusion of Parkin's original review:
"...as a slice of one-view entertainment, Uncharted 3 is peerless. The execution exhibits a kind of workmanship and polish way beyond the ambition of most other developers, let alone their abilities or budgets. As an expression of all that a video game could be, however, Uncharted 3 is narrow, focused and ultimately shallow."
He's making a very deliberate statement about Uncharted 3 being a nearly flawless (peerless in his words) execution of a linear single player experience but that he doesn't think that is "all that a game could be". He simply thinks non-linearity is better than linearity, and he says it quite explicitly. I'm not interpreting anything.
They simply gave the game to the wrong reviewer this time. It's not helpful to the buyer at all. If a reviewer that doesn't like racing games is given a racing sim and he details in his review how he thinks that the game not being open world and not including fist fighting makes it less good and then the last sentence reads "As a racing sim this game is peerless, but as an expression of all that a video game could be, however, this racing sim is narrow, focused and ultimately shallow." would that be a helpful review? No it would not.
"Abbie Heppe came under intense scrutiny for her review of Metroid: Other M. What do you think?"
I think that game is complete and total garbage and shouldn't have been made, purely from a gameplay perspective but also the story is awful. Ms. Heppe's arguments of sexism are true, but a weird thing to hold against a game. Frankly, they completely ruined Samus' character. She's always been a strong, independent, kick-butt female character that didn't need anyone else. They turned her into a whiny, needy little brat of a girl that was all too ready to listen to the nonsensical commands of a former command officer.
Of course, why did anyone expect any differently from the people who brought you the crazily misogynistic Dead or Alive Xtreme series?
@patrickklepek Abbie's review of Other M was, in my mind, grossly inaccurate. I had an opportunity at last year's PAX Prime to voice my disagreement with her in a panel she was a part of, and I think that there's a mutual willingness to agree to disagree to an extent, but suffice it to say, I don't hold her words against her.
What I disagree with is Abbie's highly negative view of Samus's characterization as being sexist, which is a point that she latches onto very strongly in her text. While it is true that the developer's interpretation of Samus was obviously different from what Abbie had built up in her mind, it's not particularly fair to say that the developer should portray Samus as the person she, or any other player, expected or desired.
At the panel, I pointed out to Abbie that, in my mind, Samus's portrayal is not sexist. It is not sexist for Samus to have emotional weaknesses; characters that have issues they struggle with are generally the sign of a more well-rounded characterization, and it's something I prefer over the notion of Samus as a take-no-prisoners death machine. What I will argue is that Other M's script is not well-written; it routinely violates the idea of "show, don't tell" by overusing narration to flesh out character detail that could have otherwise been depicted through other means that would have a greater impact, and allow certain scenes to play out with a greater degree of context. Anyone familiar with Samus's backstory as conceived by Yoshio Sakamoto (Metroid's co-creator) would understand the context of certain events that occur in the game, while for others, the details are left in the dark.
But again, that's a fault of the script, and to an extent the localization as well. That is not indicative of sexism in the game. It's just poor writing.
And like I told Abbie, the notion of sexism swings both ways. Just as I perceive Samus to be a well-constructed (if poorly written) character, I perceive Kratos to be an insult to the male gender. Kratos is nothing more than a ball of petulant rage and adolescent lusts; he is the masculine power fantasy of the worst sort, using violence to solve his problems where none is required and engaging in frequent, pointless sexual trysts for seemingly no other reason than to demonstrate just how much of a man he is to the women he has sex with. His reprehensibility is on par with Duke Nukem, and yet people are fond of this monstrous, chauvinist wretch.
None of what I said to her changed her mind, of course; I didn't expect to. But like I said, we agreed to disagree. I enjoyed the hell out of that game, she didn't.
Abbie Heppe is my new favorite person.
I hate myself for now auto-concluding that Mass Effect 3 is going to be mad linear and a Mass Effect 3 in 2012 despite any clear improvements over its predecessors will not be as good as a Mass Effect 2 in 2010 just because a developer of that specific game is the person in this conversation.
But to deny that this is what first came to mind is not solving anything as i'm sure i'm not the only one to suspect such a situation. Games, as was rightly stated do not live in a vacuum and as a result of many factors (Extended Console Cycle, Sequel Fatigue, Gameplay Style Fatigue) cant be expected to get the same scores or better when they are the same formula with some minor (or hell in some cases even major) additions and improvements.
Best example of this I can think of is a (post cod3) call of duty styled game. The 'greatest and most well produced linear Modern Military FPS coming out today' is not going to have the same impact as the lesser games that came out in previous years simply because the core experience is mostly the same and we have grown tired of it.
I'm all for an event where the gaming media and developers can sit down and have some 'Real Talk about issues such as game scores, how they work and how they can be improved to better convey what the reviewer feels without it looking like; as shown with the uncharted 3 reviewer, someone taking a dump on a game due to it being stale and have that be the entire crux of the review.
If this does happen, dont make the event a private thing. I WANT TO HEAR THAT KIND OF CONVERSATION.
@damnable_fiend said:
@Brendan said:
@damnable_fiend said:
Games designers feel that their games shouldn't get low scores. gotcha.
That is literally the simplest and most unintelligent way you could have possibly understood that article. Well done.
probably the most cynical, at any rate.
Unfortunately, you've got a point. He's been saying this whole time that "unfair" aka "WRONG" reviews should simply be taken off of sites (SOPA much?), and that criticism shouldn't be included in reviews... of course he's now saying the opposite now, because that idea is just wrong.
But lets look at the idea of removing "unfair scores" for a bit. So I ask, what is "Unfair" and in who's eyes? Would we be as willing to remove a 100% review that completely ignores all faults just as easily as the guy who does the polar opposite and gives it a 1/10? HIGHLY UNLIKELY. But honestly, I wouldn't call any review truly fair, because it's always subjective to a degree no matter what, but we treat it as an absolute, and THAT is the problem.
What I do agree with Manveer is that games should be reviewed on what they're trying to do, rather then what peoples random expectations for the game are, but how do you enforce that? You can't, and that is something guys like this need to accept. But I do have sympathy for the guy, because I absolutely despise the concept that developers are forced to get the "highest score possible" otherwise you will be permabanned from the game industry (exaggeration, of course) because then it puts way too much pressure and expectation on the designers and generally as a result they resort to the bland "please everyone" route, which ends up pleasing nobody.
I said in part 1 that we need more avenues to give the PLAYER more tools to get a hands-on experience and use reviews as a secondary tool to make the final decision of whether or not to buy a game, rather then just basing our decision off of reviews alone.
But the idea that censorship is any kind of an answer is just absurd.
Great article, and many good points on both ends. I agree with the fact that reviewers go towards an expectation of what they personally believe the game should be and base their review on that, rather than looking at what the game intends to be and focus on if it accomplishes that goal. Although the game must meet the expectation of the consumers, the fact that journalists are giving bad scores to games that accomplish their goal that they intended to and get bumped because the expectations of the reviewers' aren't satisfied. As much as i would love to be in the gaming journalism field when i pursue my career, i honestly don't know where it will be within the next year or 5 years. But review sites and writers are getting more and more strict based on the expectations of both the reviewer and consumer rising on a daily basis.
@Hailinel said:
@patrickklepek Abbie's review of Other M was, in my mind, grossly inaccurate. I had an opportunity at last year's PAX Prime to voice my disagreement with her in a panel she was a part of, and I think that there's a mutual willingness to agree to disagree to an extent, but suffice it to say, I don't hold her words against her.
What I disagree with is Abbie's highly negative view of Samus's characterization as being sexist, which is a point that she latches onto very strongly in her text. While it is true that the developer's interpretation of Samus was obviously different from what Abbie had built up in her mind, it's not particularly fair to say that the developer should portray Samus as the person she, or any other player, expected or desired.
At the panel, I pointed out to Abbie that, in my mind, Samus's portrayal is not sexist. It is not sexist for Samus to have emotional weaknesses; characters that have issues they struggle with are generally the sign of a more well-rounded characterization, and it's something I prefer over the notion of Samus as a take-no-prisoners death machine. What I will argue is that Other M's script is not well-written; it routinely violates the idea of "show, don't tell" by overusing narration to flesh out character detail that could have otherwise been depicted through other means that would have a greater impact, and allow certain scenes to play out with a greater degree of context. Anyone familiar with Samus's backstory as conceived by Yoshio Sakamoto (Metroid's co-creator) would understand the context of certain events that occur in the game, while for others, the details are left in the dark.
But again, that's a fault of the script, and to an extent the localization as well. That is not indicative of sexism in the game. It's just poor writing.
And like I told Abbie, the notion of sexism swings both ways. Just as I perceive Samus to be a well-constructed (if poorly written) character, I perceive Kratos to be an insult to the male gender. Kratos is nothing more than a ball of petulant rage and adolescent lusts; he is the masculine power fantasy of the worst sort, using violence to solve his problems where none is required and engaging in frequent, pointless sexual trysts for seemingly no other reason than to demonstrate just how much of a man he is to the women he has sex with. His reprehensibility is on par with Duke Nukem, and yet people are fond of this monstrous, chauvinist wretch.
None of what I said to her changed her mind, of course; I didn't expect to. But like I said, we agreed to disagree. I enjoyed the hell out of that game, she didn't.
This reminds me of the hundreds of other gamers who went out of their way to tell Abbie, a woman, that she'd been stricken with an incurable case of feminist rage and had simply hallucinated the deeply problematic trends that have made gaming an insufferable mess for anyone not plugged into the straight white male experience. As long as we have a Bioware dev on the line, let's ask him whether the romance options in ME3 will actually reflect genuine human interaction or if it will be more of what their fans are demanding--a parade of waify, infantile virgins and "exotic" blue sluts who's various "flaws" are miraculously healed by sleeping with the male protagonist.
This shit matters. The "culture" of gaming has gotten to be incredibly toxic and insular precisely because gamers and reviewers have not had the courage to take games to task for catering exclusively to the deeply problematic tastes of misogynist basement dwellers and falling back on the same tired cliches about the role of women and people of color in fantasy and sci-fi settings. Bioware in particular has received not insignificant pushback from it's terrible, terrible fanbase for daring to include romance options with same-sex and minority characters, and yet at the same time it's clear that they're largely incapable of writing these interactions in an authentic way to the players who would know best what those sorts of romances are supposed to look like. This is a real problem that has had real consequences for an industry that is notorious for being unable to reach demographics beyond their bred and butter male nerd fanbases who aren't coughing up the same amount of cash that they used to.
Why shouldn't reviewers leverage their own perspectives towards writing about these issues and calling out the bullshit where they see it? It is, after all, deeply unfun to play a game that makes you feel like a cartoon character because of your race, gender, or sexual preference.
@Archaen: Fair enough - let's just say we agree to disagree - I see "narrow, focused and ultimately shallow" despite having "polish way beyond the abilities of other developers" as supporting exactly what I think he's saying - that UC3 is a great game, but suffers sometimes from its all-or-nothing focus on narrative.
Without actually hearing from Parkin himself, or him explicitly stating "I didn't like UC3 because it was linear and I don't like linear games.." I don't think either of us can 100 per cent say we know exactly what was his critical intention.
@jwoozy said:
@Hailinel said:
@patrickklepek Abbie's review of Other M was, in my mind, grossly inaccurate. I had an opportunity at last year's PAX Prime to voice my disagreement with her in a panel she was a part of, and I think that there's a mutual willingness to agree to disagree to an extent, but suffice it to say, I don't hold her words against her.
What I disagree with is Abbie's highly negative view of Samus's characterization as being sexist, which is a point that she latches onto very strongly in her text. While it is true that the developer's interpretation of Samus was obviously different from what Abbie had built up in her mind, it's not particularly fair to say that the developer should portray Samus as the person she, or any other player, expected or desired.
At the panel, I pointed out to Abbie that, in my mind, Samus's portrayal is not sexist. It is not sexist for Samus to have emotional weaknesses; characters that have issues they struggle with are generally the sign of a more well-rounded characterization, and it's something I prefer over the notion of Samus as a take-no-prisoners death machine. What I will argue is that Other M's script is not well-written; it routinely violates the idea of "show, don't tell" by overusing narration to flesh out character detail that could have otherwise been depicted through other means that would have a greater impact, and allow certain scenes to play out with a greater degree of context. Anyone familiar with Samus's backstory as conceived by Yoshio Sakamoto (Metroid's co-creator) would understand the context of certain events that occur in the game, while for others, the details are left in the dark.
But again, that's a fault of the script, and to an extent the localization as well. That is not indicative of sexism in the game. It's just poor writing.
And like I told Abbie, the notion of sexism swings both ways. Just as I perceive Samus to be a well-constructed (if poorly written) character, I perceive Kratos to be an insult to the male gender. Kratos is nothing more than a ball of petulant rage and adolescent lusts; he is the masculine power fantasy of the worst sort, using violence to solve his problems where none is required and engaging in frequent, pointless sexual trysts for seemingly no other reason than to demonstrate just how much of a man he is to the women he has sex with. His reprehensibility is on par with Duke Nukem, and yet people are fond of this monstrous, chauvinist wretch.
None of what I said to her changed her mind, of course; I didn't expect to. But like I said, we agreed to disagree. I enjoyed the hell out of that game, she didn't.
This reminds me of the hundreds of other gamers who went out of their way to tell Abbie, a woman, that she'd been stricken with an incurable case of feminist rage and had simply hallucinated the deeply problematic trends that have made gaming an insufferable mess for anyone not plugged into the straight white male experience. As long as we have a Bioware dev on the line, let's ask him whether the romance options in ME3 will actually reflect genuine human interaction or if it will be more of what their fans are demanding--a parade of waify, infantile virgins and "exotic" blue sluts who's various "flaws" are miraculously healed by sleeping with the male protagonist.
This shit matters. The "culture" of gaming has gotten to be incredibly toxic and insular precisely because gamers and reviewers have not had the courage to take games to task for catering exclusively to the deeply problematic tastes of misogynist basement dwellers and falling back on the same tired cliches about the role of women and people of color in fantasy and sci-fi settings. Bioware in particular has received not insignificant pushback from it's terrible, terrible fanbase for daring to include romance options with same-sex and minority characters, and yet at the same time it's clear that they're largely incapable of writing these interactions in an authentic way to the players who would know best what those sorts of romances are supposed to look like. This is a real problem that has had real consequences for an industry that is notorious for being unable to reach demographics beyond their bred and butter male nerd fanbases who aren't coughing up the same amount of cash that they used to.
Why shouldn't reviewers leverage their own perspectives towards writing about these issues and calling out the bullshit where they see it? It is, after all, deeply unfun to play a game that makes you feel like a cartoon character because of your race, gender, or sexual preference.
Of course it matters. That was the whole point of the panel. It was a discussion on the depictions of characters in games; not just women, but of minorities, homosexuals, even straight, white men. The problem isn't specific to any particular demographic. Depictions of characters could be improved across the board.
Personally I do not use Giantbomb's reviews as purchasing guides. The review section is the part of the site I spend the least reading/watching/listening to. I make the majority of decisions based on what I hear you talk about on your podcasts and videos.
@gringbot said:
@damnable_fiend said:
@Brendan said:
@damnable_fiend said:
Games designers feel that their games shouldn't get low scores. gotcha.
That is literally the simplest and most unintelligent way you could have possibly understood that article. Well done.
probably the most cynical, at any rate.
Unfortunately, you've got a point. He's been saying this whole time that "unfair" aka "WRONG" reviews should simply be taken off of sites (SOPA much?), and that criticism shouldn't be included in reviews... of course he's now saying the opposite now, because that idea is just wrong.
But lets look at the idea of removing "unfair scores" for a bit. So I ask, what is "Unfair" and in who's eyes? Would we be as willing to remove a 100% review that completely ignores all faults just as easily as the guy who does the polar opposite and gives it a 1/10? HIGHLY UNLIKELY. But honestly, I wouldn't call any review truly fair, because it's always subjective to a degree no matter what, but we treat it as an absolute, and THAT is the problem.
What I do agree with Manveer is that games should be reviewed on what they're trying to do, rather then what peoples random expectations for the game are, but how do you enforce that? You can't, and that is something guys like this need to accept. But I do have sympathy for the guy, because I absolutely despise the concept that developers are forced to get the "highest score possible" otherwise you will be permabanned from the game industry (exaggeration, of course) because then it puts way too much pressure and expectation on the designers and generally as a result they resort to the bland "please everyone" route, which ends up pleasing nobody.
I said in part 1 that we need more avenues to give the PLAYER more tools to get a hands-on experience and use reviews as a secondary tool to make the final decision of whether or not to buy a game, rather then just basing our decision off of reviews alone.
But the idea that censorship is any kind of an answer is just absurd.
I agree with you completely. I apologize if my previous comment seemed a little harsh. I'd just finished IGN's review of Amy, and it pissed me off :that a site could get away with trashing an indie game and giving terrible big budget games much higher scores. :/ so what I said was kind of hyperbolic I suppose..
But yes, it is unfortunate that, in order to make a profit, AAA games have to attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and that more often than not, when they try to do something different, which is difficult and more often than not results in a less polished game (see, the output of Obsidian and Troika) they are punished for it.
Though... at the same time, I don't think developers should necessarily get high scores for playing it safe. I blame shitty sites like ign for getting us into this situation.
it's complicated. but I still don't agree with game designers bashing games criticism, and trying to get poor reviews taken down.
@downtime58 said:
@Archaen: Fair enough - let's just say we agree to disagree - I see "narrow, focused and ultimately shallow" despite having "polish way beyond the abilities of other developers" as supporting exactly what I think he's saying - that UC3 is a great game, but suffers sometimes from its all-or-nothing focus on narrative.
Without actually hearing from Parkin himself, or him explicitly stating "I didn't like UC3 because it was linear and I don't like linear games.." I don't think either of us can 100 per cent say we know exactly what was his critical intention.
The part that really pissed me off, to be honest, was the last part of the sentence I quoted:
"As an expression of all that a video game could be, however, Uncharted 3 is narrow, focused and ultimately shallow."
All that a game could be? WTF! What does that even mean? What standard is he holding the games he reviews to, games that don't exist? Comparing to other games in the genre or even medium I can understand, but his yardstick doesn't even exist. That pisses me off no matter what game he's reviewing or if he likes the game or not.
I've seen a similar thing happening recently at some outlets with other games, Rage being an example. Joystiq's review essentially read "I thought it was going to be an RPG. It's not what I thought it was going to be, so I don't like it. 6/10". I don't think people should be reviewing products based on how the product lines up with their misconceptions or expectations.
I think it would be really intesting if after reviewing a game on Giantbomb you guys could do an interview/bombcast, with the developers of the game and get their insite as to why thier game succeeds or dosen't. What happend during the development process that contributed to a games review in positive and negitive aspects. We see a lot of game designers on websites before their game is released for promotional purposes, but rarely after a games release do companies see to stand by their product. If they are looking for additional promotional advantages, the interview could act as a great oppurtunity to discuss DLC content.
I suppose that criticism in a game review requires some type of qualifying statement to really be appropriate. For example, its one thing to say that "uncharted 3 is linear and therefore less of a game than it could have been" and another to say "There are examples in the industry of less scripted games being great and the market is saturated with linear games, so some people might be dissapointed that the experience feels familiar".
Good or bad design is at times subjective, so perhaps a reviewer should be extra careful when doing that comparison.
I also think its funny how people are making all kinds of inferences about ME3 when none of these articles are even about that.
anyways, the reason why giantbomb is so great is that we get so much more than reviews here. This site is deliberately personality-driven, and we become very familiar with the way each member of the staff thinks about and plays video games, and we get their more or less candid thoughts on them in videos and podcasts.
we still have reviews here, of course, but they're probably the least important part of the site. Not that they're not well written, but the rest of the site makes them kind of redundant for those of us who partake in the other content of the site on a regular basis. The reason they're here, I suppose, is to cater to people who aren't as deeply invested in the medium. and that's fine, but I think it's great that those of us who do care a lot are catered to here, unlike on most other games sites.
the small size of the staff is definitely part of that. it's like the difference between getting a ticket to go see AC/DC or somesuch band, and having to pay 80 dollars for a ticket in the nosebleed seats where you can barely even see the band, and going to a 5 dollar punk or indie or underground metal show where you can shake hands with the band, and drink and talk with them after the show.
personally, I wish Patrick would be a little more confrontational. But I do understand that that might have unfortunate negative repercussions.
@RedRavN said:
I suppose that criticism in a game review requires some type of qualifying statement to really be appropriate. For example, its one thing to say that "uncharted 3 is linear and therefore less of a game than it could have been" and another to say "There are examples in the industry of less scripted games being great and the market is saturated with linear games, so some people might be dissapointed that the experience feels familiar".
Good or bad design is at times subjective, so perhaps a reviewer should be extra careful when doing that comparison.
I also think its funny how people are making all kinds of inferences about ME3 when none of these articles are even about that.
It's really interesting to see how linearity vs. non-linearity has played out in gaming after GTA became the go-to template for a variety of genre games and the rise of the MMO. Skyrim's QUESTS QUESTS QUESTS theory of gameplay looks pretty fucking terrible as a design choice when you write it down on paper and yet somehow it was basically GOTY by default. On the other hand there were times when Uncharted 3 barely even qualified as a "game" but you'll be hard pressed to find a gamer who didn't play at least one of the two in 2011.
manveer seems rather fixated on the entire numerical rating system. also, there's something slightly incriminating in this particular quote:
"I'm working on a sequel to a game that has a 96 rating and won Game of the Year awards all over the place in 2010. The Mass Effect 3 team will tell you that it is a better game than Mass Effect 2 in every single way. But there is no way, in my eyes, Mass Effect 3 is beating a 96 score..."
how is that relevant to the journalist, the critic, to know how the developer feels about their own game? that shouldn't enter into the equation one iota, no matter how chummy the two may be. perhaps he didn't mean it that way, but ultimately the person providing the criticism shouldn't have to concern themselves with any form of consensus.
I find it funny that IGN decides to post an article incredibly similar to this, but with their own nonsensical borderline retarded spin on it. Naturally of course it isn't as well written, because the chimp that the Soviets launched into space could probably write a better article.
@MormonWarrior said:
"Abbie Heppe came under intense scrutiny for her review of Metroid: Other M. What do you think?"
I think that game is complete and total garbage and shouldn't have been made, purely from a gameplay perspective but also the story is awful. Ms. Heppe's arguments of sexism are true, but a weird thing to hold against a game. Frankly, they completely ruined Samus' character. She's always been a strong, independent, kick-butt female character that didn't need anyone else. They turned her into a whiny, needy little brat of a girl that was all too ready to listen to the nonsensical commands of a former command officer.
Of course, why did anyone expect any differently from the people who brought you the crazily misogynistic Dead or Alive Xtreme series?
I think that she's come under fire for the same shit before too though. I believe it was her that accused Starcraft II, of all the fucking things out there to accuse, of sexism because of the night elf hologram dancing in the Cantina of the Hyperion. If it wasn't her it was some other stupid bitch at G4. Regardless reviewing a game is fine, and critiquing it is fine too, but the whole idea of personal values and beliefs skewing that review is unbelievably stupid. If you don't like a genre pass on the review and pick something else up instead. Throw your political and ideological thinking out the of the window while you're at it as well. We, and I think I speak for most people, don't want to read about your moral beliefs in a review. There are fucking blogs, podcasts, twitter, and many many more outlets for that.
I'd argue that a game in a series can and should be compared to its peers, and especially to its predecessors. A technically perfect game that does almost nothing new does not deserve as high a score as the game which did it first.
I don't necessarily approve of the Uncharted 3 review that people are citing, because it compares Uncharted 3 to an ideal that, in the word of AAA games at least (in indie games, developers are able to accomplish a lot more, in an artistic sense), doesn't really have any basis in reality.
because let's face it, for the most part, mainstream games are just stupid fun. often extremely stupid. because that's what the average gamer obviously wants.
Besides, you could just say that UC3 isn't that great because it's not ambitious. like Modern warfare 3, it's kind of beating a dead horse. and I think that would be valid. you don't have to drag in a bunch of hippie bullshit.
@AiurFlux: You literally just called someone a "bitch" for having the nerve to be offended by sexism and with the same breath proclaimed to speak for "most people". This would be an excellent time to excuse yourself from the discussion and go talk to yourself in a corner somewhere since, as the voice of gaming, you already know what everyone else is going to say.
I want official reviews to be written by a pro with the help of a 100% total noob every time. A child, first time gamer whatever. Someone with the freshest perspective possible, then the professional journalist makes a review based on BOTH of their opinions. oh yea and what about a binary score, good or bad and that is all you can choose in the review as a score.
Anyone like this idea?
great job on the articles Pat
@AiurFlux said:
I find it funny that IGN decides to post an article incredibly similar to this, but with their own nonsensical borderline retarded spin on it. Naturally of course it isn't as well written, because the chimp that the Soviets launched into space could probably write a better article.
@MormonWarrior said:
"Abbie Heppe came under intense scrutiny for her review of Metroid: Other M. What do you think?"
I think that game is complete and total garbage and shouldn't have been made, purely from a gameplay perspective but also the story is awful. Ms. Heppe's arguments of sexism are true, but a weird thing to hold against a game. Frankly, they completely ruined Samus' character. She's always been a strong, independent, kick-butt female character that didn't need anyone else. They turned her into a whiny, needy little brat of a girl that was all too ready to listen to the nonsensical commands of a former command officer.
Of course, why did anyone expect any differently from the people who brought you the crazily misogynistic Dead or Alive Xtreme series?
I think that she's come under fire for the same shit before too though. I believe it was her that accused Starcraft II, of all the fucking things out there to accuse, of sexism because of the night elf hologram dancing in the Cantina of the Hyperion. If it wasn't her it was some other stupid bitch at G4. Regardless reviewing a game is fine, and critiquing it is fine too, but the whole idea of personal values and beliefs skewing that review is unbelievably stupid. If you don't like a genre pass on the review and pick something else up instead. Throw your political and ideological thinking out the of the window while you're at it as well. We, and I think I speak for most people, don't want to read about your moral beliefs in a review. There are fucking blogs, podcasts, twitter, and many many more outlets for that.
Really?
I mean, really?
Get out.
In hindsight, Mass Effect 2 was rather linear. But the technical side was so much better than the first and the characters so well written it was universally well received. If the 3rd game finishes the series off with a lot of closure and the technical side is even better, who cares if it's not a 96 on Metacritic. Would a 92 not do? I guess those bonuses aren't in the check if that's the case.
One thing I can't stand about certain reviews is the raw arrogance of some reviewers and how they write their reviews. It's as if they can't look at themselves in the mirror without saying, oh yeah, I'm the reviewer, hear me, know me, I am the last word. But there again, a review not written well or that has facts wrong really gets on my last nerve. I like Patrick, but his review of Skyward Sword was less than satisfying. It seemed all over the place. I really couldn't understand where he was coming from or the points he was trying to make with how the sentences were structured.
But I'm just a fan. I use reviews for many different purposes. Some are for entertainment while others are for future purchasing decisions. The scores are only a small part of my evaluation. Scores do matter, but more on an individual basis. On Metacritic, I understand that there's a very small difference between a game with a score of 92 and one with a 96. Some of my favorite games have been in the 80's. And the gaming gods forgive, 70's.
@MormonWarrior said:
"Abbie Heppe came under intense scrutiny for her review of Metroid: Other M. What do you think?"
I think that game is complete and total garbage and shouldn't have been made, purely from a gameplay perspective but also the story is awful. Ms. Heppe's arguments of sexism are true, but a weird thing to hold against a game. Frankly, they completely ruined Samus' character. She's always been a strong, independent, kick-butt female character that didn't need anyone else. They turned her into a whiny, needy little brat of a girl that was all too ready to listen to the nonsensical commands of a former command officer.
Of course, why did anyone expect any differently from the people who brought you the crazily misogynistic Dead or Alive Xtreme series?
You're welcome to your opinion, but the story wasn't written by Team Ninja. I would encourage you to get your facts straight before slinging insults.
yeah that particular quote reminded me in a bad way of Cliffy B bemoaning the fact that Gears of war 3 didn't get as good a score as Gears of War 2 despite being better in every way. which kind of misses the point I feel. because, even if gears of War 3 is better, it's not an innovative game. It's basically more of the gears formula, which you've already played a bunch of before. albeit in a more polished form, and with the admittedly pretty cool horde mode tacked on, among other things. and so, it deserved the score it got.
and in the end, it's all really stupid, because publishers are the only people who care about the minute differences in review scores. developers care because those minute differences mean that they'll get paid less by the assholes in charge. and the people buying the games don't really care either! Modern Warfare 3 for instance I'm sure has sold pretty damn well despite a lukewarm reception from most reviewers.
again, this is why I love giantbomb, because here we're not entirely dependant on stupid review scores to tell us if a game is good or bad.
@damnable_fiend said:
I agree with you completely. I apologize if my previous comment seemed a little harsh. I'd just finished IGN's review of Amy, and it pissed me off :that a site could get away with trashing an indie game and giving terrible big budget games much higher scores. :/ so what I said was kind of hyperbolic I suppose..
But yes, it is unfortunate that, in order to make a profit, AAA games have to attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and that more often than not, when they try to do something different, which is difficult and more often than not results in a less polished game (see, the output of Obsidian and Troika) they are punished for it.
Though... at the same time, I don't think developers should necessarily get high scores for playing it safe. I blame shitty sites like ign for getting us into this situation.
it's complicated. but I still don't agree with game designers bashing games criticism, and trying to get poor reviews taken down.
Sure it was slightly harsh, but truth hurts as they say.
Your example of Amy is exactly why the system is so messed up, because it naturally promotes AAA titles over indies, sure there are exceptions, but usually that isn't the case unfortunately.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think I agree with your side Patrick. If I read a review that says Uncharted 3 was too linear, I know that's that reviewer speaking to his taste. The same as a reviewer saying Transformers was too action packed with no downtime to think... Well, I know. It's Transformers! (well, it's Michael Bay!) It does suck for developers, and I can imagine the frustration they feel. But I have to assume that frustration especially reaches their core because they and their friends jobs could depend on it. That is what truly needs to change. (although, I would like more criticism around, like is discussed. Although honestly, that's kinda what I find podcasts give me often.)
@gringbot said:
@damnable_fiend said:
I agree with you completely. I apologize if my previous comment seemed a little harsh. I'd just finished IGN's review of Amy, and it pissed me off :that a site could get away with trashing an indie game and giving terrible big budget games much higher scores. :/ so what I said was kind of hyperbolic I suppose..
But yes, it is unfortunate that, in order to make a profit, AAA games have to attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and that more often than not, when they try to do something different, which is difficult and more often than not results in a less polished game (see, the output of Obsidian and Troika) they are punished for it.
Though... at the same time, I don't think developers should necessarily get high scores for playing it safe. I blame shitty sites like ign for getting us into this situation.
it's complicated. but I still don't agree with game designers bashing games criticism, and trying to get poor reviews taken down.
Sure it was slightly harsh, but truth hurts as they say.
Your example of Amy is exactly why the system is so messed up, because it naturally promotes AAA titles over indies, sure there are exceptions, but usually that isn't the case unfortunately.
But is it really fair to cut a game slack if it's an indie title? Not really. Any time a game fails to live up to its aspirations, it should be pointed out. Amy might not be the worst game ever (that's a title that's impossible to truly qualify), but even as an indie game, it suffers from numerous technical flaws, and as a horror game, it depends on elements that are rote and clumsily executed. Even compared to other indie games, Amy executes poorly in a number of ways. That's not to say that the developer couldn't work to improve it. Such happened after Hydrophobia was thrashed in reviews. But just like a big budget game shouldn't be given top scores just because it's a big name game in a big name franchise from a big name developer, criticism of an indie game shouldn't be any less severe because of its budget or staff.
I mean, I have no idea how many people made Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. I have no idea what their budget was. Regardless, it is a broken, horrible game, even if it was made by one guy working for $10/hour and food stamps.
Absolutely fantastic piece Patrick, immensely enjoyable and of course, thought-provoking.
Hope to see more in the near future.
Great discussion, very civil and thoughtful. I still share Manveer's concern that this review philosophy Patrick explains, that a critic should observe problems while making certain not to offer solutions, leads reviewers to point out intractable problems (e.g., linearity or franchising). Still, asking an end-user to know what insights will be useful to a domain-expert is neither tractable or useful in its dual role as buying advice to potential customers. Still, I think there's always room to read between the lines. In the case of the Uncharted 3 review in question, it says in so many words that Uncharted 3 is far too scripted. The implications of that observation is that it wasn't disguised well enough. So the real question is: Did Uncharted 2 do a better job of creating the illusion of agency? I think that perhaps it did, if only because it was a larger leap visually from the original game.
I really enjoyed this Pat!
Manveer is doing more harm to the Uncharted brand than he realizes, journalism conference to discuss the state of the art of game reviewing? His view of the situation is way too lofty, and it is distorted. GDC magically makes all game devs perfect? All game devs must be perfect after years GDC attendence! Y U NO MAKE GDC FOR GAME REVIEWING!!??
These letters are a whole lot of bull, when the real matter is Manveer thinks it was unfair Modern Warfare and other linear games didn't get the same criticisms UC3 did. Which was the opinion of one guy, or at least he is concentrating fire on one guy. He should never have agreed to publishing these letters, now at least giantbomb readers will just focus on this one flaw of UC3 which probably isn't really a flaw at all, maybe dying is too harsh, but its still better than letting me wonder aimlessly doing fuck all nothing for half an hour ...
Great articles, reminds me of the back and forth series that N'gai Croal and Stephen Totilo used to do. And I just want to say that I think Manveer didn't give games journalists quite enough credit. Sure, the big review factories still exist and are huger than ever, but there are people out there doing their own thing. Giant Bomb exists because of people breaking out to do their own thing (admittedly, the GB crew did have a good, shall we say, incentive to go independent). But look at sites like the Escapist, and Edge, and for the love of God, go watch Extra Credits on Penny Arcade TV. These are people doing real criticism and exploring what makes games good and bad and what they mean. The fact that these places have smaller audiences than the giganto-sites doesn't take away from the value of what they're saying.
I still look at the problem being developers use of Metacritic in a way that most gamers don't. Most gamers look at Metacritic to find a high and a low to give the greatest contrasting arguments for why a game may or may not be worth their $5 to $60.
Personally I subscribe with trying to find reviewers who's writing style I enjoy, find a comparison between my game tastes and theirs, and use it as a compass point that I use that distance to find what I might think.
I also believe that you can't have a reviewer, game journalist or enthusiast press get together such as GDC. Individuals don't work that way and a review is nothing more than a form of expression from an individual. Ask Jeff if he would like an overseeing body to watch and critique what he does.
@Hailinel said:
But is it really fair to cut a game slack if it's an indie title? Not really. Any time a game fails to live up to its aspirations, it should be pointed out. Amy might not be the worst game ever (that's a title that's impossible to truly qualify), but even as an indie game, it suffers from numerous technical flaws, and as a horror game, it depends on elements that are rote and clumsily executed. Even compared to other indie games, Amy executes poorly in a number of ways. That's not to say that the developer couldn't work to improve it. Such happened after Hydrophobia was thrashed in reviews. But just like a big budget game shouldn't be given top scores just because it's a big name game in a big name franchise from a big name developer, criticism of an indie game shouldn't be any less severe because of its budget or staff.
I mean, I have no idea how many people made Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. I have no idea what their budget was. Regardless, it is a broken, horrible game, even if it was made by one guy working for $10/hour and food stamps.
Well, obviously if a game is broken in certain area's it should be acknowledged. Truthfully, I don't know enough about Amy to say anything good or bad about it (but I can easily assume that it doesn't deserve a 2/10 from IGN), however, my point was that generally speaking indie titles need to be "exceptional" to get even decent scores, but AAA titles can be extremely bland and mediocre but still get very high scores due to it's high-budget presentation.
If you go back to my other posts you can see my opinion about it in greater detail, I cut out the back and forth conversation we had when I quoted him in that last post because then it would be a 'textwall' of previous posts.
I refer to Ken Rolston's comments on the Amalur Bombcast, people want the same thing in a surprising way.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment