• 65 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Random45 (1233 posts) -

Article right here.

So this is a day old, but I didn't see it anywhere on this forum, so I wanted to bring it up.

Now, I'm not saying that Game Journalism is inherently bad of course, I genuinely enjoy a lot of the articles Patrick puts up for instance, but it seems that lately, with all of the really controversial topics popping up in gaming, more than ever are we getting what we refer to as 'click-bait' articles. This guy writes about a recent article on Destructoid in which the author, Jonathan Holmes, claims that he liked the random tripping mechanic in Super Smash Bros: Brawl, and that he felt like people who didn't like it were people who want to essentially be 'controlling'. Needless to say, this article came across as very insulting to fans who like the competitive nature of Melee over the more "casual" friendly nature of Brawl.

Basically, Chris Wagar articulates better than I EVER could about how game journalism is basically devolving to a point where they can't spend a lot of time with a game to learn all of their systems, so they don't understand the intricacies of the the game and how it truly works on a fundamental level. It really culminates in this article, where Mr. Holmes doesn't understand at all what he's really talking about, but because he's a gaming journalist, he's "above" those who truly do know how it works and why it's a genuinely bad thing. Chris Wagar also points out how the article seemingly takes pot-shots at those who prefer melee, and the whole 'tripping' subject merely felt like a way to belittle those who prefer melee over brawl. What didn't help matters at all was the fact that a lot of the fans of melee came out like rabid wolverines and only appeared to make Holme's point stronger, since he could point out to those people and claim that he's right... Which he did on twitter, taunting those people who got so upset by the article.

This is why game journalism should be more professional. Opinion articles ALWAYS tackle a controversial topic, and ALWAYS generate a lot of hits because of that. An example that immediately comes to mind is when Gamespot posted an article about artistic integrity and the ending of Mass Effect 3. They KNEW it was a hot topic, and they knew it would generate a ton of hits, which is exactly why they posted it. For people who are supposedly our voice, game journalist can be surprisingly childish and petty, which I suppose at least fits a majority of the community they represent.

So basically, the point I'm trying to get across is that Game Journalist should spend more time with games so they actually know what they are talking about, and they should try to act more professional. No more being dicks on twitter, no more controversial opinion articles, and more articles actually relevant to gaming and not there solely to gather more clicks.

Sorry I rambled a bit there.

#2 Edited by ThePhantomnaut (6201 posts) -

Tripping is pretty much close to that of artificial difficulty. There are Brawl players who manage to avoid the inclusion altogether though.

In Brawl, every dash is a test of character, a display of willingness to play the odds. That kind of acceptance of random elements is what elevates a game to a sport. When a pitcher stands on the mound, or the batter steps up to the plate, they aren't going to back down because there is a chance that wind, rain, or other random environmental variables may cause an "unfair" loss of control. If a fighter in the UFC accidentally slips on his or his opponents spit/sweat/blood, he or she wont demand that the rules of the game be changed so that "tripping is taken out". They're willing to face the fact that in sports and in real life, some amount of chaos and discomfort is inevitable. It's their love of the game and their passion for self improvement that pushes them to face their fear of the unknown.

This analogy seems to be an inappropriate one. You can't really liken competitive, at least fighting, games to that of real life competitive sports where variables are accepted to occur. These games are designed in a controlled situation where the only irregular exceptions occur primarily through player output rather than sudden, artificial and halting mechanics. So yeah... this piece was just unfortunate.

Games Beat' Gran Turismo 6 review has always bugged me since it was made by someone who was just given the game with no real interest in racing games. Maybe reviewers don't have to be necessarily be super knowledgeable about a game or genre but should be able to digest what's given and provide an appropriate explanation and overview. I might not know GT games nor much racing simulators but if given the game for review, I will surely want to understand the intricacies and how they reflect upon each other.

With things like YouTube probably being more relied upon for unsure gamers, the written portion really needs to level up.

I might be rambling too. ;)

#3 Posted by Rowr (5824 posts) -

Destructoid have been generally known to unapologetically write opinionated reviews.

Which is why I never go near that site and the snarky assholes it attracts.

This sort of just comes back to what reviews mean and how they should be interpreted nowdays. People writing a load of bs about a game they don't understand the fundamentals of in a review is certainly nothing new though.

#4 Edited by StarvingGamer (8376 posts) -

Yo, is Destructoid one of the sites we shit on like Kotaku? I can never remember these things.

More importantly, I think we just need to fucking stop calling it "journalism". A majority of the gaming press is made up of entertainment writers. Once you make that mental distinction, your expectations should lower sufficiently on their own.

It's a shame because the few actual journalists out there in gaming are almost entirely focused on writing human interest stories. That said, there are always a few gems that pop up here and there like @patrickklepek's articles about the nitty-gritty of Spelunky and of course those were good because he spent dozens (hundreds?) of fucking hours with that game so he knew his shit. Admittedly those stories will still about the people, but they were largely told by way of a keen understanding of the mechanics. Hopefully, as the entire industry matures, we'll get more people like Patrick, who has started to nurture his desire to understand a game before he shits on it (although he still seems intent on taking the piss out of anything named Final Fantasy whenever he gets the chance which drives me absolutely crazy).

I can't wait to see what comes of his sojourn with Dynasty Warriors.

EDIT: No forreal, fuck that article. I might as well write an article about how baseball is boring and shitty and how baseball players are control freaks because they wouldn't like it if every baseball thrown had a 1/256 chance of exploding upon contact with the bat. Or if the second baseman was a robot with tank treads and a laser sword. Yo BASEWAAAAAAAARS!

#5 Posted by Neonie (438 posts) -

I don't think the problem here is with game journalism so much as that John Holmes is a person who is really good at talking down to people and then blaming those people for getting upset that they're being talked down too.

#6 Posted by wemibelec90 (1743 posts) -

The only problem is that games writers (which is the term I prefer anyways) often don't have the time to fully learn every game that comes there way. At this point, we see dozens (if not hundreds) of games released on Steam every day in addition to major releases. Even if only a small fraction of those games are worth exploring, it's still a crap-ton of games that we know mostly nothing about. Sites like GB devote their time to covering as much as possible (which may be the "wrong" approach, but it's their choice) and can very rarely spend the dozens/hundreds of hours with a game to truly understand its complexities. That's not to say it isn't possible--Patrick with Spelunky, Brad with Dota 2--but I don't know if it's something we should expect of our games writers--at least not all of them.

As for controversial articles, I agree with you that many of them are just written to generate pageviews and thousands of angry comments that keep people talking. I don't think that saying those articles shouldn't be written, however, is the right way to go about it. If we don't write about those things we feel are super important, no matter how controversial they may be, what's the point of even writing about games in the first place? Instead, games writers should strive to take some responsibility before writing a deeper article and do their damn research before saying things they falsely understand to be true. Even with games that they don't know well, it is possible to do some research and talk to actual members of a game's devoted community and find out what is really truthful first.

The rest of your post is spot on. Twitter seems to be the place where games writers feel that they can vent with no repercussions to what they say. Being an asshole is never the right answer, even with someone who deserves it. Maintaining that professionalism is key in this socially-saturated era of writing we live in. Also, I can't tell you how infuriated I get by articles that are loosely tied to gaming and have no place on a gaming site. I remember one particular example of an assault (maybe a stabbing? I can't remember) at a game store for a particular game launch, covered by a big gaming site. Why does that need to belong on such a site? Does it really add anything to the discussion, just because games were in the general vicinity of the attack? There's a lot of bullshit that needs to be cleaned up.

#7 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3820 posts) -

@random45 said:

This is why game journalism should be more professional. Opinion articles ALWAYS tackle a controversial topic, and ALWAYS generate a lot of hits because of that. An example that immediately comes to mind is when Gamespot posted an article about artistic integrity and the ending of Mass Effect 3. They KNEW it was a hot topic, and they knew it would generate a ton of hits, which is exactly why they posted it. For people who are supposedly our voice, game journalist can be surprisingly childish and petty, which I suppose at least fits a majority of the community they represent.

Should the gaming press write opinion articles? Sure, but they should write them as if they were trying to convince a close friend of theirs to agree with something that they are currently opposed to. Instead, too many of them take on an "US VS THEM" mindset, where they just find themselves preaching to the converted and generalizing / disrespecting / demonizing those who disagree.

Of course, the same is true for anyone who picks a side in any heated issue.

For people who are supposedly our voice, game journalist can be surprisingly childish and petty, which I suppose at least fits a majority of the community they represent.

Irony called. It told me to tell you hello.

#8 Posted by HeyGuys (542 posts) -

Games writers absolutely have a problem expressing what they like and dislike about games and that could have something to do with not being able to familiarize themselves with the game's systems, but this Brawl article is kind of just a guy being immature.

You really want to demonstrate the problem here just ban games writer's from using the word "tight" for a year and boom you've killed the whole field.

#9 Posted by Wolfgame (816 posts) -

Usually the pattern bugs me more than the substance, we find game journalists that have no issue actively kicking a hornets nest on controversial issues just so they can play the "parental figure" later calling for sensibility and calmness on twitter.

#10 Posted by Veektarius (4921 posts) -

Game reviews are not ambiguous. Even though some people don't like it, they have scores attached to them, and those scores are aggregated and averaged on metacritic. My personal experience is that if you know a game's metacritic score and you weight that score heavily with your own prior experience with similar games, you can make the right decision on whether to buy a game 9 times out of 10. What game is it that you feel was slighted in particular by reviewers who didn't totally grasp the systems? Certainly not Mass Effect 3 - that isn't even a game to which the question of reviewer skill is relevant.

#11 Posted by Make_Me_Mad (3108 posts) -

I kinda liked tripping in Brawl.

#12 Posted by GERALTITUDE (3429 posts) -

For the love of god it's not journalism. It's just a blog post. Do we call VGK's blogs journalism? No. And shit they're probably closer.

Applies to 99% of all writing on games websites.

Never understand why people take any of that seriously at all.

#13 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1644 posts) -

This part really resonated with me:

[...] The reviewer will typically summarize the theme of the game, the major mechanics used by the player, and a general statement on the “experience” of playing the game.

Some academics have criticized this, claiming it is shallow, and we need more criticism of games and less mere reviews. These academics are correct, but more frequently than not what they mean by “criticism” of the game isn’t discussion of how the mechanics operate to create a fun, interactive experience, but rather analysis of the cultural significance of the game, how interactive functions are used for a narrative resonance, or the message the game is supposed to convey. Yet the problem remains that when I read the typical game review, I have no ability to tell from their writing whether the game is good or not and I am forced to rely on my friends or longer segments of gameplay footage to help give me an idea how the game actually works, and feels to play. Describing gameplay in an explicit way that people can understand is hard and not well explored, so critics and academics tend to fall back on elements of film or literature theory that have dissolved into the public consciousness, and vague opinions on whether the game feels nice or not. This is part of why there is a general trend of the gaming press highly praising works with large narrative content.

I'd never thought about it that way, but now that I do, I think he's onto something: most modern game criticism avoids describing and evaluating game mechanics, or does so in the service of an argument focussed on the narrative implications of a gameplay system ("ludonarrative dissonance", etc.). As someone who's struggled with it, I also agree that this tendency is probably a result of gameplay systems being more difficult to describe than narrative. Many university-educated people have at least taken a course in film criticism, and film criticism is a known and fairly-well-respected field -- it's an obvious and well-trodden method of criticizing games.

It's also, of course, the case that most professional game writers are operating on tight schedules and don't necessarily have the time to really pick apart and evaluate gameplay systems at a more fundamental level. Hell, the Player One Podcast guys are constantly joking about the fact that EGM reviewers (late-1990s to mid-2000s) often (usually?) didn't finish the games they were scoring.

To be fair, narrative is a bigger part of games than ever, and critics should be skilled at evaluating narrative as well (though that's far from a given either). In that sense, game criticism is a weird hybrid of film criticism and, uh, sports writing(?) (I'm hard-pressed to come up with a better analogy for criticism of game mechanics). For a lot of modern games (to pick an example from this thread, Mass Effect 3), most readers are probably much more concerned with the story than they are with the mechanics. Most people experience the story of games on a fairly similar level, but only a pretty small subset deviate from the undemanding easy and normal difficulty settings. I'm certainly guilty of sticking with the normal difficulty setting on most games, and I know that means I'm missing out on what makes some games special. I chose not to write about Vanquish recently because I played through it on normal and didn't feel like I was qualified to write about it, but I wouldn't have been able to make that call if I was getting paid to review it, and I'd probably have produced a facile review in that case.

I also very much agree about the self-congratulatory, patronizing dismissiveness a lot of games writers will resort to when challenged. To some degree, I understand it as a coping mechanism, but I think it betrays a closed-mindedness and self-assurance that's counter-productive to smart and introspective criticism. If someone's first response to counter-criticism is to take to Twitter to make fun of it and solicit commiseration from their friends -- rather than even consider the idea that there might be something to it -- I tend to think that reflects badly upon their skill as a critic.

#14 Posted by Budwyzer (598 posts) -

While I agreed with Patrick's write-up about the paradox that is Aiden Pierce, I don't generally give a damn about articles.

QLs FTW!

#15 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5720 posts) -

@starvinggamer: Destructoid is fine, I like this review in particular (even if it's an overreaction), as someone who beat that game out of spite. Also this:

#16 Posted by StarvingGamer (8376 posts) -

What game is it that you feel was slighted in particular by reviewers who didn't totally grasp the systems?

Monster Hunter springs to mind.

#17 Posted by Tennmuerti (8140 posts) -

@veektarius said:

What game is it that you feel was slighted in particular by reviewers who didn't totally grasp the systems?

Monster Hunter springs to mind.

I'll add Alpha Protocol to that list.

#18 Edited by reverendk (54 posts) -

@neonie said:

I don't think the problem here is with game journalism so much as that John Holmes is a person who is really good at talking down to people and then blaming those people for getting upset that they're being talked down too.

I think that is something that lots of game journalist type people do. I don't keep a running tab but it's enough to really turn me away from most "games" writing.

Here is a picture of a sloth positioned on the left side of my post. It's pretty cute.

#19 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5720 posts) -

@tennmuerti: Alpha Protocol is fun if you play it on easy with shotguns; it's far from a great game except for the storyline though.

#20 Edited by Tennmuerti (8140 posts) -

@fredchuckdave said:

@tennmuerti: Alpha Protocol is fun if you play it on easy with shotguns; it's far from a great game except for the storyline though.

I was specifically commenting on not understanding of systems.

And I'll also disagree with you in general on the above, but that's not really important to the conversation. :)

#21 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5720 posts) -

@tennmuerti: Obsidian makes very straight forward/simple games so fundamentally even the games-challenged games reviewing press probably understood how the systems worked; they were just so used to games with snappy controls that looked similar to Alpha Protocol. Seriously though, being completely invincible while murdering as many people as loudly as possible fits in perfectly with the super stealthy spy narrative; its amazing.

#22 Posted by Marokai (3063 posts) -

I came across this article a couple days ago and, indeed, I thought it was pretty great and cut straight to a lot of the problems I have with most "critics." It's for a lot of the reasons and points laid out in the article that I've started gravitating more toward Two Best Friends because they focus a great deal on the gameplay systems of video games and much less so on story-focused experiences with far too streamlined mechanics. They're way into fighting games, Smash, and others. They're capable of talking at-length about the mechanics of games that they like and it's so much more enlightening than most other places I've consumed video game coverage from.

Opening up my mind to deeper conversations about mechanics has made me think of games like Smash and genres like Character Action and Third Person Shooters in a completely different light. It's made me think about and appreciate games on a whole new level and revisit my opinions of games that I considered "okay" but never outstanding. I never "got" Character Action games until I started listening to them explain them and talk about them, and now Bayonetta 2 is my most anticipated game of the year. I now "get" Devil May Cry. I now want to play Smash, despite never understanding the mechanical appeal before. And I got this new appreciate for games from a level that is exclusive to games and not some film criticism ripoff from jack-offs on YouTube who are actually way into games, and not a proper outlet. The evangelizing of what makes games different, and what makes games special, doesn't seem to be coming from the "professionals."

#23 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4851 posts) -

@tennmuerti said:

@fredchuckdave said:

@tennmuerti: Alpha Protocol is fun if you play it on easy with shotguns; it's far from a great game except for the storyline though.

I was specifically commenting on not understanding of systems.

And I'll also disagree with you in general on the above, but that's not really important to the conversation. :)

I love AP, but come on man, it was pretty busted.

#24 Posted by Tennmuerti (8140 posts) -

@fredchuckdave: Ok, just for the sake of the argument. Jeff of GB, spreads all his points in various stats with no focus, in an rpg. Then complains how shooting sucks because it has dice rolls and is inaccurate. Even tho it's A. a simple spread/recoil like in other games B. focusing on a weapon type will make several of them have pinpoint accuracy and little to no recoil beyond even normal shooters. That's the simplest example I still recall, there were others.

#25 Edited by Fallen189 (5034 posts) -

Calling them journalists is a misnomer. They write about human interest, and are trade press at a push.

Online
#26 Posted by Tennmuerti (8140 posts) -

@tennmuerti said:

@fredchuckdave said:

@tennmuerti: Alpha Protocol is fun if you play it on easy with shotguns; it's far from a great game except for the storyline though.

I was specifically commenting on not understanding of systems.

And I'll also disagree with you in general on the above, but that's not really important to the conversation. :)

I love AP, but come on man, it was pretty busted.

How busted? It had some bugs for sure, I'll agree. Tho personally I have not encountered any significant ones a reload couldn't fix over several playthroughs. It was no more busted then your average game these days. Less busted then the new Xcom. Certainly no more then BF4 lets say :P

Also again, I am not going to argue AP being docked points for bugs, that wasn't why I brought it up. This is not the topic.

#27 Posted by Ares42 (2729 posts) -

The thing I realized a few years ago is that game reveiwers are a special kind of gamers. Their perspective and approach to games is very different from how most other people relate to games. Due to this you should really only use reviews as a "quality assurance" tool. That's not to say that their over-all score or opinion will be a good indication of how good the game is, but it's a filter that will point out any glaring faults etc.

The simple fact is, if you want an informed opinion you need to seek out a "specialist", not a "general practitioner". The general reveiwers were more relevant back in the day when magazines were a big thing and internet video hadn't taken off, but as internet has developed more and more they've become the dinosaurs of the industry.

Online
#28 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5720 posts) -

@tennmuerti: It's still ridiculous that a highly trained spy can miss a shot against a stationary target that's 20 feet away.

#29 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@tennmuerti: It's still ridiculous that a highly trained spy can miss a shot against a stationary target that's 20 feet away.

Have you seen Archer?

#30 Posted by Kierkegaard (603 posts) -

@random45: I thought the argument he made about deep mechanical understanding of games, and being able to communicate them to an audience, was strong. I disagree with the conclusion that subjectivity in reviews should be overtaken by pure mechanical objectivity, but I can see an important combination.

One example I can think of is when Arthur Gies said that Uncharted's shooting felt bad in comparison to Gears of War. On Rebel FM, he had a hard time articulating why. It's really hard! We can use words like "tight" and "loose" and "responsive" and "dynamic," but they are still stand-ins for a feeling.

There have been multiple quicklooks where Jeff especially will just fire off a gun and talk about how it feels. Enemy Front is the most recent one. If we think about describing why shooting feels good, it has to come down to all the factors involved that are purely mechanical:

  • how long it takes from pressing the trigger to the bullet firing,
  • whether the bullet's trajectory feels fast enough, accurate enough, obvious enough,
  • whether the gun kicks back in a way that feels like something impactful happened,
  • whether the bullets fire too fast and make reloads happen to often, or too show and make reloads feel too seldom,
  • how many bullets it takes to kill different enemies and whether that feels fair (for this, you definitely would need to test and count to convey the reality of your point),
  • how the character reacts to bullets fired at them, whether that reaction is obvious to the player so they can know location of enemy and be able to find safety,
  • whether that reaction makes it too hard to return fire, creating a feedback loop of pain,
  • how fast or slow the movement of your gun's targeting is, whether this is configurable, whether it feels too manic or too slow.

That's just a few mechanical considerations when it comes to designing and reviewing gun play. And all of them are still interpretive and subjective--Killzone's movement could be slow to some and deliberate and impactful for others.

Describing mechanics is really complicated. It may be a great thing to communicate to your reader the "feel" of the game in this way, but whether that feel is good or bad has to come from what you consider a strong mechanic. There are objective elements to games, but reviews will always be about judging those elements subjectively.

#31 Posted by EXTomar (4843 posts) -

The claim that someone needs to be an expert to review something is always fallacy. It is a valid review to take someone who doesn't know anything about racing or racing games to review a game like Gran Turismo 6. Now whether or not this review is useful to you is a different question and dependent on you not the reviewer.

A reviewer can claim he hates or loves something in game for completely arbitrary reasons and that is fine. If someone reading that hates that the reviewer did that then that is fine as well but that isn't "a bad review" either.

#32 Posted by Veektarius (4921 posts) -

@tennmuerti: @starvinggamer: I've played Alpha Protocol and agree with @fredchuckdave that I don't think reviewers had trouble grasping its systems - they just didn't care much for them. Hell, I never finished that game because of how screwed up the last level was. As for Monster Hunter, valid, but those games are also extremely obtuse.

#33 Posted by kishinfoulux (2398 posts) -

Nintendo fanboy Holmes is the problem here.

#34 Edited by Neonie (438 posts) -

@neonie said:

I don't think the problem here is with game journalism so much as that John Holmes is a person who is really good at talking down to people and then blaming those people for getting upset that they're being talked down too.

I think that is something that lots of game journalist type people do. I don't keep a running tab but it's enough to really turn me away from most "games" writing.

Here is a picture of a sloth positioned on the left side of my post. It's pretty cute.

#35 Posted by StarvingGamer (8376 posts) -

@starvinggamer: As for Monster Hunter, valid, but those games are also extremely obtuse.

They're really not, like, in the slightest.

#36 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

@veektarius said:

@starvinggamer: As for Monster Hunter, valid, but those games are also extremely obtuse.

They're really not, like, in the slightest.

It's a pretty simple formula, really. Take quest, go find monster, kill monster, harvest bits from monster, get new gear, repeat.

#37 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@starvinggamer said:
@veektarius said:

@starvinggamer: As for Monster Hunter, valid, but those games are also extremely obtuse.

They're really not, like, in the slightest.

It's a pretty simple formula, really. Take quest, go find monster, kill monster, harvest bits from monster, get new gear, repeat.

There's still room for complexity in that simple formula.

Par example.

#38 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

@video_game_king: You're suggesting that Monster Hunter is lacking in complexity?

#39 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@hailinel:

Quite the opposite; I'm suggesting that it is complex.

#40 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
#41 Posted by StarvingGamer (8376 posts) -

@tennmuerti: It's still ridiculous that a highly trained spy can miss a shot against a stationary target that's 20 feet away.

Never thought you'd be one to play the ludonarrative dissonance card.

#42 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11914 posts) -

This article does a better job explaining my problems with the games press than I would be able to. Giant Bomb mostly avoids the self-congratulatory air of condescension that a lot of games press has towards their readers, which is why I have stayed here. Even then, I wouldn't exactly say that this site is a bastion of nuanced coverage so much as it is an endless supply of dumb hijinks with a little bit of editorializing thrown in.

#43 Posted by SaucyGiraffe (23 posts) -

There is a difference between journalism, editorials, and critique. For some reason everyone lumps all three under journalism.

#44 Posted by ajamafalous (12035 posts) -

For a lot of modern games, most readers are probably much more concerned with the story than they are with the mechanics.

I don't think that's true at all.

I do agree with your final paragraph about most people in the industry not being open to criticism of their work or dismissing disagreement as "oh, that's just the internet being the internet."

#45 Posted by JasonR86 (9742 posts) -

@saucygiraffe:

Totally dude. I would quote what you said but I'm on a phone. But that separation needs to be emphasized more then it is.

#46 Posted by HeyGuys (542 posts) -

There is a difference between journalism, editorials, and critique. For some reason everyone lumps all three under journalism.

Absolutely agree. While we're at it I'd like to add that there's a difference between reviews and criticism (as in artistic analysis). They both have their place but the half-assery often involved in combining the two does no one any favors.

#47 Posted by pyromagnestir (4326 posts) -

@fredchuckdave said:

@tennmuerti: It's still ridiculous that a highly trained spy can miss a shot against a stationary target that's 20 feet away.

Have you seen Archer?

But Archer is supposed to be ridiculous. It's a comedy.

#48 Posted by Slag (4615 posts) -

There is a difference between journalism, editorials, and critique. For some reason everyone lumps all three under journalism.

very true, I see those terms conflated very often.

That seems to be a problem in the industry itself. I'm not even sure some professionals in the field realize the difference.

#49 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1644 posts) -

@grantheaslip said:
For a lot of modern games, most readers are probably much more concerned with the story than they are with the mechanics.

I don't think that's true at all.

I do agree with your final paragraph about most people in the industry not being open to criticism of their work or dismissing disagreement as "oh, that's just the internet being the internet."

Yeah, you're right. I meant something more along the lines of "most readers are probably much more concerned with the story than they are with the nitty-gritty of the mechanics."

For example, it might be the case that DmC's systems are a shallow imitation of DMC4, but not in a way that most readers are going to understand or care about as much as the presentation. I haven't played DMC4 and don't pretend to have my finger on the pulse of the "average gamer", so this is pure speculation, but it might be the case that most gamers are inclined to get more out of DmC than DMC4 even if the mechanics of the DmC are demonstrably inferior. (Sorry if that doesn't make sense -- I haven't fully thought this through!)

#50 Posted by nophilip (151 posts) -

Boy, so many problems in this article. The one I'll highlight is that reviews CANNOT be objective. How can you expect one person's interactions (and following opinions) with a game to apply to everyone? Find reviewers that you feel represent your tastes well and read their stuff. Don't get waste your time getting angry that X reviewer's writings don't line up with your opinions about a game.