Worth Reading: 05/02/2014

I don´t always agree with Tom Chick but the QT3 games podcast is really interesting when he interviews someone, specially game devs , this has a really interesting conversation about game criticism people really should listen to it, the comparition between movie criticism and game criticism regarding big budget products is really on point

The idea that artists shouldn't be told what to change about their art is insane to me. That's one of the central reasons why you produce art and show it to other people: to get feedback. The whole point of showing people your art is so that they will react to it.

Sure, getting people's attention is neat, and receiving praise is super-duper. If you actually want to grow as an artist, though, you need people to tell you what doesn't work. Good artists become great artists through iteration, and part of iteration is finding what went wrong and doing it better next time. And if a bunch of people are mentioning that, hey, maybe the way you handled these characters in your story was super shitty, it behooves you to stop and think about why they reacted that way.

Maybe it's just because I'm an artist myself, but I find infinitely more worth in telling someone what the highs and lows of their work is than any amount of bullshit navel gazing on the piece. I'm not interested in you telling me that this scene is representative of the struggles of modern man in a post-modern society. What I want to know is whether it's making you cry because it's having the intended emotional effect, or if it's because you're literally bored to tears. Because that's useful information that I can use to make myself a better artist and make you a better piece of art to enjoy.

And for anyone worried about the C-word, please let me allay your fears. If you're seriously concerned that a critic is somehow going to censor an artist, don't be. They can't. You know who can? Governments. Save your ire for them.Everyone else is just trying to get you better video games, trust me.

"Who knew rocker Andrew W.K. was a wordsmith?"

Anyone who's ever listened to his I Get Wet album.

Andrew W.K. is awesome. He has always been the most positive person I have ever met.

So even if this happens, people are just "trying to get me better video games"?

http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149

Our kickstarter campaign for Divinity: Original Sin has gotten quite some criticism on its original poster art. Apparently it was deemed to be sexistic and women unfriendly by the way the female protagonist was portrayed: with a bare belly.

A bare belly was for some enough a trigger to send our company enough hate and threatening mails to persuade my boss to ask me to change the cover. I did, but did so reluctantly. Disagreeing wholeheartedly with the claim of the artwork being sexistic, the better half of me decided to meet "offended-by-design" people somewhere in the middle.

In the world of journalism there are channels that take an aggressive stance against everything they judge even remotely sexistic and in many instances denying the word of opposition by disabling criticism and reactions on their articles or blogs. Also blackmails in the form of "change your game art or we won't publish a single word about you." is a common behavior found among those.

Fact is, there is a strong lobby going on out there which is holding a very aggressive campaign for women in the games industry. Despite that its root is very well hidden it is recruiting a lot of followers including some big names.

So when the developer of the South Park game is forced to change their game, or else not be allowed to release their game in Australia, that's censorship. Right?

But when a developer is forced to change their game, or else face a massive social backlash--including game journalists who claim "we won't publish a single word about you,"--that's not censorship?

Isn't 'proper female representation' a subjective issue? Because people on both sides of this issue act like their opinion is always correct, and it's ridiculous.

The words "sexist!" and "misogynist!" these days are being used to paint opposing opinion of female representation as a great social wrong, and it's happening in much the same way that "blasphemer!" or "infidel!" has been used in the past to paint opposing opinion of faith as a great social wrong.

What is Censorship? Let's ask the ACLU:

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/censorship

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.

So yes. The "our opinion of female representation is objective truth" movement is absolutely about censorship.

Worth Eating

Calm the fuck down. I was just saying. Holy fucking shit. I thought it was an interesting that a famous person was in a fandom like that. You're the one who decided to go double-barrel tumblr and make it like it was something bad.

@keklolbur: That's perhaps the best interview I have ever seen.

Holy shit dat DuckTales! Smooth.

@patrickklepek My biggest issue with the way you were talking about the Metal Gear stuff was you said "Kojima is trying too hard." I hate the "trying too hard" phrase. It just seems like an asshole thing to say. "Oh, you are attempting to do/make something and giving it too much effort." It's always just bothered me.

More to the point on the MGS discussion, all that rape stuff just seemed to me as a way to set up that skull face bro as a super rotten dude. I dunno if that is trying too hard or not... but it made me want to put a bullet in his brain. So I guess it was effective.

Man, those comments on the Ellison article are real fuckin garbage.

"I came to read about a video game!!!"

Fuck you!

No, that's not censorship. Censorship would be not allowing the game to exist in its intended form. Denying coverage, threatening boycott (unless on a monopolistic retailer scale), or pledging to not support the game is not preventing it from existing in whatever form creators want. Censorship comes from positions of power, not from the oppressed.

But don't

demonstrate power? If they didn't, people wouldn't do them.

Honestly though is Kojima really thinking like an artist now? I felt like he stopped that for MGS4 in which he just want to wrap shit up and deliver as much fan service as possible.

It's a brilliant album. And God Like cover art:

im with you as well initally skullface just based on the trailers, looked like he might be a pretty goofy villian which was disappointing to me especially if this is the last game that deals with big boss,

but his role based of ground zeroes now, that dude is a very twisted psychopath that seems like he's gonna really push big boss and i cant wait to go after him.

Criticism is the conversation artists have with the audience. Acting like fawning adoration is the only acceptable "opinion" to express and treating review scores like the be-all end-all of games criticism is part of why the medium is trapped in adolescence.

Patrick, I see where you are coming from as far as criticism is concerned and I agree 100% when that criticism measures up to the ideas that you are putting forth. Unfortunately, it seems to be an increasing occurrence where the people doing the criticism are leaning on an incredibly shallow and superficial explanations as to what they feel is wrong with a game. Too many times I have heard you say, "the writing was just bad." Well that is not good enough, especially if you want to label yourself a critic. The thing about it is I know, and I think most people here recognize, that you (and some others) are capable of meaningful thoughtful critiques and I am baffled as to why this elementary level of criticism could ever see the light of day on the site or on the podcasts.

I know their are some inherent trouble spots when it comes to reviews. People are afraid of spoilers to an absolute stupid degree, and it is hamstringing the medium. How can you (the royal you, not you specifically) give a thorough critique if you are forced to avoid a significant piece of the package that you are reviewing?

There has been some talk on the podcasts, mostly from Jeff, about rethinking the way that reviews are done, and my suggestion would be to say, "fuck spoilers." There is no part of the game that is off limits as far as a review is concerned, and a review is not complete until every part has been touched. Of course you aren't going to go through and recount everything that happens, but if there is something that has an impact on the product, for good or for ill, it shouldn't be left out. Not only will that lead to better criticism and more thorough discussions, it will pull you guys away from the current level of dumb reviews that littler the Games Media Group Think.

In many cases, publishers send reviewers lists of what is fine to spoil in a review and not, at least when it comes to reviews that are to be published on or before release day. Often, it boils down to something as simple as "Do not spoil any story details beyond this point."

Even so, it is absolutely possible to critique with a level of depth without spoiling a game wholesale. What it requires is more eloquence on the part of the reviewer to get a point across. Saying, "the writing is bad" is one thing, but saying that "the writing is simplistic, with corny, overwrought dialogue that isn't particularly engaging or endearing, and the central conflict that the game revolves around is poorly conceived with little to no grounding in logic or common sense," says a lot more. An example or two can help, but all the same, unless you're writing a critique meant for people that either have already played the game or don't care about spoilers, spoilers should by and large continue to be avoided.

@hailinel: I understand where you're coming from, but all of that is endemic of the problems facing all forms of news media, and it comes down to what is more important to the outlet? Their readership/viewership or ease of access. Personally when if a site like Giant Bomb, that asks for a not insignificant amount of money for subscriptions, places ease of access over the people who are paying them their dollars, then the fight is lost. The publishers that want to control every last bit of info about their products in an effort to dupe more people into buying them, are the only ones who walk away with what they want, and every one else is left standing there wondering why what just happened.

The power dynamic is completely off and the ones who really should be courting their customers (us) are just stringing us along, by trying to make us feel like it's a privilege to see their advertisements. And that is what is at the heart of EVERYTHING they do. The features, and in some cases reviews in magazines and on web sites are absolutely nothing more than advertisements and it is up to the publishers to control that as much as possible. Sub-par games aren't sent out early so that negative reviews impact day one sales as little as possible, and also shows exactly how much of a joke the illusion of access actually is because if they don't want Giant Bomb or any one else to review a game for day one, then no one is going to get it. If they think that reviews may help even a little bit, they will send those copies out unfinished if they have to.

This is to say nothing of spoilers in the review process because my point isn't so much about that (even though from rereading my initial post it seems like it was my whole point). My point is that nothing should be off limits when critiquing a product, artistic or otherwise. Like I said before, it isn't about recanting the story, but given how important story is to games these days (GB's game of the year was put in that place primarily on the strength of it's story) it doesn't serve the audience for that aspect to be out of bounds. It only serves the publishers and babies who want to whine but don't have the self control to not read a spoiler.

The story might not be out of bounds, but give too much of it away before the reader has had a chance to play it and they won't appreciate that.

@video_game_king: Oh there is definitely some power at work, particularly when collectives form, but I'd argue that in the context of the content of a particular game, no one holds more power as to what that game is than the people who make it. I think denial by distributors/retail is slightly different because the balance of power often tilts against small developers and back the other direction in favor of retailers (i.e. Apple banning games like Phone Story and Sweatshop from their store, which is in essence the store). But if we're talking about outcry over sexist material, the game creators hold the cards; it's their move. I mean, for all the hubbub about Dragon's Crown, that game still came out all the same, and I can't think of another game in recent memory that incited such a strong reaction against its allegedly sexist character designs.

Sorry to break it to you, but we're already tracking and replacing bodies and faces in movies, and have been for some time. Just last week I was lining up a cg model to replace the face of a stuntman. It's only for a few scenes, not an entire film, but it could be. Thing is, it's probably actually cheaper and faster to use real actors whenever possible.

jesus, people like you are the worst. YOU are the one that brought the hate into this. but hey, keep fighting the good fight.

I only know Andrew WK from aqua teen hunger force.

@sweep: no one ever notices either, Daniel Craig on the motorbike in Skyfall?

That looked amazing, didn't drag me out of the movie at all.

I'm glad someone else agrees. I, in no way, made the implication that him being a furry was bad at all. I just said an interesting fact I had.

@hailinel: Well, personally, I could not care less for those people. If you're sensitive to that kind of stuff, then don't read reviews or don't go on the internet. It's absurd that other people should have to avoid talking about something because others might bitch and moan about having something spoiled.

I think that's more your problem with being incredibly self-centered than anything else.

@spaceinsomniac: The key word here is "imposing." That guy working on Divinity didn't have new art imposed upon him by the audience - he had it imposed upon him by his bosses' decision to listen to them. That's not censorship - it's marketing. If you blame anyone, blame his boss.

Ugh that introduction man. Discussing issues about artistic integrity gives me a head ache when most people who discuss them don't even know what art really is. Kojima is not an artist, he's a designer. Those are two very distinct roles. Just because a concept artist or a writer worked on the game doesn't make it art. I can create an illustration for a book cover, that's not art, it's an illustration. Go read a book or go to a gallery once in a while.

The guy said: "You often make the mistake of assuming that you're interpretation of art is the correct one and that things should change to fit your views." He is completely right. Can you even explain to me why you think that game is artistic and then why it should be criticized as an artistic work? I don't think so.

I can:

I think we can both agree that these screenshots describe Kojima fairly well.

first time i've checked out a 'worth reading' article, and, well, it was certainly... worth reading. sorry.

especially that starlicker article - always important to learn from one's mistakes.

Using the site to argue with someone on Tumblr. Nice.

So Patrick (and many others) are "wrong" in their estimation that games can be art, but you're also siding with the tumblr user that he shouldn't claim that his interpretation of art is the "right" one? What makes yours the right one?

Hey, guess what? Both games AND illustration can be art. Guess where they teach courses on illustration, design, and many aspects of game development? Art schools! Museums have displays featuring things like illustration, comics, and games, so by your very demand of "go to a gallery," shouldn't that automatically validate them?

The whole conversation about criticism is an odd one for me. I can see the relevance of criticism. I read Giant Bomb, I read a lot of the stuff Patrick posts through Worth Reading, and I always find it informative, even when I do not agree with what it's saying.

But at the same time, I do believe the work of artists to be sacred and fundamentally exempt from criticism... While at the same time, as I said, I see the relevance of it. Though, I suppose my philosophical viewpoint is more directed towards those who are auters rather than something that is perhaps a bit more designed by committee.

As an artist myself, though in the realm of sound, my perspective is that a person's art is a result of their vision. And even if that vision is flawed in its execution, it is the vision itself that counts.

When we play a game, or listen to a piece of music, or whatever, we don't just hear what is, but what could've been or what might yet be. We see both the potential of the piece as an abstraction and the quality (or lack thereof) of the form that actually exists.

To me, this is a super interesting dichotomy.

This is a very good point, but even people who are VERY well-versed in issues such as sexism don't magically have their opinions become more valid due to the amount of time they've spent on research, and this is true for both sides of the debate.

@shora_f: Unfortunately, a lot of "core gamers" including myself, see the CoD franchise as everything that's wrong with the industry. It's shoved down our throats every year with enormous marketing budgets and cross-promotions that make us sick to our stomachs. Non-gamers see it and think that's all that gaming is, violent and bombastic with as much redeeming quality as a Michael Bay movie. There is so much more to our "hobby" but all they see is CoD or GTA and assume the worst.

You shouldn't take the response to the CoD:AW personally, it's not about the perceived quality of the game itself. It's a feeling that has been building up over the past decade. If the game is good, I have no doubt that it will get these same people to play it, including myself. I haven't played any since MW1.