On Games, Reviews, And Criticism -- Part 1

@Beb said:

@Hugh_Jazz said:

I haven't played Uncharted 3 or any other Uncharted game for that matter, but I was of the opinion that the criticisms levelled against it by Simon Parkin had to do with the linearity directly affecting gameplay in a way that hadn't happened as much in the earlier games. Namely, if you didn't make a jump exactly how and when you were supposed to you wouldn't make it, kind of like a QTE. In Modern Warfare, for example, the linearity of the game doesn't force you to edit your actions in the same way. If you stand still, dudes will keep running at you, and you will keep shooting them. The game doesn't further penalize you.

It seems to me like there's a pretty big difference between these two series that Manveer Heir kinda failed to touch upon, or recognise. Or am I all wrong?

Exactly this.

After beating Uncharted 3 myself, the problem isn't that the game is linear, in the sense that you don't have branching paths.

The problem is that the game is SO linear that you are almost like an actor in a movie, and if you don't hit your queues, they call cut and start the scene over. In a game like Modern Warfare, you have a relative kind of freedom between one script trigger and the next, but in Uncharted, you are barely even making decisions anymore, you simply have to jump now, run, kill that rocket launcher guy, etc.

Like, imagine a new Pac man game where you automatically lose at every intersection if you do not take the 1 winning critical path.

Glad to see I wasn't completely off-base, misremembering the situation. Also, the actor analogy puts it much better than I felt like I could express myself. Uncharted 3 is, from what I've heard, an awesome game but one could argue that it suffers more than it gains from being an interactive experience. It's all smoke and mirrors when you're traversing, only the combat(I suppose?) lends itself to player agency.

Excellent Patrick, I would love to see more of these articles!

@Icon said:

@Deff_Janiels said:

Yeah like someone from Bioware gets to talk about good writing. Dragon Age has some of the worst writing this generation.

But... Manveer is a designer working on Mass Effect 3.

And this is why we hold our heads in our hands and sigh deeply.

These are the kind of articles I like to read, It's why Gamasutra is my most read gaming site with the Escapist coming at second. It's unfortunate that Gamasutra is a one of a kind site but I'm glad that there is a site like it nonetheless.

I guess it just comes down to the bar gets raised each year, a 10 one year would be a 9 the next.

I literally just finished Uncharted 3 yesterday, and I have to say that I agree with the critic. I kept realizing while I was playing that I was not really enjoying myself. Still I thought there were highlights, drugged Drake sections were some of the most inventive things Ive seen in a game in a while. The game was just too tedious though, the climbing is very one path and un-challenging, also how many times can things break under Drake and have him hang on by a hand, 15 an hour or so? The fist fighting was very mashy and unsatisfying. I had multiple instances of one AI enemy in an odd spot that I couldn't find who I needed to clear in order to advance. The 'Puzzles' in the game are pretty much just a waste of time. Overall I just did not enjoy Uncharted 3 as much as I hoped I would.

I started on giantbomb because of the bombcast. I listen to a lot of gaming podcasts during my two-hour commute and sometimes feel guilty for never really perusing their home sites which I'm sure are their livelihoods. Articles like this keep me coming back to giantbomb, however. Great up Patrick.

(Just for the heck of it I decided to look around to compare front page headlines and read enough of IGN's "Bioboobs" front page story to realize that GiantBomb is still the varsity team.)

Thanks Patrick.  More please!
 
" Until only recently, reviews have had more in common with what you'd read in Consumer Reports than a serious critical analysis, an attempt to explain what a game is, isn't and whether it's worth spending any money on."
 
It would be helpful to identify upfront, to the reader, what type of review a reviewer is writing.  My pet peeve with the Consumer Reports approach is the price of games fluctuates wildly over time.  Also, what if I borrow the game from a friend, and it essentially costs me nothing to play.  I want to know the reviewers thoughts on gameplay and overall package, not if it's worth the money.  I'm concerned if it's worth my time, regardless of cost.
 
So, does Giantbomb have a policy about what their reviews are trying to accomplish?  It would be nice to have a vision statement somewhere that outlines the goals of a review.  I've seem games on this site  (and elsewhere) dinged for being "too short" for the asking price.  That seems so temporary.  When I pick up the popular game of today in a year, I want to be able to go back to the review and not worry that it was influenced by the introductory retail price.

I bought Skyrim, played 25hrs of it, then sold it without finishing it. I realize it's a great game, but it's not for me. I share a lot of the same critics Jeff/Vinny shared when debating the GOTY. It's an experience that is just boring to me.

@patrickklepek

This article is absolutely stellar. This is a perfect example of why I'm so glad that Giant Bomb brought you on staff =)

Thank you for the piece, it is really intriguing to see a touchy subject from two completely different perspectives. I think both of you guys are exceptionally good at communicating what you're thinking, and a lot of the time you're talking about things I hadn't even really thought about.

I look forward to reading the next parts of this interview, and I very much look forward to similar articles moving forward.

Thanks alotfor this, again.

@Gaspar said:

@Icon said:

@Deff_Janiels said:

Yeah like someone from Bioware gets to talk about good writing. Dragon Age has some of the worst writing this generation.

But... Manveer is a designer working on Mass Effect 3.

And this is why we hold our heads in our hands and sigh deeply.

Not to mention that if anything, Bioware has on a whole has been known for it's good writing in games.

These are the kind of articles that get me to subscribe yearly. Thank you to Patrick and GiantBomb for providing interesting and thought provoking reading.

Yes please, Patrick. More of these!

Wait, what? There are giantbombers who doesnt like Patrick? What the dang are ya thinking?! Patrick completes GB, in a non-Tom Cruise kind of way.

That was a fantastic read Patrick, I'm really looking forward to part 2.

oh I was hoping this would be audio or video so I could listen to it while I work. OH well, I'll read it when I get home. This has always been a topic I've liked to discuss and some other podcasts over the years have had excellent discussions about it, like the Games for Windows podcast and 1Up Yours...back in the day of course.

game criticism just got critiqued! Clack Clack Clack, Blach Blach Blach Blach

Very interesting. One of the things I love about Giantbomb is how it gives insight about the industry and the people that work in it -- this article is a great example of that. Can't wait to read the rest of the discussion.

Nice piece. Keep it coming!

I always try to at least take a look at your newsie pieces, but this one was a particularly good read. I think the dialogue format adds a lot to the readability, as opposed to just listening to a long speech from one person. Nothing against you, of course; it's a pretty well-established concept (just look at the Socratic dialogues, millennia old!). It adds more insight and helps keep the topic flowing, instead of running the risk of stagnating.

If you could do more dialogues like this, that would be great! Hell, you could even do this in an audio form, kinda like... turn-based podcasting, I guess?

I'm looking forward to the next parts. It's nice to see a good back-and-forth between people who are passionate about games, have knowledge of the trade.

Interesting read. I'm looking forward to part 2 on Monday.

Too much navel gazing going on at the Giant Bomb.

@Humanity said:

@Gaspar said:

@Icon said:

@Deff_Janiels said:

Yeah like someone from Bioware gets to talk about good writing. Dragon Age has some of the worst writing this generation.

But... Manveer is a designer working on Mass Effect 3.

And this is why we hold our heads in our hands and sigh deeply.

Not to mention that if anything, Bioware has on a whole has been known for it's good writing in games.

Very cool piece. A lot of what Manveer says resonates with my own views of the reviewing process and how it, in it's current state, really doesn't provide much for anyone, consumer, developer or the reviewer.

The 'pie and cake' thing is something I've touched on a lot recently. People have this habit of imagining what they want a game to be, and then judging it based on how it matches up to an imaginary game that does not actually exist. Judging games on what they aren't is way too common here.

I just want a site that reviews every game based on how similar it is to NHL '94. Gears of War has pads, but the one-timers are not very good. 2/10. Heavy Rain has water in liquid form instead of ice. 1/10. Starcraft doesn't have goalies, but it does happen from a top-down perspective. 4/10.

Great article.

I find review scores less and less influential on my purchases these day, and I think alot of that is because of Giantbomb, with the differing opionions of games from the whole crew and community response I get a good idea of what I'll enjoy or what will be worth trying from them. Case in point is Zelda:SS, I've subscribed to Edge since the dreamcast days and a ten from them would mean a purchase regardless of genre or obstacles (I bought an xbox for their ten scoring Halo) but I just got a sense from here that I wouldn't get into it so haven't bothered with it.

Hey Patrick, what's a "mild firestorm"? Can you downgrade a firestorm with a qualifier? And would a "mild firestorm" actually "erupt"? Wouldn't it kind of tentatively ensue or something? I know, I'm a dick.

People who take review scores as absolutes deserve to be upset when the scores don't meet their personal expectations.

More, more, more! Really enjoyed reading this.

Reviews should be a buyers' guide that's what they're there for, criticism does have a place in reviews however and is great for people looking for more than the simple "Is it good?". That being said a critique of a game is not the same as a review and posting one with a score attached to it does no good for anyone. Critiquing the game itself, explaining things that it does well and things that are done poorly within it, makes sense in a review and is really what the review is about beyond yes or no. Using a review of a single game for a soapbox against a trend in games as a whole or even a specific genre however is a disservice to the pieces writer and those who go to it looking for a review.

I'm with Heir and what Jaffe said a while ago on a Bonus Round: there is a time and a place for linear games. And linearity is not inherently a negative, the point is that does the game make up for the sacrifice of player choice by other means? And from my experience with the game, Uncharted 3 truly does.

Good read, keep it up!

If only Gamers could understand what's being said here. It would all appear to be common sense. Unfortunately fanboys do not think that way and most gamers (so-called gamers) on the Internet are not seeking to have their opinions challenged. They need their opinions validated and their purchases, likes or dislikes, justified. Then you have so many game reviews and publications who just stoke the flames in pursuit of traffic. And you have publications who accept advertising money from publishers, and back door relationships that should not exist. Reviews are tainted by review parties and exclusive promises. Several times this years public relation companies were caught trying to influence reviews. Those are the ones that got caught and one would be a fool not to believe there are plenty that go unnoticed. Very interesting article. I'm looking forward to reading the rest.

While I tend to agree with Manveer that criticism and reviews should probably be separate and have very different purposes, this is an incredible piece of gaming journalism and I can't wait to read the rest. Keep them coming, Patrick!

Thourouly enjoyed the back and forth. To me, reviews are like quicklooks put in print. They tell you the facts, and afterward, they try to give a number (something that I never liked about most reviews, since the numbers seem arbitrary, especially when comparing different sites). A critique on the other hand, holds more weight. This is where the personality of the writer can show through, and based on the writers history, can really recommend or deter someone from checking out a game. And just because a game is thrashed, does not mean it didnt do things right. Catherine is a good example of an interesting 'Failure' that many people enjoyed. Shadows of the Damned, and to a lesser extent, LA Noire also sorta fall into this category. But you know what, I loved these games to death... but at the same time, I know not everyone will. So I listen to podcast and read critiques of like and opposite minded reviewers to see if the game is worth my diminishing time. These critiques are worth so much more than a non-standardized score. PS: Sorry for wall-o-text

Patrick, this was an enthralling read. I eagerly look forward to the next installments and would love to see more content like this on GB.

@Catlicker said:

So Patrick is 32?

...

...waoh.

I thought he was a very (very!) mature and smart 24 year old. Maybe he made a deal with the devil, or something.

By the way, I give this article a 9.6/10.

Where do you get 32 from? If he was 14 in 1998, that means he is now 27.

More like this, Pat.

Great read!

Great read, Patrick, keep 'em coming!

Great article.

You both made your points quite eloquently. Look forward to reading more.

Nice coincidence that Heir is going for the same point I've been thinking about a lot recently: separating purchasing advice from criticism!

Remember that whole Abbie Heppe/Metroid: Other M debacle from 2010? She made the review into a piece about Other M basically being sexist because there seemed to be only one chance to talk about the game and thus we got the criticism part mixed into the "purchasing advice" a.k.a. review which, I believe, resulted in a 2/5 score (as comparison, GB's own Brad Shoemaker gave the game a 4/5, leaving out any criticism of character portrayal beyond "did like/did not like"). If I didn't know better (or only looked at the score), this would imply to my eyes as a consumer that the game itself is poorly made. Had there been two separate articles, one detailing the game as a game and how the play experience feels and the other examining and analyzing it similar to literary criticism, then that would probably have gone down much smoother - and also without much "drama" and page views because controversial reviews of traditionally beloved franchises get much attention while merely controversial articles hardly ever do.

This inconsistency is what fuels the "firestorms" in part, I think. While you cannot and should not separate how a game's narrative or design makes you "feel" (as in the example above, when you perceive the character portrayal as sexist which affects your enjoyment of the game), it should not necessarily make up the core argument of a traditional review. Cases like this, witch strong emotional responses going either way attached to a game would present a wonderful opportunity for a writer to pen a straight up product review, which mentions said emotional responses but leaves it to the reader to determine whether or not that affects them or not, followed by an additional going up at the same time or later that fully explores critical reflection on the game in question. Narrative themes, design philosophy - proper time could be devoted to these issues while also allowing to extensively reference other games that would otherwise have no place in a typical review.

I'm very much looking forward to how this eMail exchange develops! I hope further installments resemble more like a discussion and less like two people talking about the same thing but not with each other.

I want MORE!

A+, another fantastic read. Thanks Patrick.

Thank you, Patrick, for another fascinating piece of content. I look forward to the rest of this discussion.

I would definitely love more articles like this. Reviews and game critique are both extremely important to me and for the different reasons outlined in this article. Also, good critiques and discussion play a large role in how I spend my gaming dollar... I would have never even considered buying Saints Row the Third without Giant Bomb going fucking crazy over it.