@kevin_cogneto said:
There's a media preference for story-driven video games? What does that mean, exactly? You can't just say this as if it's a statement of fact and then not explain it.
I mean if you're looking for in-depth MOBA or fighting-game coverage, there are plenty of places for that sort of thing. But games like DOTA or Destiny can only be released once, and unless there's actual news to cover, I don't see why your average general video game news site has any obligation to continue to cover them.
And besides which, the last thing the video game community needs is more tribalist lines in the sand. "Storyist"? Give me a break.
I explained the media preference for story-driven video games by citing Patrick and Arthur Gies's pieces, and gave a counterexample by citing Alex's review.
It's not "tribalist" to categorize concepts, it is a useful tool for people to express what they like or do not like and then build upon these opinions that they can more easily understand.
@feels said:
@julius: "The problem is that Sport-based games are seen as simplistic and retro by the media, while Story-based games are seen as AAA, blockbuster experiences. The media has decided that Stories are the video games that should be invested in and cared about. This focus on Stories, which I will call Storyism, is a root cause of the disconnect between games media and the larger video game community, and understanding that focus is key to avoiding that disconnect."
Yeah, you know what? I disagree. If you feel you need examples I'll go ahead and post them, but that statement is just wrong. I know it's your opinion, but it's just factually wrong. Also, I agree with the post above me. 'Storyism'?...
Feel free to post examples, I would love to discuss them. I disagree that it is "just wrong," though -- we have a community where many people watch and play games that have little to no narrative, revere Nintendo, Sega, Namco, Capcom, games that had little to no story, and yet the most common article to see on a game site other than straight-up news is commenting on the lack of progress in the characters and narrative in games. These weren't the things that made a lot of us fall in love with games, why do we have to accept that we need to go in the direction of Gone Home and company?
@soldierg654342 I agree, but it's not an excuse. Open-ended gameplay-based games were reviewed easily back when they were the norm, we shouldn't accept a degradation in the quality of games criticism.
@forkboy said:
Storyism has to be one of the silliest words ever coined.
Every "ism" word is ridiculous and overly general, but a lot of these higher-level discussions about social happenings and trends in entertainment require ways to abstract all of the intricate details. "Ism"s are an effective way of doing so.
@kevin_cogneto said:
But the idea that a game reviewer shouldn't be allowed to criticize Bayonetta 2's story because a review should be all about gameplay, that's a complete load, I'm sorry. Gameplay and story do not coexist in separate compartments that must be judged independently, they are inextricably linked. So not only is it fair to judge a game harshly for its lousy story, it is absolutely right to do so. If the designers didn't want their game to be judged based on the quality of their storytelling, you know what, don't have a story. It's a totally valid option.
I believe you missed a part of my post: "Gies should definitely not stop expressing his opinion -- it is his job as a critic to do so, in fact." It's absolutely fair to judge the game in that way, but from the perspective of Polygon, is analyzing a game on the parts that most of its audience ignores in that time of a game useful? I guess there's an evangelical aspect to it -- Gies may feel that he's educating the masses, but he is still writing a piece that people will base purchasing decisions off of. By not acknowledging the Sportist attributes in the score, he is losing the attention of a large portion of his audience.
@prestige
True, but when they are analyzed afterwards, the analysis often concerns the narrative and characters, which are again not the subjects the reviews even raved about.
Why is it that we can so rarely follow up reviewing a game well with putting out our thoughts about how the XXXYY combo is the reason the gameplay flows so well? Those tasks are left to the "weirdos" as I have heard them referred to as on Giant Bomb, the people who go look into speedrunning (just observing, it may be too hard for most people to do) or frame data or anything else like that. Once the review is over it seems like it's time to put the controller down and go have some opinions about the larger context -- there's still so much more to see, keep on playing and help us all remember why we love games so much.
Log in to comment