his point is he wants negative reviews to look like the opening part of his essay, personal criticisms that come from the heart, the mind, the soul
he wants less "well it wasn't for me" and more life
And I think that's more suited for editorial pieces than reviews that are trying to inform customers.
Because that's what a review is. People use reviews to find someone who in general they agree with, and then hear their take on the mechanics. It's not the time for impassioned, flowery language or to be stuffed with introspection.
How were the mechanics, was the writing solid, did the game feel like an enjoyable experience? Did it meet your expectations? These are questions that can be answered simply and effectively, and are what people should be interested in. Saying "It wasn't for me" is completely valid if their opinion is "I generally do not enjoy FPS games but the mechanics themselves function well and fluidly."
You can't review a game and demand that it be something else, which is what you would be doing if you went into a review from the frontend saying "well this game was bad because it's an FPS and I don't like those anyway"
his point is he wants negative reviews to look like the opening part of his essay, personal criticisms that come from the heart, the mind, the soul
he wants less "well it wasn't for me" and more life
And I think that's more suited for editorial pieces than reviews that are trying to inform customers.
Because that's what a review is. People use reviews to find someone who in general they agree with, and then hear their take on the mechanics. It's not the time for impassioned, flowery language or to be stuffed with introspection.
How were the mechanics, was the writing solid, did the game feel like an enjoyable experience? Did it meet your expectations? These are questions that can be answered simply and effectively, and are what people should be interested in. Saying "It wasn't for me" is completely valid if their opinion is "I generally do not enjoy FPS games but the mechanics themselves function well and fluidly."
You can't review a game and demand that it be something else, which is what you would be doing if you went into a review from the frontend saying "well this game was bad because it's an FPS and I don't like those anyway"
Yeah it sounds like he wants something more like that Leigh Alexander GTA piece, not really a review.
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
he talks about reviewing games on their own merits without the baggage of "well it's a puzzle game, i dont like those, someone else on staff review it" because genres in games are mutable and the spaces they cover change over time
he talks about reviewing games on their own merits without the baggage of "well it's a puzzle game, i dont like those, someone else on staff review it" because genres in games are mutable and the spaces they cover change over time
That would be of little to no use to the consumer
Like, say I love JRPGs
What on earth good would a JRPG review by Jeff Gerstmann do me?
He doesn't know the genre or recent conventions/changes to it enough to say anything useful about it other than "I hate this"
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
While I'm on my rant about the number system I will say that the problem is that, historically speaking games were rated mechanically more than they were narratively.
Like hell, even five or so years ago. All that really mattered when making a game was if it was fun and competently made, a decent to good story was just icing on the cake. And we are pretty much just now getting to the point where narrative is having an impact on gaming at large.
And because of that the number system falls apart even more so. Because you're not only judging games mechanics-wise but you're judging them on how engrossing they are narratively. Well, not all of them but a pretty good amount these days.
tldr: The number system is really broken and needs to die.
0
Options
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
why should a game reviewer be slave to the consumer
fuckin ebert wasnt
a reviewer should be their own damn self and the consumer can find a reviewer they agree with on most things, reading multiple reviews to figure out if they should get the game or not
it's up to the consumer to be informed. it is not up to a reviewer to bend over backwards for people to buy shit. it is their job to say how they think something is.
Oh weird, the new Humble Bundle now includes eps 1 and 2 of OTRSPOD. I figured those were lost forever in publisher limbo after PA and those guys had their falling out.
why should a game reviewer be slave to the consumer
fuckin ebert wasnt
a reviewer should be their own damn self and the consumer can find a reviewer they agree with on most things, reading multiple reviews to figure out if they should get the game or not
it's up to the consumer to be informed. it is not up to a reviewer to bend over backwards for people to buy shit. it is their job to say how they think something is.
The difference is that 90% of films have the same components
Plot, characters, cinematography
A film critic can always review these things with some knowledge
Even if Ebert hates a Genre, he can say if the characters are well fleshed out or if the directing is good.
Though you can do SOME of that in games (The graphics here are good, the controls are responsive), someone who's never played, say, an MMO, is going to have little informative to say about how well the mechanics are constructed, or how the endgame content is, or what have you.
I know its an extreme example, but if you asked me to review EVE and I hadn't heard the weird internet stories? I literally wouldn't know that the corporation elements even existed and would think the game was just about running a few ai missions over and over.
I don't think some people are equipped to review certain games. The range of mechanics available to game developers is incredibly deep, and not everyone can be knowledgeable enough in each set of mechanics to review every type of game competently.
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
edited October 2013
the thing is, ignorance of how it works means that that can be helpful for a consumer if they havent played that genre or only had passing familiarity with it too. "this guy was lost, i would be too!"
variety of opinion matters
the thing is, ignorance of how it works means that that can be helpful for a consumer if they havent played that genre or only had passing familiarity with it too. "this guy was lost, i would be too!"
variety of opinion matters
But then it wouldn't be a useful review for someone who actually is familiar with the Genre
So that person couldn't service genre enthusiasts
But a Fighting Game expert COULD say in the review "Hey, this is super complicated and not for beginners"
So in that case he'd still be the better person for a review
why should a game reviewer be slave to the consumer
fuckin ebert wasnt
a reviewer should be their own damn self and the consumer can find a reviewer they agree with on most things, reading multiple reviews to figure out if they should get the game or not
it's up to the consumer to be informed. it is not up to a reviewer to bend over backwards for people to buy shit. it is their job to say how they think something is.
The difference is that 90% of films have the same components
Plot, characters, cinematography
A film critic can always review these things with some knowledge
Even if Ebert hates a Genre, he can say if the characters are well fleshed out or if the directing is good.
Though you can do SOME of that in games (The graphics here are good, the controls are responsive), someone who's never played, say, an MMO, is going to have little informative to say about how well the mechanics are constructed, or how the endgame content is, or what have you.
I know its an extreme example, but if you asked me to review EVE and I hadn't heard the weird internet stories? I literally wouldn't know that the corporation elements even existed and would think the game was just about running a few ai missions over and over.
I don't think some people are equipped to review certain games. The range of mechanics available to game developers is incredibly deep, and not everyone can be knowledgeable enough in each set of mechanics to review every type of game competently.
A review of an MMO or any sort of competitive online game is usually going to be useless because 90% of reviewers aren't going to put in the amount of time needed to tell if that sort of experience has legs.
But for other games, it's not really that different. Roger Ebert dislikes almost all slashers/torture porn type stuff. Jeff Gerstmann doesn't like JRPGs. I doubt very much that Jeff Gerstmann doesn't know a lot about JRPGs. I doubt that Roger Ebert doesn't know a lot about slashers. They both just don't like them.
the thing is, ignorance of how it works means that that can be helpful for a consumer if they havent played that genre or only had passing familiarity with it too. "this guy was lost, i would be too!"
variety of opinion matters
But then it wouldn't be a useful review for someone who actually is familiar with the Genre
So that person couldn't service genre enthusiasts
But a Fighting Game expert COULD say in the review "Hey, this is super complicated and not for beginners"
So in that case he'd still be the better person for a review
whatd be even more helpful would be experts and people with moderate experience and beginners reviewing things all over the internet on respected news venues
I'd like to point out that there are people out there right now criticizing the Giant Bomb crew for playing the Hatsune Miku game without researching and knowing the difference between Miku and Luka. Would bringing in a vocaloid expert really have made their coverage of that game better?
+3
Options
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
i mean seriously, consider the discussion on dark souls the other day
imagine if every reviewer were like farg
imagine how unhelpful that would be to someone
the point that guy made was variety of opinion and hard criticism both, not homogenized praise
the thing is, ignorance of how it works means that that can be helpful for a consumer if they havent played that genre or only had passing familiarity with it too. "this guy was lost, i would be too!"
variety of opinion matters
But then it wouldn't be a useful review for someone who actually is familiar with the Genre
So that person couldn't service genre enthusiasts
But a Fighting Game expert COULD say in the review "Hey, this is super complicated and not for beginners"
So in that case he'd still be the better person for a review
whatd be even more helpful would be experts and people with moderate experience and beginners reviewing things all over the internet on respected news venues
Sure
But most outlets don't have even close to enough staffers to write 3 reviews for a game
And I guess I just don't see what's to be gained by them specifically assigning someone who doesn't have the knowledge to a game over someone who is eager to review it and more informed
the thing is, ignorance of how it works means that that can be helpful for a consumer if they havent played that genre or only had passing familiarity with it too. "this guy was lost, i would be too!"
variety of opinion matters
But then it wouldn't be a useful review for someone who actually is familiar with the Genre
So that person couldn't service genre enthusiasts
But a Fighting Game expert COULD say in the review "Hey, this is super complicated and not for beginners"
So in that case he'd still be the better person for a review
whatd be even more helpful would be experts and people with moderate experience and beginners reviewing things all over the internet on respected news venues
Sure
But most outlets don't have even close to enough staffers to write 3 reviews for a game
And I guess I just don't see what's to be gained by them specifically assigning someone who doesn't have the knowledge to a game over someone who is eager to review it and more informed
it doesnt need to be three reviews on one site
it just needs to stop being one review on every site
why should a game reviewer be slave to the consumer
fuckin ebert wasnt
a reviewer should be their own damn self and the consumer can find a reviewer they agree with on most things, reading multiple reviews to figure out if they should get the game or not
it's up to the consumer to be informed. it is not up to a reviewer to bend over backwards for people to buy shit. it is their job to say how they think something is.
Game reviews aren't some natural resource that we as consumers have enslaved and need to now set free so game reviews can achieve the status of art
They exist to fucking tell me if the game works and is good and if it is a competent entry in its genre. To that end, people who are knowledgable of that type of game are the people I want reviewing those types of games because they'll know the shit other people won't.
If some dude wants to wax poetic on the merits of first person shooting write an editorial don't cram it into your review of a first person shooter because that doesn't tell me anything about the game
the thing is, ignorance of how it works means that that can be helpful for a consumer if they havent played that genre or only had passing familiarity with it too. "this guy was lost, i would be too!"
variety of opinion matters
But then it wouldn't be a useful review for someone who actually is familiar with the Genre
So that person couldn't service genre enthusiasts
But a Fighting Game expert COULD say in the review "Hey, this is super complicated and not for beginners"
So in that case he'd still be the better person for a review
whatd be even more helpful would be experts and people with moderate experience and beginners reviewing things all over the internet on respected news venues
Sure
But most outlets don't have even close to enough staffers to write 3 reviews for a game
And I guess I just don't see what's to be gained by them specifically assigning someone who doesn't have the knowledge to a game over someone who is eager to review it and more informed
it doesnt need to be three reviews on one site
it just needs to stop being one review on every site
I understand, I wasn't saying it should be, I'm saying that on a site by site basis, what does that individual outlet have to gain by intentionally assigning someone who isn't versed in the genre to a game?
I'd like to point out that there are people out there right now criticizing the Giant Bomb crew for playing the Hatsune Miku game without researching and knowing the difference between Miku and Luka. Would bringing in a vocaloid expert really have made their coverage of that game better?
To someone who actually like those games?
Absolutely.
The thing about Giant Bomb is that Quick Looks aren't reviews, they are often purely for comedic purposes
People that like games with really deep and complex systems that take a lot of practice to get into like Platinum games really don't care for unfamiliar people giving their opinions on them without putting in what they consider due dilligance
I'd like to point out that there are people out there right now criticizing the Giant Bomb crew for playing the Hatsune Miku game without researching and knowing the difference between Miku and Luka. Would bringing in a vocaloid expert really have made their coverage of that game better?
To someone who actually like those games?
Absolutely.
The thing about Giant Bomb is that Quick Looks aren't reviews, they are often purely for comedic purposes
quick looks get more hits than their reviews, and they absolutely help give an impression of both the game and the players/reviewers
I'd like to point out that there are people out there right now criticizing the Giant Bomb crew for playing the Hatsune Miku game without researching and knowing the difference between Miku and Luka. Would bringing in a vocaloid expert really have made their coverage of that game better?
To someone who actually like those games?
Absolutely.
The thing about Giant Bomb is that Quick Looks aren't reviews, they are often purely for comedic purposes
quick looks get more hits than their reviews, and they absolutely help give an impression of both the game and the players/reviewers
But they are not, as reviews are, buying advice
This has been specifically stated by Jeff over and over
But Reviews are, and that's why you need someone knowledgeable enough to give that advice
People that like games with really deep and complex systems that take a lot of practice to get into like Platinum games really don't care for unfamiliar people giving their opinions on them without putting in what they consider due dilligance
Precisely. There exist genres, niche and not, that do require a certain 'due diligence' to be able to speak knowingly on. When reviews go out without reviewers doing that it can result in useless reviews at best, and misinformation about a game at worst
see: people reviewing wonderful101 or other platinum type games with out ever even looking at the deeper level combo and scoring systems which is where almost of all the playtime with those games come from
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
As a fighting game/extreme action fan whenever a game is considered bad because "Its too hard".
I'd like to point out that there are people out there right now criticizing the Giant Bomb crew for playing the Hatsune Miku game without researching and knowing the difference between Miku and Luka. Would bringing in a vocaloid expert really have made their coverage of that game better?
To someone who actually like those games?
Absolutely.
The thing about Giant Bomb is that Quick Looks aren't reviews, they are often purely for comedic purposes
quick looks get more hits than their reviews, and they absolutely help give an impression of both the game and the players/reviewers
I think Quick Looks are infinitely more helpful that reviews
I could read a glowing review, go "man that sounds great I'm gonna pick that up" and then realize it isn't actually for me
I watched the Metro Last Light Quick Look, and even while they're saying a lot of really great things about it, I saw how the game actually plays and decided that it's not my thing
The player's actual opinion is secondary when it comes to a Quick Look
No examples come to mind, but I bet there's been a couple times during Quick Looks where they're talking a whole bunch of shit about a game and a good number of people still go "that looks super fun, I'm gonna pick that up"
why should a game reviewer be slave to the consumer
fuckin ebert wasnt
a reviewer should be their own damn self and the consumer can find a reviewer they agree with on most things, reading multiple reviews to figure out if they should get the game or not
it's up to the consumer to be informed. it is not up to a reviewer to bend over backwards for people to buy shit. it is their job to say how they think something is.
Game reviews aren't some natural resource that we as consumers have enslaved and need to now set free so game reviews can achieve the status of art
They exist to fucking tell me if the game works and is good and if it is a competent entry in its genre. To that end, people who are knowledgable of that type of game are the people I want reviewing those types of games because they'll know the shit other people won't.
If some dude wants to wax poetic on the merits of first person shooting write an editorial don't cram it into your review of a first person shooter because that doesn't tell me anything about the game
yea but it's this philosophy that makes reviews of genre games like final fantasy or zelda or madden and stuff ungodly boring. Pretty much all of these reviews boil down to 'this is a competent entry in this franchise' because the reviewer doesn't know shit compared to fanboy x and they don't want to offend them.
And I'm not saying reviews have to be unbiased but him saying "tales of xilia is bad because it's boring" doesn't help anyone
Especially when I can tell you in great detail why Xillia is alternatively great and shitty.
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited October 2013
I actually think video reviews work better for games in general.
The thing is you can't really do a video review of a movie because you don't want to give away too much of the plot, so you can only show clips at best.
Games have a lot more free-roam space so it tends to be a lot safer.
Posts
And I think that's more suited for editorial pieces than reviews that are trying to inform customers.
Because that's what a review is. People use reviews to find someone who in general they agree with, and then hear their take on the mechanics. It's not the time for impassioned, flowery language or to be stuffed with introspection.
How were the mechanics, was the writing solid, did the game feel like an enjoyable experience? Did it meet your expectations? These are questions that can be answered simply and effectively, and are what people should be interested in. Saying "It wasn't for me" is completely valid if their opinion is "I generally do not enjoy FPS games but the mechanics themselves function well and fluidly."
You can't review a game and demand that it be something else, which is what you would be doing if you went into a review from the frontend saying "well this game was bad because it's an FPS and I don't like those anyway"
Yeah it sounds like he wants something more like that Leigh Alexander GTA piece, not really a review.
That would be of little to no use to the consumer
Like, say I love JRPGs
What on earth good would a JRPG review by Jeff Gerstmann do me?
He doesn't know the genre or recent conventions/changes to it enough to say anything useful about it other than "I hate this"
Like hell, even five or so years ago. All that really mattered when making a game was if it was fun and competently made, a decent to good story was just icing on the cake. And we are pretty much just now getting to the point where narrative is having an impact on gaming at large.
And because of that the number system falls apart even more so. Because you're not only judging games mechanics-wise but you're judging them on how engrossing they are narratively. Well, not all of them but a pretty good amount these days.
tldr: The number system is really broken and needs to die.
fuckin ebert wasnt
a reviewer should be their own damn self and the consumer can find a reviewer they agree with on most things, reading multiple reviews to figure out if they should get the game or not
it's up to the consumer to be informed. it is not up to a reviewer to bend over backwards for people to buy shit. it is their job to say how they think something is.
The difference is that 90% of films have the same components
Plot, characters, cinematography
A film critic can always review these things with some knowledge
Even if Ebert hates a Genre, he can say if the characters are well fleshed out or if the directing is good.
Though you can do SOME of that in games (The graphics here are good, the controls are responsive), someone who's never played, say, an MMO, is going to have little informative to say about how well the mechanics are constructed, or how the endgame content is, or what have you.
I know its an extreme example, but if you asked me to review EVE and I hadn't heard the weird internet stories? I literally wouldn't know that the corporation elements even existed and would think the game was just about running a few ai missions over and over.
I don't think some people are equipped to review certain games. The range of mechanics available to game developers is incredibly deep, and not everyone can be knowledgeable enough in each set of mechanics to review every type of game competently.
variety of opinion matters
But then it wouldn't be a useful review for someone who actually is familiar with the Genre
So that person couldn't service genre enthusiasts
But a Fighting Game expert COULD say in the review "Hey, this is super complicated and not for beginners"
So in that case he'd still be the better person for a review
A review of an MMO or any sort of competitive online game is usually going to be useless because 90% of reviewers aren't going to put in the amount of time needed to tell if that sort of experience has legs.
But for other games, it's not really that different. Roger Ebert dislikes almost all slashers/torture porn type stuff. Jeff Gerstmann doesn't like JRPGs. I doubt very much that Jeff Gerstmann doesn't know a lot about JRPGs. I doubt that Roger Ebert doesn't know a lot about slashers. They both just don't like them.
https://medium.com/@alascii
whatd be even more helpful would be experts and people with moderate experience and beginners reviewing things all over the internet on respected news venues
imagine if every reviewer were like farg
imagine how unhelpful that would be to someone
the point that guy made was variety of opinion and hard criticism both, not homogenized praise
Sure
But most outlets don't have even close to enough staffers to write 3 reviews for a game
And I guess I just don't see what's to be gained by them specifically assigning someone who doesn't have the knowledge to a game over someone who is eager to review it and more informed
it just needs to stop being one review on every site
Game reviews aren't some natural resource that we as consumers have enslaved and need to now set free so game reviews can achieve the status of art
They exist to fucking tell me if the game works and is good and if it is a competent entry in its genre. To that end, people who are knowledgable of that type of game are the people I want reviewing those types of games because they'll know the shit other people won't.
If some dude wants to wax poetic on the merits of first person shooting write an editorial don't cram it into your review of a first person shooter because that doesn't tell me anything about the game
I understand, I wasn't saying it should be, I'm saying that on a site by site basis, what does that individual outlet have to gain by intentionally assigning someone who isn't versed in the genre to a game?
Somehow I don't think that would work out that way but I respect your opinion
I think it would be an interesting experiment for a site to completely randomize review assignments for a while
I just don't think it would work out long term
you frame it as reviewers speaking their mind like giant bomb you negative nancy
I don't know shit about soccer
If I'm reviewing games for your site, please don't give me FIFA 14 to review
It will not be helpful to anyone and a waste of time for all involved
Who is gaining anything from my entry-level outlook on FIFA? How is that worthy of any respect at all?
To someone who actually like those games?
Absolutely.
The thing about Giant Bomb is that Quick Looks aren't reviews, they are often purely for comedic purposes
But a very ineffective way of telling me if game c is a good jet combat simulator
quick looks get more hits than their reviews, and they absolutely help give an impression of both the game and the players/reviewers
But they are not, as reviews are, buying advice
This has been specifically stated by Jeff over and over
But Reviews are, and that's why you need someone knowledgeable enough to give that advice
Precisely. There exist genres, niche and not, that do require a certain 'due diligence' to be able to speak knowingly on. When reviews go out without reviewers doing that it can result in useless reviews at best, and misinformation about a game at worst
see: people reviewing wonderful101 or other platinum type games with out ever even looking at the deeper level combo and scoring systems which is where almost of all the playtime with those games come from
It kills me a little inside.
I think Quick Looks are infinitely more helpful that reviews
I could read a glowing review, go "man that sounds great I'm gonna pick that up" and then realize it isn't actually for me
I watched the Metro Last Light Quick Look, and even while they're saying a lot of really great things about it, I saw how the game actually plays and decided that it's not my thing
The player's actual opinion is secondary when it comes to a Quick Look
No examples come to mind, but I bet there's been a couple times during Quick Looks where they're talking a whole bunch of shit about a game and a good number of people still go "that looks super fun, I'm gonna pick that up"
To be fair him reviewing genres he likes will produce an inherently biased review, too.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
yea but it's this philosophy that makes reviews of genre games like final fantasy or zelda or madden and stuff ungodly boring. Pretty much all of these reviews boil down to 'this is a competent entry in this franchise' because the reviewer doesn't know shit compared to fanboy x and they don't want to offend them.
https://medium.com/@alascii
Especially when I can tell you in great detail why Xillia is alternatively great and shitty.
The thing is you can't really do a video review of a movie because you don't want to give away too much of the plot, so you can only show clips at best.
Games have a lot more free-roam space so it tends to be a lot safer.
Seeing shit like this brings out my darkest urges
Instead I just put on my mask of the father and go invade oolacile township