I liked the name "Blizzard Dota" better. It was just so straight forward and up front about what it was. "Hey, you wanna play DOTA but with canonic Blizzard characters?" "Yes. Yes I do."
I'm sure they would've liked to keep it but Valve said nuh-uh.
Yeah now that I've actually read the article it was already changed to "Blizzard All-Stars" last year so ah well.
what exactly does it mean for a review to tell me if a game "works" and "is good" and "if it is a competent entry in its genre"
that the framerate is good and the shooting feels nice and there's a deep combo system?
what if the narrative in a video game that is heavily focused on narrative does not work or is not good or a competent entry in its genre in the reviewer's subjective opinion
I do in fact want reviews by Zeldaexpert727 but I don't think those are the reviews we are getting
Why is there such a difference between the opinions expressed in the reviews of "sacred cows" and the actual unvarnished opinions that appear later in podcasts and editorials
I like Skyward Sword a lot but the reviews for that game do not match up with how people actually talk about that game
how does IGN give GTA4 and MGS4 10/10 oscar worthy script etc etc the highest ratings they gave that year... and then they end up 6th and 9th place on their actual goty list
Like if Project Titan comes out and it's a brand new franchise and its plot is not about a hero that gets corrupted by evil and becomes the ultimate bad guy I'll be actively upset.
Even for those who have the sense to speak for themselves, there is a more pervasive problem. This is the call, posed a thousand different ways, for objectivity. Isn’t BioShock Infinite objectively a good game? Doesn’t it have good graphics and sound, play well enough, provide interesting characters and themes? I mean, let’s be reasonable here. Let’s be fair. Irrational put a lot of time and money into this after all. Most of your criticisms are just based in your personal biases. They’re just your interpretations. At least you have to admit it’s a lot better than most games out there.
Here’s what I’ll admit: many boys have a really hard time with subjectivity. To grapple with your own subjectivity is to grapple with the subjectivities of others. It’s to see the world not as legible, stable, conquerable but as resistant, shifting, and fundamentally unknowable. It diminishes your certainty and authority. It leaves you vulnerable. This is a human problem, being a person among persons, but one that many boys have trouble admitting even the basic tenets of. And so they call for an objectivity that has no foundation except received opinion, that seeks to diminish individual experience, and that turns out to not even exist.
Objectivity is very convenient for the straight white middle class male gamer. Videogame culture encourages him to see his own subjectivity as the standard, as objective. He’ll invoke science, economics, statistics, and all manner of folk wisdom to defend his little kingdom. He’ll decry any challenge as ‘politics’ or ‘bad business’ or ‘whining’ or ‘here we go again’. He never considers how often objectivity is a cover for a dominant subjectivity, for a subjectivity that stays in power by not being recognized as such. He fears what will happen if the established order breaks down and the Vox take control.
This cult of objectivity has it exactly backwards. They want it to be one way. But it’s the other way. A good review is openly, flagrantly, unabashedly subjective. It goes all in with the reviewer’s biases. It claims them for what they really are – not tastes, not mere opinions, but values. It is a full-throated expression of one person’s experience of a game. This is the authority it claims – the player’s. And how could it be any other way? How can a reviewer get outside him or herself?
Some might admit that objectivity doesn’t exist but that it’s still an ideal to shoot for. It is, after all, a worthy goal to try and get outside yourself and see things from other perspectives. But chasing objectivity to achieve this is, again, entirely upside-down. You do not connect to the world outside, to the world of others, by suppressing or negating yourself. You do so by fully being yourself and recognizing just who that person is. A good reviewer knows that none of our values are settled, that the game community is actually in thrilling flux, despite the placid surface of its reviews. The only way to change how we talk about games is to encourage a plurality of voices, revel in their diversity, and be honest about our own subjectivity among them.
Even for those who have the sense to speak for themselves, there is a more pervasive problem. This is the call, posed a thousand different ways, for objectivity. Isn’t BioShock Infinite objectively a good game? Doesn’t it have good graphics and sound, play well enough, provide interesting characters and themes? I mean, let’s be reasonable here. Let’s be fair. Irrational put a lot of time and money into this after all. Most of your criticisms are just based in your personal biases. They’re just your interpretations. At least you have to admit it’s a lot better than most games out there.
Here’s what I’ll admit: many boys have a really hard time with subjectivity. To grapple with your own subjectivity is to grapple with the subjectivities of others. It’s to see the world not as legible, stable, conquerable but as resistant, shifting, and fundamentally unknowable. It diminishes your certainty and authority. It leaves you vulnerable. This is a human problem, being a person among persons, but one that many boys have trouble admitting even the basic tenets of. And so they call for an objectivity that has no foundation except received opinion, that seeks to diminish individual experience, and that turns out to not even exist.
Objectivity is very convenient for the straight white middle class male gamer. Videogame culture encourages him to see his own subjectivity as the standard, as objective. He’ll invoke science, economics, statistics, and all manner of folk wisdom to defend his little kingdom. He’ll decry any challenge as ‘politics’ or ‘bad business’ or ‘whining’ or ‘here we go again’. He never considers how often objectivity is a cover for a dominant subjectivity, for a subjectivity that stays in power by not being recognized as such. He fears what will happen if the established order breaks down and the Vox take control.
This cult of objectivity has it exactly backwards. They want it to be one way. But it’s the other way. A good review is openly, flagrantly, unabashedly subjective. It goes all in with the reviewer’s biases. It claims them for what they really are – not tastes, not mere opinions, but values. It is a full-throated expression of one person’s experience of a game. This is the authority it claims – the player’s. And how could it be any other way? How can a reviewer get outside him or herself?
Some might admit that objectivity doesn’t exist but that it’s still an ideal to shoot for. It is, after all, a worthy goal to try and get outside yourself and see things from other perspectives. But chasing objectivity to achieve this is, again, entirely upside-down. You do not connect to the world outside, to the world of others, by suppressing or negating yourself. You do so by fully being yourself and recognizing just who that person is. A good reviewer knows that none of our values are settled, that the game community is actually in thrilling flux, despite the placid surface of its reviews. The only way to change how we talk about games is to encourage a plurality of voices, revel in their diversity, and be honest about our own subjectivity among them.
Again, not to beat a dead horse, but this is not describing a review, it's describing a critique
Like if Project Titan comes out and it's a brand new franchise and its plot is not about a hero that gets corrupted by evil and becomes the ultimate bad guy I'll be actively upset.
I don't think video game reviews are very useful as consumer writing
I rarely read reviews, even giant bomb's, because I know exactly the type of writing that is in there and I don't think it is very useful to me as a consumer
I watch quick looks and listen to giant bombcasts when I want giant bomb's opinion on if I should buy a video game or not
I don't think video game reviews are very useful as consumer writing
I rarely read reviews, even giant bomb's, because I know exactly the type of writing that is in there and I don't think it is very useful to me as a consumer
I watch quick looks and listen to giant bombcasts when I want giant bomb's opinion on if I should buy a video game or not
I'm pretty much the same way.
But I think it's important to realize that there must be plenty of people who do find them to be useful consumer writing.
I'm gonna be the guy who comes in and says yes reviews absolutely influence my purchases, and furthermore review scores totally do too. When a game gets unanimous praise I'm gonna buy it, and I'm way less likely to if it doesn't.
I agree with Tevis Thompson in that there definitely needs to be way more space for subjectivity in reviews. I hate when people claim Tom Chick is trolling for clicks and at the same time demand less hivemind thinking from reviewers. I don't even agree with Tom Chick but he has a right to think a game is shit! And it's for you to figure out whether or not you agree with him or need to pay attention to his reviews. And I've seen this happen on these very forums as well! So what if this article starts with the claim that Bioshock Infinite is the worst game the author's played this generation? It's the worst game HE has played this generation and he goes on to explain why. It's not a throwaway statement and it's not something he's objectively trying to prove by saying Bioshock Infinite's shooting is 2 points lower than Call of Duty's. He goes into a lot of depth and you might not agree with him, but don't dismiss him because he has an uncommon opinion.
And when he says that people who don't like a genre should be given the chance to review a particular game, he doesn't mean UnbreakableVow should be reviewing FIFA 14. He means that somebody who's familiar but not fond or tired of a genre's tropes should be discussing the game. Of course, that's not the only kind of reviews that should be out there.
What I've sort of realized is that people asking for better games journalism are full of shit. Not on these boards, but the gaming community at large. What people want is for their views to be validated. People bag on IGN for saying GTA IV had an oscar-worthy story but if somebody calls out GTA V on its misogyny, the writer has to face 20,000 comments' worth of shit. And that's only because the consensus around GTA V is that it is amazing, while the consensus around IV is not so kind, at least in some regards.
GTA4 is absolutely amazing it's just that a lot of the game parts of it are kinda shit
I remember after long sessions playing it I would leave my house to go drive somewhere and I would get this weird feeling that I was still playing the game.
I have yet to play Infinite but it's gotten annoying how a lot of the positive response has just been gushing over everything without being willing to explore what might have been done wrong, while a lot of the negative response has been shitting over everything without being willing to explore what might have been done right.
It's one of those games where the response seems to either be "it's amazing high art" or "it's fucking garbage shit".
More subjectivity in reviews isn't a call for each review to be a detailed analysis the way Thompson's article there was or even Alexander's gta5 thingy
I mean they don't exactly start waxing poetic or do deep editorializing in quick looks or giant bombcasts
but the way jeff talks about gta5 on the bombcast does not sound like the way brad talks about dmc or brothers on the bombcast
their opinions there are a little more honest and ultimately more influential to my purchasing decisions
The reason why the response to AAA games like GTAV and bioshock infinite is so scizophrenic is that they have to be everything to everyone. Some people want them to be Bad Boys, some people want them to be Inception and then other people want them to be a sandbox where you can teabag people.
Posts
Yeah now that I've actually read the article it was already changed to "Blizzard All-Stars" last year so ah well.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Nope, it was determined in court that Blizzard never held any rights to the Dota name.
Kerrigan, arthas, D1 warrior on one side, Zerg queen, Litch king and Diablo on the other.
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
For characters who were never your enemy, they will get exciting new Corrupted versions in an exciting spin on the Warcraft Story
that the framerate is good and the shooting feels nice and there's a deep combo system?
what if the narrative in a video game that is heavily focused on narrative does not work or is not good or a competent entry in its genre in the reviewer's subjective opinion
I do in fact want reviews by Zeldaexpert727 but I don't think those are the reviews we are getting
Why is there such a difference between the opinions expressed in the reviews of "sacred cows" and the actual unvarnished opinions that appear later in podcasts and editorials
I like Skyward Sword a lot but the reviews for that game do not match up with how people actually talk about that game
how does IGN give GTA4 and MGS4 10/10 oscar worthy script etc etc the highest ratings they gave that year... and then they end up 6th and 9th place on their actual goty list
Also Fenix is dead in every universe.
Pre-romance retcon Rayor, and post-romance retcon Raynor.
The only difference is when you order him around he just talks about how much he loves kerrigan. Also he can't engage her in combat.
he wants to bang the queen of blades for cryin out loud
Did you play the demo?
I thought we were.
don't get me started
Like if Project Titan comes out and it's a brand new franchise and its plot is not about a hero that gets corrupted by evil and becomes the ultimate bad guy I'll be actively upset.
Again, not to beat a dead horse, but this is not describing a review, it's describing a critique
Most likely a lady hero, as well
I rarely read reviews, even giant bomb's, because I know exactly the type of writing that is in there and I don't think it is very useful to me as a consumer
I watch quick looks and listen to giant bombcasts when I want giant bomb's opinion on if I should buy a video game or not
nyurggghghhh
https://medium.com/@alascii
I'm pretty much the same way.
But I think it's important to realize that there must be plenty of people who do find them to be useful consumer writing.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Was going to be an exclusive character to the WiiU version but fuck it everyone gets him.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
And when he says that people who don't like a genre should be given the chance to review a particular game, he doesn't mean UnbreakableVow should be reviewing FIFA 14. He means that somebody who's familiar but not fond or tired of a genre's tropes should be discussing the game. Of course, that's not the only kind of reviews that should be out there.
What I've sort of realized is that people asking for better games journalism are full of shit. Not on these boards, but the gaming community at large. What people want is for their views to be validated. People bag on IGN for saying GTA IV had an oscar-worthy story but if somebody calls out GTA V on its misogyny, the writer has to face 20,000 comments' worth of shit. And that's only because the consensus around GTA V is that it is amazing, while the consensus around IV is not so kind, at least in some regards.
Somewhere between then and now that changed a whole lot.
We'll see how GTAV fares against the ravages of time.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
I remember after long sessions playing it I would leave my house to go drive somewhere and I would get this weird feeling that I was still playing the game.
https://medium.com/@alascii
It's one of those games where the response seems to either be "it's amazing high art" or "it's fucking garbage shit".
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
I mean they don't exactly start waxing poetic or do deep editorializing in quick looks or giant bombcasts
but the way jeff talks about gta5 on the bombcast does not sound like the way brad talks about dmc or brothers on the bombcast
their opinions there are a little more honest and ultimately more influential to my purchasing decisions
https://medium.com/@alascii
Super Meat Boy, Antichamber, and half life look the most interesting to me on this list.