MrNyarlathotep
Banned
But it already does; visible onscreen budget ("Cinematic experiences") directly equates to a higher review score regardless of gameplay.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Game Criticism for what a game IS, instead of what it is NOT
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
But it already does; visible onscreen budget ("Cinematic experiences") directly equates to a higher review score regardless of gameplay.
Tidus_Great
Banned
I always hate when I see games get docked points for not being open world.
honestly a linear experience offers a much better narrative IMO yet it seems the flavor of the week is open world stuff (unless you are COD of course)
honestly a linear experience offers a much better narrative IMO yet it seems the flavor of the week is open world stuff (unless you are COD of course)
Messofanego
Banned
Hah, I remember people criticising the new Wolfenstein for not having a multiplayer mode, just because previous Wolfenstein games might have had them (by different developers).
Or Alan Wake for not being open world.
Could have wished for something else but at the end of the day, still have to criticize for what the final game released as and what the developer's intentions were.
Like, people saying you should have expected Destiny's story to be bad because of the kind of game it is, but some might want to compare to the same developer's past efforts or when the developer said they wanted it to be on the level of a Star Wars/LOTR/Harry Potter:
Or Alan Wake for not being open world.
Could have wished for something else but at the end of the day, still have to criticize for what the final game released as and what the developer's intentions were.
Like, people saying you should have expected Destiny's story to be bad because of the kind of game it is, but some might want to compare to the same developer's past efforts or when the developer said they wanted it to be on the level of a Star Wars/LOTR/Harry Potter:
EventHorizon
Member
This is just another example of the "It's not a bug, it's a feature" excuse for bad games. I'd state the OP's premise slightly differently.
Game Criticism for what a game IS, instead of what the developer intended it to be.
People compare games to others to give a historical basis to their criticism. That is perfectly natural and I would hope that developers would do similar research to find out what has worked and what hasn't in the past so that they can stand on the successes of others and avoid their mistakes,
Game Criticism for what a game IS, instead of what the developer intended it to be.
People compare games to others to give a historical basis to their criticism. That is perfectly natural and I would hope that developers would do similar research to find out what has worked and what hasn't in the past so that they can stand on the successes of others and avoid their mistakes,
That's not what I'm talking about. Visible onscreen budget has a correlation with the game you're playing. Simply looking at a games budget, it's development time, etc, and having it effect your evaluation is bad criticism.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
It really doesn't.
You can't argue that critics should add points for high production values, and then automatically follow that they shouldn't deduct points where gameplay has shortcomings despite those self same high production values.
Thread authors need to be able to moderate their own threads.
I don't know how big their powers should be but at the minimum they should have the power to place posts they see as meaningful towards to the front.
The problem with popular upvote systems is that we the people will start looking at the OP and making comments:
1) based on a very narrow focus that doesn't address the broad issues
2) looking for an agenda behind the OP's statements beyond what they have clearly written down
3) to shit on threads like that first post.
4) to start up a discussion that is tangential to the OP because the OP itself touches on
another important issue.
It would help a lot if the original poster can highlight posts that go deeper into their initial thoughts. Threads get too large as it is.
I don't think there are unfair comparisons but there are misguided ones. People use terms like open world and kiddy graphics as short hand phrases.
They can't be bothered to explain if they "don't want immersion to be broken by being prevented from doing things that logically should be possible", "have the freedom to explore different possible routes to get the same outcome, or "have experiences that are dynamic and thus can be retold differently when you talk about the previous day's play session."
When you get someone to break down what they actually mean the concepts can be applied to any game.
Talking about what game is when discussing it among a large group of people becomes more of a question what the game should be.
The biggest problem gaming faces when talking about it is that our language isn't granular enough. With the marketing machines offering vague promises it is hard to blame the common man for having expectations of what the game should be and not what it actually is.
Maybe we should start making an encyclopedia, dictionary for gaming concepts?
KingJ2002
Member
I agree amir0x... it's the reason why when i don't pay too much attention to reviews. Many reviews these days rate games for what it isn't rather than what it is.
Destiny is a good example of this.
iReviewers should look into doing more competitive analysis write ups rather than putting them into the review. That way each game can be reviewed based on it's own merit... then it's value can be compared against the rest... in a separate article.
Destiny is a good example of this.
iReviewers should look into doing more competitive analysis write ups rather than putting them into the review. That way each game can be reviewed based on it's own merit... then it's value can be compared against the rest... in a separate article.
Looooooooooooooord no. That only encourages discussion that agrees with the OP, while stifling any argument that is against it, regardless of the validity of the post. I understand what you're getting at here, but placing power in the creator is just going to create biased circlejerk topics.
JumpJeff84
Member
I get what OP is saying, and I agree to an extent.
The thing is, games are art (not trying to start this old debate, but you know what I mean) so they either work as a whole or they don't.
If I play a game that's completely linear, and it's an engaging experience, I won't care that it's a linear experience and wouldn't criticize it for not having sidequests or exploration.
But Final Fantasy 13; when I played that game I felt like it didn't have enough going for it. I liked the battle system okay, but I kept thinking 'this game is too linear'. The fact that there was a mini-map with an objective marker just highlighted how lacking the game was in terms of explanation. So if I had reviewed FF13 I would have criitqued it for being overly linear, because I honestly feel that the game suffered for it.
It's not to do with expectations or comparisons, more to do with the final package feeling like it was 'missing' something.
The thing is, games are art (not trying to start this old debate, but you know what I mean) so they either work as a whole or they don't.
If I play a game that's completely linear, and it's an engaging experience, I won't care that it's a linear experience and wouldn't criticize it for not having sidequests or exploration.
But Final Fantasy 13; when I played that game I felt like it didn't have enough going for it. I liked the battle system okay, but I kept thinking 'this game is too linear'. The fact that there was a mini-map with an objective marker just highlighted how lacking the game was in terms of explanation. So if I had reviewed FF13 I would have criitqued it for being overly linear, because I honestly feel that the game suffered for it.
It's not to do with expectations or comparisons, more to do with the final package feeling like it was 'missing' something.
Hoho for breakfast
Member
Each person has their own opinion, so there's going to be some who may enjoy a game for what it is and completely ignore anything that could be considered big flaws/issues to someone else.
However I think you absolutely have to factor in what a game is not when talking about it. You have to compare it in some ways to what has come before it or what it should have been. There's a "standard" that has to be met.
Destiny (this definitely seems like a Destiny thread) is excellent imo for what it is and for what it does have (It's reluctantly my GOTY so far. Sorry Wolfenstein), but at the same time it's clearly lacking in so many areas and clearly could have been a much better game.
I love the game for what it is and overall I'd recommend it to anyone that likes a good shooter and doesn't mind a lot of repetition. That's the easiest I could describe Destiny for what it is. A very fun but repetitive FPS.
However, it's lacking so many standard features and such that I think it would be a disservice to only talk about what the game is.
Obviously if I went and bought Forza and then complained about the lack of boss fights I'm the one with issues, not the game itself. But there are always going to be certain expectations in general and if those expectations aren't met then it's more likely the game has a problem.
For example in a modern racing game I expect to race in some cars online, and probably tune up the car, acquire better cars as I progress...and so on. These are the standard features of racing games today.
With an online FPS such as Destiny I would expect to have a good matchmaking system and to be able to chat with people and so on. This is one area where Destiny fails. This should absolutely be pointed out and the game should be criticized for lacking those standard features.
Personally I'll always be very critical of pretty much everything and that's because I want to see improvement. I want things pushed forward to a new standard. I want progress and I think complaining about things that are wrong helps in that regard. So I will always judge a game on what I feel it should be and not only on what it is.
However I think you absolutely have to factor in what a game is not when talking about it. You have to compare it in some ways to what has come before it or what it should have been. There's a "standard" that has to be met.
Destiny (this definitely seems like a Destiny thread) is excellent imo for what it is and for what it does have (It's reluctantly my GOTY so far. Sorry Wolfenstein), but at the same time it's clearly lacking in so many areas and clearly could have been a much better game.
I love the game for what it is and overall I'd recommend it to anyone that likes a good shooter and doesn't mind a lot of repetition. That's the easiest I could describe Destiny for what it is. A very fun but repetitive FPS.
However, it's lacking so many standard features and such that I think it would be a disservice to only talk about what the game is.
Obviously if I went and bought Forza and then complained about the lack of boss fights I'm the one with issues, not the game itself. But there are always going to be certain expectations in general and if those expectations aren't met then it's more likely the game has a problem.
For example in a modern racing game I expect to race in some cars online, and probably tune up the car, acquire better cars as I progress...and so on. These are the standard features of racing games today.
With an online FPS such as Destiny I would expect to have a good matchmaking system and to be able to chat with people and so on. This is one area where Destiny fails. This should absolutely be pointed out and the game should be criticized for lacking those standard features.
Personally I'll always be very critical of pretty much everything and that's because I want to see improvement. I want things pushed forward to a new standard. I want progress and I think complaining about things that are wrong helps in that regard. So I will always judge a game on what I feel it should be and not only on what it is.
Again, for clarity sake, my argument is not against comparisons. It's against apples and oranges comparisons.
Here is my comment from the OP
Amir0x said:
NeoGarrison
Banned
This is just one of the reasons I don't read or care about reviews from anyone. I form my own opinions about games and everything I experience and don't care or let others view influence me one bit.
I don't have destiny. I don't have a ps4 even, yet most of everyone in my psn and even Xbox friends list are playing that game and guess what? They are all in love with the game. Did they wait for reviews or even check on reviews? No. Most of them don't even check websites about stuff like that they just play games. Which is more or less how it should be.
I don't have destiny. I don't have a ps4 even, yet most of everyone in my psn and even Xbox friends list are playing that game and guess what? They are all in love with the game. Did they wait for reviews or even check on reviews? No. Most of them don't even check websites about stuff like that they just play games. Which is more or less how it should be.
Moral Panic
Member
It's better if you actually pull examples of what reviewers have done rather than hypotheticals that probably never happen.
Actually it doesn't because the suggestion for the minimum isn't to remove posts.
Besides people can reasonably tell if a thread would be too much of a circle jerk and avoid talking in the thread. This subtle reaction does help keep the circle jerk in check because if people aren't willing to talk the thread falls off into obscurity.
I doubt this. If they are gamers who use forums regularly they are going to be influenced by the hype machines because other people are talking about it. You don't get how marketing works.
I agree, there are far too many general people that attacks a game from an angle that the game never attempt to be.
but I think this would only totally apply to new IPs, sequels should follow previous game workings for the most part and could be reasonably judged by "what the IP was about"
but I think this would only totally apply to new IPs, sequels should follow previous game workings for the most part and could be reasonably judged by "what the IP was about"
reviews have done it before, and someone already posted an example in this topic. but this thread is not even mostly about reviewers at all.
Read:
Amir0x said:
Many discussion topics vs. some reviews, directly implying that it is more of a problem in forum discussion. Such examples are endless. It's about the way we can improve critical discussion here, for the most part, and discuss the issue of false comparisons in general.
Since it's self-evident it occurs all the time I do not think it's particularly productive to go around calling out topics, which will just derail everything as people address their own arbitrary values for what counts or not.
If you do not enjoy such a discussion, you do not have to participate naturally.
Branching paths does not automatically equal better. More choices doesn not automatically equal better. Just like linearity not done right, open world not done right can be just as tedious. For example, I gave up on playing Zelda 1 after 4 dungeons because I found the extreme open and non directional nature of the world tedious and boring as hell.
NeoGarrison
Banned
Great way to completely ignore what I already stated (Them not visiting websites or gaming media) to then make a completely arbitrary observation about someone you don't know a thing about.
I know how Marketing works thank you, I studied it back in college 15 years ago and have worked alongside marketing departments for years. Even thou I have no clue as to why you even brought it up without any preamble into your response? This reads more someone going in a tangent really.
Moral Panic
Member
I think we come from a very different mentality as per reviews. For me the review is the expression in the context of your experiences with media. If I say a game has a poor story that has nothing to do with whatever the developer intended. I frankly don't see why I should care whatever narrative style or trend he was aping. A common complain of Destiny's story is that it is generic, which is a clear violation of criticism for what it is, but I defy you to say that it is a bad statement to use in describing a game.
Games do not exist in a vacuum, every game you've played that was in any way better should change your entire viewpoint. If every other game is 10 hours then a 1 hour game is short and describing it as such is proper. If other games have branching storylines and/or sidequests, then a game where you have no choice but to go from A to B is linear.
Games do not exist in a vacuum, every game you've played that was in any way better should change your entire viewpoint. If every other game is 10 hours then a 1 hour game is short and describing it as such is proper. If other games have branching storylines and/or sidequests, then a game where you have no choice but to go from A to B is linear.
You missed the point of the OP. Destiny is comparable to Halo and Borderlands. The combat in Halo and Destiny are comparable. The systems, Rpg aspects, looting, co-op, and worlds are comparable to Borderlands.
Again, that's not at all what I'm saying.
silvermember
Banned
I think games should be rated based on the genre they are in. So all FPS should only be compared to other FPS, to allow for some consistency given how some genres are more likely to review better than other genres.
Things that are great in genre A doesn't necessarily translate well for other games and becomes a negative for a game in genre A, instead of a feature of part of it.
Things that are great in genre A doesn't necessarily translate well for other games and becomes a negative for a game in genre A, instead of a feature of part of it.
UncleSporky
Member
Nintendo seems to get slammed with this sort of criticism a lot. Mario 3D World doesn't have online multiplayer. Hyrule Warriors doesn't have online multiplayer. Mario Kart 8 doesn't have voice chat with anonymous people or during races. That sort of thing.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
You're saying if a game took 5 years to make and had a budget of $1 million, the fact it took 5 years to make and cost $1 million and ended up mediocre shouldn't be held against it - they should look at the game and ignore all that time and budget it had spent on it.
I'm saying if production budgets can work in a games favour (as they already do) they should also work against it too.
The fact it took 5 years to make and had a large budget, shouldn't then be compounded onto it already being mediocre, therefore artificially reducing the score. Yes that's what I'm saying. A consumer doesn't need to know or care about the development or budget of a game before making a purchase. If the production budget was able to make the game better, that's great. If a mediocre game had a large budget, five plus year development time, etc, the game isn't then artificially worse because of those things. Likewise, a small indie game isn't better just because one dude out of his basement made the game with his life savings. It makes for a great story, but those details have no place in a review or evaluation of the game.
EventHorizon
Member
But that argument says that it is invalid to compare categories of games to other categories. Gamer's tastes change over time. Why is it wrong for people to notice those changes, and fault a game for be behind the times? For example, whether you agree with the argument or not, it is perfectly valid to question if corridor shooters are falling out of favor in relation to more open world games.
Imagine your argument in the context of fashion. If someone tried to sell you the following outfit, wouldn't a valid criticism be that it is out of style. This would be especially true on a forum devoted to talking about fashion. The entire point of that discussion would to rate outfits based on current consumer demand and to spot future trends. That is not to say that there would not be people who would like the look, but it is fair to say if that look would find mass acceptance or not.
Earthpainting
Member
I've expressed this sentiment before. I think it's because video games are reviewed as products like a cellphone or other gadgets, rather than pieces of art or entertainment. If I had to guess, I'd say it's a side-effect of the industry being partially intertwined with the tech-industry. It brings a focus on specs and features that other creative industries don't have. Specs, a check-list of features and even design philosophies get turned into "standards", which is noble in its intent, but ultimately misguided and creatively stifling. This focus ends up creating an evaluation philosophy where more expensive games more easily float to the top as a default, and lower budget ones to the bottom. When mediocre games do well in reviews, the perceived baseline "average" score also raises. This also fosters the idea that games "age" in its relative quality, because newer games with higher specs never stop entering the stage.
Once you're conditioned to accept that ticking a bunch of check-boxes makes your game better, you inadvertently end up with lines of thought where some decisions/genres/... are supposedly better than others as well, which I think brings us to what this thread is about. No one would judge music by the amount of vocalists there are in a song, or look down a musician for using an out of vogue instrument. During the PS1/N64/Saturn-era, many were working under the presumption that 3D games are inherently superior to 2D ones. The Open World vs Linear Design example from the OP is a decent modern equivalent of this. Forced multiplayer, online components and achievements are some other examples we've had, and the one that sticks by me the most is the Resident Evil controls debate.
Another element to it is that critiquing something based on what it isn't is simply a lot easier than based on what it is. In the case of the former, you just have to have some semblance of knowledge of what is popular or what worked well in the recent past. This is the same type of pattern-recognising required as recognising tropes, which is similarly used as a substitute for analyses. The latter requires actual analysis and deconstruction of what could be new things or evaluating whether or not they worked and why. I've been really enjoying Campster's Errant Signal and Super Bunny Hop on Youtube these days for scratching that very itch. I'd link 'em, but mobile posting makes this a pain.
Once you're conditioned to accept that ticking a bunch of check-boxes makes your game better, you inadvertently end up with lines of thought where some decisions/genres/... are supposedly better than others as well, which I think brings us to what this thread is about. No one would judge music by the amount of vocalists there are in a song, or look down a musician for using an out of vogue instrument. During the PS1/N64/Saturn-era, many were working under the presumption that 3D games are inherently superior to 2D ones. The Open World vs Linear Design example from the OP is a decent modern equivalent of this. Forced multiplayer, online components and achievements are some other examples we've had, and the one that sticks by me the most is the Resident Evil controls debate.
Another element to it is that critiquing something based on what it isn't is simply a lot easier than based on what it is. In the case of the former, you just have to have some semblance of knowledge of what is popular or what worked well in the recent past. This is the same type of pattern-recognising required as recognising tropes, which is similarly used as a substitute for analyses. The latter requires actual analysis and deconstruction of what could be new things or evaluating whether or not they worked and why. I've been really enjoying Campster's Errant Signal and Super Bunny Hop on Youtube these days for scratching that very itch. I'd link 'em, but mobile posting makes this a pain.
I think people have biases that adhering to certain "standards" is good, and if you deviate from them, you better have a good reason. If Halo did X, Y, Z then why didn't Destiny? If you're stuck under the standards of another game or certain tropes then you will be chastised for doing things differently. If you manage to break free, your differences will be judged in their own light; if they're good differences, you will be praised.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
You can't make a game, tell people it has certain influences, then have those influences be poorly implemented or barely even implemented at all.
You're going tonight your ass kicked every time.
You're going tonight your ass kicked every time.
HolyBaikal
Banned
I don't see how anyone could not like anime, or Tales of Vesperia, or cute things. :<
Except for the ending, kind of. The ending was kind of disappointing.
Except for the ending, kind of. The ending was kind of disappointing.
Same reason you don't like violent, gritty games.
Tastes differ.
That doesn't mean you can't criticize anything, of course. There's good anime and bad anime, there good Tales games and bad Tales games, and so on.
Well about Star Wars....You do know the Prequel Trilogy exists....Hah, I remember people criticising the new Wolfenstein for not having a multiplayer mode, just because previous Wolfenstein games might have had them (by different developers).
Or Alan Wake for not being open world.
Could have wished for something else but at the end of the day, still have to criticize for what the final game released as and what the developer's intentions were.
Like, people saying you should have expected Destiny's story to be bad because of the kind of game it is, but some might want to compare to the same developer's past efforts or when the developer said they wanted it to be on the level of a Star Wars/LOTR/Harry Potter:
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
You can of course write how this is different, but you'd be hard pressed to argue why it's inherently worse. I, for instance, like Skyward Sword the most out of all Zelda games and that's probably one of the most linear main games in the series. I also like Zelda 1 (besides Zelda 2) the least out of the series (though that's not a direct result of its openess, and more of its lack of interesting puzzle design). I think both approaches - the more open and the more linear one - have their own advantages and disadvantages and if you were to write about the negatives of the more linear approach, you should definitely also point out the positives.
EDIT: I'm not playing Destiny because it's a shooter AND it's an online game (two ko criteria in one for me), but having seen the six Star Wars movies, I'd not be surprised if Destiny reached the level of storytelling Star Wars reaches. It's not as if Star Wars is the pinacle of story telling or as if the story was even a highlight of the movies.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
This sums up my feelings nicely. Absolution is a great example of a fundamentally flawed premise.
I 100% agree with Amir0x... with two exceptions.
The first is where you've been led to believe though marketing that the game is something that it's not. That might not be relevant in the long run as people will come to understand what the game is supposed to be but at launch it's certainly relevant. For example, criticising Brutal Legend for what it wasn't (a decent action game) was in fact a legit criticism considering they sold the game as something it wasn't. That shouldn't have been the entirety of the criticism but it was, I believe, a valid point.
The second exception is games within franchises. While people should be free to innovate within a franchise, mindless change from a formula people expect can be criticised if it's not justified by the game design. That should only be a small part of the criticism, but I feel like it should be allowed. A good example here is the battle mode in MK8. We all know what a good battle mode looks like because of past Mario Karts. MK8 didn't had something different, but worse, and for no apparent reason. That's fair game, imo.
BUT - Here's the opposite point to OP's, and it's the SINGLE THING that annoys me most about talking with games with people -
If a game DOES attempt something, then that thing IS a target of criticism if it isn't achieved. So if a game spends a third of it's run-time in cutscenes telling a story, and that story is absolutely shit, then you don't get to say "Who plays games for the story?" No. 33% of the time, you had a shit experience. The devs tried to pull something off and didn't manage it, and it hurts the game. You can't handwave that by appealing to the fact that games are supposed to be an interactive medium or whatever.
The same can be said of games that have bad minigames or extended poor level design at parts - you can't handwave that stuff just because the main gameplay experience is good, everything must be seen as part of the whole.
But you also must look at it in context. Mario has a 'story', but it's quite clearly tongue in cheek, and takes less than 20 seconds to set up. It's just a whimsical context for the action, and should be judged as such. Context is everything. But in a game that has a major narrative focus, if that focus is bad then that's a huge minus for me.
The first is where you've been led to believe though marketing that the game is something that it's not. That might not be relevant in the long run as people will come to understand what the game is supposed to be but at launch it's certainly relevant. For example, criticising Brutal Legend for what it wasn't (a decent action game) was in fact a legit criticism considering they sold the game as something it wasn't. That shouldn't have been the entirety of the criticism but it was, I believe, a valid point.
The second exception is games within franchises. While people should be free to innovate within a franchise, mindless change from a formula people expect can be criticised if it's not justified by the game design. That should only be a small part of the criticism, but I feel like it should be allowed. A good example here is the battle mode in MK8. We all know what a good battle mode looks like because of past Mario Karts. MK8 didn't had something different, but worse, and for no apparent reason. That's fair game, imo.
BUT - Here's the opposite point to OP's, and it's the SINGLE THING that annoys me most about talking with games with people -
If a game DOES attempt something, then that thing IS a target of criticism if it isn't achieved. So if a game spends a third of it's run-time in cutscenes telling a story, and that story is absolutely shit, then you don't get to say "Who plays games for the story?" No. 33% of the time, you had a shit experience. The devs tried to pull something off and didn't manage it, and it hurts the game. You can't handwave that by appealing to the fact that games are supposed to be an interactive medium or whatever.
The same can be said of games that have bad minigames or extended poor level design at parts - you can't handwave that stuff just because the main gameplay experience is good, everything must be seen as part of the whole.
But you also must look at it in context. Mario has a 'story', but it's quite clearly tongue in cheek, and takes less than 20 seconds to set up. It's just a whimsical context for the action, and should be judged as such. Context is everything. But in a game that has a major narrative focus, if that focus is bad then that's a huge minus for me.
HolyBaikal
Banned
Well, I guess you're right.
I kind of fail to see the point here or rather where to draw the line with this whole thing. As we play more games we discover our own preferences. Our understanding of games grow further than classifying games as "fun" or "boring" and we understand what specific elements make a game enjoyable to us. Why is it fun or why is it boring?
Many of us probably have a good definition of how an enjoyable combat system works after playing many games with enjoyable combat. Those preferences are often created though playing games in a few specific genres that we consider our favorites but the preferences themselves do not limit themselves to those genres but span all of gaming. If I play two games in two different genres that are both focused on combat, I will enjoy the game based on how much the combat in the game agrees with my definition of what good combat is. If I do not enjoy the combat I will judge the game for not being enough like what I enjoy in a combat system. Am I not then judging the game for something it is not? Am I suppose to abandon my preferences and try to have an "objective" opinion of the game? Are discussions only valid from people who understand and agree with the intentions of the designers of the game? I don't really see what you are suggesting here, there are certain cases where I agree that saying "game x is not enough like game y" does not add much to the discussion but applying rules to how to approach game discussions seems very limiting.
Many of us probably have a good definition of how an enjoyable combat system works after playing many games with enjoyable combat. Those preferences are often created though playing games in a few specific genres that we consider our favorites but the preferences themselves do not limit themselves to those genres but span all of gaming. If I play two games in two different genres that are both focused on combat, I will enjoy the game based on how much the combat in the game agrees with my definition of what good combat is. If I do not enjoy the combat I will judge the game for not being enough like what I enjoy in a combat system. Am I not then judging the game for something it is not? Am I suppose to abandon my preferences and try to have an "objective" opinion of the game? Are discussions only valid from people who understand and agree with the intentions of the designers of the game? I don't really see what you are suggesting here, there are certain cases where I agree that saying "game x is not enough like game y" does not add much to the discussion but applying rules to how to approach game discussions seems very limiting.
I'm not a fan of imposing rules on critique of games and games reviews and even in gaming discussion. As long as someone can justify their point I'm usually ok with it.
To the people who avoid all reviews, haven't you managed to find critics/reviewers that share your general taste and sentiment? I only really take on board those types of opinions (for me Jim Sterling and Zero Punctuation reviews are spot on and although I don't always fully agree, I trust their opinions with regards to possible purchases). I only check out other reviews like GT or IGN to see what the general consensus seems to be.
To the people who avoid all reviews, haven't you managed to find critics/reviewers that share your general taste and sentiment? I only really take on board those types of opinions (for me Jim Sterling and Zero Punctuation reviews are spot on and although I don't always fully agree, I trust their opinions with regards to possible purchases). I only check out other reviews like GT or IGN to see what the general consensus seems to be.
I agree with what you said here. More often than not I've seen such "criticism" lifted to many games with no apparent reasons and fair argument behind it. Meanwhile, in many, if not all, book reviews I've read so far, the criticism directed on thing it fails to achieve, how is it fail bad bringing failure part, and sometimes for a bonus compared it to other books that try to achieve the same and succeed.
While certainly this type of criticism is good and definitely healthier for creative work like video games (heck, even tech design could criticized in this way) because we could see why it failed instead of what it lacked. But this type of criticism requires moderate amount of knowledge in things we want to criticize, or at least accustomed to such criticism. For example, because I don't play many FPS I can't know why a FPS could be considered fail at the things it try to achieve (though in this case, personally I shut my mouth because my word would be empty) because I don't have enough the knowledge. Its also requires a deal of awareness of game playing for us to able to identify the goal of the game. Naturally, this should be a homework for review site. Review with this kind of criticism could highlight and gave many point even to many people who don't familiar with the genre when its well written. But it is not possible for daily discussion unless the thread (in case of Gaf) moderated.
Yeah, I always thought that this kind of problem (many other problems in the industry really) stems from the roots of its own. I don't really know about this since I'm born in 90's, but I think at that time where video games is just another part of technological advancement, reviewer treats just like technology like you said. But as game become more progressively more innovated creative design-wise, it becomes not fitting at all to criticize like the same they did with technological device.
This like saying Hemmingway writing style is too simple and lack of complex prose that his work could have benefitted from complex prose like in T.S. Elliot writing.
No, being objective doesn't mean you have to abandon your preference. Being objective is like you acknowledge the game strong points and it succeed to achieve what its try to achieve, but in the end you admitted it you don't really like the game because of your preference. Liking something in the first place doesn't mean the something you like is good in the first place. Guilty pleasure is a term that exist for reasons.
While certainly this type of criticism is good and definitely healthier for creative work like video games (heck, even tech design could criticized in this way) because we could see why it failed instead of what it lacked. But this type of criticism requires moderate amount of knowledge in things we want to criticize, or at least accustomed to such criticism. For example, because I don't play many FPS I can't know why a FPS could be considered fail at the things it try to achieve (though in this case, personally I shut my mouth because my word would be empty) because I don't have enough the knowledge. Its also requires a deal of awareness of game playing for us to able to identify the goal of the game. Naturally, this should be a homework for review site. Review with this kind of criticism could highlight and gave many point even to many people who don't familiar with the genre when its well written. But it is not possible for daily discussion unless the thread (in case of Gaf) moderated.
Yeah, I always thought that this kind of problem (many other problems in the industry really) stems from the roots of its own. I don't really know about this since I'm born in 90's, but I think at that time where video games is just another part of technological advancement, reviewer treats just like technology like you said. But as game become more progressively more innovated creative design-wise, it becomes not fitting at all to criticize like the same they did with technological device.
I want to ignore but I just can't
This like saying Hemmingway writing style is too simple and lack of complex prose that his work could have benefitted from complex prose like in T.S. Elliot writing.
No, being objective doesn't mean you have to abandon your preference. Being objective is like you acknowledge the game strong points and it succeed to achieve what its try to achieve, but in the end you admitted it you don't really like the game because of your preference. Liking something in the first place doesn't mean the something you like is good in the first place. Guilty pleasure is a term that exist for reasons.