I'm a fan of Giant Bomb. I think they are absolutely hilarious and as such it makes their Quick Looks rather enjoyable to watch. You never know what silly tangent they will go on and on about. However, after starting to listen to their podcast regularly it became rather apparent they are not enthused at all to play some of the games they cover. If I recall correctly, it was only two to three podcasts ago, where one of them mentioned they were planning to burn through all the stuff that they had to cover just so they could have time to properly play Grand Theft Auto 5. Hearing conversations like that spoken so plainly doesn't give me much confidence in the reviewing process as a whole.
I think Mirror's Edge is a fantastic example of what he's talking about. It sits in the same GR range as W101 (78-80 depending on the platform you're looking at). It was also a game that was difficult to describe (or at least hard for people to wrap their heads around). A game that was first person and where you could actually go through the entire game without firing a single gun. It was also a skill based game as it was a platformer that had no safety net (as in it had no double jump or floating move). You're either timed your jump right or you died. As a result it was heavily criticized for being trial and error based.
The guy that made the Cthullu saves the world, breath of death( I think?) and the Penny Arcade game sequels. And is in the process of making a pretty awesome new game right now.
And he's not saying game reviewers suck, he's saying games like TW101 are hard for game reviewers to score properly because it doesn't really fit the mold of any other games, and there is a skill barrier that frustrates game reviewers simply because it's too time consuming to actually be patient with the game and score it as it should, thus why you'll always have reviews saying "finicky controls" or "difficulty is very agressive" when it's completely fine.
I'm a fan of Giant Bomb. I think they are absolutely hilarious and as such it makes their Quick Looks rather enjoyable to watch. You never know what silly tangent they will go on and on about. However, after starting to listen to their podcast regularly it became rather apparent they are not enthused at all to play some of the games they cover. If I recall correctly, it was only two to three podcasts ago, where one of them mentioned they were planning to burn through all the stuff that they had to cover just so they could have time to properly play Grand Theft Auto 5. Hearing conversations like that spoken so plainly doesn't give me much confidence in the reviewing process as a whole.
Because many of that Videogames are not good or no their actual taste. Is one of the key points that Boyd implied, as not every single videogame is as good or at least as polished like a GTAV or a W101 or a Last Of Us.
I don't have much to add aside from saying that I think that there are a lot of good points in this thread, and there's a fantastic civil discourse going on in here; I wish game journalists would take note.
I don't have much to add aside from saying that I think that there are a lot of good points in this thread, and there's a fantastic civil discourse going on in here; I wish game journalists would take note.
I'm a fan of Giant Bomb. I think they are absolutely hilarious and as such it makes their Quick Looks rather enjoyable to watch. You never know what silly tangent they will go on and on about. However, after starting to listen to their podcast regularly it became rather apparent they are not enthused at all to play some of the games they cover. If I recall correctly, it was only two to three podcasts ago, where one of them mentioned they were planning to burn through all the stuff that they had to cover just so they could have time to properly play Grand Theft Auto 5. Hearing conversations like that spoken so plainly doesn't give me much confidence in the reviewing process as a whole.
I am shocked they even review games honestly. That's not where their traffic comes from so what's the point? They had a caption for the Gravity Rush 2 trailer that said ", but really who cares?" Well if no one presumably cares especially at Giant Bomb then why cover it?
Truth is most of the gaming press has at some point lost their passion for games or simply become jaded, and it is cooler to be cynical than it is to enjoy something. Same principle applies most news outlet. Negative news sells, positive news doesn't.
I would say that Wonderful 101 is a poor fit for most gamers.
Its certainly not just the press that doesn't "have time" to devote months to mastering a single game. I imagine most people will finish a game and retire it to a shelf until its time to resell or stick it in a box to make room for new consoles. Thats not to say anything disparaging about the average gamer, I count myself among them...
I'm all growed up. Between work, family, and all the forced social interactions because of those first two things I don't have the time for games that I use to. I also have a lot more disposable income. The result is a massive backlog that puts constant pressure on me to finish one game and move on to the next. Its the reason I don't enjoy fighting or racing games the way I use to; I'm just not willing to invest any time in them.
I mean, it's great if a game is recognized for its quality, innovation, and/or refreshing ways, but we gotta remember two things that also happen:
1. Great games get great reviews but shitastic sales. Great for cult popularity, bad for the company's bottom line they need to make more games to be respected.
2. Quite frankly, alot of quality, innovation, and refreshing ways goes on nearly imperceptible to the larger bulk of games media. To many of them, MMO's are all WoW, WoW clones, and EvE, Mmmmmmmmmobas were completely small and underground till early 2012, bald space marines are beloved by all, and we as a people didn't know Japan stumbled until 2008/2009/2010/2011/2012/2013/2014...
In my experience this is an ugly, ugly truth. I've listened to so many people, both on podcasts and elsewhere, essentially drip contempt in their tone for a game they've been handed that they simply don't care about.
Plus, in relation to TW101 specifically, I've been unsettled - yet not really surprised - to witness the creeping narrative of "look, I want to feel challenged by a game, but I just don't have time to you know, "be" "challenged". Ain't nobody got time for that, that's not what games are about. We've moved on." Listened to one jackass on a podcast say almost exactly that. (He did literally say games have moved on.)
Gen 7 Dogma will be a hard mentality to purge, as it can hide behind everyone's inate desire to avoid pain, lacking, and frustration, and the means to do that are easier to get than ever.
Reminds me of Volgarr the Viking. That is straight-up time-taking and skill-based. How many of the major outlets reviewed it? Unless you're playing it as an enthusiast, you can't play it to beat it and get a review done.
This scene or 'feeling' of gaming is limited now a days.
I am shocked they even review games honestly. That's not where their traffic comes from so what's the point? They had a caption for the Gravity Rush 2 trailer that said ", but really who cares?" Well if no one presumably cares especially at Giant Bomb then why cover it?
Truth is most of the gaming press has at some point lost their passion for games or simply become jaded, and it is cooler to be cynical than it is to enjoy something. Same principle applies most news outlet. Negative news sells, positive news doesn't.
I actually don't think "time" is the issue. That's more reflective of the situation these reviewers find themselves in. They write disposable buying guides, i.e. wikipedia-like advertisements (yes, even negative advertisements), and for the sake for marketability they rush these reviews out when most eyes would be interested in such advertising. Writing more demanding reviews with expertise in mind isn't even as marketable, as such writing is enjoyed mainly by the few passionate enough. "Gem in the rough" games, without some monthly zeitgeist to hold them up, are going to be more hurt by this.
However, I believe even if you gave most of these reviewers more time, they would still struggle to find the sensibility to appreciate these types of games. A lot of them are having games forced onto them because they play games as a job. When I look at their collective taste, homogeneous as it seems at times, I don't see why someone would even care to look deeper at obscure Japanese games even if they had the time. Is the passion or expertise there? Maybe for the film-like, novelty game which inspires those looking for something "new"/"bold"/"mature" and requires little of the latter. I mean if the game is frustrating them and don't like to be frustrated, it makes sense they would be repelled. That said, these outlets occasionally have a "JRPG dude" and such, but I don't think that really changes things in the long (I mean for JRPGs especially, which often only demand you put up with time-wasting tropes).
Demon's Souls had a lot of buzz as an import game and it had a reputation established before the first US reviews came out. You have to remember a lot of these guys live within a couple dozen miles from each other, party together at conventions/during podcasts, etc.
Super Meat Boy was very well received critically as well, despite it's challenging nature.
But it's a very simple platformer at the end of the day. It's not something that plays in a really unique way that you have to wrap your head around like the Wonderful 101 or Kid Icarus: Uprising.
Super Meat Boy is designed to play like using save-states on a rom. It reenacts the feeling of triumph some get from beating Ninja Gaiden (NES) with save/load hotkeys used as frequently as A and B. From overall design to small conveniences like respawn speed, It is anti-frustration and frustration is what gets people down in the first place (frustration of having to learn new control schemes, as you pointed out).
Btw, I just described a large part of why Super Meat Boy is bad.
I agree with what he's saying here, and it doesn't lessen my disappointment.
When people in games media seem to be gauging their own interest in this game by "I played it for 15 minutes at an event once and didn't really get it. Probably won't bother checking it out," that seems like a really shitty way to approach games. Fuck, I love Giantbomb's Alex Navarro, but when that came out of his mouth, I dropped my head to my desk.
I understand it's a time thing, but it's both unfair to the game, and just not beneficial to the readers themselves to basically skim games like this. W101 is a fucking amazing game. It's so fucking funny, and insane, and incredibly rewarding once you start digging into the mechanics and begin understanding them. Just awkwardly shrugging their shoulders, saying "Uhh... I don't really get it. And this thing is kinda hard to draw, I dunno," (it's not by the way) "Whatever, BUT FUCK I GOTTA GET TO GTAV" because god knows there aren't enough people talking about it already....
I would say that Wonderful 101 is a poor fit for most gamers.
Its certainly not just the press that doesn't "have time" to devote months to mastering a single game. I imagine most people will finish a game and retire it to a shelf until its time to resell or stick it in a box to make room for new consoles. Thats not to say anything disparaging about the average gamer, I count myself among them...
I'm all growed up. Between work, family, and all the forced social interactions because of those first two things I don't have the time for games that I use to. I also have a lot more disposable income. The result is a massive backlog that puts constant pressure on me to finish one game and move on to the next. Its the reason I don't enjoy fighting or racing games the way I use to; I'm just not willing to invest any time in them.
Yes one thing I have noticed, with some review of games, a new IP comes out, gets mediocre to even bad reviews, consumers themselves get their hands on it, it starts selling more than originally did and the public loves it, the sequel comes out, reviewers give the next game a 8-10 on the point scale despite the core gameplay being the same, just polished in areas that will naturally make the game better in former weaker areas.
While not quite the same, the episodes for the Walking Dead each range in the 7-8 range on metacritic. Yet the retail version is sitting at I think a 95 rating. It's total bullshit and a clear example of the press going "oh well this game has steam and recognition now, I guess it deserves high praise."
Now if someone buys a game like this and doesnt immediately get it, what are they going to do? Well, they have an investment in the game (the money they spent and their desire to enjoy the game) so theyre going to put in the effort to try to get something out of the game. Theyll keep at it until the games systems click for them, or theyll look online at gameplay videos, ask questions on forums, check out a FAQ, etc.
I have an issue with this section of his article. Weren't there statistics that came out recently that said most people (>50&%) never make it to the end of the singleplayer games they buy. The more hardcore audience may stick with a game 'they don't get', but I don't believe that's the case for many gamers out there.
On the other end of the spectrum, someone like me with too many games to play may give a game a couple hours but set it aside if it doesn't click simply because there's too many other options that involve having fun.
Sometimes I kind of wonder if there's an alternate universe out there where the fighting game genre never hit that Street Fighter stage of evolution and remained simplistic or niche, or where SFII was a flop for some bizarre butterfly effect reason. 20 years later, a Japanese developer decides to pay homage to those old games with a new title, complete with those quirky inputs and complex mechanics.
I wonder how well it would be received. I'd imagine there'd be a lot of journalists distantly regarding it as a neat thing for a super niche audience. Podcasts and reviews aplenty complaining or poking fun at the stupid idea of wiggling a stick in a weird way while pressing a button to punch upwards, and YouTube videos of people doing basic combos and techniques considered some kind of impenetrable arcane trick.
I would say that Wonderful 101 is a poor fit for most gamers.
Its certainly not just the press that doesn't "have time" to devote months to mastering a single game. I imagine most people will finish a game and retire it to a shelf until its time to resell or stick it in a box to make room for new consoles. Thats not to say anything disparaging about the average gamer, I count myself among them...
I'm all growed up. Between work, family, and all the forced social interactions because of those first two things I don't have the time for games that I use to. I also have a lot more disposable income. The result is a massive backlog that puts constant pressure on me to finish one game and move on to the next. Its the reason I don't enjoy fighting or racing games the way I use to; I'm just not willing to invest any time in them.
To be honest I think TW101 is easily platinum's best game on a first playthrough. It's got the best story by far, it's long (so by the end of the game you'll be somewhat good at it even if you completely suck at playing videogames) and well paced and the final couple of hours are just out of this world. It's not one of those games you need to play 5 times to enjoy. Just playing it through completion is more than enough. Just look at the OT. Every time someone finishes the game we get one of those "OHMYGODTHISWASSOAWESOME" posts.
Now if someone buys a game like this and doesnt immediately get it, what are they going to do? Well, they have an investment in the game (the money they spent and their desire to enjoy the game) so theyre going to put in the effort to try to get something out of the game. Theyll keep at it until the games systems click for them, or theyll look online at gameplay videos, ask questions on forums, check out a FAQ, etc.
is probably false. I say that based on the information released by Bioware about Mass Effect players, how the vast majority of them simply pick the most straightforward class and most don't actually progress very far through the game. There are a lot of people who do not devote more time to games than the reviewers do. I don't think Boyd's assumption that the average player is willing to put in hours of work mastering an unintuitive combat system is true. Certainly this varies based on the type of game and its audience, but TW101 is a cartoony beat-em-up - the sort of game that might be expected to appeal to a more broad audience rather than just to people with lots of time and patience.
Now, there may be a separate argument to have about whether reviews should be written for the average person thinking about buying the game or whether they should be written for more hardcore gamers who are willing to invest time in coming to grips with complex systems, but that doesn't seem to be the argument he is making here.
I agree with what he's saying here, and it doesn't lessen my disappointment.
When people in games media seem to be gauging their own interest in this game by "I played it for 15 minutes at an event once and didn't really get it. Probably won't bother checking it out," that seems like a really shitty way to approach games. Fuck, I love Giantbomb's Alex Navarro, but when that came out of his mouth, I dropped my head to my desk.
I understand it's a time thing, but it's both unfair to the game, and just not beneficial to the readers themselves to basically skim games like this. W101 is a fucking amazing game. It's so fucking funny, and insane, and incredibly rewarding once you start digging into the mechanics and begin understanding them. Just awkwardly shrugging their shoulders, saying "Uhh... I don't really get it. And this thing is kinda hard to draw, I dunno," (it's not by the way) "Whatever, BUT FUCK I GOTTA GET TO GTAV" because god knows there aren't enough people talking about it already....
It doesn't help anyone.
No one is asking them to get Pure Platinum on Hard.
Sometimes I kind of wonder if there's an alternate universe out there where the fighting game genre never hit that Street Fighter stage of evolution and remained simplistic or niche, or where SFII was a flop for some bizarre butterfly effect reason. 20 years later, a Japanese developer decides to pay homage to those old games with a new title, complete with those quirky inputs and complex mechanics.
I wonder how well it would be received. I'd imagine there'd be a lot of journalists distantly regarding it as a neat thing for a super niche audience. Podcasts and reviews aplenty complaining or poking fun at the stupid idea of wiggling a stick in a weird way while pressing a button to punch upwards, and YouTube videos of people doing basic combos and techniques considered some kind of impenetrable arcane trick.
The press reception of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls almost stick out as a glitch this generation. I dunno; with the way those games are talked about and name-dropped so much. Sometimes I feel as if the gaming press is proud of them because they give you street cred if you say you played them.
Even then most critics didnt play it, they would start it and never finish. Most would say it is to hard, or not concise enough on its gameplay systems.
Not voiced by Nolan North, -10 points
Not enough cutscenes, -5 points
Not enough handholding and also too much handholding, -5 points
Nintendo, -5 points
Pretty decent otherwise, I guess, 75 / 100 - 75% - 7.5, Bronze award
Did you even read the article? I think most gaming journalists would agree with his points. If the full experience of a game isn't provided within the first 10-15 hours (think almost every AAA game this gen), the game will be penalized. Reviewers simply don't have enough time to give games like W101 a fair evaluation. Gamespot has gone on record saying that their reviewers often don't have time for a single playthrough.
Well I suppose I would argue that if a particular game doesn't align with their taste and if they don't particularly feel like playing that game, because as they mentioned they burned straight through em so they could play more favorable games, why bother at all? If I were asked to sit down and play through Crusader Kings or Europha Universalis I would emphatically say, "Fuck no", because I have zero interest or desire to play those games. It appears they are more worried about delivering content then giving games their fair share. While I understand its their prerogative, it just looks bad on their part in my opinion.
If it takes a reviewer "months to hone their skills" then very few players will experience that accordingly. I don't think I buy the premise of this op-ed.
By this theory - the "exquisitely skill-based" argument, things like Ninja Gaiden and Super Meat Boy would not have been well received in the gaming press.
Note, I'm not saying that most gamers when presented with a game that they find initially bewildering will put in the time & the effort to master it or even to finish it. I'm just saying that they're more likely to try to get past that initial barrier if it's a game that they were eagerly awaiting that they just spent $60 on.
I'd say that the big reasons why people don't finish games are the rapid release of new games and most games being longer than their quality & variety can properly support.
No, because W101 also demonstrates the problem with demos. I'd say the demo on the eShop is pretty representative of the main part of the game. The problem is it's still a skill based game. You get some abilities to start the demo but you aren't eased into them and even in the main game you need to play a couple hours to really get the basics. So in 15 minute demo, even if it demonstrates the game you probably will walk away never understanding how to play it and will likely not get to your first "ah ha!" moment. This also doesn't mention the constant gameplay shifts which the game throws at you. This is what reviews could have fixed, a lengthy hands on to explore the game would have really help ease some fears that the whole game was frustrating and that there is huge satisfaction in learning for yourself how things work. But they didn't, most were probably in a rush to get that out the door. The game doesn't halt your progress for sucking, it's forgiving and you can continue as much as you want and get to the credits and in most AAA games that's your reward, but here it's not.
If it takes a reviewer "months to hone their skills" then very few players will experience that accordingly. I don't think I buy the premise of this op-ed.
By this theory - the "exquisitely skill-based" argument, things like Ninja Gaiden and Super Meat Boy would not have been well received in the gaming press.
Ninja Gaiden, Skyrim, and GTA V were all blockbuster sequels to popular series. They had huge amounts of hype going in, people knew what to expect, and people cleared their schedules for them.
I own 101 and I'm sorry but it's about 7 in my books. There's just too much gimmicky shit in most levels, the camera is sometimes lacking and the controls, although very interesting and fun, are often unreliable.
Get over it gaf, it's not a game of bayonettas caliber.
But reviewers need to understand their personal likes and dislikes and look past them in order to see when a game is good at what it does. Or get someone who understands the genre to review it because they can review it more properly. If a game has a deep combat system, it simply isn't fair to just ignore or not explore it.
But (as far as I'm aware) you're not working in games media. Just about anyone can pick up a game, and whether they understand it or not, write afew paragraphs about what they liked and didn't like after rushing to beat it. Consumers can choose to invest however much time they want or feel necessary to understand whatever they wanna play. That's their money and their call.
But (ideally) game reviews should be more in-depth and thoughtful with their criticism and analysis. Thinking about why something works or doesn't work, how some aspect affects another, etc. And how the mechanics of an action game like W101 function once you delve deeper.
Sadly, the former is far more common (as per my 'should' in the last paragraph) partially due to time. That and there are plenty of people that basically approach that profession and games themselves as product reviews like for a DVD player or something. "The menus are kinda confusing, it's weird. I like how it looks on my shelf. That silver stripe across looks pretty cool. It takes a while for the thing to load up though, and that's annoying. 7/10"
More should be expected from reviews, and the reviewers. I get that some just don't have the time for basically any game, but not giving games that require more than a quick glance their proper dues is a disservice to the creators and the consumers.
TL;DR - Breaking news: the games review process is kinda fucked. More at 11
I'm a fan of Giant Bomb. I think they are absolutely hilarious and as such it makes their Quick Looks rather enjoyable to watch. You never know what silly tangent they will go on and on about. However, after starting to listen to their podcast regularly it became rather apparent they are not enthused at all to play some of the games they cover. If I recall correctly, it was only two to three podcasts ago, where one of them mentioned they were planning to burn through all the stuff that they had to cover just so they could have time to properly play Grand Theft Auto 5. Hearing conversations like that spoken so plainly doesn't give me much confidence in the reviewing process as a whole.
I don't recall that particular podcast, but I do know what you mean. One thing about GB staff is that you've got a very wide range of tastes and, presumably, the guy that most appreciates a type of game is the one that will be doing the review for it. I never get a sense that only blockbusters are being given the spotlight there.
The Last of Us is a great example. One of the biggest games of the year, but if you listen to the podcast it doesn't sound like many of them were all that happy about playing it. I think Brad admitted he has no interest in playing it. Meanwhile the guy can't shut up about DOTA, Brothers, and Animal Crossing.
Note, I'm not saying that most gamers when presented with a game that they find initially bewildering will put in the time & the effort to master it or even to finish it. I'm just saying that they're more likely to try to get past that initial barrier if it's a game that they were eagerly awaiting that they just spent $60 on.
I'd say that the big reasons why people don't finish games are the rapid release of new games and most games being longer than their quality & variety can properly support.
I don't recall that particular podcast, but I do know what you mean. One thing about GB staff is that you've got a very wide range of tastes and, presumably, the guy that most appreciates a type of game is the one that will be doing the review for it. I never get a sense that only blockbusters are being given the spotlight there.
The Last of Us is a great example. One of the biggest games of the year, but if you listen to the podcast it doesn't sound like many of them were all that happy about playing it. I think Brad admitted he has no interest in playing it. Meanwhile the guy can't shut up about DOTA, Brothers, and Animal Crossing.
Also that came out kinda around the passing of Ryan Davis - I remember some of them even suggesting it was just something they could not deal with at that time, and now with holiday games coming up, they may just have missed the time to do so. Not saying that's the only reason, but yeah...
I don't recall that particular podcast, but I do know what you mean. One thing about GB staff is that you've got a very wide range of tastes and, presumably, the guy that most appreciates a type of game is the one that will be doing the review for it. I never get a sense that only blockbusters are being given the spotlight there.
The Last of Us is a great example. One of the biggest games of the year, but if you listen to the podcast it doesn't sound like many of them were all that happy about playing it. I think Brad admitted he has no interest in playing it. Meanwhile the guy can't shut up about DOTA, Brothers, and Animal Crossing.
Just an example of the fact that the field does not consist of professional writers. They are gamers who happen to run this site and make these funny videos.
My perception is that gaming public in general isn't much fonder of the game than the press. Ultimately, it's all personal opinion though. That said, I do think that gaf got carried away be the hype that gaf itself created.
No, because W101 also demonstrates the problem with demos. I'd say the demo on the eShop is pretty representative of the main part of the game. The problem is it's still a skill based game. You get some abilities to start the demo but you aren't eased into them and even in the main game you need to play a couple hours to really get the basics. So in 15 minute demo, even if it demonstrates the game you probably will walk away never understanding how to play it and will likely not get to your first "ah ha!" moment. This also doesn't mention the constant gameplay shifts which the game throws at you. This is what reviews could have fixed, a lengthy hands on to explore the game would have really help ease some fears that the whole game was frustrating and that there is huge satisfaction in learning for yourself how things work. But they didn't, most were probably in a rush to get that out the door. The game doesn't halt your progress for sucking, it's forgiving and you can continue as much as you want and get to the credits and in most AAA games that's your reward, but here it's not.
Reviews will never be able to persuade someone put off by a demo. You're talking about spending $60 on something that you didn't enjoy playing yourself on the basis of someone else's dissenting opinion which, no matter how well written, will never be able to cancel out the "WHY ARE YOU BUYING THIS? YOU DIDN'T EVEN LIKE IT!" voice inside your head when you're at the store.
Well, personal solutions can solve the "game reviewer" trust problems such as finding game reviewers that seem to share your general taste and agree with your opinions, now you can ignore most other reviews. Or, additional material such as impressions, peer reviews, and podcast can help you find adequate game evaluations.
Reviews and reviewers are not made equally, unfortunately.
