It's Kirk Hamilton. He and Schreier love Destiny to death. I applaud him for trying something different, but as someone who isn't a Destiny fan I lost interest pretty quick.Long?
Sure.
Enjoyable?
Your miliage may vary.
I saw it earlier today, started reading it trying to find the "reviewy bits", and instead found a long narrative about people's experiences with the Destiny franchise (and to some extent Halo), became bored looking for the information I was curious about and moved on with my life.
Kudos (like the granola bar) to them for trying something different in a review, but I came away from it having no idea if they liked the game or not... (Mostly because I never made it to any part that looks like a review. Perhaps there is one in there, perhaps not).
Long?
Sure.
Enjoyable?
Your miliage may vary.
I saw it earlier today, started reading it trying to find the "reviewy bits", and instead found a long narrative about people's experiences with the Destiny franchise (and to some extent Halo), became bored looking for the information I was curious about and moved on with my life.
Kudos (like the granola bar) to them for trying something different in a review, but I came away from it having no idea if they liked the game or not... (Mostly because I never made it to any part that looks like a review. Perhaps there is one in there, perhaps not).
Alex slipped on his headphones to play Dishonored 2. He was deeply excited, but also worried that he would be late to work tomorrow if he got caught up in the game. But he booted it up anyway, and started to fiddle with the graphics settings. "Thank god for gsync," he thought, while chewing on his lip.
Seven hours later, and he was still playing. Was Dishonored 2 good? Alex had trouble answering this question. Dishonored 2 simply existed, like the sun, or the ShakeWeight.
Because he always gets his own thread here.
This thread should be entertaining.
People that claim to have stumbled through AJs 45 min of slapstick dreck can't fathom to read a 15 min article.
Destiny 2 is in such a weird unique position for a game, that I think this review is a lot more informative than a standard review. Most reviews (like angry Joes) go through this effort of box ticking; does this feature work? Is there more content?
I think a review that centers the player and their possible relationship to a game like destiny is a smarter way to do it. Are you just casual and want to have a runthrough and some light grinding? Do you want to recreate that 1000+ hours of Destiny 1 and had some weird mixed relationship? This takes the extended metaphor out maybe a bit too far, but I think it's genuinely better and more useful than just ticking down the boxes of features.
I hope we see more stuff like this.
(Random asaide, I almost bumpbed into Stephen Totillo tranfserring trainsyesterday. I have the worst celebrity encounters )
FWIW, Angry Joe's review has the same problem as this one from Kotaku:
I want to get back to playing Destiny 2, I don't have time for all this long format reveiw bullshit, just tell me if you liked the game or not already!
Wait, why do you need a review at all then? lol
I don't think I've read a single Destiny 2 review. Preordered the game months ago and have been loving it, whether or not these outlets like it or not doesn't affect anything for me.
Albeit this thread is shit for another reason. That reason being OP's title and post content read like clickbait, not actually telling us why we should read Kotaku's review.
Destiny 2 is in such a weird unique position for a game, that I think this review is a lot more informative than a standard review.
Funny thing is that a solid first post with quotes and whatnot for Angry Joe review threads would probably make the thread better. Right now, those threads are just arguing over the score he gave it. We can't do that in this thread, because Kotaku doesn't give scores.The Angry Joe D2 review thread is the same. It's literally just a link to his video and the score in spoiler tags.
Personally, I think all reviews should go in the review thread, but I'm not a mod so.. whatever I guess.
Reviews and fictional books should probably not be compared like that... A review should be concise. People don't typically read reviews to be entertained. They read them to try and determine whether or not they should buy something.Racism is bad and dumb - Huckleberry Finn
Clearly I'm a better writer than Mark Twain according to your rubric.
Kotaku's mandate is that reviews should inform, entertain, and help improve our understanding of how video games make us feel. If you just want to know whether the graphics are good, there are plenty of other websites out there.A review should be concise. People don't typically read reviews to be entertained. They read them to try and determine whether or not they should buy something.
This thread should be entertaining.
People that claim to have stumbled through AJs 45 min of slapstick dreck can't fathom to read a 15 min article.
Reviews can be whatever the author wants them to be and however long they want them to be. I absolutely read criticism more for entertainment than purchasing help.Reviews and fictional books should probably not be compared like that... A review should be concise. People don't typically read reviews to be entertained. They read them to try and determine whether or not they should buy something.
Considering people already read reviews less and less this seems like the wrong direction to go in. Write a review that informs people efficiently and says what you want to say as a critic then produce a video where people tell their stories about the game or whatever. Or do a separate article or series chronicling their experiences over time.
it paints a picture of a player, or group of players, who are so deeply entrenched and obsessed with the content that it shapes and defines their entire day-to-day lives. It sounds like the game stops being media and becomes a lifestyle. It sounds like the bleary-eyed soothsaying of an addict above all else.
Kotaku's mandate is that reviews should inform, entertain, and help improve our understanding of how video games make us feel. If you just want to know whether the graphics are good, there are plenty of other websites out there.
It's Kirk Hamilton. He and Schreier love Destiny to death. I applaud him for trying something different, but as someone who isn't a Destiny fan I lost interest pretty quick.
While Destiny specifically pushes its relationship with the player to the forefront, don't many other games one way or another? Especially MMO types?
What else did you learn though? And how long did it take you to learn it? If you can effectively summarize the additional information in a couple sentences, what does that say about the value of the approach?
Why does Kotaku get his own thread?
This reads like a bad fanfic.
Kotaku's reviews are still horrible.
It's masturbatory and overlong.
The worst game reviews are a celebration of the author and not the title being critiqued.
If my goal was to simply abstract stipped out information like "Should I buy this" I don't think this review would be useful. I don't think that's a good format for a review though, as I like something that's more like criticism and is interesting to read on it's own.
I agree with all of this! I think more reviews need to approach games in this way. Given the volume of software that comes through, I'd almost prefer if reviews existed not to rate every game up or down, but if they worked to highlight the right games for the right people[b/], and bad/boring stuff just didn't get reviewed.
I think Destiny is just weird in that it can connect so deeply with kind of disparate communities really deeply, and in some ways they are kind of loosely connected through "THE DESTINY COMMUNITY" And in that way, a discussion of how the game might connect with those different parts of the community and how it might connect to potentially interested communities makes this format somewhat more useful.