-
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.
GS's Army of Two Review: Unprofessionalism at its finest?
- Thread starter Captain Pants
- Start date
Games are art.
Games are nothing more than something calling for the use of my synapses.
This review is good because it comments on something other than the gameplay.
This review sucks because it's preachy.
game reviewers should address the content on a deeper level.
game reviewers should provide nothing more than a basic buyer's guide.
Videogames should have messages and aim to be more than a call for the use of my synapses.
Videogames should shut the fuck up and let me kill shit.
Who cares as long as the big 3 are making money and churning out bald space marines, annoying italian plumbers, and androgynous spiky haired dudes, eh?
Just one of the many reasons why gaming may never be taken serious as a medium. But I'm not saying it should-- I like mindless gameplay as much as the next guy, and get stories from books and movies--I'm just calling it like I see it.
Games are nothing more than something calling for the use of my synapses.
This review is good because it comments on something other than the gameplay.
This review sucks because it's preachy.
game reviewers should address the content on a deeper level.
game reviewers should provide nothing more than a basic buyer's guide.
Videogames should have messages and aim to be more than a call for the use of my synapses.
Videogames should shut the fuck up and let me kill shit.
Who cares as long as the big 3 are making money and churning out bald space marines, annoying italian plumbers, and androgynous spiky haired dudes, eh?
Just one of the many reasons why gaming may never be taken serious as a medium. But I'm not saying it should-- I like mindless gameplay as much as the next guy, and get stories from books and movies--I'm just calling it like I see it.
I think the scores/scoring should be as unbiased/objective as possible (however that's possible -- average from a group of reviewers, maybe?), but I think the critique/review should have, not only the reviewers' opinion, but also maybe a brief explanation or reason as to why they felt that way as to avoid confusion.
SOOO for example, "yeah, this game mocks and glorifies mercs, yadda, yadda... My uncle was a merc, and it wasn't that easy... yadda. As such, for me it would have made more sense in a fictional battlefield. yadda... yadda yadda...."
Yeah, but the reasons people feel this way are obvious and, to a certain extent, understandable. Hardcore gamers, for the most part, appreciate the artistic integrity of games. When they don't receive that kind of treatment from mainstream (or even from other gamers), they feel they need to protect it by being vocal. Kind of like fanboy logic, except they're fans of 'games as art' (or 'games aren't art.')
On the flipside, people want an objective review because they're spending quite a bit of money on it and, truth be told, why listen to someone else's opinion when you're going to have your own and it probably won't be the same as that persons. Chicken or the egg, really.
SOOO for example, "yeah, this game mocks and glorifies mercs, yadda, yadda... My uncle was a merc, and it wasn't that easy... yadda. As such, for me it would have made more sense in a fictional battlefield. yadda... yadda yadda...."
chespace said:
Yeah, but the reasons people feel this way are obvious and, to a certain extent, understandable. Hardcore gamers, for the most part, appreciate the artistic integrity of games. When they don't receive that kind of treatment from mainstream (or even from other gamers), they feel they need to protect it by being vocal. Kind of like fanboy logic, except they're fans of 'games as art' (or 'games aren't art.')
On the flipside, people want an objective review because they're spending quite a bit of money on it and, truth be told, why listen to someone else's opinion when you're going to have your own and it probably won't be the same as that persons. Chicken or the egg, really.
Or not. Clearly there is political commentary. This review is totally incomprehensible. It's complaints are vague and I'm getting the impression that the reviewer doesn't clearly convey WHY this is objectionable because he either doesn't know or doesn't realize that he needs to justify his opinions.
Based on reviews and media I've read, it seems clear that the game IS trying to provide political commentary, and contrary to what the reviewer suggests, they are not portraying PMCs in a positive light (at least in their trailers.) See:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31199.html
Based on reviews and media I've read, it seems clear that the game IS trying to provide political commentary, and contrary to what the reviewer suggests, they are not portraying PMCs in a positive light (at least in their trailers.) See:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31199.html
I think it's confusing people because it's what they want, but it's a terribly written review.chespace said:
seattle6418
Member
Captain Pants said:
forget about gamespot, it seems like everybody here is replying only based on gamespot's track record.
lets look at the info itself, and if that's the case, i don't agree with you. it goes against everything i've learned in my journalism school, and with i believe. i don't really think that game reviews shouldn't question the story. you know, its opinative journalism, so you can agree or disagree with the reviewer, but asking for "shallow" reviews? nah, i don't want that. altough its gamespot, its actually a pretty well written piece.
frAntic_Frog
Member
AltogetherAndrews said:
future MoH/CoD game from the nazi's perspective????? believe
The game tries to stay unbiased on PMCs really. It refrains from any judgment on the matter.Slavik81 said:
But I really don't get what some of you GAFfers expect. Do you want a realistic portrayal of current conflicts? Do you want to see both soldiers and mercenaries committing atrocities? I think not. If EA had chosen to depict those things, you people would speak of it in shame. You're fine with WW2 games skipping over most if not all atrocities committed as well as the entire holocaust. And you're fine with them depicting all Germans as pure evil.
There is a difference between reviews and opinion pieces/editorials. I would have been fine if the review read more like "Army of Two's plot is a satirical take on modern warfare and more specifically, the current conflict in the Middle East. References to today's real life conflict are found throughout the game. The mechanics in the game..." Instead, this "journalist" (I had to do itPeru said:
) decided to inject his opinions on the topic. People looking at that review don't get the information they need to make an informed descision as to whether or not they would want to play Army of Two.If he had done a seperate opinion piece going into detail in an articulate manner on how he felt about the game, I would be fine with it. He could have linked to it in the review itself. But reviews are supposed to inform the consumer what a game is about, what it's graphics are like, how it controls, ect. and should, to the best of one's abilties, not include personal feelings(such as if one was reviewing a street racing game and went off on the dangers of street racing).
I know this is a sensitive topic for all, but he should have kept that out of it. He was supposed to inform the consumer what the game was like, not go on a tirade about the fairly shallow and more importantly satirical plot.
MisterSINISTER
Member
i think the funniest thing is that everyone is freaking out trying to make sure army dudes dont get offended, when the group of marine guys i know IRL were so excited to get their hands on the game
ItAintEasyBeinCheesy
it's 4th of July in my asshole
Want opinions on the game, not opinions on the war in Iraq, k thanx BAIIIIIIIII
Madman said:There is a difference between reviews and opinion pieces/editorials. I would have been fine if the review read more like "Army of Two's plot is a satirical take on modern warfare and more specifically, the current conflict in the Middle East. References to today's real life conflict are found throughout the game. The mechanics in the game..." Instead, this "journalist" (I had to do it
If he had done a seperate opinion piece going into detail in an articulate manner on how he felt about the game, I would be fine with it. He could have linked to it in the review itself. But reviews are supposed to inform the consumer what a game is about, what it's graphics are like, how it controls, ect. and should, to the best of one's abilties, not include personal feelings(such as if one was reviewing a street racing game and went off on the dangers of street racing).
I know this is a sensitive topic for all, but he should have kept that out of it. He was supposed to inform the consumer what the game was like, not go on a tirade about the fairly shallow and more importantly satirical plot.
He spends the vast majority of the review talking about the actual game.
And oh no! Opinions in a game review! Whatever will we do??
GenericPseudonym
Banned
If EA didn't want to get called on Army of Two's storyline and message they shouldn't have made a trailer involving Eisenhower talking about the military industrial complex, have levels of the game take place in Iraq and provide some level of commentary on PMC's. If you want a game to just be about killing shit for points, then do what Serious Sam did. If you want to make a game that portrays a message then you touch these hot button issues and deal with them in a mature way. You can't have it both ways.
HondaF1Fanatic
Neo Member
I don't mind if reviews take an opinion, even one I disagree with. I just don't like feeling like they are trying to shove their rightist or leftist political beliefs down my throat. I play games for entertainment and I don't find politics entertaining in the least.
Madman said:There is a difference between reviews and opinion pieces/editorials. I would have been fine if the review read more like "Army of Two's plot is a satirical take on modern warfare and more specifically, the current conflict in the Middle East. References to today's real life conflict are found throughout the game. The mechanics in the game..." Instead, this "journalist" (I had to do it
If he had done a seperate opinion piece going into detail in an articulate manner on how he felt about the game, I would be fine with it. He could have linked to it in the review itself. But reviews are supposed to inform the consumer what a game is about, what it's graphics are like, how it controls, ect. and should, to the best of one's abilties, not include personal feelings(such as if one was reviewing a street racing game and went off on the dangers of street racing).
I know this is a sensitive topic for all, but he should have kept that out of it. He was supposed to inform the consumer what the game was like, not go on a tirade about the fairly shallow and more importantly satirical plot.
If all game reviews have to fit into your review template, then "game journalism" will forever be wrapped between double quotation marks.
Does anyone else see the claim that games with potentially offensive themes are "satirical" as sometimes disingenuous? "Oh, you were offended by my concentration camp management simulator? Well joke's on you, because it was purely satirical. Ho ho ho!"
Everyone talks about all this biting, clever satire in certain games... which makes me think they don't really know what that means.
Everyone talks about all this biting, clever satire in certain games... which makes me think they don't really know what that means.
Either you want the reviewer's opinion on the game, or you don't.Madman said:
Can you imagine a review of "Three Kings" that didn't touch on the the politics of the Middle East, or mention how the low base pay for army personnel can affect one's moral center? Why not just concentrate on how the movie looks, and whether or not it is fully THX-certified, and oh-my-isn't-it-nice-to-see-that-Ice-Cube-rapper-in-a-serious-role fluff that counts for review in the likes of People magazine? Never mind, I take that back. Even People magazine would at least touch on the storyline issues that make the film, y'know, the film.
If you want your hobby to continue to be marginalized, by all means, hoot and holler when somebody - no matter how ham-fisted or poorly written - attempts to shine a light on aspects of a game other than bonus multipliers, rim-shading, sparks, pixel-counts and aim-assist.
Where did you get that? I figured he probably knew some soldiers over there and took offense to them being portrayed as "slow". Regardless though, he gives his opinion of the game, and he backs it up with reasonable points. The game isn't deep. He even wrote it in his summary points, "Provides a dumb take on a real issue". "If you're the type of person who would rather shoot first and ask questions never, by all means, pick up Army of Two." Those are valid comments. They're clear. He explains what he meant by them in the text. What the hell do people want?Captain Pants said:
Madman said:
If the content is in the game, it's fair game to address and critique it in the review.
If that's somehow off limits because "it has nothing to do with the game", then maybe we should penalize games for having extrainteractive content, since apparently games should just be about play.
Vrolokus said:
This makes good sense. That's the reason games can't be reviewed by machines, and why reviews shouldn't be simple consumer reports. It's also why I don't read game reviews written in the non-gaming press.
When I read a review, I want to know whether or not I would personally enjoy the book, game, movie or consumer electronics item in question. This means that I need to find a reviewer who thinks like me; with similar tastes and a similar expectation of quality. For example, I need to read a review of Ninja Gaiden written by an action gamer who can deal with punishing AI, and who doesn't get hung up on the morality of slaying demon samurai. That doesn't mean there is no place for a Ninja Gaiden review written by a Wii Sports fan who hates the game, and it doesn't mean there's no place for a review that focuses on nothing but a thorough dissection of the game's plot.
I'm not fighting freedom of speech here, or devaluing the importance of opinion. But I look to the big, mainstream gaming websites for unbiased reviews that attempt to pin down the flaws and qualities of a given title with the express goal of informing as many gamers as possible. I don't want that information clouded by a journalist pushing a personal agenda; I want to read critical assessments by professional gamers who love the medium and are familiar with most examples of a given genre. People who are well positioned to meet their readership halfway and help us know a title as thoroughly as possible before we commit to buying it. Yes, I'm describing a consumer report; but it's a unique type of report. Rather than look solely at "does this work or does it fail", I expect a mainstream gaming site review to assess, as objectively as possible, whether or not most people interested in the game will find it 'fun'. That is a very, very difficult task, and those people who are right for most of their readership most of the time have my respect. Fine tuning that process is the direction I would personally like to see the big gaming websites take. That's their strength, and they're uniquely placed to exploit it.
It distresses me when this aspect of the gaming press shifts its focus away from trying to help gamers; and moreso when a given journalist uses his review to preach at me. I can read blogs for deeper dissections of games, and I can read GAF for bias-riddled personal impressions that fall somewhere on a spectrum between 'easily amused' and 'depressingly jaded'. More importantly, I can avoid reviews or critiques of games by the Jack Thompsons and Concerned Christian Parents of the world.
I would also love to see an Ebert and Roeper of gaming rise to prominence and carve out their own niche in the wall of opinion, and I avoid Gamespot regardless; but I posted in this thread because I don't want to see the niche occupied by an unbiased mainstream gaming press disappear into a quagmire of high profile subjectivity.
SlasherJPC
Banned
MisterSINISTER said:
Exactly, I was saying the same thing earlier. These guys are all gung ho about it and everyone is causing a shit storm about this when really the people that have the most right to complain, are sitting at their barracks right now, chugging a beer, and fist pounding there squad mate in real life!
I wonder...if the reviewer had praised the game for its mature and thoughtful treatment of the Iraq War and how it honored American soldiers, would we still be having this discussion. A positive opinion would still be an opinion, right, and therefore worthy of scorn and LOL Gamespots?
No, of course not.
No, of course not.
bishoptl said:
The problem here being that, we're comparing film to video games. They're two completely different mediums. And no, I don't want them reviewed the same way, because they're meant to be enjoyed in different ways. A movie can really suck if it doesn't have a good story. A game can still be, and usually are, fun and entertaining without a semblance of a plot. That doesn't make video games illegitimate. That doesn't make video games "non-art," and it doesn't mean they can't have deep or complex storylines. But the two mediums are fundamentally different.
Captain Pants
Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
Mifune said:
To be honest, I would have started the topic either way. My beef with the review was about how he was revealing his own political biases in the review. I couldn't care less what those biases are.
StorablePrawn
Banned
I'm shocked that so many people see a reviewer judging a game as the sum of all of its parts, and not just writing up a fanboy-ish tract about graphics and gameplay, as such a bad thing. What Army of Two implies outside of gaming is an important part of the product, and I feel mostly the same way as this reviewer about it; it also doesn't mean I'm not interested in playing the game, just like I don't agree with torture, yet I still think 24 is a good show.
This wasn't an incredibly well written review, but conceptually I see no problems. There should be more attempts at this sort of thing.
This wasn't an incredibly well written review, but conceptually I see no problems. There should be more attempts at this sort of thing.
Captain Pants
Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
Kintaro said:
:lol
Doh! I took care of that for you.
First, thanks for the respectful nature of your reply. It really helps your point.bishoptl said:
I want their opinion on how well the story is conveyed, not whether or not they feel it is right or isn't politically correct.
Touching on how Army of Two is a satirical and controversial take on the conflict in the Middle East is one thing. Dedicating a large portion of a review to say a game is bad because it touches on a sensitive subject in a fairly insensitive way is another. Should developers not do games like that?
The key there is how it is written and in what context. Games journalism is looked down upon because of it's unprofessional nature. Like I said multiple times, he could have written a seperate opinion piece to express his views and not use the review itself as some sort of soapbox to express his feelings on the modern conflict in the Middle East. I do not feel game reviews are editorials. I would have reacted no differently if it was someone criticizing street racing in a Need For Speed review. You can have an opinion, but you should not let it get out of hand like I feel he did.
Absolutely. But he went beyond simply addressing and critquing it.Vrolokus said:
If we're reviewing video games like movies, 99% of video games would get panned for having a poor plot, bad dialog, acting, etc. Did Super Mario Galaxy get the shaft because Mario is saving the Princess for the umpteenth time? Do we penalize a game for that? Do you think we should?bishoptl said:
Nobody's answered this yet.bishoptl said:
Is the storyline integral to SMG? Seriously, I haven't played it so you'll have to let me know. At the end of the day, however, it doesn't matter - if it's in the game, reviewers have free reign to comment on it in their review. What weight you assign said review is up to you - but to piss and moan about the insertion of "political views" in a game that revolves around a politically volatile storyline is asinine.WinFonda said: