Support NeoGAF

[Joni]

It's possible for a movie/game to appeal to teenage boys while not insulting the intelligence of everybody else, you know. And why should critics write reviews for teenage boys if they aren't a teenager? Their review should reflect their own personal opinion.

So typical game reviewers should give social titles a bad score because it doesn't reflect their taste? You'd get disasters like that Football Manager review that gave it a bad score because it wasn't FIFA.

 

[staticneuron]

I remember a Games Award "ceremony". Crytek was introduced as "the Micheal Bays of gaming". It was meant as a compliment.

You prove my point. Bay is popular with the masses but gets hate from the critics.

Introducing crytek like that means they understand what is popular with the masses.

 

[Roland1979]

If games where reviewed like movies (other way around)

Spoiler

then IGN would rate every single game a 8/10 or higher, except for art-house movies.

It's funny, but apples and pears. Not that the way it's done now is good. But movie reviews are lacking as well and big production titles are also favored over smaller budget movies that are very good. Maybe less so then games, but still too often.

 

[Raitaro]

Reading reviews of The Swapper, I feel that the mindset of review-a-game-as-a-consumer-product feels increasingly inappropriate.The general language of reviews just feels like the reviewers don't expect games to be particularly important or interesting.(Which of course games usually aren't, but on occasions that they are, even a little bit, the review language/approach feels ill-fitting). If I read a New York Times book review, it feels very different from reading a game review (even the reviews that don't assign scores).And before 10,000 people say "isn't there room for both?", of course there is; the problem is we don't even have both.The core question answered by a game review is something like, "How much does this game please me?" Whereas the core question answered by a book review is more like, "How interesting or important is this book?" The tone and core assumptions behind these two approaches are very different. P.S. I'm not talking about "serious criticism" or academic-style analysis; rather, the basic attitude with which a work is approached. As to the question "When will society respect games," well, we must respect them first, and we really don't. If we truly respected games, the language around them would not be what it is.

I fully agree with this! It's the language surrounding games, game marketing and game reviewing that is in need of growing up.

Warning: incoming wall of text!

From my own experience in studying both films and games (and books / comics) there is sufficient overlap between these media that it warrants comparisons on some levels when doing serious analysis (which game reviewing for the most part, is not).

In both games and movies for instance, especially now that games feature increasingly complex camera work and richness in details and animation etc. it seems worth it to look at things like the importance of space and place and the camera angles when setting the mood and building the story world. So in that regard, it would make sense to compare The Last of Us to Citizen's Kane (i.e. assuming that both do similarly innovative things with regards to those areas I just mentioned). That is only half of the story however, because we would also need to compare it to other games and study the game specific qualities as well.

What in my opinion is really at stake in this thread is not whether games, movies and books hold any common ground (which they do in my view, next to all of them having unique qualities as well), but whether their respective review culture and etiquette or the public's perception of them do. As mr. Blow seems to imply: they do not(...really....yet).

Game reviews traditionally read like a review of a user product, mainly focusing on functionality and enjoyment (though the increase in focus on elements like tonal dissonance nowadays does indicate some change). Book reviews can (as Blow says) be far more diverse, ranging from short blurbs about whether the book is worth a read or not, to far more serious analytical reviews that focus more on their internal consistency, tone, symbolism and their overall importance in the literary canon. One type of review is interesting for people looking for any good book to consume, the other type more for people who want to keep tabs on the book medium as a whole and pick out groundbreaking stuff. Movie reviews also seem to have this variety. Game reviews still do not, some exceptions notwithstanding.

I wonder how long it would take for game reviewing to fully catch up with other branches of reviewing when it comes to variety. Maybe what it needs is for academic game research to grow up as well (because just as serious book and movie reviewing depend on their academic counterparts, so could game reviewing). However, whether game developers manage to hit that next level in which they more fully blend interactivity with passive storytelling elements (and manage to avoid tonal dissonance as much as possible), should be irrelevant when to comes to the quality and depth of game reviews. Seriousness in reviewing does not necessarily equal a focus on cinematic storytelling in other words, meaning that a good analytical review would also have to be able to deal with games with simpler graphics and/or more arcady gameplay.

So to sum up / reiterate: for analytical game reviewing to fully become its own thing (next to the already present more superficial style of reviewing that focuses on enjoyment), game reviewers would have to find new ways to make sense of and judge interactivity and player agency in relation to world building, storytelling and functionality without only looking for realism or book / movie elements (though it would be smart of them to incoporate at least some of those elements when needed as no medium is fully autonomous).

 

[SiegfriedFM]

Haha what. That review (I don't know if I would call it that, but whatever) is one of the most interesting and accurate things written about that game yet. The NYT games reviews are great.

I do agree that they should be reviewed differently, but the way most outlets do it now, is not the right way.

Lately I have felt "done" with game reviews. I used to read a lot, but haven't bothered lately. I still listen to the Gamspot and Giant Bomb podcast, I love to hear what they think. But the way reviews a written tells me nothing.
I looked around for some "Remember Me " reviews back when it came out. But was so turned off, that I just said fuck it, and closed my PC.
I hate the way EVERY review seems to be structured now (And have been for the last 30 years).

• Story layout
• Good things about the mechanics
• Bad things about the mechanics
• Reviewers opinion

I don't fucking care about specifics, I don't fucking care about story line details, like names, places, or motivations. I don't fucking care about minor technical issues. I don't care about the specific guns, or cars. I play the game to explore these aspects.

No, in a review, I care about how it feels, how the systems and mechanics interplay. What it draws form design wise. If the story works or not.

Jonathan Blow wrote some interesting words on this recently:
Reading reviews of The Swapper, I feel that the mindset of review-a-game-as-a-consumer-product feels increasingly inappropriate.The general language of reviews just feels like the reviewers don't expect games to be particularly important or interesting.(Which of course games usually aren't, but on occasions that they are, even a little bit, the review language/approach feels ill-fitting). If I read a New York Times book review, it feels very different from reading a game review (even the reviews that don't assign scores).And before 10,000 people say "isn't there room for both?", of course there is; the problem is we don't even have both.The core question answered by a game review is something like, "How much does this game please me?" Whereas the core question answered by a book review is more like, "How interesting or important is this book?" The tone and core assumptions behind these two approaches are very different. P.S. I'm not talking about "serious criticism" or academic-style analysis; rather, the basic attitude with which a work is approached. As to the question "When will society respect games," well, we must respect them first, and we really don't. If we truly respected games, the language around them would not be what it is.



What the fuck, so we can't talk about games because some might get surprised by a obvious late game twist? If we want to be taken serious, if we want to talk about games in any meaningful way, we should stop this spoiler scare. PS. I read that review before I played the game, it didn't ruin anything for me. It was still a great game, with a great story. (Even if it could have been better)

It's like that old saying. The art is in HOW you do it, not WHAT you do.

Jonathan Blow wants games to be reviewed like that Pritchard guy that Keating tore out of the books in Dead Poets Society...

 

[Thrakier]

Sorry, but this is article is completly unfunny and bullshit. The comparison is wrong and I don't get why there is a need for being just so polemic. And I'm not a games journalist and I'm also not considering reviews (besides metacritics) when deciding on a game OR a movie.

 

[Hedge]

Many of the actors are attractive. Some of the women have flaws, which really takes you out of their respective scenes

Hahahaha, this is amazing.

 

[Into]

"This is a decent movie, however it does nothing innovative or revolutionary, its more of the same"

I rarely if ever read that line with regards to film reviewers, some game reviewers are obsessed with innovation and revolutionary ideas, to a point where every game gets points deducted.

I do not see that in movie reviews much, they are judged on what they are, not what they could, or even worse, should be.

 

[Vice]

I can't believe he name drops Anita Sarkeesian for absolutely no good reason in a video game review. The 2 paragraphs are so out of place and forced.

Even if you're pro-feminism and appreciate her work, that shit doesn't belong in this review. It's a tangent. If someone feels like linking feminist themes and The Last of Us, by all means write a separate article about it, but I don't want to read about it when I'm trying to decide if I want to buy the game or not.

The mention of Sarkeesian makes sense. It helps explain why he feels frustrated with the game. The background on who she is and what she did is needed because not everyone reading the review has heard of her.

 

[afternoon delight]

Sorry, but this is article is completly unfunny and bullshit. The comparison is wrong and I don't get why there is a need for being just so polemic. And I'm not a games journalist and I'm also not considering reviews (besides metacritics) when deciding on a game OR a movie.

Maybe you're not the target audience for such an article. And it's not bullshit.

 

[Kinyou]

There aren't any scenes with dogs putting their paws over their eyes. I can't stress how important that is. It has been established as something that works, so it should be in every single movie. The makers of World War Z got lazy on that front.

perfect

 

[Haunted]

ether'd

 

[Lijik]

Every movie that achieves evoking the emotion of sadness would instantly receive a 10 out of 10 from all reviewers and would get all of the year end awards regardless of any other elements in the movie.

Oh cool so like we do with animated films then.

 

[Oersted]

Bays movies are seen by millions and bring in Billions of dollars or course it a compliment.

It is a compliment. Michael Bay is very good at making movies for teenage boys considering the average user rating for his movies, his nominations at stuff like the MTV Movie Awards which is good for him as it is his goal. (Bay- I make movies for teenage boys. Oh, dear, what a crime.) Movie critics on the other hand are very bad at writing reviews for teenage boys.

You prove my point. Bay is popular with the masses but gets hate from the critics.

Introducing crytek like that means they understand what is popular with the masses.

You guys are saddening. Your integrety shouldn´t be effected by the taste of the masses.

 

[WillyFive]

Having stumbled into Gametrailers' review for Battlefield 2, this article immediately came to mind. It's spot on.

 

[Aselith]

Very dumb.