I posted a silly blog, inspired by an angry flame war i noticed earlier where some people were arguing the merits of braid that in all honesty was as childish as the c-blog i intended it to be a parody of. Here i'd like to give you you a more mature argument against the artistic critique of gaming and all media in general.
There was a podtoid discussion where the issue of gaming criticism and the maturity of criticism came up and the line seemed to fall between two points,
A: A game review is there to help you decide whether or not to spend a large amount of money on a particular product
B: A game review is there to objectively critique games, judging them as one would judge art, cinema, music and so on.
There are two examples i would give to support the idea that reviews should exist as a form of consumer advice, rather than in-depth critique. Bioshock and The Club. Bioshock's criticism seemed to focus on the overall experience and impression of it so much more than any accurate description of it's gameplay mechanics that it wasn't initially that enthusiastic about it. It became an unknown quantity and when i'm talking about spending a fifth of my weekly income on a product, i'd like to know alot more. It was really only after being assured of the games strengths as a basic FPS with certain RPG elements that i was willing to shell out some cash on it, and after that i found it to be a fantastic game, and i thoroughly enjoyed all aspects of it.
The Club seemed to suffer the same issues, it was compared and contrasted with other games and assessed as being an above average, but not incredible shooter. It was only after reading Tycho from Penny Arcade's description of it, which detailed the central mechanic in such a way as i understood perfectly what can be taken from the game and who would enjoy it, that i was inspired to download the demo and eventually buy the full games.
In short, my point is that we all come to a game with certain expectations, mindsets and tastes. A review should be there to tell me IF i will enjoy a game, not that i SHOULD enjoy a game or that i WILL.
As regards Braid, i'm not going to download the full version of that game. The demo didn't give me a clear idea of what i'll be doing for the majority of my time and the reviews spent so much time detailing how wonderful the plot was, but for obvious spoiler related reasons they couldn't tell me exactly what it's about. Without that knowledge, without understanding what i'm going to spend 4 or 5 hours doing and with no interest in the supposedly deep and engaging plot - i just can't risk the price, even with the price being as low as it is.
I'd like some comments on this though, perhaps another community member could come back at me with a reason for gaming criticism going closer to high art criticism as opposed to consumer journalism. Does anyone agree or disagree with me or am i just pissing in the wind and tackling a non-issue? I'm a reasonable guy and i'm disappointed with myself for posting a childish post earlier, disappointed for being provoked by a childish mini flame-war. Could anyone out their try and create a counter argument? I promise to read it carefully and respond to you in a reasonable and fair way, i'd just like to talk about this.
|
junglistgamer's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
In my opinion the best thing a review can do - and this takes a particular skill - is somehow try to convey how playing the game made the reviewer feel - and you can then decide whether you recognise those feelings in yourself or whether you think that the same thing that annoyed or frustrated the reviewer would delight you - or the other way around. You don't have to agree with the review or the point score at the end to find it useful, you just need to believe that the reviewer was being sincere in their judgements. And I think that you'll get closer to that level of sincerity if there was more personal critique, in addition to the more traditional style of reviewing.
Besides the obvious Time altering mechanic, art design, and controls I really love Braid for the quotes. Every word in this game is deep and thought provoking. I just think the whole game and concept is pretty emotional. You're not just running around solving puzzles. You're learning about yourself. Your personal opinion on love and life. You learn about your level of patience and your overall determination.
Braid isn't a game that you play... Braid is a game that plays you. I love it.
Surplusgamer - I understand what you're saying about conveying a general impression of a game, i just think that by going into a more, for want of a letter pretentious word, reductive description of the game can be helpful in giving that impression. I've read reviews in major publications, particularly for Bioshock that have barely touched on the combat mechanic, and reviews that compared The Club to gears of war and halo, rather than ikaruge and geometry wars which i feel would be much more helpful
Thanks for the nice polite comments though! I see my boneheaded, childish article got over 10 times as many comments as this one, aint that sad?
Consumer reviews can certainly be objective (this game will take the average gamer 8.3 hours and runs at a constant 60 fps), but when you're dealing with an art game, all that kinda goes out the window. Take indie films for example. Due to budgetary reasons, you usually won't spectacular visual effects or amazing technical shots. Many are absolute shit. But then a visionary director comes along and creates something fantastic with limited resources. Are movies like Memento or Run Lola Run not as good as Die Hard 4 or Transformers just because they aren't as flashy?
The problem with demos is the same problem with film trailers: they may or may not be a good representation of the full film. Braid's demo didn't really blow me away, but so many people whose opinions I respect are absolutely loving this game. That why I'm willing to drop the $15 to see for myself.
I seriously doubt that games will be taken as a prominent form of "art" by most people for a long time. Not much else I can say on the topic that hasn't already been said.
As for peer reviews, the problem I have with them are that most people who write them think that the game is either the best thing since sliced bread, or should be berried in the desert with those copies of E.T. Why write a review about a game if it's just ok/decent?
If a review neglects these facets, they aren't looking at a game as art, they're trying to force gaming to meet the standards of another form entirely. I.E., a review that fixates on plot and characters but neglects control or level design is reviewing the title as if it were a novel or a film and not a video game. Even from an artistic perspective, this is a mistake.
Furthermore it's entirely unnecessary from a critical standpoint to discuss every facet of a game, from mechanic to literary reference and everything in between. It would be exhausting, and parts of a whole can be deconstructed and assessed in other media, so it stands to reason that there's no reason for it not to in games.
I almost barfed reading that post.