surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
Depending on what you Game of the Year process is, I think its completely possible and reasonable, as a reviewer, to vote a game as GOTY that you don't think it your favorite. You touched on that in your article when you noted the distinction between the two.
Giant Bomb (.com) did a podcast solely for hashing out their game of the year, and it was kind of a fascinating process. They cam across a point where, even though some of them had other favorites, where they decided the vote would be between GTAIV and MGS4. Their tact toward GOTY became a thing not just of favorite gameplay moments, but a summation of effort, care and artistry as a total package.
Games and Movies have to have very different processes, I think. Where as a movie is in itself a passive consumed item that has a dollar worth of about $8 to consume, a new game costs $40 and upward. And further, has a number of interactive factors that just do not come into play with movie consumption. Criticism is something that should be strived for in games (Destructoid and Kotaku go into very well with tier features, as well as Gamers With Jobs), but the history of video game review, from print to IGN, has been at its core about a consumer product review. Its kind of like a tool for creating enjoyment through play (games) versus an item that present something for enjoyment (movies).
All told, I don't think this compares much to "gerstmann-gate" - because there isn't a company payoff (ad dollars and suits) involved in augmenting the score. This is just the industry starting to come to terms with its consumer-review based history.
Giant Bomb (.com) did a podcast solely for hashing out their game of the year, and it was kind of a fascinating process. They cam across a point where, even though some of them had other favorites, where they decided the vote would be between GTAIV and MGS4. Their tact toward GOTY became a thing not just of favorite gameplay moments, but a summation of effort, care and artistry as a total package.
Games and Movies have to have very different processes, I think. Where as a movie is in itself a passive consumed item that has a dollar worth of about $8 to consume, a new game costs $40 and upward. And further, has a number of interactive factors that just do not come into play with movie consumption. Criticism is something that should be strived for in games (Destructoid and Kotaku go into very well with tier features, as well as Gamers With Jobs), but the history of video game review, from print to IGN, has been at its core about a consumer product review. Its kind of like a tool for creating enjoyment through play (games) versus an item that present something for enjoyment (movies).
All told, I don't think this compares much to "gerstmann-gate" - because there isn't a company payoff (ad dollars and suits) involved in augmenting the score. This is just the industry starting to come to terms with its consumer-review based history.
Great thoughts, Unangbangway. You are officially one of my favourite C bloggers on Destructoid, keep up the great work!
I think it would be really interesting if Destructoid and other websites implemented some thoghts on wheather they personally like the said game, and what the game does and doesn't do to push gaming forward. Jim, are you listening?
I think it would be really interesting if Destructoid and other websites implemented some thoghts on wheather they personally like the said game, and what the game does and doesn't do to push gaming forward. Jim, are you listening?
@Tubatic
[i]
All told, I don't think this compares much to "gerstmann-gate" - because there isn't a company payoff (ad dollars and suits) involved in augmenting the score. This is just the industry starting to come to terms with its consumer-review based history.[/i]
Perhaps that's the question, really. Should reviews just stay as product guides? Is there a place for personality-based critiques (as say, with movie reviewers and art critics) in an environment built on buying recommendations?
I say hell no. If we're ever to consider games as art, we'll need artsy-fartsy reviews and critics to go with them. The challenge will be in finding a proper balance between buying guide and art essay. If you ask me, the first step would be to start scrapping scores.
[i]
All told, I don't think this compares much to "gerstmann-gate" - because there isn't a company payoff (ad dollars and suits) involved in augmenting the score. This is just the industry starting to come to terms with its consumer-review based history.[/i]
Perhaps that's the question, really. Should reviews just stay as product guides? Is there a place for personality-based critiques (as say, with movie reviewers and art critics) in an environment built on buying recommendations?
I say hell no. If we're ever to consider games as art, we'll need artsy-fartsy reviews and critics to go with them. The challenge will be in finding a proper balance between buying guide and art essay. If you ask me, the first step would be to start scrapping scores.
Thinking in-depth about this, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say some game is GOTY material when you actually hated it. The problem is that reviewers, critics, et al are supposed to rate things as they see them, not cater to the people reading the reviews/etc. I mean...the whole point of being critical is to put a game or whatever up against your own standards. If you're just going to say the game was great even though you disagreed, then why are you even reviewing?
Of course, the problem here is that everyone has their own idea for GOTY and unfortunately that means there could be as many as one vote for different games per person--a total deadlock. But I also feel that it is impertinent to rate a game so highly even if you didn't see it so well. It undermines the entire point of actually reviewing a game, or we'd end up just having a game being rated by its popularity or hype.
Okay, so I know that happens anyway. >_>;
Of course, the problem here is that everyone has their own idea for GOTY and unfortunately that means there could be as many as one vote for different games per person--a total deadlock. But I also feel that it is impertinent to rate a game so highly even if you didn't see it so well. It undermines the entire point of actually reviewing a game, or we'd end up just having a game being rated by its popularity or hype.
Okay, so I know that happens anyway. >_>;
I think the major problem here is that game reviewers/critics/journalists can't be expected to like all kinds of games. We are expected to, and it doesn't work. That's the reason why so many good Wii games get crappy reivews; the reviewers in question just don't like those sorts of games, but instead of admitting it and passing the review to someone who does like that genre of game, they just give the thing a 4 and move on.
Videogames are much more like sports than movies are, in that if you like a certain type of sport, you don't necessarily have any interest or understanding in another type of sport. With movies, if you like the medium, you'll find some use for every genre in that medium. On the other hand, with videogames you could easily spend your entire gaming career playing nothing but one type of game, and never feel any interest in other genres.
I've been playing games for about 38 years, and I still have absolutely no interest in sports games. As such, I would never vote for a sports game as my GOTY, or even review a sports game for this site, because I have absloutelty no interest or understanding of the genre.
That's what it sounds like this Scott Jones fella did, he tried to speak to a genre of game he has no interest in. That's the only valid explanation as to why he would feel that the game was well crafted enough to endorse for GOTY, even though he just didn't enjoy it.
Videogames are much more like sports than movies are, in that if you like a certain type of sport, you don't necessarily have any interest or understanding in another type of sport. With movies, if you like the medium, you'll find some use for every genre in that medium. On the other hand, with videogames you could easily spend your entire gaming career playing nothing but one type of game, and never feel any interest in other genres.
I've been playing games for about 38 years, and I still have absolutely no interest in sports games. As such, I would never vote for a sports game as my GOTY, or even review a sports game for this site, because I have absloutelty no interest or understanding of the genre.
That's what it sounds like this Scott Jones fella did, he tried to speak to a genre of game he has no interest in. That's the only valid explanation as to why he would feel that the game was well crafted enough to endorse for GOTY, even though he just didn't enjoy it.
..instead of admitting it and passing the review to someone who does like that genre of game, they just give the thing a 4 and move on...That's the only valid explanation as to why he would feel that the game was well crafted enough to endorse for GOTY, even though he just didn't enjoy it.
If you consider that argument, it tends to render all kinds of criticism invalid. With that attitude, the only valid judgment of any game becomes "If you like this sort of thing, you'll like this."
Game reviews shouldn't be passed on only to people "who like that sort of thing". Sure, you have to consider personal preference, but your opinion is worthless if all you can do is preach to the choir.
And this fiasco extends beyond mere genre preference. Jones essentially lied about his opinion. He didn't like Fallout 3, but voted for it anyway "in recognition" of its ambition and lofty goals, and out of fear that people might think less of him for liking "lesser" titles.
This is exactly what Jim was talking about when he wondered about hype affecting review scores. Ambitious projects with lofty goals CAN STILL FAIL.
If you consider that argument, it tends to render all kinds of criticism invalid. With that attitude, the only valid judgment of any game becomes "If you like this sort of thing, you'll like this."
Game reviews shouldn't be passed on only to people "who like that sort of thing". Sure, you have to consider personal preference, but your opinion is worthless if all you can do is preach to the choir.
And this fiasco extends beyond mere genre preference. Jones essentially lied about his opinion. He didn't like Fallout 3, but voted for it anyway "in recognition" of its ambition and lofty goals, and out of fear that people might think less of him for liking "lesser" titles.
This is exactly what Jim was talking about when he wondered about hype affecting review scores. Ambitious projects with lofty goals CAN STILL FAIL.
Apologies for the double comment, but I noticed a statement from a commenter on the CG article that bears quoting:
[i]"Sometimes you might detest a genre you're asked to review, so unfairly give a low score because you literally don't know any better. In that case, you could blame the editor, because your opinion on that would be worth no more than my mother's, but you don't blame the marketing department for your own weaknesses.
You have now undermined the faith of the reader in your integrity and in this website. Your mistake was not to admit now how you feel, but in failing to do so in the first place, when it was the only thing you were ever being asked to do."[/i]
[i]"Sometimes you might detest a genre you're asked to review, so unfairly give a low score because you literally don't know any better. In that case, you could blame the editor, because your opinion on that would be worth no more than my mother's, but you don't blame the marketing department for your own weaknesses.
You have now undermined the faith of the reader in your integrity and in this website. Your mistake was not to admit now how you feel, but in failing to do so in the first place, when it was the only thing you were ever being asked to do."[/i]
While disappointing, I don't think this should really be construed as an ethical conflict. Ethical wrongdoing, to me, smacks of bribery and deliberate misrepresentation of one's opinion. This just sounds like wish-washiness.
I think game reviewers should stick to expressing their preferences as opposed to pursuing some objective ideal. The medium just doesn't have any sort of coherent standard of excellence that can be invoked, and is ruled by such divisive groups that none seems likely to emerge in the near future. Reviews should be in-depth recommendations, with readers left to sift through the multitude of reviewers currently cluttering the internet to find one or many who generally match their own taste. Because that's what the real conflict here is, whether taste has any role in game journalism, and I don't see how it can be avoided.
In short: I agree. Your portrayal just strikes me as a bit harsh.
I think game reviewers should stick to expressing their preferences as opposed to pursuing some objective ideal. The medium just doesn't have any sort of coherent standard of excellence that can be invoked, and is ruled by such divisive groups that none seems likely to emerge in the near future. Reviews should be in-depth recommendations, with readers left to sift through the multitude of reviewers currently cluttering the internet to find one or many who generally match their own taste. Because that's what the real conflict here is, whether taste has any role in game journalism, and I don't see how it can be avoided.
In short: I agree. Your portrayal just strikes me as a bit harsh.
Surely the guy deserves some credit for admitting all this, right? He could have just kept silent and no one would have known anything about it. It seems like he is trying to atone for his mistake,and we all make those.
I do think that honesty and backing up your arguments are the most important things for reviewing anything, but if a guy makes a mistake, is he able to overcome it and make amends, or is one incident enough to ruin him?
I do think that honesty and backing up your arguments are the most important things for reviewing anything, but if a guy makes a mistake, is he able to overcome it and make amends, or is one incident enough to ruin him?
@Whiteskwirl
Sure, in as far as he did the right thing by 'fessing up, but if you read the article, there's not even a hint of remorse, or even acknowledgment that what he did was wrong.
Was it truly wrong? In this case, YES. He gave a variety of reasons as to why he though FO3 wasn't so much fun, and made a compelling case.
Will this "Crispy-gate" end Scott Jones? No. I respect him as a writer and I enjoy his reviews. I will continue to read Crispy Gamer, and frankly speaking, GotY awards are largely a farce (this incident sure as hell isn't helping). As mentioned, he did make a compelling case for why FO3 didn't deserve his praise. But why the f*ck didn't he do it in the first place?! He waffled, and in doing so, did a disservice to himself, his readers, and the site he works for. As SENIOR WRITER, I might add.
@Mentok the mindtaker
I think it would be a good thing if we ALL tried to type a little more, don't you?
Sure, in as far as he did the right thing by 'fessing up, but if you read the article, there's not even a hint of remorse, or even acknowledgment that what he did was wrong.
Was it truly wrong? In this case, YES. He gave a variety of reasons as to why he though FO3 wasn't so much fun, and made a compelling case.
Will this "Crispy-gate" end Scott Jones? No. I respect him as a writer and I enjoy his reviews. I will continue to read Crispy Gamer, and frankly speaking, GotY awards are largely a farce (this incident sure as hell isn't helping). As mentioned, he did make a compelling case for why FO3 didn't deserve his praise. But why the f*ck didn't he do it in the first place?! He waffled, and in doing so, did a disservice to himself, his readers, and the site he works for. As SENIOR WRITER, I might add.
@Mentok the mindtaker
I think it would be a good thing if we ALL tried to type a little more, don't you?
Well, I've read the article in question, and you're right, he's not apologetic at all. He doesn't seem to realize how he's compromised his own integrity. Plenty of people in the comments section did, however.
It's interesting, given what Crispy Gamer is supposed to be about in the first place, according to this article:
http://venturebeat.com/2008/10/26/game-journalism-sucks-so-crispy-gamer-raises-money-for-an-alternative-voice/
It's interesting, given what Crispy Gamer is supposed to be about in the first place, according to this article:
http://venturebeat.com/2008/10/26/game-journalism-sucks-so-crispy-gamer-raises-money-for-an-alternative-voice/
I think the issue here is an issue that all those in the game journalism industry have been dealing with for some time. Personal bias.
By bias I don't mean "Xbox Fanboy" or "PS3 Fanboy" or any of those negative terms, I simply mean the person's personal preference. What really bothers me in terms of game reviews is the general "pretense of objectivity" where a person will claim to not be affected by anything aside from how well the game is made (CNET's "unbiased reviews" tagline is the most noteworthy offender)
People aren't objective though, everyone has their own personal tastes, and this is where the problem lies. As this editor states in his blog, he didn't like Fallout 3, but he knew it was well designed, well written, etc. Instead of writing what he believed, he accentuated the game's good points and went along with the general review scores.
People are so quick to cry foul whenever scores deviate from the norm, so perhaps that is why editors don't often dare to express their own opinions. I hope that one day we as gamers realize that everyone is going to have a different opinion, and that review scores, while helpful as a general guide, are not necessarily the end all and be all in terms of game quality.
By bias I don't mean "Xbox Fanboy" or "PS3 Fanboy" or any of those negative terms, I simply mean the person's personal preference. What really bothers me in terms of game reviews is the general "pretense of objectivity" where a person will claim to not be affected by anything aside from how well the game is made (CNET's "unbiased reviews" tagline is the most noteworthy offender)
People aren't objective though, everyone has their own personal tastes, and this is where the problem lies. As this editor states in his blog, he didn't like Fallout 3, but he knew it was well designed, well written, etc. Instead of writing what he believed, he accentuated the game's good points and went along with the general review scores.
People are so quick to cry foul whenever scores deviate from the norm, so perhaps that is why editors don't often dare to express their own opinions. I hope that one day we as gamers realize that everyone is going to have a different opinion, and that review scores, while helpful as a general guide, are not necessarily the end all and be all in terms of game quality.
Jones did not review Fallout 3 on Crispy Gamer and his vote for Fallout 3 in the Game of the Year was not a first place vote, but a third (that is not in the article, but I tallied the votes). His commentary was beyond "I hated Fallout 3, but voted for it in Game of the Year." The commentary was the conundrum of not liking a game or genre, but recognizing what it brought to the table and reconciling the two. Personally, I hated Portal, but recognize that it was an incredibly significant game and worth all the kudos it received, despite it not being my cup of tea.
