It would appear that "you didn't get it" has officially become the popular way of developers to escape acknowledging criticism of their games. While talking about Kane & Lynch 2, IO Interactive has joined the ranks of Silicon Knight, Factor 5 and Dark Energy Digital in transferring the blame of a poor review entirely to the reviewer.
"I think it's a game that you either love or hate," says general manager Niels Jørgensen. "It's interesting that we have scores ranging from 1/10 to 9/10, so we have critics that really loved it and those that didn't really get it."
A fairly innocuous comment at first glance, and I must voice my respect at IO for being cool and accepting of the fact that negative reviews happened without going completely insane like some people.
However, this implication of not "getting" games is starting to really disturb me, as it screams of a developer completely ignoring any and all complaints about a game, regardless of their validity. It's not a comment I think we should let slide. I am one of the few people who could claim to be a "fan" of the original Kane & Lynch. You can't argue I don't "get" IO's work.
My complaints -- that IO did nothing to build upon its narrative groundwork and refused to improve fundamental gameplay/technical issues -- isn't a case of "getting" it. It's a case of shit that needed fixing, and how can we expect IO to fix anything if it's going to shrug off valid problems with casual indifference? Not only does it insult the intelligence of the critic, it insults the very medium of videogames, that you are so arrogant as to refuse to acknowledge your own failings.
Developers need to stop this passing of the buck if they have any respect for their own work.
Contest:
3:20 PM on 10.04.2010 | 
Then I played it
WHAT A PILE OF SHIT.
Where did the interesting narrative go? The diverse settings? The attempt at originality? Seeing things as Lynch?
Go back to Hitman guys, and shut the fuck up.
Sometimes, they may be justified in saying that, but if they're not making something thats fun for the people it should be fun for, then they should figure that maybe they goofed.
Not really about KL2 in particular, but there are definitely times when reviewers obviously do not get a game, or play it wrong, or whatever else. Jeff Gerstman's review and quick look video of APB spring to mind, where he played solo and then complained about the game missing things it has when you play in a team, as intended. People who complain about Dead Rising 2 being too hard to play straight through without restarting, people who complain about there being no big fucking quest arrow signs in Risen.
Unlike cinema there really are no game reviewers whose opinions I hold above my own, and I don't blame developers for feeling the same way. Most reviewers miss things about games I love or have much different priorities than I do. A "professional" game reviewer's opinion doesn't mean anything more to me than a random forum poster, to be honest, and I have to carefully read reviews to try and come away with what I might think of the situations the reviewer was presented with, rather than caring about the reviewer's opinion itself.
Maybe "get it" was a poor choice of words but I think I look at the entire quote and totally agree with him. I think there were a lot of flaws to hurdle over to get to the heart and there are definitely some who can jump those hurdles and love it. That's the interest effect of a polarizing game.
I mean that's how I feel about Brutal Legend. Brutal Legend is the textbook definition of broken game design. If I were teaching a class, no lie, I'd use it as a primary example of what a broken game is. But it had so much heart that I fell in love with it. The world, presentation, and idea maybe moreso than the game itself. At it's core it was terrible. But what decorated it is what I fell in love with.
If Icwere to review that game I'd probably give it more than it deserved. That's an example of a game I think some people get and others don't. It just kinda boils down to raw opinion without any justification.
In terms of style, I thought K&L2 was very unique, and I liked that. But as an overall game, it is pretty shit.
not a fan of jim sterlings brand of journalism but he was spot on with that review
MORE LIKE 0/10 though.
Frankly I think its one part dodging criticism and one part absolute laziness on the part of the developers. I mean, If we were supposed to have come to a better conclusion for them so easily then why didn't they make it so we could get to that obvious (in their minds) point easier? And if they -and I guess I should say, since they- couldn't what does that say about their game, or even their abilities as developers?
Actually, this has me wondering what era of gaming we're in? And what I mean by that is in what era (golden age, silver age an so on) did the movie industry start saying "your not getting it" en mass? And possibly more importantly when did the need for that saying, in the main stream of that industry, stop?.. Cause that's the only indication I can see to gauge when this craziness will end.
Implying that those who didn't liked the game, played it wrong.
LULZ.
The way he phrases it totally excludes any possibility for a third option.
You know, the "we made a game that blows big donkey sausage" option.
I could shit on a piece of canvas and say you don't get it, but that doesn't make it a work of art, does it?
It hasn't even been a week and I want to punch someone in the face every time I see a "you don't get it" joke in a review's comments...
This had better not be the start of a trend...
Incidentally, there are some occasions where reviewers actually don't "get" a game, as in don't get the point of it (Shadow Of The Colossus springs to mind; several critics shrugged it off as an unfinished Zelda clone as opposed to a series of dramatic boss fights). The cases of Kane & Lynch 2 and Hydrophobia are not some of these occasions.
Seriously, did IO pay them for that interview/postmortem?
This wasn't a video game, it was a beta
Did I say that? No I didn't. It's the complete disregard of opinions as not "getting" it that grates. Most of my criticisms about Kane & Lynch 2 aren't related to its style, and the game isn't trying anything "new" for me to not understand. Most of my complaints are legitimate problems of design, not of style. I am not saying my opinions are gospel, but I don't think it's right for developers to just shrug them off as a case of "they didn't get it, so fuck them."
It's the implication that the only way you could dislike the game was if you missed something or you did something wrong. It's become incredibly popular among both developers AND gamers to blame the reviewer entirely for disliking a game. I think that's bullshit. Sorry if you don't "get" that.
I could shit on a piece of canvas and say you don't get it, but that doesn't make it a work of art, does it?
Unfortunately my friend this has pretty much been the basis of modern art for at least half a century.
That's even worse. He basically is ignoring the content of reviews (because style is the LAST of that game's crimes) and saying "They scored it low. They must not like our awesome art style."
Uh ... no. The art style made me physically hurt, but that's NOT the worst of it.
Looking on metacritic (the bane of my existence) I see that KL2 on PC has more 7+ reviews than >6 reviews, so I don't think there is the general air of failure you want to portray. There were things you didn't like but someone else might, and there were things that bothered you that others would consider minor. That could easily mean you didn't "get" what they were going for, rather than the game having bad mechanics.
I know many reviews knocked the game for the fact you can still get shot while in cover which honestly I consider a GOOD thing, as cover should not make you magically invincible if your arm is sticking out. So while many would say the cover system was "broken" because you could still get hit, I would say those people didn't GET the cover system's more realistic goals of offering cover.
These are the kind of developers (Sakamoto seems to fit the bill nicely) that unfortunately infest the gaming industry, who think that they're artists, when in fact, their so called "art" couldn't cut it as a daytime movie.
Kane and Lynch 2 might've been bad to you but that doesn't mean it's downright unplayable turkey turds.
You like causing controversy and you bullshit reviews all the time to do it.
I rented and gave it a bash. Not a game I would play again and didn't finish it but a game with absolutely no redeeming feature? Can't see it myself. The controls worked as well as most games I've played, the graphics achieved what they set out to do and it played okish. 4-6 range for me, 4 if it didn't float your boat, 6 if it did.
Of interest do you still stand by your assertion it is a 1? Is Quantum Theory really a better game? If you had to play one of them again which would it be?
Got any actual evidence to back that libel up, son?
That aside, I totally disagree with you on cover. You claim getting shot at behind cover because your arm's sticking out is realistic? I say it's totally UNrealistic, because nobody would be fucking dumb enough to leave their arm sticking out.
You can't argue realism in this situation because it would be totally unrealistic for someone to enter the same cover stance, every time, even if it keeps their head above cover or their arm sticking out. Of course, it's unfair to demand that developers have endless animations depending on the cover, but at the very least, making cover that actually provides COVER is a better start.
The realism argument doesn't work in the least. Broken cover systems like K&L2's are even less believable.
Calling your reviews 'bullshit' was pretty harsh on that poster's part, but you can be a little divisive with your scores. Giving a 10 to Deadly Premonition definitely garnered a lot of interest for a game that otherwise would have fallen into obscurity. People STILL talk about that review. If your goal was to bring attention to a game you enjoyed on a personal level, mission accomplished.
However, the rest of the world knows that 10s should be reserved for undeniable gaming milestones. Deadly Premonition certainly had it's campy charm, but landmark achievement in gaming it was not. Similarly 1s should be reserved for the most unsalvageable mess. KL2 was a mediocre game at best, but certainly not anywhere near a 1.
Saying I hand out scores just for attention is wrong, and nobody has evidence of any kind to back up what is a pretty hefty accusation.
I don't take issue with developers pointing this out because I don't believe all opinions are equal and valid as far as discussion goes. There can be invalid critiques. I'm surprised anyone who even knows what a thesis paper is would argue the contrary.
Saying "you don't get my game because it's innovative" is a disgusting cop-out. If someone genuinely failed to understand a game, that's a different issue, but uniformly ignoring any negative press with a "fuck 'em" attitude is what I'm attacking.
wow, this is getting stupid...if this really catch on, this "let's make a some game, give negative reviewers the finger, and hope it sells" developer mentality, we, the gamers, are so gonna get screwed. :(
The confidence of the reviewer in their craft should be sufficient not to let the handful of developers who choose to dismiss them cause concern; those who are fans or not fans of the game have already made their mind up. The middle ground will stick to who or what they initially trusted anyway.