surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
"It's like the girl who claims she wants someone intellectual, but then ends up going home with the guy with the big dick."
I'm guessing a certain someone didn't get any...
I'm guessing a certain someone didn't get any...
Silly jokes aside, he has a pretty good point, but at the same time I guess with indie games there is actually more you can write about before drawing comparisons to whatever other game that may be similar.
Here's how to cover the Indie scene:
Clone former Destructoid writer Anthony Burch and make him write and yell things. Now THAT is passion.
If there is one thing I enjoy in The Indie scene, it's a very good success story. It may not be covered extensively, but when other feel the same way, it's always a good sign and there are people who care.
Clone former Destructoid writer Anthony Burch and make him write and yell things. Now THAT is passion.
If there is one thing I enjoy in The Indie scene, it's a very good success story. It may not be covered extensively, but when other feel the same way, it's always a good sign and there are people who care.
I won some awesome real (fake) diamonds from this guy at PAX. He has a really great way of looking at the industry. Buy this man's game and help him make a bigger impact. :D
"Rather than looking really critically at Red Dead Redemption, about whether or not it really is a good game..."
This. I have no idea how that game got as good of reviews as it did. It was okay, I guess, but jesus, it was a shameless copy of GTA, but it was missing all of the stuff that makes GTA fun.
This. I have no idea how that game got as good of reviews as it did. It was okay, I guess, but jesus, it was a shameless copy of GTA, but it was missing all of the stuff that makes GTA fun.
That's a pretty terrible example with Red Dead Redemption. Mainstream games are usually compared to a smaller pool of games because unless it's a quirky title like Katamari Damacy was, the game in question is expected to be 'the best effort'. There's a singular bar mainstream games are supposed to reach. Indie games are dissected because they're messured against themselves and have a lower entry price so the reviewer doesn't factor in other (better or worse) products the consumer can get instead.
@Malik- I do think indie games are often given a free pass simply because they aren't expected to hit a high bar in all of the categories that we traditionally rate gaems based on (graphics, audio, game length, story, etc). I think this is partly because the best indie games are focused on innovation, and so they are looked at through the lens of innovation and surprise. If an indie game offers something new or surprising, then it has fulfilled it's purpose.
I'm not complaining at all about how indie games are covered, though, I'm just saying that big budget games are given a free pass because we've all gotten used to the boring rehash and we don't expect or demand anything different out of the AAA industry.
I'm not complaining at all about how indie games are covered, though, I'm just saying that big budget games are given a free pass because we've all gotten used to the boring rehash and we don't expect or demand anything different out of the AAA industry.
@Andy Schatz: Games should be judged on one thing and one thing alone: Is it fun? Everything else is window dressing unless it makes the game more fun.
The problem is that 'fun' is totally subjective, when readers of reviews, publishers and even the reviewers themselves have been conditioned to give a game an objective 'score' which really says nothing about how much fun it is. Especially when you're comparing one game with another.
Each game should be judged on it own, in isolation, and as a unique experience. The question every game reviewer should be answering with their review is not "How does this game stack up against other similar games?" but "What happened and how did it make me feel?"
Games reviewers are first and foremost writers. If they can't get across how good they think a game is by answering that question then they should be looking for other employment.
AAA titles and indie games should be treated in exactly the same way for the purposes of reviews, by all means hype the games you like up as much as you like in previews and such, but in the review the playing field should be level for all games and not slanted one way or the other.
The problem is that 'fun' is totally subjective, when readers of reviews, publishers and even the reviewers themselves have been conditioned to give a game an objective 'score' which really says nothing about how much fun it is. Especially when you're comparing one game with another.
Each game should be judged on it own, in isolation, and as a unique experience. The question every game reviewer should be answering with their review is not "How does this game stack up against other similar games?" but "What happened and how did it make me feel?"
Games reviewers are first and foremost writers. If they can't get across how good they think a game is by answering that question then they should be looking for other employment.
AAA titles and indie games should be treated in exactly the same way for the purposes of reviews, by all means hype the games you like up as much as you like in previews and such, but in the review the playing field should be level for all games and not slanted one way or the other.
@Keith- I agree with the overall gist of your post, though I would quibble with the idea that all games should be measured by the exact same yardstick of "fun". Game are our most versatile art form, and one of the most significant things that indie devs have done over the past 5 years to to expand the raison d'etre of games.
@Andy Schatz: Games should be judged on one thing and one thing alone: Is it fun? Everything else is window dressing unless it makes the game more fun.
The problem is that 'fun' is totally subjective, when readers of reviews, publishers and even the reviewers themselves have been conditioned to give a game an objective 'score' which really says nothing about how much fun it is. Especially when you're comparing one game with another.
Each game should be judged on it own, in isolation, and as a unique experience. The question every game reviewer should be answering with their review is not "How does this game stack up against other similar games?" but "What happened and how did it make me feel?"
Games reviewers are first and foremost writers. If they can't get across how good they think a game is by answering that question then they should be looking for other employment.
AAA titles and indie games should be treated in exactly the same way for the purposes of reviews, by all means hype the games you like up as much as you like in previews and such, but in the review the playing field should be level for all games and not slanted one way or the other.
The problem is that 'fun' is totally subjective, when readers of reviews, publishers and even the reviewers themselves have been conditioned to give a game an objective 'score' which really says nothing about how much fun it is. Especially when you're comparing one game with another.
Each game should be judged on it own, in isolation, and as a unique experience. The question every game reviewer should be answering with their review is not "How does this game stack up against other similar games?" but "What happened and how did it make me feel?"
Games reviewers are first and foremost writers. If they can't get across how good they think a game is by answering that question then they should be looking for other employment.
AAA titles and indie games should be treated in exactly the same way for the purposes of reviews, by all means hype the games you like up as much as you like in previews and such, but in the review the playing field should be level for all games and not slanted one way or the other.
@Andy Schatz: Games should be judged on one thing and one thing alone: Is it fun? Everything else is window dressing unless it makes the game more fun.
The problem is that 'fun' is totally subjective, when readers of reviews, publishers and even the reviewers themselves have been conditioned to give a game an objective 'score' which really says nothing about how much fun it is. Especially when you're comparing one game with another.
Each game should be judged on it own, in isolation, and as a unique experience. The question every game reviewer should be answering with their review is not "How does this game stack up against other similar games?" but "What happened and how did it make me feel?"
Games reviewers are first and foremost writers. If they can't get across how good they think a game is by answering that question then they should be looking for other employment.
AAA titles and indie games should be treated in exactly the same way for the purposes of reviews, by all means hype the games you like up as much as you like in previews and such, but in the review the playing field should be level for all games and not slanted one way or the other.
The problem is that 'fun' is totally subjective, when readers of reviews, publishers and even the reviewers themselves have been conditioned to give a game an objective 'score' which really says nothing about how much fun it is. Especially when you're comparing one game with another.
Each game should be judged on it own, in isolation, and as a unique experience. The question every game reviewer should be answering with their review is not "How does this game stack up against other similar games?" but "What happened and how did it make me feel?"
Games reviewers are first and foremost writers. If they can't get across how good they think a game is by answering that question then they should be looking for other employment.
AAA titles and indie games should be treated in exactly the same way for the purposes of reviews, by all means hype the games you like up as much as you like in previews and such, but in the review the playing field should be level for all games and not slanted one way or the other.
Mr. Katz is spot on about big budget titles getting a pass part of the reason I stopped reading review scores in mags like Game Informer is because the reviewers would spend 3/4 of their column telling what was wrong with a title before giving the game they just finished ripping a 8.75 out of 10.
Main problem is people have been conditioned to think that reviews actually matter. Hell they think these "game of the year" awards matter and talk about "Man this is a game of the year candidate right here." Awards are nothing more than people giving their opinion a trophy. Awards for completely subjective things is borderline retarded.
Everybody wants something different out of their games. I for one want a challenge. I want the game to present me with situations of progressively more and more difficult challenges until a final confrontation that tests all I'll learned throughout the game. I read Enslaved reviews and thought "What's all this story based hand holding sissy crap?" But you know some people are into that and I suppose that's fine (though I personally think they should just go watch a movie).
I agree with him wholeheartedly though that the mainstream media panders to all these huge releases. It's simple to see just by reading their previews and them talking about what's happening instead of how it feels to play what's happening. Reviews that will read with an entirely different tone than the final score shows. Putting anything over how fun the game is a sacrilege and I say fuck anybody who puts story over gameplay.
Everybody wants something different out of their games. I for one want a challenge. I want the game to present me with situations of progressively more and more difficult challenges until a final confrontation that tests all I'll learned throughout the game. I read Enslaved reviews and thought "What's all this story based hand holding sissy crap?" But you know some people are into that and I suppose that's fine (though I personally think they should just go watch a movie).
I agree with him wholeheartedly though that the mainstream media panders to all these huge releases. It's simple to see just by reading their previews and them talking about what's happening instead of how it feels to play what's happening. Reviews that will read with an entirely different tone than the final score shows. Putting anything over how fun the game is a sacrilege and I say fuck anybody who puts story over gameplay.
Are there going to be more of these Monaco interview stories? I like this Schatz guy, he's got his head screwed on right.
He says that, but the game sites will always focus on the big releases; the majority of the audience wants it, and the publisher and/or PR team will give it to them almost always.
Smaller companies, try as they might, can't always reach their audience to their fullest potential, there's so many doing that already trying to do that, with bigger marketing. The "AAA" games get a pass it seems because they paid for it (ADs, press events, etc.). Game sites will rush to get that Rockstar/Activision/Big Boss Man game out simply because more people know about that game. I see it sort of like films that show at the box office as opposed to films shown at festivals or straight to DVD. If your site has a massive audience and you choose to look at a very small, but unique title, that's a powerful platform you're on. Not that your audience will automatically take your word as gospel, but if you show them why this is a wonderful and unique experience with a game and not just a "AAA game, meets the standard, worth your money - BUY IT!", then I think you're already doing your job.
Dtoid, Siliconera, Kotaku and such sites can fill in a bit for the smaller games (e.g Recettear), and it may help some, but only so much.
@Keith: I agree. Although, if major networks/sites did that they'd get eaten up. They shouldn't have to worry about it, but they do. From what I see, mainstream media are more honest with little-known games in reviews and ratings. With bigger titles, eh.... they have to think and word their comments more carefully, it seems. I don't know, you tell me. I believe MetaCritic is part of the problem, though, too.
@ Eficent: Man, you nailed it. Just look at the Spike or IGN award nominations. I thought at most one game really deserved their nomination. Maybe I'm part of the problem, as well, though. I don't actually discuss these other titles I deem worthy, either.
I don't see anything wrong with liking big dicks, mind you. Just remember; it's not the size of the boat, it's the motion in the ocean.
Smaller companies, try as they might, can't always reach their audience to their fullest potential, there's so many doing that already trying to do that, with bigger marketing. The "AAA" games get a pass it seems because they paid for it (ADs, press events, etc.). Game sites will rush to get that Rockstar/Activision/Big Boss Man game out simply because more people know about that game. I see it sort of like films that show at the box office as opposed to films shown at festivals or straight to DVD. If your site has a massive audience and you choose to look at a very small, but unique title, that's a powerful platform you're on. Not that your audience will automatically take your word as gospel, but if you show them why this is a wonderful and unique experience with a game and not just a "AAA game, meets the standard, worth your money - BUY IT!", then I think you're already doing your job.
Dtoid, Siliconera, Kotaku and such sites can fill in a bit for the smaller games (e.g Recettear), and it may help some, but only so much.
@Keith: I agree. Although, if major networks/sites did that they'd get eaten up. They shouldn't have to worry about it, but they do. From what I see, mainstream media are more honest with little-known games in reviews and ratings. With bigger titles, eh.... they have to think and word their comments more carefully, it seems. I don't know, you tell me. I believe MetaCritic is part of the problem, though, too.
@ Eficent: Man, you nailed it. Just look at the Spike or IGN award nominations. I thought at most one game really deserved their nomination. Maybe I'm part of the problem, as well, though. I don't actually discuss these other titles I deem worthy, either.
I don't see anything wrong with liking big dicks, mind you. Just remember; it's not the size of the boat, it's the motion in the ocean.
Isn't he kinda pre-supposing anyone who plays games gives a shit about what the New York Times thinks?
@Andy Schatz
I agree to a point. I notice the same thing happening with indie games as well, a d it's unfortunate because Im a huge supporter of independent media in general. I see reviewers being much more forgiving of things like clunky controls or mediocre writing and bothers me.
I agree to a point. I notice the same thing happening with indie games as well, a d it's unfortunate because Im a huge supporter of independent media in general. I see reviewers being much more forgiving of things like clunky controls or mediocre writing and bothers me.
follow
