surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Maybe it's just because game reviewers are the major representation of criticism, but I never thought of separating them from game critics. If you really can, then I suppose reading articles by games critics would solve pretty much all my issues with modern game reviews.
Batman Begins was an awesome movie, but the cinematography during the action sequences were fucking horrible; couldn't see a damn thing. What if the entire film was that way? It would be a fucking retarded movie, regardless of the ideas and acting that went into it.
Mirrors edge is like running looking through loo rolls, without peripheral vision is is almost impossible to judge where your feel are etc. I applaud the effort and hope that it covers it costs etc, but instead of feeling empowered I felt uncomtorfable and limited.
yeah................BattyAdroit is right.
Keef, well said.
I still think the score thing might be the key log to all this trouble though...
Keef, well said.
I still think the score thing might be the key log to all this trouble though...
While I understand the need for the game to be reviewed as a game, it sucks that several hundred people will probably not play a game that does have innovative qualities that need to be experienced simply because a mediocre review score.
Mirror's Edge is innovative in that it took what is good of the first Price of Persia (3-D version), and put it in the First-Person perspective. However, even then, innovation should be lightly used. Evolution is better term. Mirror's Edge is an evolutionary step from what PoP was good at.Just like Gears of War 2 is a evolution from the first game. None of it's "innovative new features" are really innovative, just an evolutionary step towards something better. Thats why going back to play an older game is so hard, because we have evolved past that and created something better.
An easy way to decide it is did you have fun with the game y/n?
That segways to my point about reviews. Sure reviews matter but at the end of the day it should be did the person playing the game deciding what they think without really considering what the reviewer said.
That segways to my point about reviews. Sure reviews matter but at the end of the day it should be did the person playing the game deciding what they think without really considering what the reviewer said.
I will give points for creativity, originality and innovation because the video game industry for the most part likes to stew in it's own safe but excessively banal shite. God not another WWII shooter, not another alien invasion FPS, not another pointless hack n slash, ad naseum.
The problem is that the Mirror's Edge isn't a Wii exclusive, if it had been it would have been hailed as the second coming of Jesus and the greatest game in all creation.
There should be 'Critical reviews' and reviews. Someone (like Anthony, or someone just as pretentious) could critically review the game, then someone else could review it as a normal, passerby 'next big thing' review.
I agree entirely with everything youve said here.
Just as you want to see more video game critics, i want to see more movie reviewers. Critics are fine and all, but sometimes i just want to say ' yes i know this latest blockbuster movie is pointless, violent, mindless bullshit with not much plot and stereotypical characters BUT is it entertaining to watch?'.
Take Wanted as an example; it was pretty terrible and probably critically panned, but it was still great fun to watch the insane action.
Just as you want to see more video game critics, i want to see more movie reviewers. Critics are fine and all, but sometimes i just want to say ' yes i know this latest blockbuster movie is pointless, violent, mindless bullshit with not much plot and stereotypical characters BUT is it entertaining to watch?'.
Take Wanted as an example; it was pretty terrible and probably critically panned, but it was still great fun to watch the insane action.
Jim, its this line of thinking which makes people like Activision CEO Bobby Kotick queue up "exploitable" games like Call of Duty 6, 7 & 8, Tony Hawk 13, 14 & 15, and Guitar Hero 5, 6, & 7 instead of creatively risky games like Mirror's Edge, Assassin's Creed, Shadow of the Colossus, etc.
The reason why people will give a creative but imperfect game a higher rating than a polished run-of-the-mill game is that they want to see gaming move forward into new genres and not the same shit over and over.
The reason why people will give a creative but imperfect game a higher rating than a polished run-of-the-mill game is that they want to see gaming move forward into new genres and not the same shit over and over.
"if a game makes a genuine leap forward (or an amazing sidestep) that reviewers should ensure the profound level of this creativity is reflected in the score, and isn't lost within the usual formal structure of a game review."
I still disagree with this. The "innovation" should be acknowledged in the body of a review, but the score is a reflection of how good the game is. A flawed, innovative game shouldn't be considered as good as a near flawless game that refines aspects of other games.
Should games that build off of the ideas of other games be rated the same as the games they borrowed ideas from even if the new, innovative ideas aren't implemented nearly as well?
I'd like to think not.
I still disagree with this. The "innovation" should be acknowledged in the body of a review, but the score is a reflection of how good the game is. A flawed, innovative game shouldn't be considered as good as a near flawless game that refines aspects of other games.
Should games that build off of the ideas of other games be rated the same as the games they borrowed ideas from even if the new, innovative ideas aren't implemented nearly as well?
I'd like to think not.
I thought Mirrors Edge was very innovative and really enjoyable. It's one of the only games I have played where I have been so engaged in it, when I am running past something and I have to duck in the game to dodge it, I find myself actually ducking in my chair. It's pretty funny to watch my housemate do the same thing.
I think DICE did a fantastic job with this game, I really really enjoyed the unique experience it had to bring to the table. Really fun game.
I think DICE did a fantastic job with this game, I really really enjoyed the unique experience it had to bring to the table. Really fun game.
"Jim, its this line of thinking which makes people like Activision CEO Bobby Kotick queue up "exploitable" games like Call of Duty 6, 7 & 8, Tony Hawk 13, 14 & 15, and Guitar Hero 5, 6, & 7 instead of creatively risky games like Mirror's Edge, Assassin's Creed, Shadow of the Colossus, etc."
I could just as easily turn that around and say it's YOUR line of thinking that allows the Dyacks and Minters of the world to make absurd crap and then hide behind "innovation" as justification.
I could just as easily turn that around and say it's YOUR line of thinking that allows the Dyacks and Minters of the world to make absurd crap and then hide behind "innovation" as justification.
The funny part is that nearly all of the reviews I have read for Mirror's Edge hit on the same notes - fun, yet flawed. Yet, the reviewer's tolerance of those faults is what has lead to a wide range of scores. It is like a cup half-full/half-empty scenario.
As for the topic, I do think innovation should be applauded and lauded as long as it is warranted.
For example, I adore Zone of the Enders: The 2nd Runner. That game took mecha-based action games to an awesome level, especially due to its speed and enemy count. While the game is most definitely not faultless, though, I can look past the issues and praise it for being a bundle of joy wrapped in bacon made from the radical pig of win.
I love that game too damn much. :3
As for the topic, I do think innovation should be applauded and lauded as long as it is warranted.
For example, I adore Zone of the Enders: The 2nd Runner. That game took mecha-based action games to an awesome level, especially due to its speed and enemy count. While the game is most definitely not faultless, though, I can look past the issues and praise it for being a bundle of joy wrapped in bacon made from the radical pig of win.
I love that game too damn much. :3
The only problem I see with Sterling's argument is that he underestimates the capabilities of the medium. Why is a game's purpose only to be "enjoyable"? Why is every game held to the same base standard of "is it fun?" Can't games be more than that if they aspire to?
Schindler's List, for example, isn't what you'd probably call a "fun" experience, and neither is reading "The Diary of Anne Frank" or "Number The Stars." But all three of those are excellent, powerful pieces of work. They grip you. They are not fun, but they are extremely compelling.
Why are we not allowed to have a videogame equivalent of these works? A game where it is not fun to play, but it is still a moving experience? Even games like Resident Evil are still held to the "is it fun?" scale, which really doesn't make sense when you think about it. It's supposed to be "survival horror," where you're constantly on the verge of death with zombies breaking down the door. Why would that be fun?
I guess it all comes down to the perception of what a videogame is and can be, and it seems like we've pigeonholed them all into the "entertainment" category.
Schindler's List, for example, isn't what you'd probably call a "fun" experience, and neither is reading "The Diary of Anne Frank" or "Number The Stars." But all three of those are excellent, powerful pieces of work. They grip you. They are not fun, but they are extremely compelling.
Why are we not allowed to have a videogame equivalent of these works? A game where it is not fun to play, but it is still a moving experience? Even games like Resident Evil are still held to the "is it fun?" scale, which really doesn't make sense when you think about it. It's supposed to be "survival horror," where you're constantly on the verge of death with zombies breaking down the door. Why would that be fun?
I guess it all comes down to the perception of what a videogame is and can be, and it seems like we've pigeonholed them all into the "entertainment" category.
@whatisdelicious
Yeah, but Shindler's List was meant to be uncomfortable. Spielberg planned each frame of that movie with purpose and dedication, however Mirror's Edge, while it aspires to be innovative has incidentally fallen into its own trap of defeating the purpose of a game, to be playable. If Schindler's List had poor quality sound or bad cinematography, whatever the theme was intended would inevitably be lost...
Yeah, but Shindler's List was meant to be uncomfortable. Spielberg planned each frame of that movie with purpose and dedication, however Mirror's Edge, while it aspires to be innovative has incidentally fallen into its own trap of defeating the purpose of a game, to be playable. If Schindler's List had poor quality sound or bad cinematography, whatever the theme was intended would inevitably be lost...
That's because Schindler's List was created with the idea in mind that films can be serious works of art that can be hard to watch, while Mirror's Edge was made with the idea that games need to have Convention X, Y, and Z and if they don't, they get railed for it.
If Mirror's Edge was created without the pressures of conventional game design and the need to sell however many millions of copies else it would be a financial failure, it would've probably ended up being a very different game than the one just released.
If Mirror's Edge was created without the pressures of conventional game design and the need to sell however many millions of copies else it would be a financial failure, it would've probably ended up being a very different game than the one just released.
What? So now it's not an artistic endeavor? It's a whored out cash cow of a game? What a shame, then maybe they should make games that aren't crap, so they make more money.
"I could just as easily turn that around and say it's YOUR line of thinking that allows the Dyacks and Minters of the world to make absurd crap and then hide behind "innovation" as justification."
I'd be offended because I think that there is nothing innovative about Too Human ;)
Assassin's Creed was flawed because it was a little repetitive and the game mechanics were very game-ish (like hiding in some random out-of-place shelters placed on rooftops would make guards not know where to look for you). Mirror's Edge gets some flak because the environments are sterile and you can't always disarm the enemy AI when you want to.
Those games have some flaws but I think most of us would like to see the next iteration of those games to see where they could push those genres, and push the game industry in general.
Also, game reviewing is still in a nebulus form. We haven't reached the point in video games where we have a "Godfather" of games which is the pinnacle of game making, and a game that we can compare every game after it to. Until the industry reaches that pinnacle, we're always going to see inflated game review scores.
I'd be offended because I think that there is nothing innovative about Too Human ;)
Assassin's Creed was flawed because it was a little repetitive and the game mechanics were very game-ish (like hiding in some random out-of-place shelters placed on rooftops would make guards not know where to look for you). Mirror's Edge gets some flak because the environments are sterile and you can't always disarm the enemy AI when you want to.
Those games have some flaws but I think most of us would like to see the next iteration of those games to see where they could push those genres, and push the game industry in general.
Also, game reviewing is still in a nebulus form. We haven't reached the point in video games where we have a "Godfather" of games which is the pinnacle of game making, and a game that we can compare every game after it to. Until the industry reaches that pinnacle, we're always going to see inflated game review scores.
I want to give credit to Mirror's Edge for having a great idea and within this industry is a great way of dealing with great ideas. That is getting different teams from different companies to retool it and turn it into an even better game with a better review score. For that reason alone I can't wait for somebody to make a game better than Mirror's Edge.
We give high marks for Call of Duty 4 not for being a truly innovative game, but for evolving from other gaming ideas into a game that is more interesting than the last. God of War did nothing innovative but instead they retooled some ideas and made a great game from it. Ideas that aren't perfected shouldn't be rewarded just for being progressive. They need to be analyzed as a complete product and Mirror's Edge is not as good as other first person games regardless of whether it moves the industry foward.
We give high marks for Call of Duty 4 not for being a truly innovative game, but for evolving from other gaming ideas into a game that is more interesting than the last. God of War did nothing innovative but instead they retooled some ideas and made a great game from it. Ideas that aren't perfected shouldn't be rewarded just for being progressive. They need to be analyzed as a complete product and Mirror's Edge is not as good as other first person games regardless of whether it moves the industry foward.
While I don't agree that a game has to be eintertaining to be good, maybe thats a poor word choice. Anyway more game critics is something that would be awesome. I'd love if dtoid had a sort of "critic" review a few months after a game came out disecting it and placing it in its artisitc context, that would be aamzin.
I haven't been interested in this game outside of downloading the demo because of the hype- my opinion still hasn't changed- I don't see the game as being "innovative"- in all it is like a story based 1st person version of the psp game free running- which was a fun distraction, but not all that interesting. It is not that I am not a fan of innovative games, hell my favorites being psychonauts, portal, alice, the sims and a host of others that were very innovative when released- though right now I am really enjoying playing Saints Row 2- not because it is innovative, but because it is a fun game to play- everything I have experienced about mirror's edge just doesn't seem fun.
I think it's always best to acknowledge and make a note what "innovation" is there so that developers know you "got it" otherwise you might risk alienating any desire to pursue and improve on the concepts introduced in a game. That of course isn't cause for a free pass. Wii Music, for instance, is rather shallow in terms of the depth and quality provided around the core concept of being able to mix up familiar tunes and music, but the concept is sound and deserves to expanded and improved upon. There's definitely something there but the current product is at best still green.
There are several points i'd like to address but gotta be back working soon...
first off, the difference between a reviewer and a critic. The word critic does not imply a specialist position that differs from a reviewer. a critic is anyone who lays out their thoughts on games. if they weren't reviewing games how would a games critic make money, aside from occasion columns and freelance articles? a critic can review games, all reviewers are critics. there's very little sense in your separation of the two entities when they are often interchangeable.
i think Jim's impressions of innovation and different to how they are actually percieved. a lack of innovation is the mainstay of the mainstream. look at most successful media and it is almost uniformly formulaic and lacking in innovation. however, the epoch defining masterpieces of art, cinema, literature and music feature innovative techniques and changes to the norm. many summer blockbuster films and number one albums do quite well critically but do not linger in the minds of society. however, flawed masterpieces offer innovation in many ways (too numerous to mention) that might grate the mainstream audience but push the artform forward. not everyone loves these pieces of art but they undeniably progress our understanding of the piece and our relationship with the world around us.
mirrors edge is not the best game this year mechanically but it could be the most important this year in how we interact with game worlds and their visual presentation. if gaming is to take its rightful place alongside other forms of media we need to recognaise that moving forward often means embracing elements that don't fit into the regime that has gathered over the last 20 years. move on or get left behind.
first off, the difference between a reviewer and a critic. The word critic does not imply a specialist position that differs from a reviewer. a critic is anyone who lays out their thoughts on games. if they weren't reviewing games how would a games critic make money, aside from occasion columns and freelance articles? a critic can review games, all reviewers are critics. there's very little sense in your separation of the two entities when they are often interchangeable.
i think Jim's impressions of innovation and different to how they are actually percieved. a lack of innovation is the mainstay of the mainstream. look at most successful media and it is almost uniformly formulaic and lacking in innovation. however, the epoch defining masterpieces of art, cinema, literature and music feature innovative techniques and changes to the norm. many summer blockbuster films and number one albums do quite well critically but do not linger in the minds of society. however, flawed masterpieces offer innovation in many ways (too numerous to mention) that might grate the mainstream audience but push the artform forward. not everyone loves these pieces of art but they undeniably progress our understanding of the piece and our relationship with the world around us.
mirrors edge is not the best game this year mechanically but it could be the most important this year in how we interact with game worlds and their visual presentation. if gaming is to take its rightful place alongside other forms of media we need to recognaise that moving forward often means embracing elements that don't fit into the regime that has gathered over the last 20 years. move on or get left behind.
While I don't agree that a game has to be intertaining to be good or at least interesting I do agree that it helps. Anyway more game critics is something that would be awesome. I'd love if dtoid had a sort of "critic" review a few months after a game came out dissecting it and placing it in its artisitc context, that would be aamzin.
I think a lot of reviews I've read for Mirror's Edge have been fair. I'm tired of developers hiding behind the wall of "innovation" when they make a game that has glaring problems. To me, it seems like both an arrogant and ignorant thing to do. To just ignore your mistakes in a game and just pass it off as "people don't get it."
@mikeyed: I'm not saying that it's a "whored out cash cow" or whatever just because they needed to conform to certain game conventions. I was simply saying that I feel like, had DICE had the kind of freedom that was offered to the creators of works such as Schindler's List, Mirror's Edge probably would have been even more bold, strayed farther from the norms, etc.
But I still blame a part of that on the limitations created by what is expected of games, such as that base that every game has to conform to: "Is it fun?" I still don't understand why every game, even stuff like horror or war games, have to meet that standard.
But I still blame a part of that on the limitations created by what is expected of games, such as that base that every game has to conform to: "Is it fun?" I still don't understand why every game, even stuff like horror or war games, have to meet that standard.
What’s frustrating is that reviewers are often inconsistent about the matter of innovation. Take for example Jeremy Parish’s love for Megaman 9. He wrote an in-depth blog-post about how Megaman 9 was a fantastic game even in the absence of innovation, and then went on to write a review for Wario Land: Shake it that panned the game for its lack of innovation. He implied that the game wasn’t fun, but he didn’t qualify it with anything substantial beyond constantly pointing out how non-innovative it was. So why does Megaman 9 deserve a pass in spite of its lack of innovation, whereas Wario Land: Shake it does not? Well, it could be argued that Megaman 9 is more fun, but that’s subjective. And besides, I’m inclined to believe that it’s because Parish’s nerd-boner for Megaman 9 was double-ended, while his feelings for the Wario series were clearly tepid at best. He had more invested in Megaman, and so could ignore the fact that Megaman 9 wasn’t all that far removed from any of the rest of the games in the series, and at the end of the day, was even less innovative than Wario Land: Shake it. So is innovation really all that important, or is it a crutch that reviewers rely on overmuch when they can’t qualify their dislike of a given game with anything really substantial? I’m leaning towards the latter. Innovation should certainly be praised when it’s in evidence, but a lack of innovation shouldn’t detract from a game’s worth as long as it’s still well put-together and fun to play. I appreciate new concepts, but they’re not worth much if the game beneath them isn’t worth half a squirt of piss.
Again - great comments since I last posted on here, and I accept that some people are just going to flat-out disagree with me.
What a lot of people are talking about is the difference between a videogame reviewer and a videogame critic - I think this is a really important point. However, I'd suggest that all contributors to the specialist games media should err on the side of criticism - they are, after all, writing for gamers, not casual onlookers who happened to have glanced a game review while looking through a newspaper. I think games writers can afford to take more risks with how they cover games, but I think they're being confined by accepted conventions of games journalism. These conventions, I believe, implicitly wok against games like Mirror's Edge, with qualities that transcend formal notions of 'good visuals' or 'good controls' and offer something else beyond.
But mostly, I'm glad people are talking about it, because it interests me and I've learned a lot!
Oh and Jim - you're spot on about Killer 7!
What a lot of people are talking about is the difference between a videogame reviewer and a videogame critic - I think this is a really important point. However, I'd suggest that all contributors to the specialist games media should err on the side of criticism - they are, after all, writing for gamers, not casual onlookers who happened to have glanced a game review while looking through a newspaper. I think games writers can afford to take more risks with how they cover games, but I think they're being confined by accepted conventions of games journalism. These conventions, I believe, implicitly wok against games like Mirror's Edge, with qualities that transcend formal notions of 'good visuals' or 'good controls' and offer something else beyond.
But mostly, I'm glad people are talking about it, because it interests me and I've learned a lot!
Oh and Jim - you're spot on about Killer 7!
@Cyberxion
I believe Parish's point about Wario Land: Shake It! is that, compared to past Wario games, the gameplay and level design felt a bit phoned in. There was nothing there, for him, that felt substantially different than games he has played before (and in some ways were worse than Wario Land 4).
Megaman 9, on the other hand, is 'innovative' in the sense that Capcom took a chance and went back in time 20 years to create a game on par with one of the best platformers ever.
How often do game creators blatantly go all the way back to eras past to create such an 'old school' experience? It would have been so easy for Capcom to pump out another garbage MM title on the DS (which they have/will), but at least this one time they took a risk. For Parish, it worked wonderfully.
/End Parish Defense Force
I believe Parish's point about Wario Land: Shake It! is that, compared to past Wario games, the gameplay and level design felt a bit phoned in. There was nothing there, for him, that felt substantially different than games he has played before (and in some ways were worse than Wario Land 4).
Megaman 9, on the other hand, is 'innovative' in the sense that Capcom took a chance and went back in time 20 years to create a game on par with one of the best platformers ever.
How often do game creators blatantly go all the way back to eras past to create such an 'old school' experience? It would have been so easy for Capcom to pump out another garbage MM title on the DS (which they have/will), but at least this one time they took a risk. For Parish, it worked wonderfully.
/End Parish Defense Force
@ Kyousuke Nanbu
No, it wouldn't have. For everything even remotely innovative that Nintendo actually does, there’s a large group of very vocal people who will rail it and Nintendo because it doesn't do anything for them and their "hardcore" sensibilities. So even if this game was a Wii exclusive, and it’s arguable that it may have been lauded simply for offering elitist hardcore pricks something to call their own, the matter of innovation wouldn’t come up beyond maybe offering people another opportunity to make snide, hateful comments about the Wii. Everyone else would bitch because it’s a Wii game, going on about how it could have been so much more if it were on a more powerful console. The few people who might dare call it innovative would be dismissed as Wii fan-boys, and would be met with page-long lectures about how the Wii isn’t innovative.
Innovation only seems to apply to things we like, and not at all to things we have a bug up our ass about. Mirror’s Edge is popular, and so its status as an innovative game is being defended. The Wii is reviled, and so its innovation is questioned. This is how we work as gamers. We’re all so far up our own asses that we can’t see the forest for the shit. Funny thing is, both the Wii and Mirror’s Edge meet the textbook definition of innovation pretty-much exactly, our personal bias be damned. So maybe Mirrors Edge would have been called innovative had it been released solely on the Wii after all, but not because of it. It would be innovative because…well, it is.
Of course this was an over-simplification of things, but it’s meant to prove the point that as far as we gamers are concerned, we either don’t have a clue about what truly makes something innovative, or we don’t care to apply the definition to things we dislike or have no interest in. Hell, I could say that Mirror’s Edge isn’t innovative for simply having applied the first-person concept in a new way, but that would be ignorant and dismissive. Its innovation is apparent whether or not I acknowledge it.
No, it wouldn't have. For everything even remotely innovative that Nintendo actually does, there’s a large group of very vocal people who will rail it and Nintendo because it doesn't do anything for them and their "hardcore" sensibilities. So even if this game was a Wii exclusive, and it’s arguable that it may have been lauded simply for offering elitist hardcore pricks something to call their own, the matter of innovation wouldn’t come up beyond maybe offering people another opportunity to make snide, hateful comments about the Wii. Everyone else would bitch because it’s a Wii game, going on about how it could have been so much more if it were on a more powerful console. The few people who might dare call it innovative would be dismissed as Wii fan-boys, and would be met with page-long lectures about how the Wii isn’t innovative.
Innovation only seems to apply to things we like, and not at all to things we have a bug up our ass about. Mirror’s Edge is popular, and so its status as an innovative game is being defended. The Wii is reviled, and so its innovation is questioned. This is how we work as gamers. We’re all so far up our own asses that we can’t see the forest for the shit. Funny thing is, both the Wii and Mirror’s Edge meet the textbook definition of innovation pretty-much exactly, our personal bias be damned. So maybe Mirrors Edge would have been called innovative had it been released solely on the Wii after all, but not because of it. It would be innovative because…well, it is.
Of course this was an over-simplification of things, but it’s meant to prove the point that as far as we gamers are concerned, we either don’t have a clue about what truly makes something innovative, or we don’t care to apply the definition to things we dislike or have no interest in. Hell, I could say that Mirror’s Edge isn’t innovative for simply having applied the first-person concept in a new way, but that would be ignorant and dismissive. Its innovation is apparent whether or not I acknowledge it.
@ GohanGVO
Sure, he may have felt that it was phoned in. But is that because it truly was, or because it didn’t innovate as much as he’d have liked. See, that’s the question here. Why does Wario get slammed almost entirely for its lack of innovation, whereas a game like Megaman 9 gets a pass?
See, even had Capcom actually innovated, rather than having simply mined our nostalgia, adopting an old design-aesthetic was a design choice borne of a business decision. It becomes far less impressive when you consider that they did it so as to avoid taking any real chances. Though if we ignore that, it’s still only a unique idea at best, and not a case of innovation. You don’t innovate by taking substantial steps backwards after all, or at least that seems to be Parish’s approach, even if most of us are so nostalgia-crazed that we eat it up like fine caviar. And even if the game’s design was legitimately innovative, it still wouldn’t be enough to explain the disparity in his approach to the two games, given that when you take the nostalgia blinders off, Megaman 9 is a game that features design concepts that originated more than twenty years ago. A unique graphical style, even if it’s innovative, isn’t enough to carry a game anyway. And while the game is fun, there’s nothing to suggest that Wario isn’t, aside from his conceit that the game is lacking innovation. And that’s the problem here.
Sure, he may have felt that it was phoned in. But is that because it truly was, or because it didn’t innovate as much as he’d have liked. See, that’s the question here. Why does Wario get slammed almost entirely for its lack of innovation, whereas a game like Megaman 9 gets a pass?
See, even had Capcom actually innovated, rather than having simply mined our nostalgia, adopting an old design-aesthetic was a design choice borne of a business decision. It becomes far less impressive when you consider that they did it so as to avoid taking any real chances. Though if we ignore that, it’s still only a unique idea at best, and not a case of innovation. You don’t innovate by taking substantial steps backwards after all, or at least that seems to be Parish’s approach, even if most of us are so nostalgia-crazed that we eat it up like fine caviar. And even if the game’s design was legitimately innovative, it still wouldn’t be enough to explain the disparity in his approach to the two games, given that when you take the nostalgia blinders off, Megaman 9 is a game that features design concepts that originated more than twenty years ago. A unique graphical style, even if it’s innovative, isn’t enough to carry a game anyway. And while the game is fun, there’s nothing to suggest that Wario isn’t, aside from his conceit that the game is lacking innovation. And that’s the problem here.
"However, I'd suggest that all contributors to the specialist games media should err on the side of criticism - they are, after all, writing for gamers, not casual onlookers who happened to have glanced a game review while looking through a newspaper."
I totally agree on that point. The issue here is that most gamers don't make the difference between a review and a critic. A review is simply pointing out the pros and the cons of a game in order to give an idea if I should or not buy the game. A critic may give a quick overview of those points but will rather look at the themes of the game's story, the different gameplay methods used and if it's relevant to the media as an whole, especially to such a young media as gaming. Games like Mirror's Edge needs reviews and critics to look at both side of the issue. One to look at "if gamers are gonna like it" and the other to look if it will leave a mark in the history of the medium which will interest more the academics than the gamers.
It's also a matter of where you're looking. If I want a deep critic of a game, I'll go to Gamasutra, not Destructoid.
Also @ Cyberxion
"Why does Wario get slammed almost entirely for its lack of innovation, whereas a game like Megaman 9 gets a pass? "
It's because Wario as the pretencion of being a new game but does little to actually do anything new. From a reviewers standpoint, it may not be a bad thing ; don't fix what isn't broken, but from a critic point of view that game isn't really relevant. Megaman 9 on the other was made to be some kind of window to an older era. It gives a glimpse to younger gamer of how it was back in the days. It's like making a movie in black and white in 2008. The style (and gameplay in the case of a game) is the same but they rely on modern technology. You may argue that gameplay evolved since then and you are right but gameplay is also a very important aspect of the medium and had to be the same for the main goal of the game from a critic standpoint "opening a window to the early NES era" to succeed.
I totally agree on that point. The issue here is that most gamers don't make the difference between a review and a critic. A review is simply pointing out the pros and the cons of a game in order to give an idea if I should or not buy the game. A critic may give a quick overview of those points but will rather look at the themes of the game's story, the different gameplay methods used and if it's relevant to the media as an whole, especially to such a young media as gaming. Games like Mirror's Edge needs reviews and critics to look at both side of the issue. One to look at "if gamers are gonna like it" and the other to look if it will leave a mark in the history of the medium which will interest more the academics than the gamers.
It's also a matter of where you're looking. If I want a deep critic of a game, I'll go to Gamasutra, not Destructoid.
Also @ Cyberxion
"Why does Wario get slammed almost entirely for its lack of innovation, whereas a game like Megaman 9 gets a pass? "
It's because Wario as the pretencion of being a new game but does little to actually do anything new. From a reviewers standpoint, it may not be a bad thing ; don't fix what isn't broken, but from a critic point of view that game isn't really relevant. Megaman 9 on the other was made to be some kind of window to an older era. It gives a glimpse to younger gamer of how it was back in the days. It's like making a movie in black and white in 2008. The style (and gameplay in the case of a game) is the same but they rely on modern technology. You may argue that gameplay evolved since then and you are right but gameplay is also a very important aspect of the medium and had to be the same for the main goal of the game from a critic standpoint "opening a window to the early NES era" to succeed.
@Keef. It's not all about great ideas. What if that certain idea is executed badly? Yeah, I agree the industry loves new and refreshing content which has never really been done before, Portal being a good example, but the game has to have some sort of basic foundation for that game to get a good score.
The creative ideas will get it more points but it would knock off points if it's awkward to play. Perhaps some sort of game-art critic or whatever would give it good scores, because all that person needs to notice and base their score on, is on simply, it's art. A game reviewer bases their score on how the game plays, as well as the creativity and uniquity (is that a word?) of the game.
The creative ideas will get it more points but it would knock off points if it's awkward to play. Perhaps some sort of game-art critic or whatever would give it good scores, because all that person needs to notice and base their score on, is on simply, it's art. A game reviewer bases their score on how the game plays, as well as the creativity and uniquity (is that a word?) of the game.
@ ShadowKirby
The comment you made about Wario having the pretense of being a new game is completely irrelevant, though honestly it doesn't even make sense. Both it and Megaman 9 were new games, despite Megaman 9 styling itself with an old-school aesthetic. Not that it matters. You still have to take the games on their own merits, and their respective developer’s intentions are largely irrelevant in the scheme of things. They don’t address how fun a game is to play, nor does harping on about innovation or a lack thereof for that matter. And that’s what I’m getting at here. If you’re going to dismiss one game almost entirely on the basis that it lacks innovation, then it’s probably not fair that you turn around and praise a new entry in a series that is nine games strong (not including spin-offs and one-off games), is built upon a formula that was established over twenty years ago, and yet does nothing substantially new with it. And when you do so as a reviewer, then it calls into question the matter of whether or not innovation is as important as we make it out to be. In essence, it’s a question of whether or not “innovation” is yet another tool we use to hide or justify our bias.
Now both games are well-made and fun to play, and that is more relevant to me than whether or not they innovated the platform genre, chiefly because innovation doesn’t always translate into quality, and a lack of it doesn’t always translate into a lack of quality. This is another point I tried to make earlier. I don’t know why a game’s fun-factor wouldn’t be just as important to a reviewer, who is paid to tell us how much fun he thought a given game is. So I certainly think that whether or not a game is fun in the absence of innovation is entirely relevant, as well it should be.
As far as the argument that Megaman 9 is an artistic window into an older era goes, games are simply another form of entertainment. They represent escapism. And while certain gamers crave the arrival of the day when the hobby is regarded as a legitimate form of art, Megaman 9 does nothing to bring us any closer to that day. Its 8-bit aesthetic simply represents a unique design choice at best, and a business-driven nostalgia-mine at worse. And for all that it does to effectively remind us of games we played twenty years ago, if the game itself wasn’t fun to play, its art-style and the feelings of nostalgia it evokes in us wouldn’t somehow make the game any better. Its developers very well have had altruistic motivations for having developed Megaman 9, but none of it elevates the game to a different standard than the next game. It's an irrelevant concern that does nothing to change the fact that Megaman9 lacks innovation just the same as Wario does, but like Wario, it’s a fun game.
So my opinion still stands. There's a disparity evident here that gets right up my ass. ;)
The comment you made about Wario having the pretense of being a new game is completely irrelevant, though honestly it doesn't even make sense. Both it and Megaman 9 were new games, despite Megaman 9 styling itself with an old-school aesthetic. Not that it matters. You still have to take the games on their own merits, and their respective developer’s intentions are largely irrelevant in the scheme of things. They don’t address how fun a game is to play, nor does harping on about innovation or a lack thereof for that matter. And that’s what I’m getting at here. If you’re going to dismiss one game almost entirely on the basis that it lacks innovation, then it’s probably not fair that you turn around and praise a new entry in a series that is nine games strong (not including spin-offs and one-off games), is built upon a formula that was established over twenty years ago, and yet does nothing substantially new with it. And when you do so as a reviewer, then it calls into question the matter of whether or not innovation is as important as we make it out to be. In essence, it’s a question of whether or not “innovation” is yet another tool we use to hide or justify our bias.
Now both games are well-made and fun to play, and that is more relevant to me than whether or not they innovated the platform genre, chiefly because innovation doesn’t always translate into quality, and a lack of it doesn’t always translate into a lack of quality. This is another point I tried to make earlier. I don’t know why a game’s fun-factor wouldn’t be just as important to a reviewer, who is paid to tell us how much fun he thought a given game is. So I certainly think that whether or not a game is fun in the absence of innovation is entirely relevant, as well it should be.
As far as the argument that Megaman 9 is an artistic window into an older era goes, games are simply another form of entertainment. They represent escapism. And while certain gamers crave the arrival of the day when the hobby is regarded as a legitimate form of art, Megaman 9 does nothing to bring us any closer to that day. Its 8-bit aesthetic simply represents a unique design choice at best, and a business-driven nostalgia-mine at worse. And for all that it does to effectively remind us of games we played twenty years ago, if the game itself wasn’t fun to play, its art-style and the feelings of nostalgia it evokes in us wouldn’t somehow make the game any better. Its developers very well have had altruistic motivations for having developed Megaman 9, but none of it elevates the game to a different standard than the next game. It's an irrelevant concern that does nothing to change the fact that Megaman9 lacks innovation just the same as Wario does, but like Wario, it’s a fun game.
So my opinion still stands. There's a disparity evident here that gets right up my ass. ;)
follow
