It seems more difficult for gamers to accept this, and by "gamers" I mean the kind that are "hardcore" enough to be overly invested in what other people think of something they like. I maintain that probably the biggest reason people read reviews is not "to find out if a game is good," but to help them crystallize their own opinion -- or to make them feel validated in that opinion.
But there's still the assumption that a review can be generally correct or not, vs. something one agrees or disagrees with; certainly it doesn't help that as a technology product there are aspects of a game that are governed by quality rules, that have a right and a wrong way they can be executed.
I hate that. I think for the most part the most interesting work in gaming culture gets done when we let go of this distant idea of games as only product; they are so personal, so subjective, so experiential.
There are people out there who think that Ocarina of Time is the greatest video game ever made. It isn't[*], but I know why a lot of people think so. Read the latest of my Edge columns to come online and see what I mean.
Speaking of products and reviews and stuff, I had a thought-provoking question posed to me the other day, and it spawned an entire editorial: Why doesn't the games press review Facebook games? Would having them on Metacritic or something offer a useful baseline for the space so that it can actually evolve?
All I'm doing right now is replaying MGS 3 in HD. Yep, still my favorite video game.
*"Ocarina of Time is the greatest ocarina-themed videogame of all time." -- Ian Bogost
*"Ocarina of Time is the greatest ocarina-themed videogame of all time." -- Ian Bogost
10 comments:
With the rapid growth of Facebook games, I'm surprised major sites don't have specific sections tied to social gaming. Not wrongly combined with mobile gaming (which, if this ever does happen, is the likeliest case).
We see the major sites reporting on the happenings of Zynga and its lineup, but not reviewing the games personally, and that comes down to one thing. That these sites don't see there's a potential readership.
They are gravely mistaken. Avid fans of FarmVille are always seeking the latest and greatest shortcuts. When you invest so much time into something, you're bound to read further.
And just because I'm a slimy bastard, I'll do a little self-promotion while I'm here. Please check out my blog Volatile Mode (http://avideogamesblog.blogspot.com).
I hope Ms. Alexander keeps this comment.
It has always driven me positively nuts that gamers have such an inability to step away from hyperbolic statements like “best game ever” and what got what score or was at the top of which GOTY list. That telltale gamer inferiority/insecurity never fails to shine through and demand to be quantified and validated in order for them to be able to sleep at night.
Whenever I go back to play FFVII I always am a bit jarred by the jagged, almost alien shapes that represent these characters I loved so dearly, or the laughably dated cg models of a game that felt as cinematic as a summer blockbuster back in 1997. This is the moment of truth: I can either stand back and aloofly pick apart all the glaring flaws that lie before me—leaving my first love scorned and rejected in a heap—or choose to flip off the lights and become lost in the arms of a game that’ll always love me back. I always choose the latter, but it seems that as a whole gamers are unable to ignore the scores, pedestals, and what their friends think—and just follow their hearts. Any title that makes me feel a fraction of the joy that FFVII does is alright in my book. Metacritic be damned.
p.s. Kickass banner as usual! That was probably the only moment in gaming that I actually sat the controller down for a minute because I didn’t want to go through with what the game demanded of me to finish the story. R.I.P. :’(
While I can certainly agree that [more] gamers need to view games as works of culture rather than simple "product", there's no getting beyond the fact that games have significant dimensions that can be evaluated in objective, buy-or-no-buy terms. Things like glitches, platform optimization, HUDs and other such things are almost as key (perhaps unfortunately moreso) to the experience as writing, characterization, emotion, etc.
For example, would Dead Island be nearly as engaging/experiential/etc without the "analog combat" option turned on? I say not, but if the option were "broken" in a technical sense, it would likely have had the opposite effect.
Even something as technical/objective as the debate over whether quick-saves and save-anywhere functions (versus mediated, predetermined checkpoints) can have a profound effect on how we interact with a game, down to a cultural level.
That's why I think there is a "line" so to speak between "review" and "critique". The line can and should be blurred, but not eliminated entirely. Just as games are not movies, music, or books - which, generally speaking can be evaluated solely on there cultural merit - the criticism of such should be adjusted to the medium. Which is to say that respecting games' greater amount of "technical" content.
However, I've noticed games being evaluated more critically of late, what with the current console lifespan being longer than average effectively stifling the graphical/technological arms race enough that it's content that serves as the main distinguishing factor.
As for Facebook games, I can't really think of anything better to say than what you noted in the article. The onus is on publishers to present games that are worth reviewing, and on gamers to take the plunge on games that skirt the traditional model. I can't dock points from Farmville because there's too much waiting for cooldowns, simply because cooldowns are kind of the point, and as you've always said, intention should take a part in criticism.
HOWEVER, there are more games with "core" values that integrate the social game business model. For ever Assassin's Creed Project Legacy there's a Dragon Age Legends, and such.
Re: Facebook games, I don't think there is as big a market for reviews because of the low investment cost in them. Basically, the only thing you risk with most FB games is your time - spending money on them usually comes after a trial period, or the money just unlocks additional perks and what not. The same thing would go for flash games on Kongregate and other sites - I'll see a site or two doing reviews of them, but if you don't have to pay to play, why not just trust the star ratings and user reviews for the game?
Obviously, the reviews become more important when you're looking at shelling out $30 to $60 for a game, and especially since new games depreciate like new cars.
Personally though, when I read reviews, I don't pay a ton of attention to the specific score. I'm more interested in the range of scores. If the first Uncharted is a 9, and I played and like that, what other games are around a 9? Even if the scores are the same / similar, from the descriptions, do the games actually sound similar? Did the reviewer describe things accurately enough so that I have a fair idea of how the game plays? Fanbois will be fanbois, so I don't really pay much heed to comments I see whining that CoD78 got .3 less than Inferior Other Game.
The reason we don't see reviews for fb games is that much of the gaming media is part of that self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamer and see it as beneath them.
I think this is very true, especially given that you're right on about a hardcore gamer's insistence on validation of his or her opinion and feelings on a game. Much like that, they do not care for social gaming and see it as a plague, with fb games being the nexus for all that is "wrong" with modern gaming (right behind that, iOS games and the Wii). Just reflect back on the number of times a reviewer or hardcore gamer uses the term "real games" to describe what they like (which is typically whatever AAA bloat is being pedaled that month) while staunchly attacking anything that isn't. Imagine my own surprise when New Super Mario Bros. Wii - a game that is by design very old school and "hardcore" - get panned because it isn't "real" since 2D platformers, I guess, no longer count.
So it's no real surprise that there's no fb game reviews. The writers who are so intimately and incestuously tied to same values as the the larger publishers and "hardcore" gamers would be appalled at the thought of doing so.
I agree with you about the subjectivity in games but i think in many cases that is just an excuse for "ilicit advertising". The most interesting exemple is skyrim, i dont doubt the game is great but its nearly unplayable in ps3, still nobody said anything, metacritic reflects that, media score: 92, user score: 53. That kind of stuff is really troublesome when the game costs arround $110 in latin america, thats when people start to get mad.
"I think for the most part the most interesting work in gaming culture gets done when we let go of this distant idea of games as only product; they are so personal, so subjective, so experiential."
Couldn't agree more. Articles that are laced with the writer's personal experience has much greater depth.
Aesthetic evaluation presents difficult problems but probably not absolute problems. The appreciator is limited but the standards applied can be hypothetically perfect (like maths, snowflakes, fjords). So it's an unreachable ideal; one gets as near to it as one can.
Every appreciator is limited in different ways so the shape of the moon-aspiring jenga you stand upon will be different from anyone else's but that does not mean that your standards are private, subjective and irreproachable. Standards have an objective rationale by definition, which can never be fully and explicitly known.
It has always powered myself absolutely nut products that will avid gamers possess this inability to stage away from hyperbolic assertions similar to best video game ever and also exactly what obtained what credit score as well as ended up being on top of which usually GOTY checklist Buy Cheap Runescape Gold. Which distinguishing game lover inferiority/insecurity in no way fails to glow and desire being quantified along with validated to ensure these phones be capable of sleep at night.
When Time passes to enjoy FFVII I always am a little jarred through the spectacular, almost unfamiliar styles in which signify these types of heroes I cherished so very much, or laughably old cg types of a casino game in which sensed as movie like a summer season runaway success back 1997. Here is the moment associated with fact: I can possibly stand back as well as aloofly decide on apart all the obvious flaws that lay prior to me leaving our first really like scorned along with declined in a very heap?aor tend to turn over lighting and become dropped inside arms of the online game that'll constantly enjoy me rear RS GP. I always find the second item, nonetheless it appears as if overall game enthusiasts cannot disregard the ratings, pedestals, as well as precisely what their own friends think and merely stick to his or her minds. Any kind of name that produces us feel a part of the joy in which FFVII will is fine for some in my opinion. Metacritic end up being darned.
Black Ops 2 Multiplayer tops the name when it comes to most enchanting online games. The first happening active this strategy is the power of the participant to alter the gallinacean according to his discrimination.
call of duty black ops 2
Post a Comment