Since we started reviewing games on a regular basis on this site, we’ve been getting a lot of angry letters. Some are thoughtful, some are basically rage comics with more profanity, but they all have the same basic theme:
“Why are you so hard on the games?”
The short answer is…well, geez, guys, someone has to be.
It’s not a secret that writing video game reviews is not exactly viewed as a high journalistic endeavor. But there are genuine problems with game criticism that need to be addressed, because frankly, the harder critics are on games, the more likely customers are to listen and demand better ones. And then, well, maybe games might actually get some respect as an art form.
We’re not saying every critic needs to turn into Yahtzee, but there’s also a lack of standards that needs to be addressed.
#4) Way Too Many Reviewers Are Reviewing Software, Not Stories
This is as good a place to start as any: why do we still pat developers in a mature industry with lots of money on the head for delivering a game that isn’t an unplayable mess?
Seriously, why? It’s one thing when a solo developer like Notch turns out a finished product like “Minecraft”. It’s something else when, say, Sucker Punch makes “Infamous 2” on an engine they’ve been using for a while on a platform they’ve made several games for and have a nine figure budget to complete.
Both are achievements, either way, but come on. “Hey, this well-funded software works well!” is not a review. It doesn’t belong in one, either.
#3) Scores Are Meaningless
Why, exactly, do we accept that for major sources of game criticism, like IGN or 1Up.com, that the bigger the game, the more inflated the score? Why is it that a game with a bad story, bland design and mechanics, and no real reason to buy it can still pull a 7.0 on a ten point scale and nobody blinks? That’s like the mouthbreather who thinks swearing is funny writing a report about the porn parody of “Moby Dick” and still passing remedial English.
#2) Games Journalism is Still Evolving
It wasn’t so long ago that, as a gamer, the most insight you got into how the games industry worked was from carefully vetted publications like GamePro or flat-out corporate publications like Nintendo Power. They were great for tips and tricks, and the independent ones were good for reviews, but you wouldn’t hear about, say, a developer’s spat with a publisher or employees getting screwed.
While that’s changed to some degree thanks to the Internet, there’s still the fact that most game publications, on or offline, are trade journals: they report on people moving back and forth, what new products are coming out, and so on. And that’s AOK: they’re not calling themselves journalists anyway.
But they’re in a rock and a hard place because nobody knows their role anymore: are they supposed to be critics, taking a hard look at every aspect of the game, or are they supposed to be reviewers, looking over a product and telling an audience whether it’s up to technical specs?
The result is a lot of muddled reviews.
#1) You’re Being Taken For Granted and Talked Down To
This is something we return to, again and again, because it drives us absolutely crazy: the moment when we turned off “Dead Space” and refused to play it again.
So, Isaac Clarke is stuck on a spaceship full of frickin’ zombies, and his way is blocked. All he has with him are cutting tools, which are easy to replenish in terms of ammunition. And he’s told that he needs a “thermite bomb” to get through something that blocks his way.
He’s an engineer. With cutting tools. Facing a broken door with a bunch of crap in it.
Seriously, how lazy can you get? And yet, something so flagrantly insulting to the intelligence of everyone playing the game went largely unremarked in reviews, except maybe as a passing joke.
We see this all the time. “Skyrim” needs all those sidequests because otherwise it’s the game equivalent of an unpublished author describing his fantasy series to you. “Assassin’s Creed” has a plotline so convoluted it makes Marvel continuity look simple. “Modern Warfare”‘s plots have gotten increasingly dumb as time goes on. “Homefront” expects us to believe North Korea could ever be a credible military threat. “Dante’s Inferno” turned a piece of classic literature into a ridiculous “God Of War” knockoff. “Rage” couldn’t even be bothered with an actual plot.
Here’s what bugs us about all this: a lot of gamers have been playing since childhood, but they’re not children. They’re not even teenagers anymore, a fair chunk of them. They tend to be high school and college students, or grown men with actual educations.
We’re not asking for Ingmar Bergman or that every game be “Shadow of the Colossus”, it would just be nice if they bothered to spend a little more time on their excuse plots. And to be fair, some do. “Bioshock” managed to be a clever commentary on gaming protagonists and their seemingly mindless behavior. “Portal 2” was our game of the year because it combined tight mechanics and level design with an engaging story. “Batman: Arkham Asylum” and “Arkham City” used a pre-written world extremely effectively.
So it’s possible. But if we let the games with an insulting story slide, then what’s the point? Why should developers put the effort in if nobody is demanding that they do?
How about you? Do you feel games criticism is working, or floundering?