A rant against game criticism

[HandsomeDead]

This is something that has been bothering me since Modern Warfare 2 but I couldn't quite work out what the problem was. Then when I played Uncharted and the campaign in Battlefield 3 I started got get a vague idea, and now after going through most of Mikami's shooters and the recent release of Max Payne 3 I think I've figured it out.

When it comes to shooters, game critics are fucking terrible.

I don't really know how it happened. When Ninja Gaiden 3 recently came out it was rightfully called out for removing the things that made it fun (multiple weapons, the series' difficulty which made up its identity, even the simple combo counter that made chasing your best combo fun).

I think to a point the same has happened with many shooters over the last few years. It started with CoD. Now I'm not gonna rant on about how CoD ruined the industry as that game is what it is; the problem I have is with everyone else moving to build their games in an identical way.

Half of the problem is that it has a real world setting. In the real world you can't have the variety of weapons and enemies that perhaps a fantasy sci-fi game can have. You can't have giant wasp-like robots like in Vanquish, a variety of grunts like in Gears of War or Halo that all require different ways to fight. You can't have the weapons which work in weird and wonderful ways and vary the gameplay up, which made Resistance 3 and Perfect Dark that much more interesting to play.

No, in the real world shooter you have guys, and either an assault rifle, a shotgun and a pistol (which you use in the same situations as an assault rifle when you have no ammo for that).

This means you're limited to the fun you can have. When I watched a few video reviews of Max Payne 3 I immediately thought of Uncharted 2 and a number of the things I don't like about that game in MP3. I was then puzzled when the reviewer went on about how good the presentation was, and then go on briefly about how it was repetitive, and then give it a 9/10 or something... Fucking aye it looks repetitive!

I've looked into Max Payne 3 a bit and no-where have I read does it say it does anything interesting with the genre. In Vanquish you have so many mechanics to deal with: the obvious ones like not getting shot, the risk/reward adrenaline meter tied to your abilities, a variety of weapons that work differently, a variety of enemies with different challenges... lots of things to think about. Even Gears of War has most of these.

Max Payne 3 seems like a basic shooter with a slow down time 'win' button.

So how does it get over the fact it's a basic game? By making it cinematic: like Uncharted, like Call of Duty, like that God awful campaign mode in Battlefield 3.

But there is nothing inherently wrong with that. I love Rez even though it is a very simple shooter (though the difficulty of getting a good score does make it more compelling) that is propped up a lot by its presentation.

I can see why people enjoy it but I think my frustration is aimed more at critics; specialist game critics. I can see a game like Max Payne or Uncharted getting 5 star reviews in FHM or the Sun in their entertainment sections but in a specialist game publication? Uncharted 2 considered one of the best games ever (yes I still can’t get over that!). When they really dive in and assess these games they think they’re the panicle of what games can accomplish? A basic shooter with an occasional bit of traversal gameplay? Do me a favour.

I just think if we had a better collection of game critics these sorts of games would be 3 star pieces of entertainment. Presentation is giving too many games that are merely competent incredible status within game culture which is slightly embarrassing.

I’ve gone all Sly with this, and I have more I want to say but I’ll keep it for if anyone wants to discuss it, or they just read this as the ramblings of a dolt.

[Craymen Edge]

Esoteric and orginal games get critically praised then bomb commercially all the time.

I don't think what reviews say has a great deal of influence on how games that follow get made. Or really on what games most people buy.

Games have cloned what is commercially successful since Space Invaders. FPSes went modern and 'realistic' because COD4 sold a metric fuckton, so publishers want in on that money... and Homefront gets made: which got generally shat on by critics, but sold anyway.

Likewise, there are a million failed MMOs imitating World of Warcraft's elements because Blizzard released WoW and made more money than god.

There are a ton of DOTA clones and F2P games because games like League Of Legends or LOTRO are making it work really well financially, not because of reviews.

[Sly Reflex]

I agree, realistic shooters are a mixed bag when it comes to critics. The last one I played where there was fun to be had was Bad Company 2, mainly because you could play about with the environment with the tools they gave you. Killzone 3 was also fun, but I think tat one falls into the fantasy genre. I guess it totally depends on the person reviewing. Who am I to argue if somebody liked the parts in MW3 where you spent 15 minutes fighting before watching a world famous structure fall down? All a review is is a person view. If you don't like a persons way of reviewing then you stop reading (like that Sonic review I posted a few days back. I'm guessing most get a high mark simply because they exited at the time of playing for those particular individuals. I'm not saying I just want to read positive or negative reviews regarding some games, I just want to see fair ones. We've all played games that were either well received or hated and either hated or loved them ourselves despite the reception they received.

I for one thought that BF3's story part was utter fucking ass, but not as bad as most people put out. I think I had more fun playing with the sound in the game than anything else. It didn't save the game, but it makes me wonder if they could get that into a game that was engaging to play SP then they seriously have a winner. DICE might have stumbled with BF3 for me, but then again they did before and they came back to make some amazing games. I see good things in it, but those good things were not enough to raise it to a point where I'd consider playingf it again any time soon.

[dekard49]

Game reviews and game criticism, when taken literally as terms, are completely different things; the way games are reviewed by almost all outlets are subjective, there are assumptions about the person playing and how the game in question relates to others in the same genre - criticism (once again in a literal sense) is a lot more objective, and would speak to the fundamental principles driving the experience.

For example, it would be utter nonsense for a review to challenge the presence of guns in a call of duty game - that is the cornerstone of the entire game, though from a criticism point of view, it would be a very interesting angle from which to explore both the game and the genre itself.

[DANGERMAN]

I think you're being a bit harsh on Max Payne as a series (not played the new one yet), there's enough to it that it isn't entirely style over substance (the 2nd game had some great bits in a hotel room I think, shooting guys off scaffolding). Style does go a long way for it though, games probably more so than any other medium are experiences and the tone/aesthetic all play in to that.

To make a point compare COD to Doom. Doom wasn't the first fps obviously but it's probably the most fondly remembered. COD is more on rails than Doom without a doubt, but while Doom might be harder it probably required less skill. You couldn't look up or down in doom, you just shot in the vague direction of enemies until they were dead. Doom didn't really mix things up aside from some enemies being harder than others and some firing projectiles.

Mario is just jumping on things, Galaxy has a many more ideas in it. Journey has virtually no gameplay, and Enslaved (which I've literally just finished) is a poor man's Uncharted in gameplay terms.

I agree it's a bit redundant slating one game for being repetitive when there's any number of games that are equally so. I guess it's how well they hide it. One of my issues with Gears of War 2 and Killzone 2 was how they just felt like a series of kill rooms. Killzone actually does a good job of hiding this late on by opening up the environments, and it was noticeable in Gears 3 that they did a better job of disguising the cover

imo you do need a certain amount of style over substance, just about every game is repetitive to some extent. It could equally be that games have got longer (in terms of linear, they might have taken longer back in the day because of the difficulty), so it's more apparent. But as you're experiencing the game, feeling part of something like Journey, getting involved in the tale like Braid, or getting the exhilaration of MW all counts for a lot. Case in point, Skyrim, the combat in that is pointless, there's nothing to it, same with Fallout, but experiencing the world makes it

(have I missed the point?)

[HandsomeDead]

Esoteric and orginal games get critically praised then bomb commercially all the time.

I don't think what reviews say has a great deal of influence on how games that follow get made. Or really on what games most people buy.

Games have cloned what is commercially successful since Space Invaders. FPSes went modern and 'realistic' because COD4 sold a metric fuckton, so publishers want in on that money... and Homefront gets made: which got generally shat on by critics, but sold anyway.

Likewise, there are a million failed MMOs imitating World of Warcraft's elements because Blizzard released WoW and made more money than god.

There are a ton of DOTA clones and F2P games because games like League Of Legends or LOTRO are making it work really well financially, not because of reviews.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. But I didn't mean to suggest reviews impact game sales. They will to a point, obviously, but I think a lot of people make up their mind before reading a review, if at all. And yeah, cloning doesn't work for everyone.

I think what I was trying to get at more was improving the state of criticism in games to make the games community think more I guess, not in an attempt to change the purchases of everyone, just to get those that read and talk about games more something to chew on. If those that play and and analyse games for a living are impressed by what is quite shallow in comparison to what's possible, then what hope does game culture have?

Writing that does make me sound like game critics are the pariahs of gaming, they're not, but they do have the soapboxes so when the loudest voices aren't the most insightful then that will have a knock on effect.

I agree, realistic shooters are a mixed bag when it comes to critics. The last one I played where there was fun to be had was Bad Company 2, mainly because you could play about with the environment with the tools they gave you. Killzone 3 was also fun, but I think tat one falls into the fantasy genre. I guess it totally depends on the person reviewing. Who am I to argue if somebody liked the parts in MW3 where you spent 15 minutes fighting before watching a world famous structure fall down? All a review is is a person view. If you don't like a persons way of reviewing then you stop reading (like that Sonic review I posted a few days back. I'm guessing most get a high mark simply because they exited at the time of playing for those particular individuals. I'm not saying I just want to read positive or negative reviews regarding some games, I just want to see fair ones. We've all played games that were either well received or hated and either hated or loved them ourselves despite the reception they received.

I for one thought that BF3's story part was utter fucking ass, but not as bad as most people put out. I think I had more fun playing with the sound in the game than anything else. It didn't save the game, but it makes me wonder if they could get that into a game that was engaging to play SP then they seriously have a winner. DICE might have stumbled with BF3 for me, but then again they did before and they came back to make some amazing games. I see good things in it, but those good things were not enough to raise it to a point where I'd consider playingf it again any time soon.

Yeah, I agree that a review is just someone's opinion, but they're all the fucking same opinion. Like I said, it's fine people like these games but it's just the games coverage side of the internet where you'd hope to find alternative voices just don't really exist... well no, there are few, but they're rare... I don't know where they are (not that that says much) but most sites just sound the fucking same. If I just want an opinion I can go to any cunt. When I read a review I want something more considered.

And I'm not saying I just want someone that agrees with me, I don't really care about that, I just feel there's not much variety.

Game reviews and game criticism, when taken literally as terms, are completely different things; the way games are reviewed by almost all outlets are subjective, there are assumptions about the person playing and how the game in question relates to others in the same genre - criticism (once again in a literal sense) is a lot more objective, and would speak to the fundamental principles driving the experience.

For example, it would be utter nonsense for a review to challenge the presence of guns in a call of duty game - that is the cornerstone of the entire game, though from a criticism point of view, it would be a very interesting angle from which to explore both the game and the genre itself.

Exactly! I'd fuckin' read that! As long as it was intelligently written and argued their point well that could be great.

I dunno, maybe I'm just too jaded now by these glorified buyers guides that call themselves reviews. I know people just want that as games are expensive and it's natural to be sure you'd like it, but since I don't use reviews like that I'd like an outlet that does write some off-beat articles or reviews.

[HandsomeDead]

I think you're being a bit harsh on Max Payne as a series (not played the new one yet), there's enough to it that it isn't entirely style over substance (the 2nd game had some great bits in a hotel room I think, shooting guys off scaffolding). Style does go a long way for it though, games probably more so than any other medium are experiences and the tone/aesthetic all play in to that.

To make a point compare COD to Doom. Doom wasn't the first fps obviously but it's probably the most fondly remembered. COD is more on rails than Doom without a doubt, but while Doom might be harder it probably required less skill. You couldn't look up or down in doom, you just shot in the vague direction of enemies until they were dead. Doom didn't really mix things up aside from some enemies being harder than others and some firing projectiles.

Mario is just jumping on things, Galaxy has a many more ideas in it. Journey has virtually no gameplay, and Enslaved (which I've literally just finished) is a poor man's Uncharted in gameplay terms.

I agree it's a bit redundant slating one game for being repetitive when there's any number of games that are equally so. I guess it's how well they hide it. One of my issues with Gears of War 2 and Killzone 2 was how they just felt like a series of kill rooms. Killzone actually does a good job of hiding this late on by opening up the environments, and it was noticeable in Gears 3 that they did a better job of disguising the cover

imo you do need a certain amount of style over substance, just about every game is repetitive to some extent. It could equally be that games have got longer (in terms of linear, they might have taken longer back in the day because of the difficulty), so it's more apparent. But as you're experiencing the game, feeling part of something like Journey, getting involved in the tale like Braid, or getting the exhilaration of MW all counts for a lot. Case in point, Skyrim, the combat in that is pointless, there's nothing to it, same with Fallout, but experiencing the world makes it

(have I missed the point?)

I didn't intend to be so harsh on Max Payne but it's the game that made all this in my head click. I've only played a little of the first one and observed the others, so feel free to write off what I said about MP3 as uninformed bollocks, but I still think there is a point in all this.

And Mario isn't just jumping on things. That's like saying the countryside is just all green. Maybe Journey is another good example, but everything I read about it did acknowledge the lack of gameplay and tried to explain the entertainment came from other factors.

I think what I didn't explain was I'm not saying games should solely be judged by gameplay, but I think presentation, style or whatever you want to call it is taking too much precedence (in this case, in action shooters) these days. Especially since it's a genre that can offer up so much more gameplay-wise. I mean you can still do all that flashy stuff, too.

[Sly Reflex]

Mario might be jumping on things, but it's doing it way way better than anyone else can do right at this time. That's kind of the point DC is making, if a shooter game has awesome shooting and ticks all the right boxes, then it should get the score it deserves. The problem is that all these shooting games bring nothing new to the table and often don't do the whole shooting aspect of the game well enough to elevate themselves above what has gone before.

The semi realistic present time FPS market is stagnant. It will not change until something new and exciting comes out and conquers the market. Only then will we see any difference on that front.

[DANGERMAN]

Why is that a bad thing though? If you go to watch a Statham movie you pretty much know what you're going to get, and I wouldn't want a reviewer ignoring it's merits because of that. People who buy COD, or BF, or that new Ghost Recon, they pretty much know what they're in for, so all they need to know is if it does what it does well. People will eventually get bored and move on, or something will usurps them, but if yearly update #13 is fun then that should be reflected in the score

Yeah, I agree that a review is just someone's opinion, but they're all the fucking same opinion. Like I said, it's fine people like these games but it's just the games coverage side of the internet where you'd hope to find alternative voices just don't really exist... well no, there are few, but they're rare... I don't know where they are (not that that says much) but most sites just sound the fucking same. If I just want an opinion I can go to any cunt. When I read a review I want something more considered.

And I'm not saying I just want someone that agrees with me, I don't really care about that, I just feel there's not much variety.

I see your point with this but I'm not sure gaming is any different to any other medium when it comes to reviews. Gaming doesn't have the same breadth of content as music so it'd be hard to specialise (and then specialise further) the way music magazines and sites do. If you look at film, I'm not sure every film released gets reviewed by any mainstream source. A straight to dvd horror sequel might get some tiny specialist fan site reviewing it eventually, but generally only certain releases get covered by credible sites, same as gaming.

I'm not sure the audience is big enough for truly alternative tastes to be covered. I know what you mean though and it is a shame that there aren't sites that give even the more leftfield of mainstream preference. And it would be nice for reviews to be a bit more brutal every now and then. But then while it'd be great for some that Fifa gets torn apart for not progressing, we'd only bitch when they marked down Vanquish/Bayonetta/Enslaved/Journey/Flower/Galaxy for everything that's wrong with them.

And when it comes to reviewing to type, well there's no point in getting me to review Sniper Elite in the same way there's no point in getting Ed to review Football Manager. And why would you, the people interested in buying it already have some interest in that genre (the problem comes when you get someone who likes a specific company or style in that genre to the detriment of others)

What I would like is for the industry to not be quite so incestuous. It's more of a problem on the american side, but everyone knowing everyone is not a good thing

[Bob]

I think I feel what DC is saying and it's part of the reason I very rarely bother with reviews any more. They offer so little in terms of actual criticism or opinions beyond, 'looks nice', 'shooting works' that there is no point. I don't think this is solely the fault of reviewers though. If you want to understand why there isn't any serious criticism of games like Uncharted, all you have to do is look at the comments section of any blockbuster action game that scored an 8. It's like the number causes everyone's rabies to flare up.

There quite simply isn't a market for reviewers to look at games in a different way if they want to maintain an audience. Not only do sites have to worry about dwindling readers, but there is the depressing fact of hackers. Going round stealing everyone's information if someone says something they don't like. It's a scary world out there for someone with a slightly different opinion. Until the gaming community becomes a bit less.... cuntish I don't think games journalism is going to be taking any of the leaps forward it needs to be especially important.

[Sly Reflex]

Until the gaming community becomes a bit less.... cuntish I don't think games journalism is going to be taking any of the leaps forward it needs to be especially important.

We all know that wont happen. Gamecentral had the nerve to give a Sony exclusive a less than perfect mark last week and the comments section fucking exploded with 1 time commenters telling the reviewer that they hoped his firstborn gets fucked to death by a knife. Until we get rid of console specific fanboys we're stuck with it.

[DANGERMAN]

I'll tell you where I do agree wih DC, I dont think all games start from the same position on the review scale. It's inevitable that you're going to go into a game with some preconceptions and bias, I'm not sure you can avoid it and it probably has its benefits. However a few of us were talking about Giant Bombs Sonic quick look the other day, after they looked at that they went and did a quick look of Battleship.

For both games they went in cynical, expecting and wanting them to be bad, Battleship ended up winning them over a bit. The thing is even if Battleship had gone on to become brilliant I doubt you'd see review scores reflecting that, maybe the odd one. But generally certain franchises and genres have so much stacked against them, that they could never achieve the scores they might deserve, whereas Uncharted 3 (because 2 is one of the best games this gen DC, sort yourself out yeah?) seemed to get a bonus point over what it deserved because it had an easier ride

[HandsomeDead]

Why is that a bad thing though? If you go to watch a Statham movie you pretty much know what you're going to get, and I wouldn't want a reviewer ignoring it's merits because of that. People who buy COD, or BF, or that new Ghost Recon, they pretty much know what they're in for, so all they need to know is if it does what it does well. People will eventually get bored and move on, or something will usurps them, but if yearly update #13 is fun then that should be reflected in the score

But the difference between a Statham film and some of these critically acclaimed action shooters is the Statham films are great at what they are, or so I understand it, but they'll get a respectful 3-4 stars. I'm not convinced say Max Payne 3 is the best at what it is, yet it pulls in top reviews. But I do believe that Vanquish/Bayonetta/Enslaved/Journey/Flower/Galaxy are the best at what they are... well maybe not Enslaved, I played the demo of that and was pretty offended by the shiny cookie crumbs that make the platforming sections redundant so I've not played the whole thing.

And I remember you saying the same in that Hot Topic thread, saying CoD games are not worth over 6/10. So you fully agree with me, admit it.

Bob made a great point about those that commentators on sites. When Eurogamer gave Gears of War 3 and Uncharted 3 an 8/10 (or h8/10 as it gets called) and the internet went nuts it was pathetic, and proof that I guess there isn't much call for proper use of scores. I mean the text in these reviews wasn't massively different to any other.

This goes back to magazines as they were probably the ones that killed the value of the 5 and the 6 so you can't give a game that. A 5 or a 6 means it's awful.

I think now, both the gamers and critics shouldn't use scores. Scores should be taken away, like a mother takes away her child's felt tips. They haven't been using them properly; they've been going over the lines and using red for everything, drawing on the walls, eating them, sticking them their nose, just being shit with felt tips. That's how review scores are being used and they should be taken away until everyone knows how to use them.

[Sly Reflex]

Why is that a bad thing though? If you go to watch a Statham movie you pretty much know what you're going to get, and I wouldn't want a reviewer ignoring it's merits because of that. People who buy COD, or BF, or that new Ghost Recon, they pretty much know what they're in for, so all they need to know is if it does what it does well. People will eventually get bored and move on, or something will usurps them, but if yearly update #13 is fun then that should be reflected in the score

And I remember you saying the same in that Hot Topic thread, saying CoD games are not worth over 6/10. So you fully agree with me, admit it.

I fully agree with the taking away the numbers or stars. What would fanboys rant against after that happened though?

[DANGERMAN]

Why is that a bad thing though? If you go to watch a Statham movie you pretty much know what you're going to get, and I wouldn't want a reviewer ignoring it's merits because of that. People who buy COD, or BF, or that new Ghost Recon, they pretty much know what they're in for, so all they need to know is if it does what it does well. People will eventually get bored and move on, or something will usurps them, but if yearly update #13 is fun then that should be reflected in the score

And I remember you saying the same in that Hot Topic thread, saying CoD games are not worth over 6/10. So you fully agree with me, admit it.

not that I'd ever troll, but...

The problem with saying that a game like Max Payne isn't the best at what it is, is that most people seem to be really enjoying it. When you get to that level it becomes personal preference, and when it comes to that the majority seem to like Uncharted 2, Max Payne 3, MW3 etc. Games are greater than the sum of their parts, have been for decades, and people enjoy them as a complete package. Even I had fun with MW2, there was nothing horrendously broken about it that I can remember so why would it get a bad score?

[HandsomeDead]

But I think there is room for a place that assesses games more. I'm not expecting game sites to start catering to certain movements as they don't really exist, at the same scale at least. Yes, CoD, Uncharted, Max Payne are successfully using a tried and tested formula and not doing anything 'wrong' per se, but is just not being broken good enough?

I just think a lot of game reviews from the specialist outlets read like tabloid film reviews. In those they say how great a summer blockbuster looks, say how much fun it is, how hot the leading lady looks and whatever. Which is fine! But there is are specialist places to go if you want more than that. I just think that's missing in games.

[Hendo]

There's an interesting review of the new Ghost Recon game, Future Soldier, on Eurogamer.

The reviewer spends over half the review saying how lame it is that the game is following Call of Duty and Gears of War and has lost its identity but then ultimately concludes with "but I guess it's done really well" and closes with 8/10.

On the one hand, it's good that someone has gone a bit further than simply saying whether it's good or not, but there was also a danger that it would get a kicking just for following the herd even though it's a really well made enjoyable game.

I think there should be two types of criticism in games - a review that just tells you if the damn thing is any good or not and a separate article where the journalist can indulge their every whim on the finer points of their theoretical bollocks.

Rush play the game and tell people if it's yay or nay and then write a longer piece later.

[TopGunKnacker]

reviews are just opinion, if youre not a fan of a type of game but most reviewers are dont let it get you down dc.

[HandsomeDead]

reviews are just opinion, if youre not a fan of a type of game but most reviewers are dont let it get you down dc.

No, no no. All that bollocks I wrote explains that that's not what I think the problem is. There's a lot so to summarise: I think game critics all have the same ideal to what a good game is, and it's a type of game that I think isn't that great. I don't want critics to think like me or to agree with me, I just want a variety of points of view so following games criticism is more interesting. Apart from the odd example, I think they all sound the same.

[TopGunKnacker]

sorry thats just how it read in the first post! humanity is largely homogenous and videogame reviews are largely too. im sure you can always find a review to read somewhere that thinks your favourite game is shite or your least favourite is a masterpiece, but i dont think thats what people go to sites like ign for.