60 réponses à ce sujet

[HanabPacal]

alperez wrote...

I agree with a lot of what your saying OP, however i would like to draw one distinction between games journalists/critics and movie/tv journalists or critics.

In a movie or tv review the reviews will concentrate more on substance over style whearas in a game review its the other way round in one sinigificant aspect, storytelling.

That to me is where a large part of the problem with reviews of mass effect actually occurs, gameplay, graphics, take precedence over story and continunity.

Whether the art direction or the costumes or the special effects of a movie or tv show are impressive handled or badly handled in the end its how the plotline is handled that creates most of the basis for the reviewer/critic to judge the product.

If the story makes no sense or follows a standarised formula and doesn't do it well or brings nothing new to the formula then in tv or movies it will inevitably lead to a bad review, if the acting is terrible or the script contradicts itself then the movie or tv show will immediately receive harsh criticism.

This in games is a relatively minor point when it comes to how the game is reviewed, plot holes, forgetting its own lore, bad voice acting are almost considered par for the course, so its the other things that get more attention.

The storyline, the va work, the narrative itself only really get attention when they're handled really well and when they're not its no biggie because look at the explosions, or the fact that you can now dual weild weapons or some other little aspect that brings something different to the game.

In essence its like if most games reviewers are Michael Bay fans where story integrity or character arcs don't need to make sense as long as the explosions are there.

So while i agree that there's too much influence being placed on the game's reviewers by the larger companies for the reasons you lay out, i think an equally big problem is that the reviewers themselves are less interested in some of the things they should be.

Most people agree that for almost 99% of the time Mass Effect 3 is arguably the best game in the series and its only in the last few minutes that most people begin to take issue, despite the fact that even during this time there are plot holes, character inconsitencies and lore being broken.

The problem is that the reviewers are so concerned with the 99% and so unitnerested or willing to forgive the 1% that the reviews biased or not will always show this imo.

Game's reviewers need to take a good hard look at themselves not just because of the perception people have that they are in the pockets of the larger companies, but because the medium itself if its to be taken seriously then just graphics and gameplay shouldn't be the only things that make a good game.

Movies, tv shows, hell even music as mediums all know this, for every big budget movie or reality tv show or bubble gum pop act, there are countless well written, well acted, well thought out movies/tv shows or musical artists with gravitas.

So when the awards get handled in these mediums more often than not the big budget action movies or the reality tv shows or the bubblegum pop acts are ignored in favour of the character rich stories or well acted performances or the musical acts that dared to be different.

The game's industry though is still stuck in the populist view being the right one and the lowest common denominator being whats important so this is reflected in the reviews themselves.

I fully agree with you alperez.  This is why I believe that games critics/reviewers should become more knowledgeable about all of the different artistic endeavors that go into creating a game, both on an individual basis and with how they come together to form the whole. 

[HanabPacal]

nycmode75 wrote...

If you begin with the premise that journalism is objective, then your theory is flawed.

As a journalist myself at a major organization, even we know that ultimately all journalism is subjective regardless of the facts presented to back up one's argument. Everything you see is framed in the viewpoint of the person who wrote, produced or presented the piece of work.

On a lighter note, I personally enjoy reading reviews because usually it contains useful information about the product that I am intersted in. But usually I prefer the consensus view before I draw any conclusions ...

You’re creating somewhat of a non-issue here.  I don’t think that anyone believes that journalism is 100% objective.  Of course one’s personal views are always there underlying things - but that doesn’t mean that news pieces can’t be presented as objectively as possible.  In fact, just this morning I’ve read a number of pieces in both my local paper and the Washington Post that I would say were very objective in their portrayal of the situation being covered.
 
However, what we’re seeing from far too many mainstream gaming sites and associated games journalists is sensationalism and overt subjectivity, whilst disregarding the facts at hand.
 
For example:
 
Calling Mass Effect 3 customers who don’t like the ending and lodge complaints about it “entitled and whiny” (without having any substance to bring to the issue in the process) = sensationalist and overtly subjective without any concern for objectivity.  Looking at the issues and potential issues through the presentation of facts and precedent and presenting counterpoints while maintaining a calm and professional demeanor within the commentary = objective and professional.
 
Calling BioWare names and melodramatically stating that they are hampering the perpetuation of games as art with nothing to back up their position = sensationalist and overtly subjective without any concern for objectivity.  Looking at and (in this case) defining the issues and potential issues through the presentation of facts and precedent while maintaining a calm and professional demeanor within the commentary = objective and professional.  
 
Blowing BioWare’s statement about looking into “clarifying the ending” so completely out of proportion whilst continuously calling it a dangerous precedent (when it isn’t even a precedent, let alone a dangerous one) = sensationalist and overtly subjective without any concern for objectivity.  Presenting BioWare’s true statement within the context it was given, and acknowledging the fact that the precedent for change based upon audience feedback was set long before BioWare even became a company = objective and professional.
 
Perhaps you didn’t mean for it be so but your post seems like a defense of the horrific reporting that is too often seen within the games industry.  The games “journalists” want the medium to be recognized as a form of art.  They also want the respect that being critics/journalists of an artistic medium brings with it however, they are sabotaging the very thing that they want through their actions, and sometimes through their inactions. 

Modifié par HanabPacal, 02 avril 2012 - 12:06 .

[TullyAckland]

I've moved this to offtopic as the subject at hand is regarding games journalisim. Not the game itself.

[android654]

Wait... You needed coverage of a video game to reinforce the notion that journalism is a dying medium of information?

This f**king generation...

[RazorrX]

I think part of the problem is that most game reviewers do not actually play the game from start to finish. It would be difficult to get a copy of something like ME and have a review written, edited, etc. in time for game launch. I also do not think that most reviewers actually even look at story beyond "oh it has one". What they are looking at is game play.

For example: Alpha Protocol got SLAMED by US reviewers because of its game play. Every review complained about the shooter mechanics (even Angry Joe). Where in Europe the game rated around 80 or so, this is because in Europe they reviewed it like a RPG vs a shooter.

You would need a reviewer who actually understands RPGs and what they are supposed to be in order to understand how to review them. Also RPGs need to be played through for a complete review as some may start out great and die at the end. This is hard to do when they do not have the time to play the game totally before the review is done.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Interesting perspective OP. This has certainly given me food for thought. I may disagree with the Retake crowd, but I do acknowledge that they have a right to voice their perspectives and opinions, just like those of us who don't think the ending is worth getting upset about.

[Fishy]

Journalism for video game was not such a big issue back in the day. Just like movie. Before you had no IMDB or IGN. My source of review most of the time were from friend magazine or word of mouth. Now you have stuff like Metacritic and a plethora of other media easy to access that a lot of consumer use.

So yes, I think game journalism it's not what it used to be. When I was a children my mother keep telling me to not give a flying hell about what the critic said about X movie in the journal. Yet, she told me to read it to give me an idea if I should go or not and that a great critic always require to be professional, which means understanding what the hell they're talking about and never letting their emotion taking the control. Sometime they're so spoiled they can't find anything worthy in anything, anymore. That the problem with many journalist. Sometime they have intern who have no clues of what they're talking about.

So in the end you need to make your own opinions of any critic. Critic are just that critic. They're not the ultimate answer to your question.IGN what they did was unprofessional. But some of you really need to chill just like they said.

[Gatt9]

@OP and the following poster

Suprez30 wrote...

Journalism for video game was not such a big issue back in the day. Just like movie. Before you had no IMDB or IGN. My source of review most of the time were from friend magazine or word of mouth. Now you have stuff like Metacritic and a plethora of other media easy to access that a lot of consumer use.
 

There's a factor here not being considered,  especially by the quoted poster.

Computer Gaming World is the best example,  It had very strict rules.

1.  They reviewed only the product that the consumer would find on the shelf.
2.  They did not review patched games,  only what was on the shelf.  They would comment on the patch,  but it was not factored into the review.
3.  If you didn't like your game's review,  pulling your advertisements won't change it.

That was how games were reviewed back in the day.

Today,  reviewers are mostly people who think it would be "Cool to get paid to play games",  not people who do it out of a love for the medium.  They aren't critics,  they don't have journalistic integrity,  and they never intended to.  They intended for someone to pay them to play games.

You can see this by virtue of the fact that few of them actually have any experience with classics.  If you talk to a movie critic,  you'll find he watched ancient classic movies.  If you talk to a book reviewer,  you'll find that he read classics dating back hundreds or thousands of years.

But if you talk to a "Game critic",  few of them have ever played the classics.  A great example is Gamespot,  who for many years kept M.U.L.E. listed in their hall of fame (They were a spinoff of Computer Gaming World).  When a Gamespot reviewer played Space Horse,  almost a exact copy of M.U.L.E.,  he largely panned it.  It's obvious he had no idea what he was doing,  never played the original.

This is a HUGE problem with the idea of "Game Critics" or "Game Journalists",  few of them have any real background.  They have no idea what the history of gaming is,  never played the great games.  So is it any real surprise that they don't actually review games,  they review advertisers?

They aren't doing this for love of the medium,  they're doing it because they're largely living out a childhood fantasy and looking to turn it into a lucrative career any way they can.

The reason for the backlash from the "Gaming Journalists" is simple,  they just discovered they buried themselves.  They took their desire to review advertisers and not games too far,  and now people are tired of reading "This game is the greatest game ever!!! (Until next week)" and then getting burned for $60 because the guy was just more interested in getting traffic and hence more money than he was in critiquing a game.

It's a major symptom of the state of the gaming industry,  and why the gaming industry is collapsing.  The whole thing is being driven by people who are far more interested in getting money than they are in creating great games.  Whether it's the publishers who dismiss everything but a copy of what sold well last year,  or gaming journalists who function as external PR so they can live out childhood dreams,  everything right now is designed to trick consumers into spending money instead of creating something consumers will want to buy.

We've just seen the tip of the iceburg,  everything is setup for the entire market to crash hard,  and honestly,  gaming journalists are no small part of the reason why.  If they'd given games the reviews they deserved,  held the Industry accountable,  then the Industry could have shifted direction when there was still time.

But now it's too late.  The Industry is stagnant,  the products unimpressive,  the reviewers untrustworthy,  and the Industry is going to fail.  The consumers are walking away,  and it takes years for this Industry to switch directions.  There's not enough time left.

(Before people start claiming the industry is doing just great,  go read the last two years of NPD reports and do math.  The negative numbers are showing quite clearly where the industry is going)

Modifié par Gatt9, 03 avril 2012 - 12:53 .

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

I honestly agree with some aspects, that the system is "overly positive" but when they do speak the truth, as when Xbox mag or w.e it was gave FFXIII a very appropriate 40-60 score (can't remember specifics) it got a ton of hate mail from final fantasy brainwashed tools, so much so that they revised and pulled their previous rating.

[Gatt9]

DRUNK_CANADIAN wrote...

I honestly agree with some aspects, that the system is "overly positive" but when they do speak the truth, as when Xbox mag or w.e it was gave FFXIII a very appropriate 40-60 score (can't remember specifics) it got a ton of hate mail from final fantasy brainwashed tools, so much so that they revised and pulled their previous rating.

Well keep in mind you're talking about a hobby with a disportionate number of people who fall into geeky catagories.  Kind of like Star Wars or Star Trek,  both of which can quickly engender far larger reactions.  As the topics of either the Star Wars SE's or the newest Star Trek show.  Further,  you have the added problem of...

Japanophiles.  These people live in an imaginary world where anything remotely dealing with Japan sits on a higher level than God.  Go look at Youtube,  there's some *really* scary people out there in this catagory.  Women who do voices for Anime's have a tendency to be stalked,  and men who date them are deluged with death threats.  (Don't confuse this with people who enjoy Japanese culture,  two different things)

Further,  you have the added problem of a market contraction that has reached unsustainability.  There are very few studios left,  and almost all of the games are the same.  10 or 15 years ago,  if a game you were anticipating sucked,  you shrugged and something that didn't suck would be out a week later.

Today,  if a game you were anticipating sucks,  you could be waiting months,  or even a year,  until anything comes out that does something similiar.  This makes people extremely touchy,  if Gears of War 3 sucks,  you'll be waiting months or years for another cover-based-shooter.  So if someone suggests it sucks,  the gut reaction is the same as the grieving process,  denial.  "No,  it can't possibly suck,  it's just that person,  they don't know quality!!!".

Scarcity of resources and all,  people fight to defend what few games come out in their prefered genre,  and often fight to get games in other genres adapted to their preferred style.  Sort of like what happened with ME2 and ME3.  The ever dwindling market causes gamers to fight to try and get the remaining studios to develop the kind of games they like,  whereas 10 or 15 years ago,  you just shrugged and went to one of the couple dozen studio's who were making games in your genre.

I still blame the Industry and it's very bad buisness plans,  I *really* don't think the problem is the community.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Gatt9 wrote...

@OP and the following poster

Suprez30 wrote...

Journalism for video game was not such a big issue back in the day. Just like movie. Before you had no IMDB or IGN. My source of review most of the time were from friend magazine or word of mouth. Now you have stuff like Metacritic and a plethora of other media easy to access that a lot of consumer use.
 

There's a factor here not being considered,  especially by the quoted poster.

Computer Gaming World is the best example,  It had very strict rules.

1.  They reviewed only the product that the consumer would find on the shelf.
2.  They did not review patched games,  only what was on the shelf.  They would comment on the patch,  but it was not factored into the review.
3.  If you didn't like your game's review,  pulling your advertisements won't change it.

That was how games were reviewed back in the day.

Today,  reviewers are mostly people who think it would be "Cool to get paid to play games",  not people who do it out of a love for the medium.  They aren't critics,  they don't have journalistic integrity,  and they never intended to.  They intended for someone to pay them to play games.

You can see this by virtue of the fact that few of them actually have any experience with classics.  If you talk to a movie critic,  you'll find he watched ancient classic movies.  If you talk to a book reviewer,  you'll find that he read classics dating back hundreds or thousands of years.

But if you talk to a "Game critic",  few of them have ever played the classics.  A great example is Gamespot,  who for many years kept M.U.L.E. listed in their hall of fame (They were a spinoff of Computer Gaming World).  When a Gamespot reviewer played Space Horse,  almost a exact copy of M.U.L.E.,  he largely panned it.  It's obvious he had no idea what he was doing,  never played the original.

This is a HUGE problem with the idea of "Game Critics" or "Game Journalists",  few of them have any real background.  They have no idea what the history of gaming is,  never played the great games.  So is it any real surprise that they don't actually review games,  they review advertisers?

They aren't doing this for love of the medium,  they're doing it because they're largely living out a childhood fantasy and looking to turn it into a lucrative career any way they can.

The reason for the backlash from the "Gaming Journalists" is simple,  they just discovered they buried themselves.  They took their desire to review advertisers and not games too far,  and now people are tired of reading "This game is the greatest game ever!!! (Until next week)" and then getting burned for $60 because the guy was just more interested in getting traffic and hence more money than he was in critiquing a game.

It's a major symptom of the state of the gaming industry,  and why the gaming industry is collapsing.  The whole thing is being driven by people who are far more interested in getting money than they are in creating great games.  Whether it's the publishers who dismiss everything but a copy of what sold well last year,  or gaming journalists who function as external PR so they can live out childhood dreams,  everything right now is designed to trick consumers into spending money instead of creating something consumers will want to buy.

We've just seen the tip of the iceburg,  everything is setup for the entire market to crash hard,  and honestly,  gaming journalists are no small part of the reason why.  If they'd given games the reviews they deserved,  held the Industry accountable,  then the Industry could have shifted direction when there was still time.

But now it's too late.  The Industry is stagnant,  the products unimpressive,  the reviewers untrustworthy,  and the Industry is going to fail.  The consumers are walking away,  and it takes years for this Industry to switch directions.  There's not enough time left.

(Before people start claiming the industry is doing just great,  go read the last two years of NPD reports and do math.  The negative numbers are showing quite clearly where the industry is going)

Aw, man, you resurrected My grief at my favorite gaming magazine's demise. CGW and Tom vs. Bruce FTW