I sympathize with the modern games critic. There are many of them out there doing great, thoughtful work. They’ve got things to say. And the broad response from gamers, at best, is “we don’t care.” Or at worst, “shut the fuck up.” Of course there are people who like their work, but my feeling is that is a tiny niche.
https://twitter.com/yacobg42/status/1684236237316534278
Games can be thematically meaningless, politically abhorrent, fundamentally not cohere as a story, and yet fans who have conflated their own sense of self-worth with the product they like will break their own spine to defend it.
Anyway, my question is, are they at fault? Not with the things they say, but their tack. Their approach to talking about games as a whole.
I view games largely as a functional art. I recognize I may be on an extreme end of this spectrum, but for me, the systems are the juice, the aesthetics are the rind. My assumption is that the same is true for developers. The conversations they are having with each other are not ones of theme, but of genre. Not of political systems, but mechanical ones.
Of course, there is value in pointing out developers’ deficiencies in this regard. They make all kinds of assumptions about life and politics as they fill their world with bad guys and goals. Why does Mario collect the coins? But the answer to most of these observations, for the game, is “it doesn’t matter”.
But of course, it matters to the critic! But therein lies the dilemma: the game is a jumping off point for conversation, rather than the target. Because gamers don’t care, and developers don’t care. If the themes and politics of games are reflections of the culture they’re created in, then the ultimate target of “thoughtful critique” is at culture itself. Which is why it doesn’t land with the target audience. They are enthusiasts; they don’t want to read about why they shouldn’t enjoy something, gamers just want to have fun.
What do you think? Do you think there are flaws in the approaches of some games critics? Do you think the conversations we have about games are flawed? Do you approach the narrative of games with a critical eye? Do you think you should? I could keep asking more questions, but I think you get it. This isn’t super well thought out, so I welcome “you’re wrong, dummy!”
You must log in or # to comment.
Games can be thematically meaningless, politically abhorrent, fundamentally not cohere as a story, and yet fans who have conflated their own sense of self-worth with the product they like will break their own spine to defend it.
This quote seems to be massively missing the point in that it doesn’t even consider the possibility that people like the game because it’s fun to play. If Mr Fancy Games Journo is so focused on Art that he’s forgotten games are about gameplay then maybe it’s not the children who are wrong.
Two of the three of those are absurdly stupid comments about a book. A book doesn’t need a theme to good. It doesn’t need some higher purpose. Telling an entertaining story is enough and trying to shove entertainment into a pseudo-intellectual box is stupid as shit.
Games don’t need the third, either. They don’t need to tell a story at all.
Second this! I appreciate game critics and routinely factor their opinions into whether I’ll buy a game sooner rather than later. But sometimes there are imperfect games you connect with, and 10/10 games that you don’t mind missing.
Even in terms of art: it’s helpful to read a critic’s impression on an art piece, but it’s also worth it to experience it yourself and form your own opinions.
But that defeats the purpose of reviews. I have limited time on Earth, I want to know what games are good, without sinking a lot of time into it.
Of course! I’m not saying reviews are pointless, just that it’s ok to dislike a critically acclaimed game, or find value in a game isn’t as well received.
If a game looks interesting, less than stellar reviews aren’t going to stop me from buying it, but it might make me wait for sale.
Ultimately, your game experience is entirely your own.
I may be in the minority, but i like game (and generally) reviews for their own sake. Sometimes i can even appreciate the media even better with their insight.
Sometimes, (like with EVE online) I just like reading about a game i won’t play. Sometimes, (like with dark souls) I’m inspired to push past my limits to try to find the game they found so wonderful)
I used to love reading rock paper shotgun for John walkers pissy, aggressive work. Even if i disagreed with him, i liked the way he opined.
Even a bad review is a joy in itself. When a bad game or movie comes out i get excited to read what clever turn of phrase the critics are gonna use to put it down.
I think there’s a tendency in professional reviewers, of any content medium where they become desensitized and jaded. Perfectly good things come out, but they just blend in with the thousand others they experienced before. Something quirky and unique comes out, it grabs their attention and they overlook its flaws, perhaps overhyping it too. And then for big name projects they try to bring the claws out and show they can be hard hitting.
This is why reviews from actual, regular people are so important to offset this. Many of us can still come at a new piece of art with wonder and fully experience it, and we don’t have all the baggage that comes from simply being in that line of work.
I miss EGM’s Fun Factor category. I want to know the usual stuff, is it technically good, runs well, looks good, has a good story, etc sure. But we also need to specifically focus on is it fun to play.
If you want to critique something, let’s examine flaws in gameplay. Are the mechanics clunky? Does it try to utilize every single button on the controller and is over complicated? Do the jumps feel right? Is the crafting system a PITA with little payoff? That’s what they should be criticizing the most in modern games.
Sure some gamers/devs don’t care about themes/narratives in games, but that doesn’t mean all of them don’t. We can see with genres like walking sims, adventure games or visual novels that story matters quite a lot to some people. Games like Mass Effect 3 have been roundly criticized by gameplay-focused fans on their failure to provide a good narrative. Plus, politics is relative, what one person thinks is politics or an agenda being pushed into a game (ie: a trans character or themes) might be extremely important to someone in that community
I feel like there is space for talking about games besides actually playing them, similar to sports. Many people don’t do sports, but watch it on TV.
Having said that, I’ve dabbled in gamedev and from that little experience, I would definitely like to see more meta-discussions of gaming.
Like, what in the absolute fuck even is ‘fun’, that’s something I ask myself any time I add a system to a game.I feel like there is space for talking about games besides actually playing them, similar to sports.
To refine further, I think there exists demand for a “middle ground” of games discourse that is talking about games as a whole, or as entries into their genre, in detail and with consideration - but without being a hyper-focused discussion of one specific game by it’s die-hards. We have both poles - there is lots of relatively superficial discussion of games, or game reviews, that aren’t giving a particularly detailed discussion of each game … and there’s lots of posts in a specific games’ space with ultra-specific and supremely detailed discourse from a highly-invested players’ perspective.
But there’s not been a successful venue or single leading voice that’s really filling that niche. TB did for ages, and I don’t think anyone has come close to filling those shoes since.
I personally want the kind of insights that come from putting a week into a game and playing a lot of other similar games, but not necessarily being a hardcore fan or hater of the game or the genre. Like, I’ll get a week into a game and start noticing that the core gameplay is good, but the economy seems off, or that gunplay is just a little jank when playing near obstacles - deeper than “better/worse than GAME1, while slower not as twitchy as COMPETITOR”.
In similar sense, talking about games as a media and as offering within a media landscape - in that sense you talk about asking “what is fun”; looking at game systems and mechanics from a lens of media critique and systems design. How does this work, how do competitors solve this problem, what other problems does it introduce - how does the sum picture mesh and how cohesive is the end product.
Yeah, I agree with all of that.
Game Maker’s Toolkit has some excellent videos like that. Kind of intended for gamedevs to watch, but IMHO still perfectly consumable for anyone who wants to look behind the smoke and mirrors.
what in the absolute fuck even is ‘fun’,
This is the sort of shit that plagues my mind when I try to really evaluate while this arbitrary system of rules that’s making my thumbs do specific things to a piece of plastic is stimulating to me.
Having said that, I’ve dabbled in gamedev and from that little experience, I would definitely like to see more meta-discussions of gaming. Like, what in the absolute fuck even is ‘fun’, that’s something I ask myself any time I add a system to a game
I assume you’re probably familiar, but I would highly recommend sakurai’s series about game development. It’s a really good perspective on this topic
I am not familiar. Will take a look, thanks.
I would definitely like to see more meta-discussions of gaming. Like, what in the absolute fuck even is ‘fun’, that’s something I ask myself any time I add a system to a game.
Yes, I agree! Personally, I think the line between entertainment and manipulation is far blurrier than anyone cares to admit or wants to talk about. You only really hear about them in regards to pay-to-win games, microtransactions, lootboxes, or gambling. But of course, those systems can exist without the obvious money incentive - does that change things enough? Is it possible for a completely free to play game to be “evil” in that way?
Yeah, in gamedev, there’s the concept of “juiciness”, which essentially means throwing in animations and sounds which aren’t necessary to make the gameplay work, but rather just to make the game feel right.
As humans, we enjoy sensory feedback when we’ve completed a task. So, in some games, that juice just tries to mimic the sensory feedback from reality. And because our reality is much more tactile, rather pronounced animations+sounds may still be perfectly in line with that goal.
But of course, nothing stops you from going beyond that and reaching for splashy animations+sounds. It’s free
real estateendorphins and players do play games for the endorphins.If you go all the way, you can make the player feel like they’re moving mountains for finding a simple match of three items. That’s when it’s obviously addictive to moms all around the world.
But yeah, there’s no cut-off line, where it suddenly starts to be manipulative. Players generally want to be manipulated.
Although there is obviously also the folks who love their Dark Souls, dry puzzle games and whatnot, where the endorphins have to be earned.
I think the problem is that “game critics” in the sense of professional reviewers and the like tend to feel extremely distanced from anything I would possibly think when looking for content about games. 7.8/10, too much water ring a bell for anyone?
Overall, the core is that a lot of reviewers fail to answer the question “is this game for me” separately from reviewing the game as a whole. As an example of what I mean, take the site christ centered gamer. Just from the name, you’d probably avoid the site thinking it would just be the morality police coming to say your fanservice jrpg is evil, and yeah, they do. But it’s very clearly separated from the rest of the review as it’s own rating. They’ll still give the game a fair shake apart from their own personal values. As an example, xenoblade chronicles 2 recieved an 88% from them, despite recieving a 42% in “morality”. for an even more extreme example, SMT V recieved a 90, despite the 28 in morals.
Regarding the idea of games as art and therefore meriting the sort of haughty reviews, I think the issue is that reviewers tend to not separate games meant to be statement pieces from games that aren’t. I find the same problem in movie reviews as well. For example, I saw a review of godzilla vs king kong that rated the movie pretty low… because it just felt like the plot and characters were an excuse to watch kaiju fight. Like yeah, that’s the point. I didn’t walk into the theater for a compelling plot. I went there to see a giant gorilla fight a giant nuclear lizard.
Basically, I think media should be reviewed primarily on what it tries to be, not on what it isn’t, and that a lot of modern critics are too set in their own ideals of media to actually judge things fairly.
I dislike it when game critics expect every great game to leave a high water mark like Half-life 2 or have a clear basis toward a particular genre. Not every game is going to be a AAA cinematic masterpiece. And that’s okay.
Presentation is important but the gameplay loop and accessibility is the most important part. Will this be fun to play? Will it charm me? Will it immerse me? The most annoying thing in reviews is…
DO YOU USE STEAM, THE MODERN GAMING CLIENT? YOU
MAY
BE
ENTITLED
TO
COMPENSATION!
…Anyway, that’s the end of my review. Like, comment, click the bell, input your home address, and just send me money however you want.
