Saelune said:
Might be cumbersome but I think it would help if reviewers made it clear their base point of view to such games.
I wrote an article that's a joke on a similar premise [http://www.haywiremag.com/features/full-disclosure-remember/] not too long ago. For me, I think if a reviewer fails to identify what about a game they dislike, for pre-existing reasons or otherwise, then it's a bad review regardless of that reviewer's opinion on that genre is. Reviews themselves live largely in a vacuum anyway, as any given outlet is going to have a wide variety of staff writers and freelancers, often a wide variety of editors, whose voices and perspectives all influence the final result of a review. Given that, it's hard to see a review as anything other than a person trying to put to words a feeling on a game. Those words will, almost inevitably, include reasoning for why that genre does or doesn't work.
To disclose whether or not a genre is or isn't someone's cup of tea should be apparent in the review text, with or without disclaimers.
Side note: Neat having a reviewer's pov, since as it kind of supports my point, who says it is as important as what is said.
Sure thing. I'm just one voice in a whole host of freelancers and writers out there. I'm sure these opinions and perspectives could be disputed endlessly even among the professionals, so don't take my word as absolute. After all, I was just some person posting in the User Reviews section a little over two years ago.
erttheking said:
If you're going by that, every single reviewer who ever released a review before a game came out sold their soul. Which I'm pretty sure is the majority of them. Not just game reviewers either, film critics get early screenings.
Also, worth noting, publishers and developers benefit from the buzz generated by review and preview content appearing just days before release. Take note of the amount of
Mirror's Edge Catalyst material is circulating, and with the beta release.
Given that, it's just as likely to say the developers, publishers, and PR companies are selling their souls to writers.
Gordon_4 said:
I think a major mistake made here is that we confused 'Entertainment Opinion Writer' with 'Journalist'. I could write a review on a video game I'd played enough times, that doesn't make me a journalist.
There are maybe 5 actual, honest-to-goodness games journalists that I'm aware of. For the most part, I prefer the term "games writer." However, given that this is enthusiast press, sticking too sharply to "journalist" as a title means that there's maybe one person out there who fits both "reviewer" and "journalist" descriptions.
Nothing wrong with the title "entertainment writer," nor is their work inherently less valuable than someone whose job it is to research and report gaming news.
Redd the Sock said:
Honestly, I'm starting to find the defensiveness of games journalists telling. While I can't argue the fanboyish nature to complain people disagree with them, little the typical gaming press puts forward is particularly defensible in and of itself. How often have 9/10s been accompanied by several sizable patches? How often does a franchise favorite seem to get preferential treatment to a new IP (ie: a JRPG with repetitive quests in the same areas is boring, but that isn't a mark against MGS5)? They now fight to not be objective, not make comparison grades, and show any level of favoritism they chose.
The idea of an "objective" review is kind of silly. The only objective metric a game has are things like "this game runs as 30-45 fps on , this game has 10 guns to choose from, this game features a male protagonist with short, dark hair, etc." A review is, by design, an individual's subjective opinion on a game based on a particular play experience. What console that person played on, how long they had to play, their mood when they played, what game they were transitioning from, how much coffee they'd had that morning, and infinite other variables all affect what a person thinks, feels, and says about a game. Likewise, someone who's played a game like
Saint's Row: The Third might find the far older
Grand Theft Auto III far less palatable, despite the latter being the game that practically invented the genre the former needed to be made. Any review is going to be greatly circumstantial to its environment, so the idea of an objective review is silly. The only objectivity to be found is in facts, which is more or less saying "The best game review is the press release packet."
I can scan the one I got with
Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer if you'd like, but I much prefer my review of it.
The reason writers defend their work against accusations and scorn is because the people who do this kind of work do it for passion. We all care a great deal about games, otherwise each one of us would flee for the hills because this industry is ruthless. Instead, most of us who stick around do so for the love of the craft, and having people accuse it of every possible negative thing is exhausting. The fact that "You should never read the comments." is a regular mantra from the people who started their careers because they wanted to make deeper, more nuanced comments is very telling of the sorts of things one typically sees from a comments section.
I suspect many would view me as lunatic for commenting as thoroughly as I do on my own stuff. Then again, no where else have I ever been rewarded for 5+ hours of work with "he's a mild sociopath."
slo said:
But is there also an obligation to disclose your bias when you feel you might have one? To note where you are comning from when making assertions that might be influenced by things other than the game itself?
Obligation? Not really.
What could one possibly say without delving into a string of possible influences. In the article I link above, in discussion of
Remember Me, I shine lights into several corners that probably influenced my personal take on a Capcom-published science fiction game with combat and parkour elements. All of those influences are just as relevant information as how I feel about the genre of game that it is. If memory serves, about 900 words of sheer, end-to-end disclosure about my love of science fiction, corporate governments, Capcom as a publisher,
Star Wars, impossible odds, and the copious tropes that color and paint the things I feel about games like it.
Which isn't to say anything about the game itself. The full review text is eight words long.
The reality of reviews is the reviewer is doing their best to make a full, sprawling opinion of something fit into a 600-1,200 word snippet of opinion. The most important things (major mechanics, aesthetic design, soundtrack, bugs, length, etc.) are what command a lion's share of the word count, and any other observation is then weighed against its length. It it worth the extra 15 words to say something like "Character selection is a bit of a drag by the sixth playthrough.", or is that worth omitting because earlier in the review, "Despite the wide variety of total unlockable characters, many players will feel fatigue after their third or fourth game, meaning few will unlock all characters."
Besides, each of these disclosures would naturally fall into discussing the common tropes of its genre. Whether or not someone likes jRPGs, for instance, it should be clear when someone says "The game's combat is a joy in practice, excellently bombastic, and is unlikely to get tired too quickly. The problem is the game seems to take it as a challenge, giving the players a random encounter every fourth or fifth step. Although combat is still fun, wearing through that many battles between story beats gets exhausting, and a player's resolve will fatigue far more through the time it takes to do anything than the combat becoming stale." This kind of comment says nothing about how I feel about this particular RPG genre, but just about anyone should be able to figure out if frequent random encounters is their cup of tea.
While there's nothing inherently wrong with disclosures, a good review should make them unnecessary.
