Before I delve into this juicy hunk of meat, I'd like to describe my gaming habits. The reasons for this I will elaborate on in a little while.
I enjoy the occasional shoot'em-up, but of a more tactical bend, like True Combat Elite, and really don't enjoy arcade-stlye shooters like Fire Warrior. I am a huge fan of 4x strategy games, especially ones set in space. I've enjoyed my fair share of platformers, from all the Marios, to Gex Gecko. I have no problem with turn-based combat in otherwise live action games, and have been know to spent large amounts of time on fetch-quests for no other reason then, hey, I like collecting stuff for arbtirary rewards. I didn't enjoy Portal. Not because it was too short, or too easy, but because I didn't enjoy the gameplay or humor. I'll explain more later.
Now, why did I waste your valuable time on my personal preferences? Because without those, my review of anything would be worthless. Who the hell I am? No body, a voice on the wind. You have no idea what I consider a good game.
And so, you have no criteria to determine the validity of my opinion on the given subject matter.
So I arrive at my main topic of discussion. The problem of video games in a post-modern world is that we've all developed a healthy understanding of critical bais mascrading as universality. Just because Robert Ebert fawns over Deathproof, does not mean it is a good movie. We've actually somewhat begun to adjust for this by dividing what reviewers we listen to based on similarity of interest. Horror buffs generally stick to their territory and review system, indie films theirs, blockbusters theirs.
And this is completely valid. Some people get a kick out of Indepedence Day 4. Some people have a compulsive desire to outrun other vehicles on a circular track. These are all equally good depending on what your views on media is slanted toward. By still pretending the market's quality can be determined by any 1 voice, reviewers ignore the slow splintering that's taken place. Whether that splintering is for good or ill I can't say.
Further, its disadvantageous for any reviewer to pretend he's an impartial observer. He cannot be. His repitore, his age, his cultural background, without this information its impossible to determine where his opinion can speak for you. Where his points of irritation mesh with yours. In short, he's worthless to everyone as a reviewer if he pretends he's nothing but an applicator of some esoteric objective truths about gaming.
Remember my dislike of Portal? I'm a hardcore black comedy fan. I've seen Happiness umpteen times, for instance. So now I'm too jaded, too experienced in iconoclaustic deaths and pants-fall-down-on-the-gallows to do anything more then slightly smile when my Weighted Companion Cube is killed. The platforming is, again, not my cup of tea. I've never enjoyed modulating the laws of physics and casuality, be it the gravity gun, bullet-time or the apeture device. Because frankly, most games with such devices usually devlove from intituive problem solving to a protracted lesson in how to apply the given law-bendy thing to various contrivances. Puzzle-solving dosen't kick it for me when its simply an excerise in doing something I've never been fond of.
One moment did shine for me in Portal though. I needed to put a weight on a button, and I could only find an empty jug. Le gasp! I thought in a strangely french moment of revelation. I must need to fill the empty jug with that perviously malevolent vat of posion/acid/javax. Brillance! I'd convinced myself I'd been entirely wrong about this whole Portal thing until I discovered that, no, I'd simply missed a door. The jug was nothing, I couldn't fill it with acid/Glick's spit/robo-semen. I just needed to go do the same thing I'd solved all the other puzzles with, only with a few more logical steps thrown in.
But you will notice I am not saying Portal is a bad game. I've taken a solemn oath to never play the thing again, but I can see in it what would make it popular. And to who. So this all leads to my final point. In the age of a 1000 different critera for a good game, where some can look past the derivitive features of Fire Warrior because they truly enjoy the WH40k universe, and others can't get over how mindlessly repetitive it is. Concisely, all reviewers have really 2 options. If they wish to maintain relevance and serve the community, that is (*cough* IGN *cough*).
First, they can step out of themselves and review games from an attempted universal perspective. Play the horror game as an avid fan of horror, play the FPS in the mindset of an over-stressed young male looking for violent and domineering relief, and in this way, try to qualify their writings. Attempt to understand who would want to play them, and judge them as the targeted players would.
The other option as I see it, is to be unabhasedly baised. Proudly and uncompromisingly the grumpy old man (haha...Valve) who will spit cholorinated acid at anything that dosen't fit his critera. I'm personally a fan of this style of review. Yahtzee, for instance, is not a reviewer you ask about the latest FPS craze. But thats cool. If I ever need to get an opinion on story-telling based games, I know who to go read (also watch).
I will sum up this whole thing with this example.
-I think Crysis would bore and irritate me to tears if I tried playing it now. But I get what it's going for. I mean, I know that if I was 14 years old again I'd probably consider it the hottest of hot sauce, and be salivating all over it like a gay man at a Spartan pep rally. But I've played too many sessions of CS, piloted a few too many fighters in BF2, to get any kick out of that kind of game anymore. Which is fine, so long as I remember what I once was, and who someone asking my opinion may still be.
And my point is, I think reviewers need to recognize that holds true for them as well.
*note- enjoying Crysis does not mean you are 14 or immature. Just a different type of gamer then me.
I enjoy the occasional shoot'em-up, but of a more tactical bend, like True Combat Elite, and really don't enjoy arcade-stlye shooters like Fire Warrior. I am a huge fan of 4x strategy games, especially ones set in space. I've enjoyed my fair share of platformers, from all the Marios, to Gex Gecko. I have no problem with turn-based combat in otherwise live action games, and have been know to spent large amounts of time on fetch-quests for no other reason then, hey, I like collecting stuff for arbtirary rewards. I didn't enjoy Portal. Not because it was too short, or too easy, but because I didn't enjoy the gameplay or humor. I'll explain more later.
Now, why did I waste your valuable time on my personal preferences? Because without those, my review of anything would be worthless. Who the hell I am? No body, a voice on the wind. You have no idea what I consider a good game.
And so, you have no criteria to determine the validity of my opinion on the given subject matter.
So I arrive at my main topic of discussion. The problem of video games in a post-modern world is that we've all developed a healthy understanding of critical bais mascrading as universality. Just because Robert Ebert fawns over Deathproof, does not mean it is a good movie. We've actually somewhat begun to adjust for this by dividing what reviewers we listen to based on similarity of interest. Horror buffs generally stick to their territory and review system, indie films theirs, blockbusters theirs.
And this is completely valid. Some people get a kick out of Indepedence Day 4. Some people have a compulsive desire to outrun other vehicles on a circular track. These are all equally good depending on what your views on media is slanted toward. By still pretending the market's quality can be determined by any 1 voice, reviewers ignore the slow splintering that's taken place. Whether that splintering is for good or ill I can't say.
Further, its disadvantageous for any reviewer to pretend he's an impartial observer. He cannot be. His repitore, his age, his cultural background, without this information its impossible to determine where his opinion can speak for you. Where his points of irritation mesh with yours. In short, he's worthless to everyone as a reviewer if he pretends he's nothing but an applicator of some esoteric objective truths about gaming.
Remember my dislike of Portal? I'm a hardcore black comedy fan. I've seen Happiness umpteen times, for instance. So now I'm too jaded, too experienced in iconoclaustic deaths and pants-fall-down-on-the-gallows to do anything more then slightly smile when my Weighted Companion Cube is killed. The platforming is, again, not my cup of tea. I've never enjoyed modulating the laws of physics and casuality, be it the gravity gun, bullet-time or the apeture device. Because frankly, most games with such devices usually devlove from intituive problem solving to a protracted lesson in how to apply the given law-bendy thing to various contrivances. Puzzle-solving dosen't kick it for me when its simply an excerise in doing something I've never been fond of.
One moment did shine for me in Portal though. I needed to put a weight on a button, and I could only find an empty jug. Le gasp! I thought in a strangely french moment of revelation. I must need to fill the empty jug with that perviously malevolent vat of posion/acid/javax. Brillance! I'd convinced myself I'd been entirely wrong about this whole Portal thing until I discovered that, no, I'd simply missed a door. The jug was nothing, I couldn't fill it with acid/Glick's spit/robo-semen. I just needed to go do the same thing I'd solved all the other puzzles with, only with a few more logical steps thrown in.
But you will notice I am not saying Portal is a bad game. I've taken a solemn oath to never play the thing again, but I can see in it what would make it popular. And to who. So this all leads to my final point. In the age of a 1000 different critera for a good game, where some can look past the derivitive features of Fire Warrior because they truly enjoy the WH40k universe, and others can't get over how mindlessly repetitive it is. Concisely, all reviewers have really 2 options. If they wish to maintain relevance and serve the community, that is (*cough* IGN *cough*).
First, they can step out of themselves and review games from an attempted universal perspective. Play the horror game as an avid fan of horror, play the FPS in the mindset of an over-stressed young male looking for violent and domineering relief, and in this way, try to qualify their writings. Attempt to understand who would want to play them, and judge them as the targeted players would.
The other option as I see it, is to be unabhasedly baised. Proudly and uncompromisingly the grumpy old man (haha...Valve) who will spit cholorinated acid at anything that dosen't fit his critera. I'm personally a fan of this style of review. Yahtzee, for instance, is not a reviewer you ask about the latest FPS craze. But thats cool. If I ever need to get an opinion on story-telling based games, I know who to go read (also watch).
I will sum up this whole thing with this example.
-I think Crysis would bore and irritate me to tears if I tried playing it now. But I get what it's going for. I mean, I know that if I was 14 years old again I'd probably consider it the hottest of hot sauce, and be salivating all over it like a gay man at a Spartan pep rally. But I've played too many sessions of CS, piloted a few too many fighters in BF2, to get any kick out of that kind of game anymore. Which is fine, so long as I remember what I once was, and who someone asking my opinion may still be.
And my point is, I think reviewers need to recognize that holds true for them as well.
*note- enjoying Crysis does not mean you are 14 or immature. Just a different type of gamer then me.
