Gone Home: So you want better written females in games? (or just better stories?)

[wulf3n]

I mean I think Kinectimals is fucking stupid, but I wouldn't go giving the game a low score because I'm not a complete idiot. I recognize it's not intended for me, and my criticism would be a useless resource for anyone considering the game.

Not necessarily. Only reading reviews from those that liked the game make it hard to judge. Reviews work best when you find a reviewer who shares mostly the same opinions as you.

If I knew [from past reviews] that you shared the same opinion as me on most games, I would prefer to read your review of Kinectimals rather than someone in the target demographic, because I know someone who thinks like I do is going to give me the most informed opinion on whether or not it's something I want to buy.

 

[Erttheking]

Pretty damn funny that Danielle Riendeau is reviewing this one and gave it 10/10. I thought Polygon was all about assigning reviewers who were predisposed towards disliking the game? Why wouldn't they hand the Gone Home review to the resident Call-of-Duty or Madden fanboy? Probably because the game would get a 6.5 score that is neither applicable nor useful for the target audience.

Of course, someone giving a relatively unknown game like Gone Home a 6.5 wouldn't generate a ton of site traffic and notoriety for Polygon, would it?

Is it just me, or are reviewer/site agendas becoming far more pronounced?

All that said, looks interesting. I'll snag it on sale at some point. At the same time, looks dangerously close to a point and click adventure game with no puzzles, which means the gameplay might amount to "scan everything everwhere until you accidentally move things along or discover precisely what you're looking for at random" - and I'm not sure that experience isn't better suited to a short film.

Ok seriously. Dragon's Crown got A bad review. The review from Polygon and the Escapist were the lowest scores that it got, and those scores didn't say that it was bad, they said that it was average. In fact, overall, the game did near universally well when it came to being reviewed.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/dragons-crown

You liked the game? Ok, that's fine. People are no obligation to universally like the game. The reviewer stuck through the game from start to finish, and clearly it failed to appeal. And even then the review didn't say that the game was bad, just that it was "meh". Seriously, this is not something that is worth getting worked up over.

 

[happyninja42]

So do you actually want us to reply to your Subject question at all? Or just using it to fish for clicks? Cause I don't want to derail your Gone Home thread by ....you know...actually responding to your question about female characters versus story quality.

 

[wulf3n]

So do you actually want us to reply to your Subject question at all? Or just using it to fish for clicks? Cause I don't want to derail your Gone Home thread by ....you know...actually responding to your question about female characters versus story quality.

Go nuts.

I'm not here to tell people what they should talk about.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Not necessarily. Only reading reviews from those that liked the game make it hard to judge. Reviews work best when you find a reviewer who shares mostly the same opinions as you.

While I agree with the second part of this, the first part implies that all game criticism is inherently subjective. There are a lot of things about games that are much closer to objective truth, from visual fidelity to responsiveness to run time. When you run into serious outliers, there's a chance the reviewer is using faulty criteria. Is it helpful to tap a number of different sources for a broader picture? Of course. But if people are attacking a game for the very things it is meant to do or deliver, you're speeding towards "guy in Florida reviewing snow shoes" territory.

I mean we have websites that offer Christian-based reviews of media, and those reviews are valid in their own way. But should they be counted on metacritic? Should they be referenced by people having serious discussions about the game? How applicable are those points of view? And doesn't a reviewer have a responsibility to come clean about preconceived notions or personal bias contributing to an outlier score?

If I knew [from past reviews] that you shared the same opinion as me on most games, I would prefer to read your review of Kinectimals rather than someone in the target demographic, because I know someone who thinks like I do is going to give me the most informed opinion on whether or not it's something I want to buy.

In an ideal world, we'd have both the breadth of opinion AND the necessary information to catalog all of it in a way that is helpful and meaningful for people seeking recommendations. Instead, given the limitations and lack of oversight (not that there should be oversight...), I think it falls on editors and senior staff to make sure they aren't throwing Kinectimals at hardcore game reviewers - or Dragon's Crown at someone who is instantly put off by the art. The end result is so predictable as to be meaningless.

Ok seriously. Dragon's Crown got A bad review. The review from Polygon and the Escapist were the lowest scores that it got, and those scores didn't say that it was bad, they said that it was average. In fact, overall, the game did near universally well when it came to being reviewed.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/dragons-crown

You liked the game? Ok, that's fine. People are no obligation to universally like the game. The reviewer stuck through the game from start to finish, and clearly it failed to appeal. And even then the review didn't say that the game was bad, just that it was "meh". Seriously, this is not something that is worth getting worked up over.

Nothing to do with the game and everything to do with the self-absorbed nature of video game "journalism". It's embarrassingly self-aggrandizing and, well, shit. I think Polygon and Kotaku are complete jokes, and I rarely miss an opportunity to poke fun. So yeah.

 

[Eve Charm]

Well the thing is I looked at the ad of the page on steam when it came out yesterday and even going back today it doesn't really mention anything. Heck I was thinking it'd be a creepy story with a male character something along the line of Home, Scratches and silent hill homecoming from just reading the story about coming home and no one is there.

Not to say knowing this is worth a second look or a 20 dollar price tag but there is a difference between " hey we're putting women in our game" and "hey you bought our game, btw your a woman in it, not push the medium forward."

 

[Erttheking]

Not necessarily. Only reading reviews from those that liked the game make it hard to judge. Reviews work best when you find a reviewer who shares mostly the same opinions as you.

While I agree with the second part of this, the first part implies that all game criticism is inherently subjective. There are a lot of things about games that are much closer to objective truth, from visual fidelity to responsiveness to run time. When you run into serious outliers, there's a chance the reviewer is using faulty criteria. Is it helpful to tap a number of different sources for a broader picture? Of course. But if people are attacking a game for the very things it is meant to do or deliver, you're speeding towards "guy in Florida reviewing snow shoes" territory.

I mean we have websites that offer Christian-based reviews of media, and those reviews are valid in their own way. But should they be counted on metacritic? Should they be referenced by people having serious discussions about the game? How applicable are those points of view? And doesn't a reviewer have a responsibility to come clean about preconceived notions or personal bias contributing to an outlier score?

If I knew [from past reviews] that you shared the same opinion as me on most games, I would prefer to read your review of Kinectimals rather than someone in the target demographic, because I know someone who thinks like I do is going to give me the most informed opinion on whether or not it's something I want to buy.

In an ideal world, we'd have both the breadth of opinion AND the necessary information to catalog all of it in a way that is helpful and meaningful for people seeking recommendations. Instead, given the limitations and lack of oversight (not that there should be oversight...), I think it falls on editors and senior staff to make sure they aren't throwing Kinectimals at hardcore game reviewers - or Dragon's Crown at someone who is instantly put off by the art. The end result is so predictable as to be meaningless.

Ok seriously. Dragon's Crown got A bad review. The review from Polygon and the Escapist were the lowest scores that it got, and those scores didn't say that it was bad, they said that it was average. In fact, overall, the game did near universally well when it came to being reviewed.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/dragons-crown

You liked the game? Ok, that's fine. People are no obligation to universally like the game. The reviewer stuck through the game from start to finish, and clearly it failed to appeal. And even then the review didn't say that the game was bad, just that it was "meh". Seriously, this is not something that is worth getting worked up over.

Nothing to do with the game and everything to do with the self-absorbed nature of video game "journalism". It's embarrassingly self-aggrandizing and, well, shit. I think Polygon and Kotaku are complete jokes, and I rarely miss an opportunity to poke fun. So yeah.

I'm sorry, but you really can't review games objectively. We can't seem to agree on what constitutes as a good game or good game mechanics, so how are we supposed to universally agree on what qualifies as a good game or a bad game? Sure there are areas where nearly everyone agrees certain things are bad, but then again most people think that burnt food is bad and you can't say that "burnt food is objectively bad" because there's going to be at least one person out there that likes it. Game reviews are pretty much subjective, they can be professional, but professional reviews are just subjective. If the reviewer at polygon didn't like the game, then clearly the game failed to appeal to them. Also, feel free to not like Polygon all you want, but if the art style stopped the person from enjoying the game that much, then the fault lies with the game and not the reviewer. It isn't pushing an agenda, it's having an opinion. You can't criticize a review for being biased. They're all biased.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Is it just me, or are reviewer/site agendas becoming far more pronounced?

It's you. Conspiracy theories aren't very becoming. Worse still when it's based around how publication x didn't like game y which I like.

I hardly think the notion that some reviewers are pushing specific ideologies qualifies as a conspiracy theory.

Also, my argument would never take the form of "publication x didn't like game y which I like". It would take the form of "publication x assigned staff member z to review game y despite clear indicators that he/she was biased against the product, and the subsequent review became an embarrassing outlier based on faulty criteria - which was most likely the entire point because 90% of internet 'journalists' are click-baiters". I mean I think Kinectimals is fucking stupid, but I wouldn't go giving the game a low score because I'm not a complete idiot. I recognize it's not intended for me, and my criticism would be a useless resource for anyone considering the game.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Is it just me, or are reviewer/site agendas becoming far more pronounced?

It's you. Conspiracy theories aren't very becoming. Worse still when it's based around how publication x didn't like game y which I like.

I hardly think the notion that some reviewers are pushing specific ideologies qualifies as a conspiracy theory.

Also, my argument would never take the form of "publication x didn't like game y which I like". It would take the form of "publication x assigned staff member z to review game y despite clear indicators that he/she was biased against the product, and the subsequent review became an embarrassing outlier based on faulty criteria - which was most likely the entire point because 90% of internet 'journalists' are click-baiters". I mean I think Kinectimals is fucking stupid, but I wouldn't go giving the game a low score because I'm not a complete idiot. I recognize it's not intended for me, and my criticism would be a useless resource for anyone considering the game.

Actually decent criticism is always relevant, no matter the critic's biases, or else you risk works being made in an echo chamber.[/quote]

And by conflating "useful criticism" with "immune to criticism", you've stretched your own argument beyond the breaking point. There are valid complaints to be leveled at most anything, especially including Dragon's Crown (a game I would rate maybe an a 7.5 or an 8, btw). But if we're embracing all opinions as equally compelling on the grounds that they are opinions, we might as well eject the very notion of valid criticism into space.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I'm sorry, but you really can't review games objectively. We can't seem to agree on what constitutes as a good game or good game mechanics, so how are we supposed to universally agree on what qualifies as a good game or a bad game? Sure there are areas where nearly everyone agrees certain things are bad, but then again most people think that burnt food is bad and you can't say that "burnt food is objectively bad" because there's going to be at least one person out there that likes it. Game reviews are pretty much subjective, they can be professional, but professional reviews are just subjective. If the reviewer at polygon didn't like the game, then clearly the game failed to appeal to them. Also, feel free to not like Polygon all you want, but if the art style stopped the person from enjoying the game that much, then the fault lies with the game and not the reviewer. It isn't pushing an agenda, it's having an opinion. You can't criticize a review for being biased. They're all biased.

Seems like self-insulating logic. So she's immune to criticism because she's giving an opinion? Aren't reviews supposed to strive for something slightly more than just an opinion? Aren't they supposed to strive for "useful metric for prospective buyers"? Again, if Polygon wants to assign harsh judges in order to provide radically different opinions, shouldn't they make that their mission? Why go contrarian part time? What determines when/where you do? How would you describe that determination as anything other than an agenda or an overriding bias?

Good example: Polygon typically gives negative outlier reviews for Sony exclusives. Why is that?

They were also partially funded by Microsoft. I'm sure that's not a thing, though.

In a way, I think I agree with you. Reviewers can write whatever they want so long as they're prepared for their body of work to shape their reputation and image. When someone pans a game for doing what it was meant to do, and without providing much in the way of supporting evidence for the score, I think they deserve some heat. Sort of comes with the territory of putting yourself out there on a platform.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Is it just me, or are reviewer/site agendas becoming far more pronounced?

It's you. Conspiracy theories aren't very becoming. Worse still when it's based around how publication x didn't like game y which I like.

I hardly think the notion that some reviewers are pushing specific ideologies qualifies as a conspiracy theory.

Also, my argument would never take the form of "publication x didn't like game y which I like". It would take the form of "publication x assigned staff member z to review game y despite clear indicators that he/she was biased against the product, and the subsequent review became an embarrassing outlier based on faulty criteria - which was most likely the entire point because 90% of internet 'journalists' are click-baiters". I mean I think Kinectimals is fucking stupid, but I wouldn't go giving the game a low score because I'm not a complete idiot. I recognize it's not intended for me, and my criticism would be a useless resource for anyone considering the game.

Actually decent criticism is always relevant, no matter the critic's biases, or else you risk works being made in an echo chamber.[/quote]

And by conflating "useful criticism" with "immune to criticism", you've stretched your own argument beyond the breaking point. There are valid complaints to be leveled at most anything, especially including Dragon's Crown (a game I would rate maybe an a 7.5 or an 8, btw). But if we're embracing all opinions as equally compelling on the grounds that they are opinions, we might as well eject the very notion of valid criticism into space.[/quote]
And why shouldn't other perspectives be considered useful? Why should we as gamers give in to the notion of target demographics when it appeals to us and hate on publishers when it doesn't? I think that criticisms by people from outside of the target demographic are incredibly important. Also note that the comic remains incredibly relevant as Kevin Smith's argument was not that his works were immune to criticism, but that they were not for critics, that they weren't the target audience.

 

[Juan Regular]

This was made for me. If you're the type of person that enjoys searching every nook and cranny for notes and other tidbits of information in a game then this is for you. It has that feeling of discovery you get from something like System Shock but without all that annoying combat. On top of that it tells a kind of story you just don't get in video games, ever and it does so brilliantly.
Length could be an issue though, but to me it's similar to portal in that regard. It's a game I know I'll play at least once a year over the next decade. Still, at three hours I did feel it could've been a little longer.

By the way, if you`re in the eurozone you should buy the game on the official page via the humble store widget. With the current discount plus exchange rate you get it DRM free and on Steam for 14 euros.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I learned my lesson with Dear Esther that paying more than, say, £3 for one of these sorts of games is just not right. Sure, it may have a great story but does it have good gameplay, the one thing that seperates games from any other medium? These sorts of games are like films that might have the most amazing, heartfelt and innovative story in years, but the entire film is a picture of a person with narration with no cinematography.

By the way, I'm not just ripping on Gone Home, I'm ripping on it, Proteus, Dear Esther, The Path, Thirty Flights of Loving and countless other "art" games.

 

[TheHatPerson]

I was surprised over Polygon's 10/10, so that kind of encouraged me to buy the game. I'm currently doing a Let's Play of this game to record my reactions, because I thought it was going to be as bad as Dear Esther, but it's actually a lot better. I was pleasantly surprised.

Granted, I don't think it's worthy of a perfect 10, but I think it's pretty solid for what it wants to be.

 

[LetalisK]

And why shouldn't other perspectives be considered useful? Why should we as gamers give in to the notion of target demographics when it appeals to us and hate on publishers when it doesn't? I think that criticisms by people from outside of the target demographic are incredibly important.

The depends entirely on context, though. There will be times where the opinion of someone outside the demographic is just flat out not going to be relevant because they don't understand what they're talking about, ie Yahtzee admitting he won't review a strategy game because it's outside his wheel house and he wouldn't have the basis to make an informed opinion.

I'm not disagreeing with you per say, just saying "Yes, but..." and unless you're trying to say that "all criticisms are useful", which I don't think you are, you and Fiery are actually in agreement in this topic, but it's just harder to see it with the differences in perspective.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

And why shouldn't other perspectives be considered useful? Why should we as gamers give in to the notion of target demographics when it appeals to us and hate on publishers when it doesn't? I think that criticisms by people from outside of the target demographic are incredibly important.

The depends entirely on context, though. There will be times where the opinion of someone outside the demographic is just flat out not going to be relevant because they don't understand what they're talking about, ie Yahtzee admitting he won't review a strategy game because it's outside his wheel house and he wouldn't have the basis to make an informed opinion.

I'm not disagreeing with you per say, just saying "Yes, but..." and unless you're trying to say that "all criticisms are useful", which I don't think you are, you and Fiery are actually in agreement in this topic, but it's just harder to see it with the differences in perspective.

Are you just going to tear me apart on the details all day man!? You just keep raining on my hate parade!

Yeah, I guess some aren't relevant. I definitely don't think that the Polygon review was irrelevant though. I'd argue it was in fact a very relevant perspective, specifically because it was more negative and put in some rather valid criticisms, and also because she wasn't part of the target audience (depending on what you're defining that as).

 

[Something Amyss]

I hardly think the notion that some reviewers are pushing specific ideologies qualifies as a conspiracy theory.

Its relation to Polygon would certainly indicate it. But then, that goes back to you pushing your own specific agenda.

...Huh. Guess it works both ways. I guess I will call you teh bias.

You are teh bias you are teh bias you are teh bias!

 

[dave1004]

Hm. I can't say that this game interests me, and the controversy that it has created is similarly off-putting, but I might check it out if it goes on sale. $20 for a roughly two hour game isn't...The greatest deal that I've ever seen. Heck, I paid $10 for Minecraft years ago, and I'm still enjoying it. Still, though, I can't judge anything until I've tried it, and while Dear Esther was quite a disappointment for me, we'll have to see.

Did this game get such a good score just because it had a grill as the main character?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Did this game get such a good score just because it had a grill as the main character?

Yes, but mostly because it was a grill with massive side flaps and a big round propane tank.

 

[Full]

I learned my lesson with Dear Esther that paying more than, say, £3 for one of these sorts of games is just not right. Sure, it may have a great story but does it have good gameplay, the one thing that seperates games from any other medium? These sorts of games are like films that might have the most amazing, heartfelt and innovative story in years, but the entire film is a picture of a person with narration with no cinematography.

By the way, I'm not just ripping on Gone Home, I'm ripping on it, Proteus, Dear Esther, The Path, Thirty Flights of Loving and countless other "art" games.

While maybe there should be some "more" to those other games, so to speak, I don't think that's a valid critique of Gone Home. It's essentially a puzzle game, and with the whole "spinning objects around" thing, they do some very cool stuff. You just won't see in depth RPG combat or anything.

Removed the snark.