What do you guys want from us?!
My repertoire of reviews is -- let's admit -- not very impressive. I've written previews for E3, full reviews for three games, and a handful of brief commentaries in between since signing on with Neoseeker.
Yet as I plod through the task of reviewing video games, I find myself stumbling over individuals who seem to actually hate what we do, if not the actual reviewers. Well, it isn't always hate. Feelings about us and our work can range from disappointment to absolute rage. A wide and impressive spectrum, really.
So what's the problem, exactly? Apparently, our opinions are simply invalid for an array of reasons, though the main one is usually subjectivity. I have no argument here, as I feel reviewers for any media (even food critics) have differing tastes based on their personalities and own experiences.
It seems that the recent catalyst for all this strife is EA DICE's Mirror's Edge, which I was privileged enough to review early. Here is a game many have looked forward to for months (if not longer), with enough hype to drown the entire population of China. Much of this hype is based on the supposed innovation behind the game's design, with a focus on -- oh, I don't even know what the game's focus is anymore after playing it. I'll just start with a recent post on Neoseeker's sister site, GameGrep, featuring an article in the Guardian by Keith Stuart.
The UK news site informs possible skeptics that Stuart has worked for "videogame industry bible Edge Magazine, Official PlayStation Magazine and Pocket Gamer." Obviously, this makes him an industry expert, but I still can't help feeling an urge to punch him in the face after reading his editorial on how game reviewers have wronged poor lil' Mirror's Edge.
No doubt many fans of the title would agree that reviewers have been less than forgiving. While I personally loved the game and intend to play it again (smack up some law enforcement now that I've got my "Leap of Faith" Achievement), I also had a pretty long list of frustrations to talk about in the review. Stuart admits that Mirror's Edge isn't perfect but laments over the fact that game reviewers have completely missed the point by bringing up certain flaws that he feels makes it an unconventional game.
While EA DICE's wonderful Mirror's Edge has been garnering mostly positive reviews, it looks like the title won't be up there in the Metacritic rankings challenging the likes of Gears of War 2 or even Call of Duty: World at War. Many reviewers have criticised the combat, the repetition, a smattering of trial-and-error moments. There has been a general compulsion to counter the sequences of innovative genius with niggling doubts about core mechanics.
... no-one complains that, say, Pan's Labyrinth or Eraser Head lack the formal, easily recognisable narrative structure of a conventional movie. Their aspirations exempt them from that requirement. So should we really be marking Mirror's Edge down for control issues – a game that aspires to re-interpret the very interface between player, screen and character? Yes, I know, it's a clumsy comparison, but the underlying point is – should reviewers just accept that sometimes incredibly new experiences will lack some of the formal substance we expect from traditional games? That's what innovation is, it's leaping out into the unknown.
Well, Keith, last I checked Mirror's Edge is still a video game with a damn controller and a protagonist that stands there like an idiot unless there's some one at that controller telling her where to go. This means that no matter how innovative the game tries to be in its gameplay, developers have to understand that before it is a work of art, Mirror's Edge is still a video game. It's beautiful, no doubt, but there's really no time to admire DICE's masterpiece when the player is forced to adhere to the same formula that many other games already follow. Many of us were under the impression that the game would be able to flaunt about on our HD TVs in all its glamour and potential, but instead we are forced into a linear story with even more linear gameplay. An urge to explore is often rewarded with a bullet to the face or some other fatality. That's what you get for trying to enjoy the game! Of course it tries to be innovative and succeeds to a degree, but it's by no means the next Holy Grail of game design -- an inspiration, at most.
Stuart then quotes an IGN review for Mirror's Edge and criticizes the writer for complaining about the game's combat controls, then ending his review with something about a sequel.
I found the IGN review particularly depressing. Not only does the writer suggest that the combat system could have done with an extra button (wha? Why?! Why add extra layers of complexity?) but he ends with:
The ideas are there for a very cool experience, and I truly hope that a sequel is spawned, but this first attempt falls just a bit short.
Can you imagine, for a second, critics emerging from the press screening of Apocalypse Now, or The Magnificent Ambersons, or Bladerunner and proclaiming, 'yeah, it had some good ideas, but it wasn't perfect - I'll look forward to the sequel'...
... What are we really saying about innovation when we require a sequel to prove the concept was valid in the first place? What are we saying about the artistry of games? And ultimately, what does it mean for games criticism, if we can't appreciate visionary moments, because of these weird little checklists of gameplay qualities, constructed and adhered to with near-autistic fervour?
Gee, Stuart, I'm sorry we enjoyed the game enough to want a sequel. Next time we'll tell the devs to stop trying instead.
While many would liken games to cinema, the two formats are simply too far apart to be compared in such a manner. Perhaps if critics had to take on the role of Benjamin L. Willard or Walter E Kurtz, they would have said something totally different. Rather than having the luxury of sitting in a plush (and sticky) theatre chair and watching everything play out before their eyes, they instead had a controller in their hands and had to make all the decisions, dodge the bullets, fire the weapons, decide when to kill... What then? Innovation is no longer the only question, and we are handed a whole mess of other factors that have to taken into account. If Mirror's Edge were solely about free running, why is there no option for it? Why are there hostile men chasing Faith in helicopters? Why are they trying to kill her? While he (and a few of you) might suggest simply running away, remember that the game does highlight unavoidable confrontations in red, meaning there are numerous situations that do require Faith to throw a punch; in other words, Mirror's Edge does involve combat and should also have working combat system. While I didn't have anything negative to say about this detail, I've already read many complaints from the gamers themselves.
Video games cannot ignore the player just as a movie cannot ignore its audience. In fact, gamers may actually require greater consideration when we add in all the complexities of gameplay and player participation. Reviewers have to understand this, and we cannot judge a game based solely on how innovative it tries to be. We praise it, encourage it, but that can only tilt the scales slightly in the title's favor. As for the rest, we look to the experience and gameplay how welcoming the game is for an active participant, not an idle viewer.
Innovation acknowledged. Now what?
We ultimately let readers know whether or not we feel the game is a worthwhile investment. Personally, I did enjoy Mirror's Edge but felt this game would not appeal to a very broad audience. Many gamers, for example, want something that will last them for more than 12 or even 24 hours, which I honestly felt Mirror's Edge could not do, and I said as much in the review. I like to think most reviewers are really thinking about the gamers when we write and pass our verdicts, even if some of those gamers wind up throwing it back in our faces.
And for the record, I do read movie reviews before going to the threatres. Nine bucks for a movie ticket? You better believe I want to know what I'm putting my time and money into! With most Xbox 360 titles priced at $60 now, I make a point of checking game reviews too.
forums
i guess reviewing can be pretty tough work, especially on the internet where you can have people tell you their thoughts directly, where everyone can see them, so a negative review of one of your reviews would be pretty down-heartening.
I've definitely had those days with my articles..thankfully most comments are pretty positive or neutral in their attitude..I thrive on constructive criticism but some make it personal and that can certainly get one down. All in all it's great..certainly better than working in retail, for example. Haha.
Not very much personalization. That's great in a review.
your opinion on what the product has to offer generally makes me think twice before i buy it, but not the reason if i do! If i like something ill get it no matter what anyone says anyway! All id really like to know is "Does it work"
Thanks for all the hard work!
I read them to get a general idea about gameplay. I don't take what any reviewer says as fact (unless they're stating facts
Really though, a lot of people have misrepresented what I was trying to say - a lot of game sites have review systems which are too restrained and conventional to properly deal with a game like Mirror's Edge. I was frustrated by the ways in which reviewers were forcing it into pigeon holes and seemed unable to take it on its own terms.
And I completely stand by my point about reviewers who write about waiting for sequels. Sure you may end up looking forward to a sequel, but to summon one in a review of the original game? It's just such lazy thinking. In my opinion.
But yes, I wrote it to get a reaction. Please don't hit me ; )
I've been pretty skeptical when my co-workers informed me you'd replied to my article (if a rant can be considered such). This is the Internet.
First of all, like chautemoc said, lots of respect for going out and finding responses to your editorial/blog and then replying to them. Truly. And your response isn't surprising. I think a lot of writers really hope to elicit a reaction and start discussions when they address such touchy subjects. That's what my response was trying to do, in its own way, after all.
I also understand what you were trying to say, and also respect that you stand by your position as I stand by my own. On another note though, I did feel Mirror's Edge wrapped itself up well enough so that a sequel wouldn't be necessary, and I would have been content with it as a stand alone title. In fact, I ended the game thinking the ending was adequate, even though the story as a whole failed to satisfy me; but because DICE already decided on a trilogy, I genuinely hope they fix some of the factors reviewers and gamers took issue with in this game.
@ everyone else
Thanks for your positive comments. They surprised me a little because I felt like I'd been running into quite a few anti-review and anti-reviewer sentiments. Nothing like having your intended audience throw your time and hard work back in your face, and all that. Seeing (reading) someone (Stuart) with actual history and experience in the industry chastise reviewers was just the icing on the cake.
One of the reasons I'm certainly glad to be here.
To be honest I can't comment on Mirror's Edge myself as I have not played it yet (still hooked on Fallout 3 at the moment) However one thing I have learnt while surfing the internet...and this goes out to everyone, is that you can only advise someone by giving your opinion and more importantly, everyone is entitled to an opinion whether you agree, disagree or think it is right or wrong.
Personally with my reviews, I couldn't care less who I anger, maybe I should because I am not thinking about the target audience but the way I see reviews is simple. Keep it honest, keep it truthful, keep to the point and above all...always, always remember that you can't keep everyone happy.
This is why Neoseeker works so much better than other reviewing websites. Although there is an actual team that keep us up-to-date with the gaming world and give us professional reviews, there is another team made up of gamers with such a diverse angle that you can get a gist of the actual game and exactly who the game is made for and what age group just by reading two or three differing reviews.
Also Keith, just a thought about the "asking of a sequel in a review"...to me, I would see it as the reviewer either has done their research and found a press release stating there would be a sequel or the reviewer has an unanimous decision of the game (whether good or bad) and asks the a sequel to give the game justice or because the game was great.
In other words, maybe they aren't lazy thinkers
Either way, no matter who reviews or what the review states, I always read a review with an open mind. I then pick out the areas I may not agree with and directly express my disagreement or like you have done, take it to the public...maybe not exactly like you had done but hey...diversity is the key