PixlBit

But isn't this true across all mediums? You can easily read through sites that focus on movies and you'll find plenty of reviewers shitting on the latest Transformers release or the latest rom-com, or whatever. Music sites are even worse. People extremely vested in a given medium tend to have a more critical eye for quality and can appreciate the nuance the separates the good from the average or bad.

I think the bottom line is that people who are writing don't understand their audience. Like if I was writing for IGN, I'd have to take a much different approach on how I covered a game and what I highlighted as important or problematic. I think most writers have a tendency to write for longtime gamers, because that's what they are. Fundamentally, they don't have the appropriate mindset to write for that younger generation who might not've played the last 20 Mario games.

I agree that people get a little annoying with the obsessiveness around innovations. Not every game can deliver something new. And people have a hard time separating franchises from ideas. Like Super Mario Odyssey looks incredibly inventive and a very new twist on 3D Platforming. But it's Mario, so some people will use that as an easy dismissal because we've been playing Mario games for 30 years.

Furthermore, I think because the medium is still young, the community around it also skews young, and young people tend to have more juvenile viewpoints. And some are just uninformed. As the medium continues to mature, the critiques will as well. Online communities have a tendency to foster shitty behavior, so it's no surprise to see angry comments, especially when people are anonymous.

In my opinion, reviews have been on a downward trend for years because they've been unable to find a voice and stick with it. Are they writing for enthusiasts or for everyone? Is it a purchasing recommendation or a critique? It's all a jumbled mess these days and there's no way to pick it apart. Metacritic and just the general nature of the community existing online muddies the waters more. I think when the community was very enthusiast-oriented (basically when the internet first started), the quality of conversation was much better because people's general views were very much in sync. These days there are so many different types of games and gamers, that it's tough to address everyone with every critique.

Writing a review for a roguelike almost 10 years ago at Nintendo World Report really opened my eyes to how big of a problem this is. I hated the game (it was my first roguelike) and I just didn't have anything more than skin-deep criticism to give. Fans of roguelikes jumped all over me because my review, for them, was total garbage. I didn't understand the nuance and I couldn't have told you whether it was better or worse than any other roguelike. While my review might've been great for the uninitiated, it certainly wasn't of value for anyone with deep knowledge of the genre.

As the industry continues to expand, it's going to become increasingly more challenging to properly review games. The genres get more and more diverse and it's increasingly harder to find the right reviewers for the job. People need to take a step back and just realize that any reviewer is giving their opinion and nothing more. It's colored by all sorts of different things and can't be viewed as a definitive assessment of the quality of game.

While we might be able to to ascertain the quality of some components in a more objective fashion, even those are perceived through someone's filter. Basically I think it behooves most to find reviewers that align with their tastes and follow them. Whether they're professional or community-based. That's going to give you the best data on whether or not you'll like something.

... and I think I went off on a huge tangent, but this is something I've spent a lot of time thinking and talking about.

But isn't this true across all mediums? You can easily read through sites that focus on movies and you'll find plenty of reviewers shitting on the latest Transformers release or the latest rom-com, or whatever. Music sites are even worse. People extremely vested in a given medium tend to have a more critical eye for quality and can appreciate the nuance the separates the good from the average or bad.

This is different. The comments and review I cited aren't concerned with quality. They are griping about the fact that they are faced with another game that is similar to ones they have already played. But no one forced them to play all these similar games and the industry isn't just made for them.  Their own gluttony is at fault. The next side scrolling Mario, if there is one, will be new to people. Some of these people will be chidlren, but some will also be adults.

So why are film critics shitting on Transformers? Is it because there are several of them, or because they think they are poorly made, lowbrow films? There have been countless James Bond movies, yet Skyfall and Casino Royale were well received because of their quality.

Frankly, I don't think reviews should be tailored for an audiene, unless that audience is chidren. I've never seen any film critic worth their salt try to placate the reader or come to their level. They write their thoughts about the film, and you generally trust they will bring a mature, reasoned perspective to it. Complaining that a game is like 10 others you've played doesn't strike me as that.

We take a lot of things for granted in this hobby. But that's a topic for another post. Hint: "metroidvania" is not a useful descriptor outside of the ghetto, and Dark Souls isn't nearly as popular as people think.

I think written pieces are always tailored for an audience, whether intentionally or unintentionally. For instance, at a music site, especially ones focused on particular genres, reviewing a new album is unquestionably going to reference influential source material as a point of comparison. They might even talk about time signatures, composition, or a variety of other things. For better or worse, the only people capable of really consuming that review are enthusiasts, particularly ones with a more in depth understanding of the nuance that potentially makes that music special or basic.

Compare that to a review written for a newspaper and you're going to have a much more skin deep look at the music because the audience is much different. Writing inherently assumes an audience, and that's fully true for a review as well.

Now, I agree that referencing a bunch of other games recently played as a reason to dislike something is a problem that might be specific to a reviewer or an overconsumer of the medium, but that same point can be couched in a much different way. It's easy to point out that this game is unoriginal, shares traits of many of its contemporaries, but fails to stand out in any way. Some writing is just bad, plain and simple.

I think that terms like Metroidvania again come down to audience. You can say that one word and the entire enthusiast community understands what you mean without any explanation. Outside of there, that's absolutely going to throw question marks up for a casual consumer. The beauty of the internet is that a link can be dropped inline and confusion is easily dispelled. Saying something is like Dark Souls is generally meaningless unless you're trying to draw a relevant comparison to something in particular about Dark Souls this emulates.

Again, this comes back to audience. Many people in "the ghetto" speak in a vernacular that everyone else in the same space understands. They are writing for the ghetto and no one else. I think that big sites like IGN more than likely have a broader reader base and should avoid words like "Metroidvania" and referencing Dark Souls. There's no guarantee that your reader will understand what you're referencing. This is why good editing is so important, because even if the writer misses the mark, the editor should have a clearer grasp of who you're trying to reach.

I've noticed on IGN, via their podcasts, that they will have reviewers who are hardcore into a certain game do the review because they know it best for the community that plays it 1K hours or more. Destiny 2 was the example. It seems like they are very conscious of the player base and who will read the review. They want to get it right for that community, so they put the right people on it. IGN is, I think, read by gamers and not the general public, so of course they do that. So I totally agree that you have to think about your audience when you write a review. At the same time, you have to give your opinion and the people on the podcasts have talked about that too. Every review is the opinion of the reviewer. At the same time, they try and put someone on it who knows the game, the genre and the community connected to that game. 

Nintendo just can't win.  If they keep things the same, people complain about it.  But when they try something new, people still complain about it.  Most recent example I can think of is Breath of the Wild.  They did a lot of new things with it, and people complained that it wasn't like a true Zelda game (heck, even I griped about it to some extent).  But I did spend 60 hours on it and beat the game, so I still must've enjoyed it somehow.

This is why I don't complain about every Pokemon game being the same.  While I may be tired of the formula myself, for every new generation of Pokemon games is a new generation of kids to enjoy them, and it's all new to them.  Usually if I do complain about a game bieng too similar to something else, I'll add that 'if you like such and such, you'll like this, too' or something like that.

As far as gaming communities go, I even have trouble fitting into a lot of those.  I don't know if it's because my tastes in games is too weird or I'm getting too old or what.  Even at shows like PAX, I'm starting to stick out like a sore thumb because I'm one of the oldest people there.  It just feels kinda weird.

Well I don't think listening to forum or Youtube comments is useful feedback for game design anyway, because of the insular mentality and general immaturity. What happened to game designer's going with "I think it would be neat/cool/fun if we did this"?  Some user feedback is useful, but it seems companies are trying too hard to hedge their bets and listen to all the chatter.Who cares if some people complain. It's hardly reasonable to assume this represents any great number without thorough polling, which will never happen.

Just the fact that people think there is a "true" Zelda points to how useless listening to this chatter is. True according to what or whom? People complain there aren't puzzles/themed dungeons in BotW, like post-Ocarina/Aunoma games. But neither did the first couple of games have them, and they established the IP.  So which is true? Some game are top down, some are third person. Which is true LoZ? I say it's whatever Nintendo thinks at any given moment. BotW has a lot in common with the first LoZ, so I guess we have our answer for now...

good blog man

Thanks.

This reminds me of that article in Wall Street Journal, or some other major newspaper, that gave Bloodborne a bad review or attempted to warn people from buying it because it was too hard for casual players. I think in that case he was thinking of parents spendibg $460+ on a new game and console that might just make people frustrated and angry on christmas, so it was more of a consumer awareness article which seemed fair. Of course, most other gaming sites praised the game with high reviews, but their audience are hardcore enthusiasts who the game was targeting. All in all I agree with Nick in that reviewing games is tricky now because you have to know your audience, thus I stick to reviewers, youtubers that share similar tastes and dislikes in games as me.  WIth Mad Max, I remember a similar arguement broke out on Giantbomb, where one person said they really liked the car customization and driving, while others just dismissed the game entirely for being a shameless Shadow of War Clone movie tie-in. That dude convinced me to want to play the game actually.

By the same token, Shadow of War itself was a clone of other open world games, so their stance is hypocritical to me. And what about the people who didn't play Shadow or War, or didn't like it? Or maybe they like the MM theme more than the LotR. The game will be fresh to some people. And there enough differences between the games to make them feel different to people who have played SoW.

It's one thing to mention in the review that a game may be difficult. That's similar to parental advisaries in movie reviews. It's another to assume frustration on anyone else's part or what may be too hard for them.  There is no empirical evidence that casual players cannot or will not play hard games at all.  That's not intrinsic to the definition of casual. But I'd have to see the Bloodborne review in question and how it was worded.

I think there's a way to keep what's old while introducing something new. Take Pokemon Sun and Moon, that series was a punching bag for never changing (and I gobbled all of them up btw), but the newest ones removed the Gyms in favor of island trials. Instead of facing against eight strong trainers, sometimes it would be a swarm of wild Pokemon, other times it would be a super strong one that can call on backup, and it still had the strong trainers. You still trained a team of Pokemon you caught and faced against a new gang called Team "Fill in the blank", so newcomers still got the Pokemon experience, but it was done differently. Mario and Zelda do a good job at this too, even NSMB2 and U, which got bashed the most over this, were trying new ideas. Not to say they should always reinvent the wheel. Sonic tries that and can never build on anything because nothing ever gets refined.

I think there's a happy medium. Some kids will be playing their first Mario with Odyssey. But they'll still be able to go back and see the FLUDD, space, and co-op of past games. Those games will feel distinct. I mean, as much as I love the Gameboy and DS Pokemon games, I have a really hard time recommending them over the 3DS ones with the quality of life improvements made. I think by just sticking too close, there's no reason to go back to the past which can have its own consequences.

Also not a good idea for MP focused games. Call of Duty never changes and it's nearly impenetrable for newcomers.

That's another thing to consider. The 15th game in series X may be someone's first but it will may have QoL advancements that the previous games didn't have, therefore it's iteration is justified. And people usually want to play the latest and greatest of whatever series or IP has been released. The fact that's it's been done before is irrelevant to them.

A new game in a genre or series almost always has a few things new, so sticking too close is not much of an issue usually. The new player can go back and get the similar-but-different experience if they want more of what they played with some different trappings.

I didn't pick up a lot of my favorite game series until they had several iterations spanning over 10 years. I didn't get into Final Fantasy until the SNES was on its way out the door to be replaced by the N64. I didn't get into Fallout until the Bethesda games. I've been playing Mario and Zelda from their earliest incarnations, but I still enjoy their newer stuff. And Mario and Zelda games are made so that no prior knowledge of the series is needed. The fact is, people being what they are, younger gamers aren't going to get excited playing a game made in 1985-1987, but they can still appreciate those same mechanics in Breath of the Wild or the latest round of Mario games.

Gaming companies cannot survive by simply catering to the same cohort of people born from the mid 70s to the mid 80s.

The open world thing is a trend going on in gaming largely because the technology allows for it now and it's super cool. Does it get tiring to see every series conform to that? I guess, but it's still cool. 

Sometimes I wish a game series would just stick to it's roots, but I understand the urge to do what they think will sell. People are fickle and they will fall for a style of game and want it in everything. Then they'll dump it for something else. 

I used to groan over yet another open world game, but now I don't care because there are so many choices out there. I can try indie games or retro stuff and find something different or familiar from another time. I love it that Doom and Wolfenstein are keeping to tradition and yet polishing it to an amazing degree. Same as the old, yes, but even better. What's wrong with that?

New Doom and old Doom are very different beasts. People have to look closer at what the old games were doing. It's not just about speed and violence. I don't think people will be playing and analyzing new Doom in another 20 years like they do the original. However I don't think more of the same would have been interesting either, so I'm glad it exists in the form it does. I even enjoyed Doom 3 for what it was.

Well, just the idea of running-and-gunning is kind of passe and Doom 2016 made it meaningful again. It's all about sim shooters now and precision gameplay. I just want to make a mess. 

Thank you. I've been trying to put this into words for a long time. All art and all media is derivative. Fuck you for being selfish cunts.

Mario still sells because people love it. I'm among them. I even still like the occasional Assassin's Creed because I love exploring Historical Settings. They may all be the same, but as long as they keep letting me explore historical settings and climb historical Architecture, I'm all good.

Same with CoD. I liked that the last game was in space and had ship battles. I like that the new one is going back to WW2 and I loved the beta I tried. 

 Fuck all the haters. Love what you love and punch any cunt that tries to tell you you're wrong. Oh, and don't stop until they bleed.