Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why does gaming have no serious critical reviewer tradition??
Elikal
Member UncommonPosts: 7,912
Maybe tradition is the wrong word with a ~30 year old genre. But I didn't know a better word. I hope you get my meaning. What I meant is this: If you have professional book critics for novels, or movie reviewers or restaurant & cooking reviewers, they have a really serious, critical and demanding approach. If a new novel is bad, there sure are book critics who will shred the book to pieces. If a restaurant cooks mediocre meals, sure the gourmet testers will stomp it. If a new movie is really lame, movie critics will burn it. But if a game is mediocre, when it comes from a big and influental company, we have no reviewers anywhere who really dare to give it the bad vote.
Now let's be sure about one thing: every critical review is always subjective. If literature critic X tosses Novel Y into the flames in his review, there sure are others who still love Novel Y. But the critic dares to be critical. Really critical. He doesn't try to "be objective" or make a rating that speaks for everyone. He will make a *personal* impression, he will explain why Novel Y in his opinion is trash and give a clear verdict. Then, based on the tastes of the critic, you have an impression, even though you may disagree, because you know how to place that critic. You may seek critics which usually are along your lines of thinking. Or you may seek critics who always hate what you like, and then take his negatives as your positive. But it will be a statement, a clear opinion. And in the long term, we may hope at least a bit, harsh critique can help the customers. At least I feel that way about books, movies and other stuff which is *seriously* reviewed.
Now in terms of games, as I see it, we just have no reviewer culture, or tradition. Now ever so often, we read reviews full of critique and negatives from the reviewer, and then totally surprisingly the the rating is 8/10. How often did we not think this rating was sort of in contradiction with the entire text of the review?
But the most stunning thing is: I can't recall any expensive title of the big companies like EA which ever got anything but 8, 9 or 10 of 10. No matter what you take, games in which cases we really, really have reasons to be skeptical. Like Mass Effect 2+3, Like Dragon Age 2, like SWTOR, like DCU, like Sims 3. Anything. And if you go to Metacritic or Game Rankings, you see that all along these games get 8, 9 or 10 of 10 ratings. And every time I think WTF? I mean, sure I can understand SOME of these reviewers really like these games so much. But if we take MMOs like Age of Conan or Warhammer, or said DCU - they got SO MANY stellar, top reviews, and how the heck can that be? How is it possible games with such OBVIOUS flaws and so clearly lacking in many departments get ~9/10 in almost EVERY SINGLE MAG, both online mags and print mags?
And I tell you why. Now people in mags are not "paid" for these ratings. But there are mechanics in gaming, which coerce conformity and assure that games from big companies never are worse than 7/10. The ex of a friend of mine works as reviewer in a game mag. And no I won't tell which. But when he visits a game company to see the new game, he gets a free pass for a game fair, he gets free demos for games which other people have never even seen, he gets "thank you stuff" like a new monitor, a new mouse, a new keyboard, and the like. And of course he gets to see those games in time so he can write a review at release day. Because OTHERWISE he would have to BUY the game, then make a review which would be complete weeks after launch. And that would mean his review is meaningless, because all other mags have of course Day One reviews, and no gamer is then interested in reviews 6-8 weeks after release. That is how big companies assure, that their most expensive games never rated worse than 7 or 8 of 10. And even a 7 rating is VERY rare these days.
And this is, because we have no "critic pride", no critical culture or tradition. A gourmet critic, a car tester, a literature or movie critic would NEVER betray his pride into his critics in such ways. If a book is horrible in his opinion, he would shred the books to pieces. End of story. People could then read his explanation and agree or disagree, but it would be a clear statement. And some bad stuff would be revealed as bad stuff. But in gaming, I am sorry to say, every mediocre stuff is getting top ratings through all the mags. And that is just wrong. Even if we assume some reviewers REALLY feel a game like Dragon Age II was the best RPG ever, I can not believe a second, that ALL of them really felt this way. What we need is a culture of reviewers who take pride in their work! Who feel their job is to warn the customers of bad or mediocre games, who see themselves as helping to BETTER the games and not make a kowtow before powerful companies!
I must admit, in recent years that in gaming the ratings and reviews of magazines have as much validity as Sovjet propaganda about the "triumph of Socialism". Zilch.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Comments
This topic has been done over and over again. It basically comes down to the fact that MMORPGs requires a far larger time investment than the other forms of entertainment you mentioned. It is not about tradition directly, it is about lack of time which lead to a lack of tradition.
No. I don't think this is MMO specific. Is gaming specific.
IMO the biggest cause of this is endorsement of sameness.
The Hangover: Huge critical success
The Hangover 2: Huge citical flop. The reason? Basically the same movie as The Hangover 1
Every CoD game every made: Greatest FPS ever made.
In the single player culture, we allow sequels to be rather similar to their predecessors without lowering their point significantely. Only sequels though, unless critics have changed their behaviour the past few years: external copies were always rated low.
Basically, you have to come up with a good idea and then you are allowed to use that idea for a few games without any major negative impact.
As for MMORPGS: time is the major issue which is why many flaws are never brought up in reviews. Wouldn't surprise me if you need hundreds of hours to do an accurate one.
This, really.
The problem is that game reviewers don't play games long enough to really understand the details before they have to write the review. So they fundamentally don't know what they're talking about when they write the review. That's how you get things like the recent Spiral Knights review on this site in which the reviewer somehow managed to completely miss the entire point of the game.
That is what I meant, it is an issue of gaming reviews, not merely MMO reviews.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
This is just so awesome in so many ways
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Then they clearlyare not doing their job- Which is why every AAA totle scores very high.
Reviewing 1000 page book takes soome time as well. Plus approaching a gaming review in the same way you would a book is quite stupid.
I see the ops point. And yes, payola and plugola are alive and well in the gaming World- Along with huge amounts of Advertising money- This is the real reason.
I do wonder how long time a good review of a 1000 pages long book takes to make. It is also of interest to investigate how much they are paid. I am suspecting that reviewing MMORPGs doesn't pay nearly as well and has far lower social status as well.
-Agree. But there is a huge diffrence here.
And there is far more money in the Gaming Industry thean in Books (paper or otherwise) or even Hollywood. So why are these reviewers second rate (many are) or so easily influenced by payola?
Its because its so Ad saturated. Trust me, MMOPRG.Com makes more in ads than any Book review site out there (not that I am vastly familiar with a Book review site- Just making a valid point). Its the monetary influence, and since Gaming is still associated as "play" and "for kids", its easy to find cheap reviewers ...Just like Beta testers (who used to be paid) now work for free or even pay for the privlidge.
In addition to the above I think also is future access and advertising dollars. Most sites who do these reviews rely on both these and when you totally beholden to the few large corporations that make most of the games today for your existence trashing its new MMO or FPS is not a good business move. Most of the few negative reviews that they do put out are reserved for indie studios.
And I do not know a single person at this point who take any of these "professional" reviews seriously anyway, let alone base a buying decision on them.
A good review of a game that isn't completely awful should be able to simultaneously tell some people that they ought to try the game and others that they shouldn't be interested. A numerical score alone can't do that. Give some basic information about the game (sandbox or theme park? soloing, grouping, or tries to do both? PVP, PVE, or both, and if both, then how mixed are they?), and in particular, explain any key game mechanics that are unusual. Do that well and you've got a good review. The score at the end doesn't matter.
I would say mags like Game Informer are great sources for info.
You would think they would be beholden to trying to pass every game off as good, but it doesnt work that way.
As far as claims of "MMO guys dont play long enough".....the IGN guy put in 150 hrs on TOR, and blogged about his playtime all the way thru. I dont think folks can ask for more.
What goes on around here is folks throw extreme bias into the mix, rather than basing a game on how it works, enjoyment to be had etc.....A game with minimal bugs, and plenty of content is always going to get a good score. Whether you like the content or not is irrelevent. That isnt what goes on around these parts, so calling professional reviewers out is pretty lame IMO.
I know I would trust a number of them over anyone around here spouting "SWG was the best game all time" etc. Stuff like that is bias, where I would expect the professional to give it a 6 or 7.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
part of the problem of gaming journalism is the fear of being black listed. Then you lose out on sneak peeks, game news firsts, and other perks. Then your competitors will get those perks leaving you in the lurch which can ultimately leave your publication without any business. They just don't have any sort of relative power over the game producers.
There will never be any sort of "60 Minutes" type game journalists.
Got to remember lots of gaming reviewrs review on the school scale not the 5 star or a real 100% system. So instead of 80% (4 stars) being a great game that anyone who likes that genre should try out, it's copy crap that no one should try till it's in the bargan bin...
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
Awesome post, and I totally agree. Just don't have much of an answer. There really isn't the same sort of critic integrity, that you see in other entertainment industries. Maybe it's because the mainstream culture still doesn't take video games seriously, in the same sort of way. Gaming critics don't have the same integrity to lose, the way other critics do. They're just game reviewers, and even gamers don't take them that seriously?
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Game Informer is the best place for reviews IMO.
Although they use a zero to ten scale, with half point intervals, a game that nails an "8" is going to be a pretty decent game. This past yrs Madden got a 7 or 7.5 which is what you are describing as an "8". LoTR War in the North got a 5.5 which they said was real buggy game play. A Square Enix title(cant recall name) was at the 6 range. Hulk Hogan Kinect got one of the few "1" ratings I have ever seen.
I think folks around MMORPG.com have a huge bias towards their ideal game, rather than accepting games for what they are. They are instead judged on what they are not.
It would be like me throwing EVE or WoW a 5 or similar score cause I dont play them. That is silly. They work, and give folks plenty to do. Thus they would warrant a high score.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
There are many reasons why games are not thouroughly reviewd by mainstream sites.
1. The people that write for mainstream sites like MMORPG.COM TTH and so on do not play MMOS except in the most casual of sense. They write their reviews on playing level 1-6. They play 30 minutes to 2 hours and thats it. They have no idea how to play a MMO except in the most basic sense and they almost never play endgame.
2. Sites like this are not worried about news or journalism but page hits. Page hits are how they make money. Which means their interest aligns with hyping games. Because their writers do not play the games they pretend to write about, have very little knowledge of MMOs and their job is to hype games not to be journalists they generally just repeat developer talking points.
3. Many of the major sites uses require their writers to fufill quotas. 2 or 3 articles per week. The concern here is quantity not quality. It doe snot matter what they write about except that it has a catchy title that gets page hits.
4. Readers are Morons - It is not entirely the fault of mainstream fansites because the people that read them and play MMOs except it. They do not care and they do not question. When companies lie to us we defend them and still buy their products. We always believe there is a miracle patch and we accpet poor products and we accept the lies by developers thier minions at the mainstream fansites. We never learn.
Mainstream sites have nothing to do with journalism. There are no ethics and there is no desire to covergames form a player perspective. It is simply all about page hits. Its all about money and that is whatdrives the stories. They could care less about accuracy or the genre.
I know some well known writers that worked for one of the big MMO websites and each wrote 2-3 artic;es a week about a certain game. In the first year and a half they wrote about this game neither of them ever was able to get a character above level 20. Something most people I know did the first day of release. This did not stop them from continuiung to write with authority about the game they pretended to play. Theyare not an exception. Sadly they are the norm. Almost everyone that writes at mainstream sites are ultra casual and simply do not play the games they pretend to write about. Mainstream sites are simply about making money which is in direct conflict with writing critical reviews.
If you want less tainted information you need to visit independent sites. But even independent sites have a lot of pressure. Devopers give these peopleaccess to alpha and beta , make frinds with them and give them access to developers which means they need to write nice things to continue to get access. Fanboys will generally not visit an independent site that bashes a game they like. So if the independent site is game specific there is little incentive to give an honest review. The one big advtange independent sites give is the people that write for them while unpaid actually play the games they write about and have actual knowledge of the game they write about. They might be lacking in writing style, and in consistent updates but the quality is so much better than mainstream sites.
It is such a shame the mainstream gaming media is so bad. The mainstream media does so much damage to the genre by their actions hyping and promoting poorly made games. Thye help create the buzz and hide the what games are lacking and engage in shady practices and outright lies in the case of Funcom ,SOE Dark and Light and so many other bad games and developers.
If this genre is ever going to improve it will be when we get a responsible media with actual journalistic ethics and sites like MMORPG.Com cease to exist.
The last honest gaming mag died in January, 2002.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
That would be fine, though - good critics pan things they don't personally like. You look at the scores of a variety of critics, and get the whole picture. Rather than every critic trying to paint an objective picture, that ends up failing to be much of a critique at all, because they aren't looking at the most important part - did they personally find the product entertaining?
Is there even such a thing as objective entertainment value? I trust critics to tell me if they liked a game. Not if they think I'll like it. How the hell should they know what I like?
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Time.
The time investment to thoroughly analyze most aspects of a movie is much less than the time investment to thoroughly analyze most aspects of a video game. The time to publish a review is typically very short in both cases in order to meet publication deadlines to catch the buzz window for people to care. Scores are typically high, because on the surface, most games are great and reviewers don't have time to go much deeper.
The preceding is uneducated opinion and should not be taking as fact.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
Compare gaming sites to cash shops,gaming companies can buy boosts.
Let's internet
The net result of these shallow , tainted reviews is that over time the playerbase becomes suspect as to there accuracy. Using recent memory of events on this very site I point to reviews and previews of SWTOR and GW2.
For the purposes of simplification I think it could be agreed upon (((heh))) that both titles received glowing praise and hearty reccomendations. Being of the same classification ...........MMO.............is the target genere of MMORPG. One is sci-fi based the other a more fantasy based title.
Both of these titles have received a great deal of coverage on this site, rightfully so. Using the reviews and previews as baselines it would seem that both of these titles are on equal footing as to there entertainment value. So much of this comes down to individual tastes and exspectations that cover an Ogre's gambit of possible variables.
Having tried one of these personally and finding it to be "personally" of much less entertaining value than offered by reviews and previews am I to suspect the same as the other equally praised title? I think reason dictates so. That being said I have much higher exspectations for the second title and do not even think they deserve to be in the same tier quality wise.
Post release the fan based reviews are of much more value and that is the reason I find this site MMORPG to be of continuing value and interest. If you can peel through the chafe there is a fountain of good real world information to be gathered.
Thats what keeps me coming back, that and the excellant points of view and humorous insites of those like Coyote and Isabelle Parsley.
I can abide by the business model being presented here as it does give us all a forum to communicate.
I just can't help but think there is a better way than trying to put a spit shine on some lesser deserving titles no matter the corporate sponsor?
It's true that games take longer to play than tv shows or movies take to watch. But a book generally takes as long to read as a game takes to play, and book criticism has the longest tradition of all (well, technically theater cricism is older). But publishers send reveiw copies of books out months in advance, where game reveiws are at best written based on a beta test plus one week advance (at worst written on two hours of gameplay).
The real problem is that the venerable old outles for criticsm still haven't added regular review features for games. The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Newsweek, publiciations that make their money on a combination of subscriptions and a vast variety of advertising sources, for the most part don't give a fuck about gaming. It doesn't matter if you respect those institutions, the fact that others do keeps revierwers for "lesser" publications honest. And for gaming they would keep metacritic scores from inflating to the low-to-mid 90s for every single blockbuster release. Game reviews come almost exclusively from websites like ign, gamespot, even cable channels like G4, who get almost all their income from the companies who make the products they review. From there, it's not hard to figure out the source of the problem.
It takes me under 5 hours to read most literature books I read. It takes many people much less time.
Most games take tens of hours at a minimum by design for a basic run through of game.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
Five hours for a 300-400 page "literature book" is about what it takes for me, too, but one key difference is that I don't have the endurance to read for five hours straight, whereas I can easily game for five hours if I have no other obligations (and I was an Englich major, and remain a regular book reader). But many books are three times that length, and casual readers aren't nearly that fast. It's 10-20 hours for a standard single-player game. Five times that for titles like Skyrim (though you hardly need to have played Skyrim for 100 hours to get a sense of its positives and negatives), and obviously MMORPGs are a category unto themselves. In a sense, the only honest review of an MMO is an ongoing review-in-progress.