Let's start with the game that began the downward spiral of game review quality. Cuphead was largely successful, becoming a best-seller on Xbox One (and enjoying similar success on other consoles), as well as receiving glowing praise from most critics. Except for Polygon, who chastised the game's difficulty, saying (and I quote), "It's just like Dark Souls" Not to nitpick, but Cuphead and Dark Souls have nothing in common aside from difficulty, and even then, the games are difficult for completely different reasons. Cuphead is an arcade shoot-em-up inspired by Contra with an aesthetic inspired by 30's era cartoons (such as Steamboat Willie and Loony Tunes). This game draws its difficulty from actions that require precision and accuracy under pressure. Additionally, the only real punishment for dying in Cuphead is lost time. Dark Souls is an action-RPG with a gritty, goth-inspired art style. That game is difficult primarily because it refuses to teach the player anything, trusting they are smart enough to figure out how the game works through trial and error. Additionally, dying in Dark Souls is a MUCH bigger deal than it is in Cuphead. When you die in Dark Souls you drop all the Souls you were carrying (Souls are needed to buy upgrades for your character). Until you get them back, your character suffers a pretty sizable stat penalty, including a smaller health gauge, meaning that it becomes easier to die until you get your stuff back. And the complaints about the game's difficulty become much less credible when the reviewer showed a video of the tutorial. In the video they got stuck on the very first jump puzzle, spending almost three whole minutes trying to jump over a wall, during the tutorial. Said tutorial even said what you were supposed to do (use the previous platform as a boost, then dash in midair). And what might be the most humbling/humiliating experience for the journalist was that a FIVE YEAR OLD CHILD managed to get through the entire tutorial (and the first boss!) in the time it took who is supposed to be a professional game critic to get past one obstacle. This is admittedly the least offensive example on this post, but it marked the beginning of the mainstream reviewer's declining quality. The only solution I can offer is that reviewers do their research before making comparisons to make sure said comparisons are valid. That, or make sure the reviewer in question is experienced in the game in question's genre, since it is readily apparent that the Polygon reviewer has very little experience with shoot-em-up games.
Then there's IGN's review of Pokemon: Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire. Admittedly, this review starts off good... Until you realize they gave it a 7.5 despite a largely positive review, with the main criticism being the overabundance of water. Yes. Granted, the full review explained that the reviewer felt that the island-paradise theme the Hoenn region was going for had little variation and most of the areas bled into each other. Which is actually a valid criticism. It's just that the recap shown during the final score of the game listed "too much water" as the ONLY negative. This is actually not the reviewer's fault, and their criticism of the game's lack of unique, stand-out environments is a very valid criticism. It's just that the recap worded the negative in literally the most outlandish way imaginable. The phrase "Too Much Water" quickly became an inside joke both for Pokemon fans as well as people who frequently read IGN articles. And for that, you can blame the limitations of their website. I feel like this was the reason why the recap system was removed from their website, to avoid other potentially embarrassing phrases that can be turned around to mock the reviewer. But again, they removed the issue, and IGN themselves seem to acknowledge to ridiculousness of it all. Their review of Penguins of Madagascar (IGN reviews everything in popular culture, from films to video games to comic books) included the headline "Just the Right Amount of Water" so at least IGN is humble enough to engage in self-deprecating humor. I don't really have anything to say to "fix" a problem like this, aside from maybe previewing your work and think about how people will react to certain statements within the review. Not to toot my own horn too much, but I do that myself when I work on my own reviews.
The most recent example of a bad game review was relatively recent, by PC Gamer. In their review of the PC port of Monster Hunter World: Iceborne, they complained about how the game actively encourages "brutally murdering" those "poor, innocent monsters." It goes on to include politically charged buzz words, such as how the game is "Colonialist Propaganda" and "sexist because of the female armors being designed to be pretty instead of practical" (even though Iceborne has the most practical armor for women in the series and any armor that looks designed for "visual appeal" looks more or less the same on both genders) among other complaints. They rarely, if ever, talk about the actual game and most of the review is effectively shaming Capcom for not making a "Woke" game. I'm not one for politics, but even I can tell the reviewer put no actual research into the game (and judging by how much blatantly false information is in the review, its safe to say that the reviewer didn't even play the game, despite claiming to have put 200 hours into Iceborne) and crammed a hastily put together article filled with hyperbolic click-bait.
Additionally, they spend so much time berating the game because of its concept of hunting monsters. Well gee, a game titled MONSTER hunter is about hunting MONSTERS. Who would have thought? And that's not even mentioning how the reviewer blatantly ignores how the game actively encourages capturing monsters alive instead of killing them outright. You get additional rewards for doing so and killing a monster reduces your total rewards. The most positive thing the reviewer mentions was the side-quest of using the new Photo Mode to take pictures of the cat-like Grimalkynes during their day to day routine, going on to say that its a glimpse of what Monster Hunter could look like if it was "a kinder game", then goes on to list how the side-quest chain indirectly reinforces how "cruel and heartless" the game is.
Oh, and the reviewer seems to conveniently forget that the entire story of these games makes it clear that only certain species of monster can be legally hunted, and said monsters are usually invasive predators that could cause severe damage to the ecosystem in the best case scenario. In the worst case scenario, the monsters you can actually hunt are walking natural disasters that could destroy the ENTIRE PLANET if left unchecked. So complaining about killing monsters that could easily bring about the end of the world (and even the more mundane monsters can kill lots of innocent people if ignored) is the equivalent of harassing a farmer for shooting a bear that was actively trying to kill him and his family. Imagine someone watching a Kaiju film like Pacific Rim or a horror film like Alien and feeling bad for the "poor, innocent monster" that has (and continues to) kill dozens, possibly hundreds of people and thinking the heroes are "cruel and heartless" because killing the monster is the only way to keep more innocents from dying. Honestly, this "review" is literally just a self-righteous SJW (Social Justice Warrior) shoving his beliefs down the reader's throat. While I do believe in respecting and tolerating other people's opinions, the downright amateurish writing and hyperbole in this one article ultimately became the inspiration for this post. And as a bonus, it serves as a perfect example of how NOT to review a video game. Gratuitously dragging real-life politics into something clearly designed for fun and entertainment? Check. Deliberately ignoring factual information to appear "in the right"? Check. Barely mentioning any information concerning the actual game-play? Check. Telling blatant lies only to contradict yourself moments later? Check. These are all the red flags of a bad video game review. The only way the review could be worse is it if makes a unneeded comparison to Dark Souls. Which would have actually been ironic, since Dark Souls itself draws inspiration from Monster Hunter's combat system. But what makes the review bizarre and downright hypocritical is the fact that despite spending the entire reviewing complaining about perceived political wrongness, the final score the reviewer gave is an 82 out of 100. Which is, honestly speaking, not a bad score at all. Far above their average rating. Which makes the whole article look like a pointless thought experiment of seeing how many times you can contradict yourself.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like bashing other people for their reviews. I really don't. This post is mostly just some nerd on the Internet voicing his concerns about the people who are being paid handsomely to do basically the same thing I do for free. I do have other issues with reviews in general. But I want to ask a serious question. Should games receive re-reviews? As in, is something major happens to a game to cause the reviewer's opinion to change after the fact. Take No Man's Sky for example. When that game launched it disappointed almost everyone. Thanks to a deceptive marketing scheme filled with far too many empty promises, Hello Games made their open-world space adventure sound too good to be true. And when the game launched, it was quickly dismissed as a generic Minecraft clone that fails to do anything unique with its sci-fi aesthetic. But several updates later, the game now resembles what Hello Games promised us to begin with, an epic space adventure with star-ship combat, infinite worlds to explore, actual multiplayer, and several quality-of-life changes that allow the game to finally step out of Minecraft's shadow. Some people have re-reviewed the game, others choose to keep their negative reviews intact, usually citing that the positive changes came too little, too late. I, personally, believe that if a game does receive substantial post-launch support after the initial release that introduces radical changes to the game, it is worth reevaluating your opinion (and score) on a game. Heck, I've done re-reviews of games that have received no post-launch support at all, such as UNDERTALE and The Wonderful 101. The main reason I did so was because as a person ages, their tastes begin to change. Things you loved as a child suddenly feel stupid and poorly made once you get older. And while reviews that come out right after a big mainstream game releases are the ones that receive the most publicity, the reviews that come months or even years after the fact are usually the more honest. Mostly because the reviewer took the time to sit down and really think the product over.
I remember that when I first reviewed Last Jedi (which I wrote right after seeing the film at the cinema), I gave it an 8 out of 10. A good score. But the more I thought on it the more I realized that Last Jedi is not a good film at all. In fact, out of all the theatrical Star Wars films, Last Jedi is my least favorite due to gaping plot holes, shutting down all the interesting story arcs from Force Awakens simply for the sake of being unpredictable, and having characters act in ways that almost completely contradict their previous characterization without any clear sign of character development to justify it, and that's not even mentioning how Rise of Skywalker effectively wastes the first 30 minutes of its run time undoing Last Jedi and trying to get the story back on track. If I was to reevaluate my review with how i feel about it now, I promise you now I give Last Jedi a 4 out of 10. Its a film that is visually stunning and has great music and acting, but the story writing is simply terrible. It feels more like a 13-year-old's bad fan fiction rather than a continuation of an overarching story.
My next point is an issue that I noticed is a problem both with the gaming industry, and the film industry. When the 2019 remake of The Lion King came out, it was met with a very negative reception, especially from smaller, more independent reviewers on sites like YouTube. Because of this, it became a short-lived joke that Disney forgot to pay the reviewers, so they could give an honest opinion for once. But this joke has a lot more to it than just "lol Disney bribes movie critics lol!" A lot of mainstream game journalists are often given sponsorship deals, such as receiving free copies of highly anticipated games weeks, and sometimes months before the game is available publicly. While this is ostensibly done so that reviewers can finish longer games in enough time that their review will still be relevant on the day of release, it does create the uncomfortable feeling that bribery is all too common among game journalists. After all, there have been issues of reviewers turning a blind eye to glaring flaws of the game. And there have been several instances of big name journalists, such as former Gamespot reviewer Jeff Gersttmann, getting fired from their job because the game they criticized also happened to be the big flagship game of a publisher known for sponsoring Gamespot frequently. Instances like that cause long-time gamers to stop trusting the opinion of mainstream journalists, and look for smaller, more independent reviewers (including myself as well as dozens of YouTube gaming stars) to get an accurate review of a game.
Despite all my complaints about video game journalism as a whole, I do believe that there are people out there who give clear, thoughtful, and accurate reviews. Game Informer is the biggest example. I've been subscribed to their magazine since I was 10 years old, and all of their reviews thoroughly cover everything from a game's presentation, to its control scheme, to even the potential replay value. My own review format is actually inspired by Game Informer's style (introducing the game's concept, discussing game play, discussing presentation. I don't cover replay value, mostly because it is far too subjective for my liking). While I do disagree with some of their reviews, I do understand the point they make with certain games. Heck, they cover games I had no idea even existed until I started reading their magazine. Case in point; Night in the Woods. A beautiful point-and-click story-driven adventure game that deals with some surprisingly mature themes such as existential dread, living with mental disorders such as ADHD and clinical depression, and the frustration and confusion caused by the inevitability of growing up, all wrapped up in a gorgeously minimalist art style featuring cartoon animals (that's not eve mentioning the hilarious writing and quotability of the game). I bought a copy of that game based purely on the single screen-shot in the Game Informer magazine. I didn't even need to read their review to know I would enjoy Night in the Woods. And honestly, that was one of my favorite games ever, and I almost put it on my "best games of the decade" list (the only reason I didn't is because the amount of people who don't know that Night in the Woods exists is honestly depressing). Additionally, we live in a time where independent reviewers can actually voice their thoughts on video games, literature, and film, thanks to blogs and video-sharing sites like YouTube.
Another thing I would like to address. In regards to the silliness that began this post. Should game journalists be good at video games? Yes. Yes they should. Or at least, they should be good at a single genre, maybe two genres. They don't need to be competent enough to pull off crazy speed-runs or even do everything a game has to offer. They just need to be good enough to finish the game, or reach a similar milestone for games that have no definitive end. Reviewing something like Overwatch, a game with a strong focus on multiplayer and first-person shooter combat, would require a completely different mindset from reviewing a game like Horizon: Zero Dawn, a single player, 3rd person adventure game that just tells one big story and leaves as soon as the story is finished. I still haven't 100% completed everything that Hollow Knight has to offer, but I have gotten two of the game's four endings and have beaten the hardest boss in the game (the Nightmare King), so that was the point where I felt I was ready to review Hollow Knight. Part of the reason I have this rule is so I don't repeat the mistakes of my very first UNDERTALE review, which I published before I even finished the game (granted, 16-year-old Spencer was riding an intense hype train, and I was regrettably one of those people that viewed UNDERTALE as the Holy Grail of gaming. It was a part of my life I honestly regret, and for that I don't think of the game as highly, but still consider it a worthwhile experience). Because of this rule I have, I always getting disappointed and sometimes frustrated with professional game journalists who are literally paid to play video games and share their thoughts on them, and they admit to only putting in a pathetically short amount of time in the review. Like writing a review of a Monster Hunter game after 3 hours of play time, when these games take at least 50 hours to experience everything the game has to offer. Long story short, don't review a game until you know, FOR A FACT, you have seen everything the game has to offer.
I apologize if this post seems a little bit more negative and disjointed than my usual content. This is an issue that has been eating at me for a while now, but PC Gamer's terrible review of Monster Hunter World: Iceborne was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. All the other criticism I bring up are largely nitpicks and random silliness that the gaming community can take in playful jest. It's especially frustrating because these people, who very clearly are not adequately equipped for their career, make a generous amount of money, while smaller reviewers like myself seem to be better at reviewing video games than them, but do it for free. No, I'm not paid to write my reviews. I don't get sponsorship deals. I don't get sent review copies of popular games. Every game I have reviewed on this blog? I bought that game with my own, hard-earned money. Every movie I review? I bought it on Blu Ray so I can watch it from the comfort of my own home (going to cinemas is not fun, most of the time). But if you read this far into my rant about "professional" game reviewers, thank you. It means a lot. Don't think the gaming journalism industry is dead. There are still hard workers who make thoughtful, informative reviews geared towards helping people make informed decisions concerning their hobby. It's just that all the people who do their job correctly don't get as much publicity and as such you need to look for smaller, independent reviewers who have no chance of getting noticed/sponsored by larger corporations.
No comments:
Post a Comment