07.20.20 |
Gaming |
∞
The wide ranging discourse around The Last of Us Part II (TLOU2) has been a welcome change of pace from usual gaming criticism. Instead of the expected debate over gameplay, fidelity, and genre expectations, there’s been far more focus on TLOU2’s depiction of violence, ludonarrative dissonance, non-linear narrative structure, treatment of LGBTQ characters, and other thematic elements. Vice ran a six hour podcast dissecting the game’s narrative, and I’ve seen similar extensive “spoilercast” treatment across other gaming sites. The breadth of TLOU2’s discussion beyond social media and enthusiast sites like IGN and Gamespot is also notable. I’ve read dissections of the game in indie film blogs (Indiewire), lifestyle magazines (GQ), and popular newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post).
But I’m unhappy this same level and breadth of discourse doesn’t occur across more games and more often. Nor has chatter about TLOU2 been universally deep or mature; there’s a tremendous amount of vile, toxic “debate” from bigots upset with the game’s plotting and LGBTQ representation.
Continue reading…
10.30.13 |
∞
Game critic Tevis Thompson, writing a very long rant on how broken the state of video game criticism is:
The very outlandishness of my numbers points to how ingrained our pitiful review scale remains. It speaks to how easily we submit to the tyranny of the perceived majority. It’s the same kind of thinking that leads to the many ridiculous sacrosanct positions held by the gaming community. To say you consider Ocarina of Time not a great Zelda or find Half-Life 2 overrated or prefer Metroid to Super Metroid, as I do, demands an explanation. It invites skepticism of not only your opinions but of your very motives. What’s your deal? You’re just trolling for clicks. And why should I listen to you anyway? You didn’t design the game. You don’t represent the average gamer. You’re just some vocal minority.
Overall I can’t say I agree with Tevis. If anything, when I read criticism from Giant Bomb to Polygon and Tom Bissell on Grantland, we’re getting better criticism recently, not worse. You just have to know where to read. It doesn’t help either that Tevis uses inflammatory language frequently (e.g. “thin-skinned boys”, “straight middle class white gamer”).
But there are some good points made, especially with regard to the general uniformity in game scores for select AAA games (including Bioshock Infinite). If you dig gaming, read reviews, and especially if games journalism matters to you, it’s worth your time.
08.08.13 |
∞
Tested’s Norman Chan:
At the point where your goal is to have a review out as soon as possible, you are absolutely compromising the quality of the review and your editorial credibility–those things are absolutely mutually exclusive. Those reviewers may as well camp out in a Best Buy and use a product on the shelf for a few hours and call it a review. The sad thing is, I don’t think we’re too far away from that.
Reviews serve to give purchasing advice to readers who want to know if something is worth their money. Tests, benchmarks, and the sharing of a reviewers’ personal use experience are the means to that end–but they are not the review. A review is a conclusive statement: buy this product or don’t, and why.
Completely agree with Norm here. As much as I enjoy The Verge overall for tech coverage, this notion that after only a day or 48 hours with a device you’re able to form a comprehensive, definitive review is ridiculous. I really felt this come through in the Verge recent reviews for the Nexus 7 and Chromecast. Both felt underdeveloped; I would have happily waited at least a few more days to get a more comprehensive take on the device.