Home » News » Game On or Game Over: Perhaps we should all quit now?
News

Game On or Game Over: Perhaps we should all quit now?

Microsoft versus Sony, Battlefield versus Call of Duty and Forza versus Gran Turismo. These are some of the rivalries that can get people talking about console wars. “Game On or Game Over” is your place to get inside the minds of Nicholas and Andy as they seek to find the true meaning of gaming and tackle some of gaming’s most controversial subjects. Both are award winning authors – although the awards haven’t been mailed or created yet — but trust them. Would they lie to you?

Nicholas: A few weeks ago I was watching an episode of The Jim Norton Show on YouTube featuring Whitney Cummings, a fellow comedian, as his guest. Amongst a number of different topics, one of the things they discussed was the comments Cummings had faced in some of her stand-up and television shows from critics. They mentioned how odd it was that people could critique the work of a comedian or writer when they’ve never been involved in the creation process of either types of entertainment. This then made me think of a song that was released by Tech N9NE called “Fragile”, where he raps about the criticisms his music has received from people who don’t understand his style or craft.

This got me to thinking about the media in the gaming industry. I started to draw lines between how a lot of reviewers and journalists who critique the products and decisions of developers/publishers have never worked in the business of actually creating those games or making those choices. This lead me to ask whether we, as the media as a whole, should have the right to tell a company that the decision they made was wrong or the games they release aren’t good. To kick things off, what do you think of the statements above? While we do, do you think it’s right that we’re able to criticize a company without any understanding of the factors or effort that goes into their work?

Andy: Hmm, I’m not sure I agree with them at all to be honest. By all means I respect the process of making a video game and I understand that there will always be challenges in creating one. I also understand that some features are left on the cutting room floor for whatever reason, just as some features are added for other reasons, like keeping the disc in the tray, generating more revenue or what have you. Admittedly I have zero experience in the creative process of a game, yet I still feel that when I buy a game – or go to a concert, a comedy club, read a book or go to a movie – I can develop an opinion on that thing. Sure, I may not have a deep understanding of the process of making a game, but I have direct experience with the final product.

Any review is merely an opinion of someone who “consumed” a product. Those who know me are aware that I am by no means, and never will be, a chef. I am probably one of the few people on earth that can burn water. However, if I go to a burger joint and get severed a tasteless raw burger, even though I don’t know where the meat comes from, or how it was cooked, my opinion is still that… my opinion. I don’t have to be the next Gordon Ramsay to know a good burger from a bad one. Conversely, I don’t have to be a video game designer with multiple AAA titles shipped under my belt to know what I like and what I don’t like in a video game. I’ve made it a point to never criticize the people who make the games, I just give my opinion on the experience I had with it.  I think that’s where some gaming media people step over the line when reviewing games. Just because I didn’t like Assassin’s Creed 3 doesn’t mean that every member of the Ubisoft team are idiots and incompetent. It just means I didn’t like the game. There’s nothing wrong with that.

In your example, Whitney Cummings is trying to say anyone who is not a comedian should not be able to critique comedy. That’s preposterous. If a comedian tells a joke and I don’t think it’s funny am I supposed to laugh anyway? No, the world doesn’t work that way. There are a myriad of examples I could use, but I think as long as the reviewer/person giving the critique is honest about their experience that’s all we can really ask for. It doesn’t matter if they have had extensive training in the field or not. Before I really delve too deep into this though, I want to give you a chance to respond. What do you think? Do Whitney Cummings statements hold truth to you? Should everyone that reviews something be required to have experience in that field before they can offer up their critique?

Go-Go-Quit-Now-01

Nicholas: I know I’ve said this in the past, and I mean it each time, but I especially mean it now when I say that you raise some really great points above. When I was watching the video originally I had in mind those reviewers who berate a developer for a game’s problems or because it isn’t up to their standards, or the abuse that is hurled towards certain developers/publishers just because a game wasn’t designed with all the features they had hoped it would be. In those instances I completely agree with the idea that someone who has never been involved in the creation process shouldn’t be allowed to criticize the end product. That said, reading what you’ve written above, it would seem odd to think that people aren’t able to share or express their opinion on something they’ve experienced just because they’ve not been involved in making that product themselves. While it does seem harsh to ‘hate’ on certain games just because we don’t like them, we shouldn’t be expected to automatically like them either.

Going on a slight tangent, I’d like to continue by breaking down the media into two groups – professionals and hobbyists (that is, those writers who do get paid and those who aren’t). You mentioned above that a review is nothing more than an opinion, and I completely agree with that, so do you think a review has any more legitimacy because it comes from a major publication than an independent site/blog? Contrast a website where the staff are being paid for their contributions against a site that is run by a single person. With the former, you’d expect each person to have some sort of education in the field of journalism where they were also hired based off a formal recruitment process. With the latter, the site was created as a side-project where the individual is essentially ‘self-taught’ using whatever skills he/she was taught during school. Is there any reason you think the reviews written by one side would be more than the other?

Andy: I don’t think you can discredit any single review based on where it is on the internet or what publication it’s in. A perfect example would be this very site. At Stevivor we write because we have a genuine passion about games. We don’t make any money off it, but we get to talk about things we love. Now if you flip that around, do the writers at sites like IGN or Kotaku automatically have more knowledge of a game based on where they ply their writing trade? I don’t think so. Sure I may not always have proper sentence structure or correct punctuation, but when I write something it is complete honesty. Even before I had the opportunity to write about video games, some of the things written on the “big” sites seemed to be contrived and less than 100% honest. I’m not going to call out anyone in particular, but I remember reading one review for a AAA game and the reviewer listed a good five or six things that were less than stellar with the game. They were very legitimate gripes, but at the end of the review when it came time to assign a “score” it was somehow a 9.5/10 rating.

One of the things about game journalism is it’s very ambiguous. There are so many different places people can go to get coverage, read reviews, opinion pieces, podcasts and more. There is no real standard for any of it. We talked about this several month ago, in that there is no real way for gamers to tell if a particular reviewer is being completely honest, or if they have other motives for giving the coverage they give. For the most part though, I think that gaming media is a direct reflection of the game industry. You have your AAA developers/publishers; EA, Activision, Ubisoft et.al and you have your major gaming news sites Gamespot, Kotaku, IGN et. Al. Then you have your indie developers and your smaller review sites. It’s ironic how the two are almost mirror images of each other.

Keeping along that line of thinking, when I’m playing a game I don’t care if it’s made by a team of one thousand (or more) people (say Assassin’s Creed) or if it’s made by one person in an apartment in New York like Dust an Elysian’s Tail. The only thing I care about is, did I have fun while I played it? The same applies to when I read/watch something like a review or a podcast. Did I learn something from it, and did it make sense? If I found myself agreeing with the author of the piece, or at least engaged by it, then I’ll read/watch more from them. If it’s completely off base with my line of thinking or offensive then I’ll probably ignore the rest of that person’s stuff. Automatically ignoring it due to where the content is, is counterproductive though. Sadly, I think there are many gamers out there that have that feeling though. Putting aside your obvious bias (since we both write for Stevivor), what is your take on small sites versus bigger sites? Is one inherently better than the other?

Go-Go-Quit-Now-02

Nicholas: Not necessarily no, but certainly the quality of the work coming out of a site or publication has the potential to be of a higher standard if there is someone reviewing it. That is, there’s no reason why a review written by someone who runs a site all by themselves can’t be as well-written and non-biased as a review published on a larger site with a team of 10+ people and an editor, but at least when there is an editor there’s a chance that it will be proof read at least one more time to pick up any small issues. To suggest that one is inherently better than the other – I don’t think I could do that.

I wonder though, just because a site has more staff or is more popular, does the motivation and reason behind the articles change, and could that in-turn affect the quality? When you have a larger site that has a substantial following, whether they like it or not, they have a lot more to factor in – no longer do they just write for themselves, but they write for publishers who are demanding coverage. As a result, they need to ensure their articles are out in time so that they are relevant, as old coverage does little for maintaining an audience. Furthermore, they might be accountable to larger companies that own them. Contrast this to an independent site who might have a smaller following, who aren’t driven by viewership or relationships with developers and publishers. Also consider that a major site has to sometimes ‘rush’ through games to ensure they can cover the game in time, whereas a small site might take their time, experience everything for what it’s worth and then publish a review – a few weeks or a month later. In the instances above, do you think these factors might affect the output, and could result in one being ‘better’ the other?

You mentioned the concept of being honest earlier, and this is something I’d like to take some time to discuss further. Whenever you see a game being scored highly on a site there is always someone who makes the comment “you were paid off”. It happens with a lot of Call of Duty games on sites like IGN and GameSpot and it happened with Stevivor and the last Halo game. If these reviews are nothing more than opinions, why do readers care so much about honesty? Why is bias such a controversial subject in the gaming media?

Andy: I won’t lie, in my younger years there were some reviews I’d read and get all mad about because – to me – they seemed obviously false and misleading. Particularly when I was really looking forward to a game or a franchise, and a publication gave it a score that was less than I thought it deserved. The more I’ve seen the writing side of the job though, the more I understand what’s behind those numbers. Are there some reviewers out there that give inflated scores for whatever reason? Sure. I don’t think most would argue that. However, if you look at a review as an opinion about one person’s experience with a game then that’s not for anyone to say it’s right or wrong. A personal example is a couple years ago when the game Brink came out. I really enjoyed it and I still think it’s a fun game. However, look at most review scores for it and others didn’t like it as much as me. That’s fine, and I understand that, but my experience with it was enjoyable. Every gamer, no matter what, will generally have a preference for game types and methodology that they prefer over others. That’s the beauty of gaming, there is always something else to play.

The issue of small versus large publications is one riddle with reasons to prefer one or the other. You nailed a bunch of them. Take Stevivor for instance, when there are games coming out we get to throw our names in as ‘interested’ and from that best fits are selected based on schedules, style, etc. Barring a few instances we are interested in those things we review. Whereas, those larger publications may not always be able to pick, they made be just assigned a game. I know if I was assigned a game like Tekken, Mortal Kombat or Soul Caliber I wouldn’t be able to do a good job because I’m not a fighting game fan. It’s just not my cup of tea. Larger publications have tighter deadlines and rushing through something may impact those generous scores from time to time. Yet, they also have more resources at their disposal. There are positives and negatives for each one and I think it’s something readers should always be aware of when looking for trusted sources to base their decisions on.

I think reader reaction to a review score can be divided up into a couple categories. First, the obvious trolls. Those who just want to be an asshat for no real reason. We can just ignore them because they don’t matter. Second are the ardent fans of the game/franchise. They often won’t see, or admit to, any shortcomings of a game. If it’s not a 9.5/10 the reviewer is wrong. Many people dismiss this group, but they serve a purpose. They help get the word out about the game, they drive sales and they make up a pillar of the game’s community post launch. Then, there are those who just aren’t sure and are looking for other’s opinions. These are the ones that reviewers influence the most. They want us (the reviewer) to tell them whether to buy it or not. Why do readers care about honesty so much? Some because they base a purchase off of it. Others because they are passionate about the game, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

I think at times we, as reviewers, tend to lose sight of the ‘why’ behind why we write reviews in the first place. Whenever I sit down to write a review, preview or even a Game On or Game Over article I try to come at it in terms of what would I want to read. I don’t write reviews to inflate the ego of the developer or publisher. I write stuff for those who are curious about a game, or would like to see a discussion about a topic. Because, those are the people that I want to engage and get thinking. This may sound corny, but I love when people comment, either positive or negative, on something I wrote because it means a) they read it, b) they cared enough about the topic to write and c) because whatever I wrote engaged them and got them thinking. I think some people in the game journalism world, at times, lose sight of who they are writing for and what the purpose is. Maybe that’s me just being way too naïve about it though, what do you think? We were always taught to “know your audience” when writing, do you think we lose track of who we write for sometimes? It is something we should be more cognizant of?

Go-Go-Quit-Now-03

Nicholas: That’s an interesting point. I think all writers know that their articles are read by someone, but perhaps the reasons for why we write becomes muddled after some time. We spoke earlier about major publications having to essentially rush out their reviews, previews and coverage so that it’s still relevant, and in those instances I can see how writing goes from just being something that you’re passionate about, to something with deadlines and pressure behind it. Contrast it to a blog which doesn’t have a major following. What reason do they have to write for? They don’t have demands from publishers to get content out. They don’t have editors requesting new articles. They write for themselves and they hope that someone out there enjoys it.

I think the larger the site the greater the potential for there to be disconnect between the writers and the people they ultimately write for. In those instances it’s important that community engagement is important – don’t just have a comments section at the base of your article, but actually get involved in speaking with those people who take the time to read and leave a note. That’s something I always appreciate about Stevivor when I see everyone, from the staff right up to Steve, getting involved in responding back to feedback and comments on our articles.

You know, looking at what we’ve discussed this week, we’ve certainly jumped from one topic to another, and ended up somewhere I didn’t originally expect my initial question would lead to. We started talking about whether the media should be able to critique the industry despite not having seen the work that goes into creating an actual game, and with that I’d like to end on asking you the following. Unfair criticism and potential bias aside, with all the coverage that the media provides to the games industry, do you think there is value that is added as a result? Do you think the games industry would be at a loss or significant different if it didn’t have the coverage it receives? If so, in what ways?

Andy: I can’t speak for Australia, but up here in the US the only way to get anything news-related to gaming is to go to gaming-centric sites. Unless of course it’s in regards to a mass shooting then the mainstream media is more than happy to cover it. I think most industries have their own group of media, some are larger than others but all of them provide a direct link between the industry and the consumer. Let’s go all the way back to your initial example of Whitney Cummings. Like gaming, comedy has sites and magazines dedicated to it. Those people who provide content for these sites and magazines do it because they are interested in the topic and are passionate about it. I’d be willing to bet that most of them, just like gaming media, have not been involved with the content creation side of the fence before. But they can still pen articles that are thoughtful, fair and informative. Heck, maybe not being part of the creative process can be seen as a good thing at times. Focusing on little details and limitations instead of end results could have the potential to change a review score, or give other misunderstood suggestions.

I do think the industry would be very different if we didn’t have the media presence we have. The gaming media does a great job of supporting games and getting their names out there. The only thing I’d like to see changed is, ironically, less information about new games. Not in the terms of what to expect, settings, etc. but trailers that reveal too much, being able to watch the first hour of gameplay from a game that’s still 2-4 weeks from launch and things like that. I miss the days of being surprised around every corner of a game. Take Watch_Dogs for instance – there are two major spoilers in one of the trailers for anyone with half a brain and mildly paying attention. Both of those moments could have been pretty cool had it not been for that trailer. I’d like to go back to the ‘less is more’ approach of pre-game hype but I doubt we will ever see that again, unless it’s a conscious decision by the developer.

To end with Whitney Cummings remarks though, without the media, reviews, and critics she may not be where she is now. It doesn’t take a comedian to know if a joke is funny, and it doesn’t take a senior programmer to know if a game has flaws or not. For those who want to segment off who can and who cannot criticize their work, maybe they need to have a less public profession. Just as reviewers offer their opinions of games, readers offer their opinions on the actual reviews. It’s a cyclical process that at the end of the day keeps people talking about a game. Sure there will always be some people that are never happy about anything, but the key is to find those posts and criticisms that have merit and take them into consideration for the next time. If there was no one to critique games I don’t think we’d have the innovation that we do right now. The status quo is fine, but there have been some great games that have happened because of feedback. As a creator of content, no matter the medium, every opinion is one that should be considered because you never know where your next great idea will come from.

Tune in next time for the next instalment of Game On or Game Over. If you have any ideas for our next article, feel free to contact Andy or Nicholas on Twitter.

Tags

This article may contain affiliate links, meaning we could earn a small commission if you click-through and make a purchase. Stevivor is an independent outlet and our journalism is in no way influenced by any advertiser or commercial initiative.

About the author

Nicholas Simonovski

Events and Racing Editor at Stevivor.com. Proud RX8 owner, Strange Music fan and Joe Rogan follower. Living life one cheat meal at a time.