By Kieron Gillen on November 23rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm.
The nights are drawing in. Sundays turn from a time to play in the fields to a time to huddle inside and play Left 4 Dead (If you’re everyone else in the world) or Outrun 2006 (If you’re me). But there’s more to Sunday than that. There’s compiling a list of interesting reading from across the week for you to devour, while trying to avoid linking to an Of Montreal record with a well poncy title. GO READ!
- The ever-lovin’ Keith Stuart of the Guardian Gamesblog is thinking about reviewers and games. Traditionally, we’re accused of valuing innovation too much. However after Mirror’s Edge’s reception, he thinks its entirely the opposite. “This is frustrating and I think it highlights one of the key issues of contemporary gaming – what exactly is a videogame and what are the fundamental elements every game must provide?” says Keith, “Because, if it were a movie, Mirror’s Edge would be critically lauded by the specialist film press – it would be considered a forward-thinking masterpiece.”
- Leigh Alexander does some proper grown-up journalism for Gamasutra where she investigates the possibility of collusion between Montreal game developers to cap salaries. Fascinating stuff.
- The Fallout review we’ve all been waiting for. Well, a bit, anyway. Vince D. Weller – of Age of Decadance and general RPG loud-opiniondom – reviews Fallout 3 for NMA, Fallout Love/Hatesite. He likes it more than you may expect, but there’s still some unsheathed knives.
- This is the sort of thing I like to encourage. The Pickford brothers have started a picture blog. One pic a day. Art, comics, fun stuff.
- Heimdalsgate Like a Promethean Curse – Of Montreal. Go chemicals!
Failed.
23/11/2008 at 18:00 Alex says:
Of Montreal? Awesome. As well poncy Of Montreal songs go, I prefer When A Man Is In Love With A Man. Left 4 Dead is downloading from Steam now, so between that and Mirror’s Edge (No! Bad console-player tendencies, bad!) that looks like most of my gaming schedule filled.
23/11/2008 at 18:03 dadioflex says:
I haven’t played Mirror’s Edge! BUT that Guardian review of it seems to be criticising reviewers for wanting it to be a better game instead of lauding it’s innovation.
I’ve seen any number of reviews of ME and it breaks down into people who played it for five minutes and thought it was fantastic and people who played through it and were somewhat disappointed that they didn’t do more with the initial premise.
Comparing games and movies is pointless.
23/11/2008 at 18:04 Rook says:
How can you review a game on a Pentium D with a 6800, I’ve got a better machine that I use as a footrest.
23/11/2008 at 18:04 Alex says:
Oh also (I miss the edit function), the NMA Fallout 3 review seems unnecessarily bitter.
“Fallout 3 has two combat modes: real-time and slow motion. The real time mode is a mediocre shooter. You hunt things down with your cursor and shoot them until they die.”
I’ve never understood this being used to criticise shooters. I mean, that’s what they are, at a fundamental level. It’s like saying a meal is mediocre because all you do is put it in your mouth, chew it and swallow it. I mean, I kind of see what he means, but…
23/11/2008 at 18:13 Heliocentric says:
You can talk about a movie without talking about writing right? Characters or themes don’t matter.
Or without talking about the lighting and composition? So yeah, er no point talking about the game mechanics. Right? Especially because mechanics can cripple progression.
Imagine a motive which forced you to take a short quiz or puzzle every act. Can’t do it? Then you can’t even watch the rest of the movie. Or arguable worse you do get to watch it after watching the previous act a few dozen times.
23/11/2008 at 18:31 CrashT says:
Here’s an idea, get two people to agree completely on what Fallout “is” and what it “isn’t” then you can say Fallout 3 isn’t Fallout…
I’m waiting…
23/11/2008 at 18:39 espy says:
@kobzon
If fluffy kittens were an Ebola virus they would make you suffer a slow and painful death.
What, exactly, is your point? :D
23/11/2008 at 18:48 duhreem says:
espy: that it is not a movie, in the same way that a kitten is not ebola.
23/11/2008 at 18:56 pkt-zer0 says:
@CrashT: Fallout certainly isn’t a first-person action-RPG for consoles. You could also check out the “History of Fallout” article on NMA, could be enlightening.
23/11/2008 at 19:04 Him says:
I think people would be better off agreeing on what Fallout “Is” rather than what Fallout “Is not”.
Personally, I’m going to pre-emptively claim the moral high ground for what I think that Fallout “Is” as I am one of those famed fifty thousand who purchased a retail copy of Fallout 2.
(I also bought Freespace 2 in the same transaction. Perhaps the finest game-buying day in my life.)
23/11/2008 at 19:13 Jochen Scheisse says:
So Kittens are Movies and Mirror’s Edge is Ebola? Or what is Ebola?
23/11/2008 at 19:24 Turin Turambar says:
That Guardian article is horrible, horrible.
23/11/2008 at 19:27 boatorious says:
I think the teaching moment should really go the other way. Movie reviews are almost universally dismal.
It reminds me of a famous episode of my high school days. I didn’t witness it, but I had some acquaintances on a sports team, and once on an away game they were summoned to the bathroom by a fellow athlete. The athlete proudly showed them an amazing specimen he had produced.
This excited athlete probably went on to be a movie critic. On one hand, it was a giant piece of crap. However, on the other hand, it went the whole way around the inside of the bowl twice, unbroken. It was a revolutionary poo that changed my life forever.
Unlike movie critics, game critics are willing to call a turd a turd.
Game critics are also willing to treat a racing game like it’s a racing game, and not get all huffy if they don’t like the acting or the plot.
23/11/2008 at 19:37 Nihohit says:
@pkt-zer0: no, fallout WASN’T action-rpg, etc. now let’s argue some more!
but, seriously – I understand Weller has his criticisms (though I don’t agree with almost everything he says there), but couldn’t NMA at least edit the article enough so it’ll be readable, fitting basic journalistic standarts? personally, I didn’t finish it – by the end of the first half I got so annoyed by the writing and language, that I stopped reading.
23/11/2008 at 19:42 Alex says:
I prefer my Montreal indie bands to be from Montreal, thank you very much, you dastardly Georgians.
23/11/2008 at 19:46 Saflo says:
Unlike movie critics, game critics are willing to call a turd a turd.
I’m pretty sure movie critics *are* willing to do that, and they do it pretty often.
23/11/2008 at 19:54 Trezoristo says:
In response to Keith Stuart’s blog: I believe every good game innovates a little. A game that offers the same game play as another game but adds a bit of story or some different weapons, is either called an expansion by the developers or a clone by the community.
Keith Stuart makes it sound as if Mirror’s Edge is a very special case because it tries something new. I would say that Mirror’s Edge maybe innovates a little more than most games. That should certainly earn the game points in reviews, and it does, but doesn’t excuse it from having to offer a pleasant gaming experience.
23/11/2008 at 19:54 boatorious says:
Not if it’s a novel shiny turd.
23/11/2008 at 19:56 Muzman says:
Guardian guy has a point, sort of. Spore and Far Cry 2 only got eights and nines but Bioshock and Halo 3 get tens. To me that’s absurd. It’s pretty far from a rule though (Fallout 3′s reception is countering pretty well), but I do get a general sense that innovative games are more likely to be quirky and awkward in their implimentation and, worst of all, unfamilar and so get marked down.
(he’s wrong about one point in particular; saying ‘yeah, it had some good ideas, but it wasn’t perfect – I’ll look forward to the sequel’ is almost exactly what critics did say after walking out of Blade Runner)
23/11/2008 at 20:01 Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:
Yes, Vince’s Fallout 3 review was rather more positive than I’d expected. But it wasn’t entirely so, as the good Mr. Dweller had some good points to make about why it doesn’t completely live up to the Fallout name.
On the other hand, I found myself forgiving of Fallout 3′s flaws and Oblivion-ness. More than I forgave Oblivion anyway. I guess it was the Americana that won me over. I’d also mentally glossed over the lousy dialogue because, having played many games, it’s hard not to develop a resistance to inanity if one intends to remain a gamer in the face of modern product.
23/11/2008 at 20:12 The Poisoned Sponge says:
Personally, I think ME is a bit of a flawed gem. It’s essentially merely putting games like Prince of Persia and Tomb Raider into the first person, and it does so with aplomb and panache, but the problem is it’s horrifically short, with nothing to serve as a backup. These days, if a game is going to rely on it’s single player only, it has to be at least 12 hours or so long. I finished ME, on the hardest difficulty setting available at the beginning, in six. That’s not really your money’s worth. Renting it however, is highly recommended.
23/11/2008 at 20:14 Meat Circus says:
Two of the most innovative (from a pure mechanical perspective) games were World of Goo and Braid, games which places like this place gushed over uncontrollably.
23/11/2008 at 20:21 AndrewC says:
Guardian feller makes his argument in a rather horrible fashion (though it is fair enough that he thought he had to describe games in terms of another medium for a readership that will mostly not be gamers), but his argument (which I took to mean that many games reviewers will treat reviews like buyer’s guides, judging the game on how many of a set number of criteria it achieves) I feel is sound. If a game does something different, it won’t check certain boxes and so will be marked down. It is a reviewing system that rewards professionalism and reliability (excellent attributes) but gets confused with innovation or the foggier, fluffier notions of emotions or art.
Case in point – marking ME down for simple combat. The buyer’s guide review compares it to other combat systems and it comes up short. The intelligent reviewer notices that the game is not about combat (and what little there is is given depth by means of when and from where you strike, not in how many different ways you can strike).
Plus ME is really a racer and the meat of the game is what happens after you finish the story. How long do most reviewers play it? And are they playing it thinking it’s a first person Tomb Raider?
Oh, and plus most major internet review sites are mostly read and thus mostly aimed at teenage American males and so even intelligent reviewers must write to that audience. That involves a reviewing scheme that puts Gears Of War at the top of the scale.
23/11/2008 at 20:25 moof says:
@Nihohit
Why don’t you think it fits any journalistic standards? I don’t see what’s so bad about the writing and language.
Also, Kieron: You linked to the third page of the FO3 review.
23/11/2008 at 20:26 Meat Circus says:
@AndrewC:
If only somebody would write some kind of manifesto for what games journalism could be. Some form of ‘new’ games journalism, perhaps?
It could even be called that.
23/11/2008 at 20:28 AndrewC says:
I’m imagining you have a point, Circus?
23/11/2008 at 20:38 The Poisoned Sponge says:
New Games Journalism
That’s Meat’s point, methinks.
23/11/2008 at 20:38 Pags says:
That pic blog reminds me a little of the Youtube video ‘Noah takes a photo of himself every day for 6 years‘ – with music by the excellent Carly Comando of the even more excellent Slingshot Dakota, who you should really listen to instead of Of Montreal. But I digress. It’s a hefty project to undertake; webcomics like Cyanide and Happiness only manage to update so frequently because of their inherent simplicity – although it seems like mostly it’s just a collection of old pictures, it might be difficult even finding enough content lying around to update it every day.
23/11/2008 at 20:41 The Poisoned Sponge says:
Or perhaps this.
23/11/2008 at 20:43 Tom Camfield says:
Guardian thing – complaining about an IGN review is a bit silly because IGN are aimed at a popular demographic, not specialised tastes like, perhaps, Edge (at least Edge when I last read it).
Edge’s high score used to mean ‘revolutionary’ so obviously they should rate innovation highly, while anyone aiming at a wide demographic (like IGN) needs to be more conservative because that’s how you satisfy the widest demographic, you pander to conservative tastes.
To say IGN need to award more creative titles is to ask them to be the antithesis of what they set out to be; they’re a website aimed at making as much money as possible, they’re not here to encourage innovation however much Kieth (of the Guardian) or anyone else might want them to be.
23/11/2008 at 20:47 Leeks! says:
Chemical-oh-ow-eh-owls!
23/11/2008 at 20:49 Kieron Gillen says:
Don’t mention the war, people.
KG
23/11/2008 at 21:16 Dracko says:
Keith Stuart [is my favourite writer in the whole wide world and I've definitely learned my lesson about mindlessly shouting insults in Comments]
23/11/2008 at 21:51 N says:
new [lovely] journalism is for [splendid] [tasty] [peaches]
23/11/2008 at 21:55 Pod says:
I [Love - ed] Keith Stuart and think he’s a right [cool geezer - ed]. I wish I could [marry him and have his children - ed].
23/11/2008 at 22:23 Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:
I’m starting to wonder how many bracket-ed comments are real and how many are there for purely comic effect.
23/11/2008 at 22:24 Mister Yuck says:
“Honkie” is a way better slur for white people than “cracker”.
23/11/2008 at 22:30 Pags says:
[Just no. -Ed]
23/11/2008 at 22:38 Turin Turambar says:
“Guardian guy has a point, sort of. Spore and Far Cry 2 only got eights and nines but Bioshock and Halo 3 get tens. To me that’s absurd.” -Muzman.
Yeah, it’s absurd. I mean, both Far Cry 2 and Spore are mediocre games, they shouldn’t have scored more than a 6. But alas!, the hype attacked again.
23/11/2008 at 22:40 Leeks! says:
Oh man, Ministry of Truth style comment sections are awesome! I wish the whole internet was like this!
23/11/2008 at 22:43 Kieron Gillen says:
(I’m tempted to change Pod’s fake-Ed comments into proper insults)
KG
23/11/2008 at 22:54 Pod says:
If Halo 3 got 10, what will Halo 4 get? 11? 10.5? None More 10? 01? Hmmm?
ps: Dor. Cor. Jasper, the ones without the Future publishing style -ed are real sinners being opressed by the man. The rest of us are good, self censoring citizens.
23/11/2008 at 22:58 Saflo says:
Ah, the dreaded Hype virus strikes again, infecting the minds of reviewers across the internet and making them say nice things about games I don’t like.
23/11/2008 at 23:16 Kadayi says:
Bit late on the Vince review Keiron, we’ve been discussing that in the forum for a few days now. Even had the man himself turn up a contribute a couple of posts as well.
23/11/2008 at 23:33 Kieron Gillen says:
Kadayi: I’ll stick up the Sunday Papers on Tuesday next time.
KG
23/11/2008 at 23:41 Angel Dust says:
@boatorious
Just off the top of my head check reviews for ‘The Fountain’, ‘Youth Without Youth’,'The Tracy Fragments’ and ‘Slipstream’. Note I’m not saying I agree with any these views but merely illustrating that film critics, in general there are certainly band-wagon jumping ones, have absolutely no trouble calling a turd a turn even it’s a highly novel one.
To be honest your anti-film critic stance smacks of the usual they-don’t-like-my-favourites-and-I-don’t-like-theirs bitterness.
23/11/2008 at 23:52 wiper says:
Re: Guardian comments – I couldn’t put it better than AndrewC already has.
So here it is again:
Word.
24/11/2008 at 00:12 Oddbob says:
What AndrewC said, also.
Tom, I see where you’re coming from and I agree that IGN’s stance is pretty clear in the big ol’ world of reviews but there’s something horrible about the “it could have one more button for extra combat” quote (I’m paraphrasing there, obviously) that does make it fall into the realms of “what the?” for me. I mean, it could have an elephant too but it doesn’t mean that it should or even needs an elephant.
It’s pulling a game down for what it’s not and what it’s not attempting to be and that just doesn’t sit well for me. It feels wrong.
24/11/2008 at 00:31 wiper says:
It’s a perfectly natural reaction though: people generally have difficulty with new things, and this goes doubly for critics with new approaches – you’ve developed a critical mind attuned to specific types of (game/film/music/literature/drama), so something that doesn’t fit your expectations is liable to throw you. It’s easiest to treat it as something you do understand, that’s gone wrong. Which is, in a way, reasonable: evolution is just mutation after all, and who likes mutants?
Of course, the trick is to treat change as the norm, and criticise things accordingly – which leads to the inverse form of criticism, where professionalism and reliability are thrown aside as less important than innovation. Which in itself is a problem, if it becomes the only form of criticism (a fear which clearly grips boatorious). Ideally, you have critics performing for both sides of the equation (and some straddling the two). At the moment, however, it seems that games journalism leans a little too much to the classical side of criticism.* As Guardian man was trying to point out.
*i.e. the form of criticism championed in the classical era, where works failing to correspond, relate or at least heavily refer to recognised genres (and, ideally, works) were critically lambasted or ignored. A form which, had it continued, would have insured that literature never strayed from the choices of epic, lyric, pastoral and elegiac poetry; tragic and comic plays; historiography and religious parables.
24/11/2008 at 00:34 Radiant says:
The golden rules:
All games start at 7 out of 10.
8 out of 10 if it’s an indie.
9 out of 10 if the publisher buys advertising.
10 out of 10 if your review comes out before anyone else’s.
24/11/2008 at 00:34 Andy`` says:
Occasionally I wonder whether the common review system needs more clarity, with regards to what a score means. Lets assume your standard star/% systems will still be here at the end of the century – though I do like the RPS verdicts, and the thought of a Rotten Tomatoes-style site for games…basically RPS verdicts on a bigger scale. Plenty of sites like to draw lines in the sand, aiming themselves at particular groups of people, and some even take on the harder division between being a buyer’s guide and being a critic’s guide (anybody know which Edge is supposed to be yet? Because I don’t). But when it all hits the likes of Metacritic and Gamerankings, while you get some averaging out in many cases, any supposed divide seems to be lost in the score merging.
What would be interesting to see, though might be more difficult to actually achieve, is the use of both a buyer’s score and a critical score. I’m not a reviewer so I might simply be clueless here, but at the moment it seems, if a single reviewer looks at a game in both ways they’re pretty likely to come up with two different scores, but if they want to approach their reviews in both a general and critical stance at the same time they need to come to some sort of middle ground, and either the impact of one view gets lost (I find it hard to see a game that’s generally quite good and enjoyable but critically quite bad [can that actually happen? Halo 2 maybe?] getting a straight 50%) or the resulting score doesn’t make much sense (aforementioned “Halo” getting 50%…)
I’m pretty sure I’m making scarringly horrible assumptions of what a heavily critical review entails though. But for those reviews which keep needing to justify the perfect scores they’re giving to games which obviously aren’t actually perfect games, being able to put that critical eye aside for the buyer’s guide dance but still having it handy afterwards could be a nice little breath of fresh air. It might also keep the angry men and women of the international computer network domain from whining about a review too much because it didn’t tear a game they thought was bad apart enough, or it didn’t praise a game they fell in love with enough even if it was flawed (because, in many cases, these people are thinking of a game from a particular viewpoint: strikingly available example, NMA).
Of course, this could just turn out to be really bad, and some reviewers just might end up slapping bandwagon scores on one of the score types, just so there’s something there (or to counter trolls by saying “we thought it was bad, but look, it was also good!”). This is all waffle, and the Rotten Tomatoes thought at the top was far better. But IANAR, I’m just a humble customer and while I feel cruel saying this…it’s not my job to work out the kinks in a review system.
Or is it?
In other news, PCs and Consoles and the games on PCs and Consoles have some great innovative ideas, but are very flawed. I recommend moving back to paper and yo-yos instead – you’re guaranteed a solid experience that’s fun if you don’t think too hard about it.
24/11/2008 at 00:36 Radiant says:
In regards to ME if they’d dispensed with the story and made it time trial only with user generated content it would have been phenomenal.
As it is?
7 out of 10.
24/11/2008 at 00:37 Radiant says:
7 out of 10 bananas obviously.
24/11/2008 at 03:42 Thaine says:
Dig the Guardian article. IGN is the worst possible example of games journalism though.
24/11/2008 at 04:17 Saflo says:
Their worst reviewer is that Alec Meer guy.
24/11/2008 at 04:27 N says:
Since when is “hipster” a slur?
24/11/2008 at 05:10 Elyscape says:
I disagree. Every game needs an elephant.
24/11/2008 at 07:29 Dinger says:
Mr. Stuart’s rant is a rite of passage; every few months a reviewer somewhere in the world feels the urge to go after the low-hanging fruit of game-review conventions. No single manifesto ever started a revolution.
Let’s look at his core thesis, without considering IGN or ME or anything else:
Of course they should, but they aren’t always capable, nor necessarily is their audience. Un chien Andalou caused riots when it opened. Show it to an average movie crowd today, and the most educated response you get will likely be “WTF does this have to do with Fight Club?”
On the other side of it, critics/reviewers are so tasked with having to differentiate a thousand iterations of fundamentally the same game that they fall back on the measurable (or quasi-measurable) criteria. We like measurable criteria. If you can feel every strand of hair on the bearskin rug, then that sex scene will be better than one where you can’t.
Innovation, however, is not convertible with excellence or interest. The job of the Avant-Garde is to find the path for the army, and avoid ambushes. Most of the time, it’ll be exploring dead ends. Sometimes it gets ambushed.
Finally, what of sequels? Unlike movies, where sequels are usally hackneyed bits of narrative exploiting the financial success of the original, in games, sequels often allow inexpensive recycling of code and content and iterative improvement of the experience. What’s so bad about that?
N: the 1990s.
24/11/2008 at 08:25 fort90 says:
if it were a movie, Mirror’s Edge would be critically lauded by the specialist film press
Um, what? I honestly think not. If anything, film critics would rip the inane and rather juvenile plot to shreds, which most game reviewers have been pretty kind about.
This is frustrating and I think it highlights one of the key issues of contemporary gaming – what exactly is a videogame and what are the fundamental elements every game must provide?
Sorry, but going with the “but what makes art, ART?!” stance to defend Mirror’s Edge is so absurd and such a cop-out that I’m literally beside myself.
24/11/2008 at 08:38 thefanciestofpants says:
NMA stuff just blows my mind. How can someone get their undies is so hardcore a twist over a sequel to a game you love. I’ve LOVED so many games that had shitty, shitty, shitty sequels, I don’t even know where to begin.
There’s a difference between informative critique and the frankly childish tantrum-throwing that goes on there on a daily basis.
IMO? How bout you get some talent together from your community and make a new chapter of Fallout yourselves? More productive then nonstop BAAAAAWWWW’ing for 4 years straight mmm?
24/11/2008 at 09:00 Meat Circus says:
@thefanciestofpants:
To be fair to Vince D. Weller, that’s exactly what he’s doing with Iron Tower Studio:
“The Age of Decadence is an isometric, turn-based, single-player 3D role-playing game set in a low magic, post-apocalyptic fantasy world, inspired by the fall of the Roman Empire. The game features a detailed skill-based character system, non-linear gameplay, multiple skill-based ways to handle quests, choices & consequences, and extensive dialogue trees.”
http://www.irontowerstudio.com/
i.e., Fallout in a low-fantasy setting.
I can’t wait for it, personally. I love seeing opinionated folk put their money where their mouth is. Turned out bloody well for Jonathan Blow, isn’t it.
24/11/2008 at 09:02 Gap Gen says:
I can see the point of the Guardian post – much as I liked Call of Duty 4, that’s not the only thing I want to be playing twenty years from now. So I tend to appreciate when people do new things, and don’t just lay down a deeper arse-groove. I appreciate the narrative twists in CoD4, but the gameplay is just a refined version of Doom.
It’s possible that sequels exist where the developer or director or author saw opportunities to extend their creative vision, or create what they first intended but didn’t have the resources. I think this is a compelling case in many games, where resources are limited and bugs and glitches are difficult to catch. Then again, I have more respect for people like Tim Schafer for doing something new and interesting every time, rather than listening to people on the internet asking for Psychonauts 2.
24/11/2008 at 09:51 Muzman says:
Ok, so I brought up rating numbers and it was always going to be downhill from there. Still the point generally from folks that game reviews are more consumer advice than criticism is one I think is true and something that I find a little disappointing. They could give Spore a 10 and I wouldn’t care; it has genuine ambition and scope (not that Ive played it to great length. It’s not the life/evolution game I was hoping it’d be). Bioshock’s 10s, bug me. We can go on about the symbolism of the number and whether I should ascribe it such power another time (ie; I shouldn’t). But it doesn’t do anything particularly spectacular or new, it just has high production values and that veneer of worthy and complex subject matter which can make everyone feel like they are a serious game fan, just like those ‘serious’ movies everyone feels better about themselves for liking. I’ll call this “Crash/Shawshank Redemption syndrome”.
And of course this a completely different thing from Halo3 getting tens.
The guy in the guardian, while annoyed about Mirror’s Edge not getting due consideration for its achievements, does just basically bring up the topic of how games ought to be measured I guess. That is a schizoid topic at best; polished games get criticised for being bland, innovators cop it for having not enough ‘depth’, deep games are frequently too complex and inaccessable, games with great stories aren’t fun enough, fun games lack substance, and Halo 3 gets tens! What the fuck is wrong with people?! I mean Jesus fucking christ!
(movies don’t really escape this sort of thing. Any review site you can name will have reams of people mad at some reviewer for being critical of (eg) some crappy comedy; the movie made them laugh, it has performed what they think is its function, ergo it should be rated accordingly not criticised for its acting, camerawork, directorial flair etc. There is a very strong push for movie reviews to also be consumer advice and for the art criticism side to stay in academia if it doesn’t like mainstream trash.)
24/11/2008 at 13:16 The Poisoned Sponge says:
@fort90 Umm.. I don’t think he was talking about the plot when he was saying that it would be hailed as innovative and excellent. The fact of the matter is that, concerning the actual game of Mirror’s Edge, it’s bloody well done, and rather brilliant. I think he’s saying that, were it a film, it would do something similarly innovative and brilliant, and would be lauded as such.
24/11/2008 at 16:25 Pags says:
@fort90: Literally beside yourself? Incredible.
Sorry, I can never help myself when people use literally as an intensifier.
24/11/2008 at 16:44 Meat Circus says:
Mirror’s Edge is clunky and frustrating. Innovation never makes up for a lack of attention to polish.
24/11/2008 at 17:40 Vriebert says:
You can’t properly critically analyse anything until everyone involved in its production is dead anyway. More buyers guides, please.
24/11/2008 at 17:58 AndrewC says:
Tomb Raider is far more clunky and frustration is all over games like Trails 2 or N+. It is a racer, not an adventure platformer – it is a very specific type of game that demands to be played in a specific kind of way. Now you could criticise it for not demonstrating clearly how it wants you to play, or criticise the PR for pretending it was a different type of game, but there is very little in the actual game that doesn’t work.
Plus all the frustration goes away once you get to the speed runs, which is where the meat and the real joy of the game is.
You can decide not to like the type of game it is, but you can’t criticise it for not being the type of game you want it to be. That would be like hating Gran Turismo 4 because you can’t get out and shoot people.
24/11/2008 at 18:56 Mo says:
I’ve played a good deal of the blockbuster games this season, and I have to say, Mirror’s Edge is the best game I’ve played in 2008. Gears of War 2 had more polish, World of Goo was far more charming, but ME dared to be different *and* pulled it off flawlessly.
Yes, flawlessly. Reading through the IGN review, it occurs to me that the reviewer missed the bloody point. The combat “lacks depth” because it’s secondary to the parkour elements. “Trial and error”? Well, yes it is, but why is this a bad thing? Surely there is fun to be had trying to pull off the perfect set of moves to get from point A to B? It’s short, but why does that matter?
The beauty of ME is that it introduces an innovative gameplay mechanism, iterates on it, and pulls it off perfectly. The up/down/turn control scheme is intuitive and elegant. The feel of controlling Faith is the best out there by far. In other words, it does what it does very well. But apparently, every game requires multiplayer, combat and a lengthy campaign.
24/11/2008 at 20:32 hydra9 says:
@Meat Circus:
Innovation can certainly make up for a lack of polish. So can story, atmosphere – anything that a game has enough of, and that makes it something special. However, all this is down to personal taste. There are certain games I love that are rough as hell round the edges, have clunky mechanics but do something really special that outweighs those flaws.
24/11/2008 at 22:44 Keith Stuart says:
AndrewC is absolutely spot-on about the article, which was written in a seven minute brain spasm one friday evening. I don’t think I meant it to be quite so upsetting, but then – in hindsight – I was always on to a loser criticising the nature of game journalism AND comparing games to movies. I may as well have thrown in a YouTube movie of me torturing kittens.
25/11/2008 at 01:15 Kadayi says:
@Kieron
Maybe a Wednesday evening special? Also it would be cool to see you and John in the forums some time.
25/11/2008 at 01:19 James T says:
It’s ‘Guardian’ by the way, Keith.
25/11/2008 at 01:26 Pags says:
@James T: Don’t be ludicrous. It’s ‘Grauniad’.
25/11/2008 at 01:53 James T says:
Ohh yeah… you’ll have to excuse me, I’m Aussie, my British is, uh… ‘well’… ‘Jackson’?
25/11/2008 at 05:58 qrter says:
I had to look this up, because I’ve seen references to the Grauniad many times before, never knew were it originated from:
“The nickname The Grauniad for the paper originated with the satirical magazine Private Eye. It came about because of its reputation for frequent and sometimes unintentionally amusing typographical errors, hence the popular myth that the paper once misspelled its own name on the page one masthead as The Gaurdian, though many recall the more inventive The Grauniad. The domain grauniad.co.uk is registered to the paper, and redirects to its website at guardian.co.uk.”
25/11/2008 at 07:46 Keith Stuart says:
Thanks James T – my spelling is as bad as my videogame criticism.
25/11/2008 at 09:31 Dinger says:
For quality criticism that generates internet traffic, at least every third article should be some sort of troll. This is known as the “Rock, Paper, Piracy” rule.