8/10?
September 20, 2015 1:56 PM Subscribe
The New Games Criticism - a response to Kieron Gillen's The New Games Journalism 10 years after the fact.
Mod note: Couple comments removed, maybe talk about what's in the link rather than kicking off yet another conversation about what isn't.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:51 PM on September 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:51 PM on September 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
Reviews should be objective and to the point - sum up why I should buy a game or not.
I'd find more interesting to have stats such as time played to the review, completion, previous experience within the genre or the series than to see a bunch of paragraphs going on how the game reminds him about, dunno, Kerouac because we're not uncultured swines.
I know recently EuroGamer (that IIRC was the first to champion NGJ) took out ratings from their reviews, but that is a complete cop-out, because their mostly very well written reviews often looked like they were topped off with a score decided with a three-sided dice with "6", "7" and "8". Hard to have any faith on when a game with no negative points are stressed gets a 7, but another game is peppered with bad comments and there's little to support the extra point it receives. Either the final score is a random number between 6 or 8, or there's an average the site has to keep in order to look credible (for instance, I once got shit because my average on RYM was too high, ignoring almost all stuff listed, I liked enough to buy before pulling the trigger).
I'm all for elevating the level of writing about games, but then maybe sites should start pushing for less focus on news and reviews, and more on exploring the personal side of the games, where all that can be used to great effect. In reviews, it's like wrapping a turd-looking chocolate in gold foil. It might be delicious and look like an expensive Swiss chocolate, but you know, I'm not putting it in my mouth.
posted by lmfsilva at 4:33 PM on September 20, 2015
I'd find more interesting to have stats such as time played to the review, completion, previous experience within the genre or the series than to see a bunch of paragraphs going on how the game reminds him about, dunno, Kerouac because we're not uncultured swines.
I know recently EuroGamer (that IIRC was the first to champion NGJ) took out ratings from their reviews, but that is a complete cop-out, because their mostly very well written reviews often looked like they were topped off with a score decided with a three-sided dice with "6", "7" and "8". Hard to have any faith on when a game with no negative points are stressed gets a 7, but another game is peppered with bad comments and there's little to support the extra point it receives. Either the final score is a random number between 6 or 8, or there's an average the site has to keep in order to look credible (for instance, I once got shit because my average on RYM was too high, ignoring almost all stuff listed, I liked enough to buy before pulling the trigger).
I'm all for elevating the level of writing about games, but then maybe sites should start pushing for less focus on news and reviews, and more on exploring the personal side of the games, where all that can be used to great effect. In reviews, it's like wrapping a turd-looking chocolate in gold foil. It might be delicious and look like an expensive Swiss chocolate, but you know, I'm not putting it in my mouth.
posted by lmfsilva at 4:33 PM on September 20, 2015
Reviews should be objective and to the point - sum up why I should buy a game or not.
I take it you don't read the book reviews in Sunday newspapers.
posted by GuyZero at 4:36 PM on September 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
I take it you don't read the book reviews in Sunday newspapers.
posted by GuyZero at 4:36 PM on September 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile at the Washington Post:
posted by GuyZero at 4:40 PM on September 20, 2015 [11 favorites]
There is a futile egotism to “Super Mario Maker,” a piece of software that caters to delusory belief that enthusiasm and creativity are interchangeable, that being a fan of something can, if practiced with enough care, create an equivalent of the work to which one’s fandom is fixated.Jesus, this guy hates exploratory learning. What's he like at dinner parties? "Well, this roast is awful. Your enthusiasm is no substitute for your complete lack of skill."
posted by GuyZero at 4:40 PM on September 20, 2015 [11 favorites]
No, so really not getting your point, either.
Most published book reviews also do not simply tell you whether you should buy the book or not. They typically discuss the themes of the book and sometimes bring in themes from a couple different books that touch on the same subjects. Some book reviews even refute the thesis presented in the book.
In short, a "review" is not always an Amazon review (3.4 stars, mashes potatoes adequately, comfortable handle) and that's a good thing.
posted by GuyZero at 4:42 PM on September 20, 2015 [21 favorites]
Most published book reviews also do not simply tell you whether you should buy the book or not. They typically discuss the themes of the book and sometimes bring in themes from a couple different books that touch on the same subjects. Some book reviews even refute the thesis presented in the book.
In short, a "review" is not always an Amazon review (3.4 stars, mashes potatoes adequately, comfortable handle) and that's a good thing.
posted by GuyZero at 4:42 PM on September 20, 2015 [21 favorites]
I basically like what this guy is saying and strongly agree with the postscript, but this...
They recognise, however, that the torturous jargon of the academic serves no purpose other than the self-serving perpetuation of the academic model itself.
Does not go well with this:
The critic is willing to push criticism forward against dull objections that it is “pseudo-intellectual”: they are willing to shape an approach to deal with the most fascinating and dynamic creative form yet to have existed.
If you're gonna push a manifesto like this, you really should be able to admit that just as your ideal form of game criticism will produce complex critical pieces that will be attacked as wilfully obscure by those unwilling to do the thinking, the same is true of other forms of criticism. It's pretty janky (technical term) to denounce earlier practitioners of complex forms as "torturous" and "self-serving" while declaring in advance that similar objections to the work you plan to do will be "dull" (and by implication anti-intellectual).
posted by No-sword at 4:53 PM on September 20, 2015 [7 favorites]
They recognise, however, that the torturous jargon of the academic serves no purpose other than the self-serving perpetuation of the academic model itself.
Does not go well with this:
The critic is willing to push criticism forward against dull objections that it is “pseudo-intellectual”: they are willing to shape an approach to deal with the most fascinating and dynamic creative form yet to have existed.
If you're gonna push a manifesto like this, you really should be able to admit that just as your ideal form of game criticism will produce complex critical pieces that will be attacked as wilfully obscure by those unwilling to do the thinking, the same is true of other forms of criticism. It's pretty janky (technical term) to denounce earlier practitioners of complex forms as "torturous" and "self-serving" while declaring in advance that similar objections to the work you plan to do will be "dull" (and by implication anti-intellectual).
posted by No-sword at 4:53 PM on September 20, 2015 [7 favorites]
Reviews should be objective and to the point - sum up why I should buy a game or not.
This seems tricky at best. Metal Gear Solid 5. Fun game, decent number of elements which would rightfully put off some people. Are you the sort of person which can look past that? Well, that's hardly objective now then, isn't it.
More directly to the point of the linked article, it's interesting who specifically he's calling up throughout it. Rami Ismail, Terry Cavanaugh, etc. They're definitely playing with what games-as-medium can be, but they're also playing with very specific clusters of elements.
They aren't making Gone Home, for example, which explores what game-as-medium can be in a very different direction. Which, of course, is no knock against them, as there's many different directions people can explore this space within.
There's definitely room for "Given what game X set out to do, and within the context of genre Y, does it succeed?", but even then there's still a lot of subjective space there. I thought that, within the context of multiplayer FPS games, Titanfall was brilliant and how it explored movement is going to show up in games in that genre for years to come. Shadow of Mordor's Nemesis System was great and something I hope many more games borrow. At the same time, it's probably a game I would recommend as an on-sale game. Worth playing, but not great, per se. And my relative ratings of games is entirely influenced by what I've been playing recently and just how large my Steam library backlog grows.
That last point seems particularly relevant here, as there's been a lot of words lately over the new Mad Max game. Some critics loved it, some critics felt that it was serviceable but didn't do anything newly interesting, fans lambasted the latter for being obviously biased that it was being compared to the movie. I've seen some points made about how, for a reviewer that has to churn through a lot of similar open-world paint-by-numbers Assassin's Creed/Batman/Shadow-of-Mordor games, the similarities become more noticeable and "Why should I recommend *this* over many other games who do the same thing?" becomes a more valuable question. Whereas if someone's only buying and playing one of these games every couple of years, it's perfectly fine at what it does.
So tell me. What's the objective quality of Gone Home, without any personal engagement? Would the objective score for Mad Max be the same for someone who plays many games of its subgenre vs. someone who doesn't play many vs. someone who dislikes the genre?
posted by CrystalDave at 4:57 PM on September 20, 2015 [11 favorites]
This seems tricky at best. Metal Gear Solid 5. Fun game, decent number of elements which would rightfully put off some people. Are you the sort of person which can look past that? Well, that's hardly objective now then, isn't it.
More directly to the point of the linked article, it's interesting who specifically he's calling up throughout it. Rami Ismail, Terry Cavanaugh, etc. They're definitely playing with what games-as-medium can be, but they're also playing with very specific clusters of elements.
They aren't making Gone Home, for example, which explores what game-as-medium can be in a very different direction. Which, of course, is no knock against them, as there's many different directions people can explore this space within.
There's definitely room for "Given what game X set out to do, and within the context of genre Y, does it succeed?", but even then there's still a lot of subjective space there. I thought that, within the context of multiplayer FPS games, Titanfall was brilliant and how it explored movement is going to show up in games in that genre for years to come. Shadow of Mordor's Nemesis System was great and something I hope many more games borrow. At the same time, it's probably a game I would recommend as an on-sale game. Worth playing, but not great, per se. And my relative ratings of games is entirely influenced by what I've been playing recently and just how large my Steam library backlog grows.
That last point seems particularly relevant here, as there's been a lot of words lately over the new Mad Max game. Some critics loved it, some critics felt that it was serviceable but didn't do anything newly interesting, fans lambasted the latter for being obviously biased that it was being compared to the movie. I've seen some points made about how, for a reviewer that has to churn through a lot of similar open-world paint-by-numbers Assassin's Creed/Batman/Shadow-of-Mordor games, the similarities become more noticeable and "Why should I recommend *this* over many other games who do the same thing?" becomes a more valuable question. Whereas if someone's only buying and playing one of these games every couple of years, it's perfectly fine at what it does.
So tell me. What's the objective quality of Gone Home, without any personal engagement? Would the objective score for Mad Max be the same for someone who plays many games of its subgenre vs. someone who doesn't play many vs. someone who dislikes the genre?
posted by CrystalDave at 4:57 PM on September 20, 2015 [11 favorites]
Wish I could favorite No-sword's comment a million times. I'm on the author's side here and would love a games criticism that goes beyond the popular consumer-review model, but why hate on academics? There's a level of exactitude and rigor in academic work that a more personal mainstream criticism doesn't require, sure, but the same anti-intellectual impulse that insists that we only talk about games in terms of money and fun units is the one that says the technical language of scholarly criticism exists only to further the edifices of academia.
posted by thetortoise at 5:34 PM on September 20, 2015
posted by thetortoise at 5:34 PM on September 20, 2015
Reviews should be objective and to the point - sum up why I should buy a game or not.
I'd find more interesting to have stats such as time played to the review, completion, previous experience within the genre or the series than to see a bunch of paragraphs going on how the game reminds him about, dunno, Kerouac because we're not uncultured swines.
You're in luck. The internet is filled with those sorts of reviews. But there's certainly room for game criticism that has more in common with film or literary criticism than with the kind of "objective consumer advocacy" that #GamerGate seems to admire so much.
posted by brundlefly at 6:03 PM on September 20, 2015
I'd find more interesting to have stats such as time played to the review, completion, previous experience within the genre or the series than to see a bunch of paragraphs going on how the game reminds him about, dunno, Kerouac because we're not uncultured swines.
You're in luck. The internet is filled with those sorts of reviews. But there's certainly room for game criticism that has more in common with film or literary criticism than with the kind of "objective consumer advocacy" that #GamerGate seems to admire so much.
posted by brundlefly at 6:03 PM on September 20, 2015
Reviews should be objective and to the point - sum up why I should buy a game or not.
The author agrees with you:
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:28 PM on September 20, 2015
The author agrees with you:
Having the primary purpose of interrogating the act of purchasing the gameOr not:
The New Games Critic will resist the primacy of any single element when constructing their response; they will work to achieve a harmonious balance.It gets a bit more muddled from there.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:28 PM on September 20, 2015
Yeah, this author doesn't seem to have any idea what he's saying, and certainly didn't decide on any particular idea before starting to write.
posted by IAmUnaware at 6:34 PM on September 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by IAmUnaware at 6:34 PM on September 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
They typically discuss the themes of the book and sometimes bring in themes from a couple different books that touch on the same subjects. Some book reviews even refute the thesis presented in the book.
But those things happened long before NGJ was even a thing. Most of the gaming press I recall as a kid was based on feature comparison with other games in the same genre or similar theme or mechanics and referencing pop culture. The only difference was the style, closest to playground arguments than something you'd see on a book.
On preview: Attention I'm not saying reviews should be a bullet point shopping guide, and pushing towards a deeper analysis is actually part of what would make reviews back to some usefulness in the time of Let's Play videos. But I'm not sure hearing how the reviewer felt personally about the game helps. The reviewer is one person, I'm very likely one completely different. Liking games might be all we have in common... and I even don't like games that much these days.
Ultimately, my point is that NGJ is perfect for in-depth, "post-mortem" deep analysis of a game, which is something that lacked around the time I stopped giving two figs about reading the vg press. Not exactly for week-of-release reviews, and it's not like subjective opinion is absent (I mean, it's a review and therefore subjective in nature, not timing the 100m dash), so clarity should take precedence.
posted by lmfsilva at 6:40 PM on September 20, 2015
But those things happened long before NGJ was even a thing. Most of the gaming press I recall as a kid was based on feature comparison with other games in the same genre or similar theme or mechanics and referencing pop culture. The only difference was the style, closest to playground arguments than something you'd see on a book.
On preview: Attention I'm not saying reviews should be a bullet point shopping guide, and pushing towards a deeper analysis is actually part of what would make reviews back to some usefulness in the time of Let's Play videos. But I'm not sure hearing how the reviewer felt personally about the game helps. The reviewer is one person, I'm very likely one completely different. Liking games might be all we have in common... and I even don't like games that much these days.
Ultimately, my point is that NGJ is perfect for in-depth, "post-mortem" deep analysis of a game, which is something that lacked around the time I stopped giving two figs about reading the vg press. Not exactly for week-of-release reviews, and it's not like subjective opinion is absent (I mean, it's a review and therefore subjective in nature, not timing the 100m dash), so clarity should take precedence.
posted by lmfsilva at 6:40 PM on September 20, 2015
But I'm not sure hearing how the reviewer felt personally about the game helps.
For me, I find it really useful in reviews (of games, of films, of music, etc) to hear how the reviewer felt personally along with an explanation of why they felt that way, what their media/critical context is, etc. Like, "I thought this was a good game, I liked it, buy it" is hardly useful, but "I liked x about the game because it accomplishes y for me, and I value y a lot because I get z out of it; this is why I so enjoyed Games B and C, and why I was disappointed with the otherwise interesting D, and..."
Basically, a personal perspective put into context (and regular reading of the same reviewer can help there a lot) can be a really useful addition to a more academic or structural review of a piece of media. Subjectivity isn't bad, at all; I think it's more or less vital for media criticism. It's just not the whole of the thing.
See e.g. Roger Ebert, who brought a great deal of personal preference and perspective to his movie reviews; he didn't start and stop with "I liked/didn't like this", at all, but a huge part of the appeal of his film writing was the way in which he explained how and why and what he liked independent of more objective matters. Even his reviews that I totally disagreed with I tended to enjoy and get use out of because he talked about why he felt the way he did.
posted by cortex at 6:46 PM on September 20, 2015 [16 favorites]
For me, I find it really useful in reviews (of games, of films, of music, etc) to hear how the reviewer felt personally along with an explanation of why they felt that way, what their media/critical context is, etc. Like, "I thought this was a good game, I liked it, buy it" is hardly useful, but "I liked x about the game because it accomplishes y for me, and I value y a lot because I get z out of it; this is why I so enjoyed Games B and C, and why I was disappointed with the otherwise interesting D, and..."
Basically, a personal perspective put into context (and regular reading of the same reviewer can help there a lot) can be a really useful addition to a more academic or structural review of a piece of media. Subjectivity isn't bad, at all; I think it's more or less vital for media criticism. It's just not the whole of the thing.
See e.g. Roger Ebert, who brought a great deal of personal preference and perspective to his movie reviews; he didn't start and stop with "I liked/didn't like this", at all, but a huge part of the appeal of his film writing was the way in which he explained how and why and what he liked independent of more objective matters. Even his reviews that I totally disagreed with I tended to enjoy and get use out of because he talked about why he felt the way he did.
posted by cortex at 6:46 PM on September 20, 2015 [16 favorites]
Very good point, Cortex, but my experience with NGJ was that more often than not, the opinions were underdeveloped or just muddled. Not everyone can do that well (particularly on tight schedules), and when it's not good, it's a mess of ideas thrown in the air and left to the reader to decipher.
This is why I'm all in for post-mortem reviews, when there's a lot more time to digest things.
(also: I love reviews I necessarily don't agree with, but made me question my own opinion)
posted by lmfsilva at 7:14 PM on September 20, 2015
This is why I'm all in for post-mortem reviews, when there's a lot more time to digest things.
(also: I love reviews I necessarily don't agree with, but made me question my own opinion)
posted by lmfsilva at 7:14 PM on September 20, 2015
"Reviews should be objective!"
"Well, that's your opinion."
posted by fallingbadgers at 8:19 PM on September 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Well, that's your opinion."
posted by fallingbadgers at 8:19 PM on September 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
But I'm not sure hearing how the reviewer felt personally about the game helps.
Much maligned as something like Metacritic is, if you read enough of the reviews, and can intuit what the scores are likely to mean to you personally, then, in tandem with Let's Play videos, and the opinions of trusted friends, that's really all the information anyone should need to determine if they should buy and play a game or not.
The idea of "objectivity" of any kind in reviewing art and entertainment is a thorny one - there are certainly many technical points a reviewer can address that have some sort of objective truth to them. Bugginess, crippling DRM or install issues or an unplayably low frame rate would probably count, and should probably be mentioned in reviews. But even things like repetitive gameplay and badly tuned difficulty curves, while being technically analyzable things, can sometimes work well within the framework of a particular game, so it's hard to make a case for what aspects of a game can be objectively assessed.
There's no real way that I can see that someone can decide for you what you should or shouldn't buy, and wouldn't or would enjoy. You know your own taste and previous experiences with games better than anyone else, and everyone still has to do their own work to decide what types of game they're likely to like, what publishers and designers and studios put out games they enjoy, what aspects of games and gaming are most critical to them for enjoyment, etc, etc - and a big part of this is finding reviewers that are on the same wavelength they are. No one review can or should do this for all people. If personal opinions don't help you, don't discount that getting a wide range of personal opinions might be critical for someone else in assessing art and entertainment. It's a deeply personal, and also deeply social, thing.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 8:56 PM on September 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
Much maligned as something like Metacritic is, if you read enough of the reviews, and can intuit what the scores are likely to mean to you personally, then, in tandem with Let's Play videos, and the opinions of trusted friends, that's really all the information anyone should need to determine if they should buy and play a game or not.
The idea of "objectivity" of any kind in reviewing art and entertainment is a thorny one - there are certainly many technical points a reviewer can address that have some sort of objective truth to them. Bugginess, crippling DRM or install issues or an unplayably low frame rate would probably count, and should probably be mentioned in reviews. But even things like repetitive gameplay and badly tuned difficulty curves, while being technically analyzable things, can sometimes work well within the framework of a particular game, so it's hard to make a case for what aspects of a game can be objectively assessed.
There's no real way that I can see that someone can decide for you what you should or shouldn't buy, and wouldn't or would enjoy. You know your own taste and previous experiences with games better than anyone else, and everyone still has to do their own work to decide what types of game they're likely to like, what publishers and designers and studios put out games they enjoy, what aspects of games and gaming are most critical to them for enjoyment, etc, etc - and a big part of this is finding reviewers that are on the same wavelength they are. No one review can or should do this for all people. If personal opinions don't help you, don't discount that getting a wide range of personal opinions might be critical for someone else in assessing art and entertainment. It's a deeply personal, and also deeply social, thing.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 8:56 PM on September 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not really sure what the linked essay is saying, other than it doesn't like the idea that everything is subjective. Well.. I think there's a point there, in that if we establish our parameters carefully enough we can sort of determine an "objective" truth. That is, if I say a game is fun for me in direct proportion to the number of crates you get to smash, and then claim that I find tetris really fun, you can argue either I don't know what a crate is, or my definition of fun is at odds with my own perception.
I don't know that Gillen was utterly rejecting the idea of correct and incorrect opinions, only correctly pointing out that striving for pure objectivity is absurd, and not something anyone can accomplish. It would help if the response essay approached coherence in it's criticism, rather than touching on a grab bag of topics (I mean, I'm glad you disagree with Jenn Frank, but what's that got to do with anything?)
posted by Cannon Fodder at 12:20 AM on September 21, 2015
I don't know that Gillen was utterly rejecting the idea of correct and incorrect opinions, only correctly pointing out that striving for pure objectivity is absurd, and not something anyone can accomplish. It would help if the response essay approached coherence in it's criticism, rather than touching on a grab bag of topics (I mean, I'm glad you disagree with Jenn Frank, but what's that got to do with anything?)
posted by Cannon Fodder at 12:20 AM on September 21, 2015
To point out the big glaring elephant in the room, the reason games dialogue is in a poor state is not the "deification of the subjective." I think the apolitical nature of the manifesto is meant to make it more durable, but this renders it shapeless and already an antique. This is why you write a manifesto: to engage politically, to take sides, to stake a claim on the new, to fight. The fact that he doesn't talk directly about the silencing of gaming and games criticism's most important voices, let alone propose a solution, sympathy or not, and keeps his sights on the legacy of New Games Journalism instead... well, it makes me just want to spend more time with Offworld and Leigh Alexander and Porpentine, where art is happening and the stakes are real.
posted by thetortoise at 12:59 AM on September 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by thetortoise at 12:59 AM on September 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Subjectivity in game reviews can be a thing of sheerest beauty.
posted by frimble at 3:41 AM on September 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by frimble at 3:41 AM on September 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
Reviews should be objective and to the point
For the aforementioned potato masher? Sure, go for it -- you can objectively quantify whether the product worked, whether it was comfortable to use, whether it was of good quality and didn't break, etc. But for creative works, there's no such thing as "objective". Any review that claims to be objective is ignoring the fact that such objectivity could only truly exist if the writer's unstated biases about who plays games and why they play games were true of all gamers.
Over in the real world, though, an "objective" creative work is much like a "non political" creative work -- not at all objective, and not at all apolitical, since their very attempt to be so aligns them with the assumed status quo.
posted by tocts at 5:48 AM on September 21, 2015
For the aforementioned potato masher? Sure, go for it -- you can objectively quantify whether the product worked, whether it was comfortable to use, whether it was of good quality and didn't break, etc. But for creative works, there's no such thing as "objective". Any review that claims to be objective is ignoring the fact that such objectivity could only truly exist if the writer's unstated biases about who plays games and why they play games were true of all gamers.
Over in the real world, though, an "objective" creative work is much like a "non political" creative work -- not at all objective, and not at all apolitical, since their very attempt to be so aligns them with the assumed status quo.
posted by tocts at 5:48 AM on September 21, 2015
Reviews should be objective and to the point - sum up why I should buy a game or not.
There's definitely room for "Given what game X set out to do, and within the context of genre Y, does it succeed?", but even then there's still a lot of subjective space there. I thought that, within the context of multiplayer FPS games, Titanfall was brilliant and how it explored movement is going to show up in games in that genre for years to come.
Relevant.
posted by NMcCoy at 1:23 PM on September 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
There's definitely room for "Given what game X set out to do, and within the context of genre Y, does it succeed?", but even then there's still a lot of subjective space there. I thought that, within the context of multiplayer FPS games, Titanfall was brilliant and how it explored movement is going to show up in games in that genre for years to come.
Relevant.
posted by NMcCoy at 1:23 PM on September 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
« Older Fun math for kids | Grab the smelling salts Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:51 PM on September 20, 2015 [1 favorite]