Do You Have Any Unpopular Gaming Opinions?

[irixith]

So far the video game review standard is "I'd rather eat the rotten asshole of a roadkill skunk than play this game".

I'm not sure I care if a reviewer can jump out of their skin and look objectively from opposing viewpoints. When I look at a review, regardless of the medium, I'm looking for a few core things: How does it play? Is it fun? How long is it? Once the basics are answered, I'm looking for the reviewers personal take. I don't want the reviewer to imagine how I might like it, I just want them to tell me openly and honestly what they think of it.

Edit: Page 100, YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

Man, we have a lot of "unpopular" opinions here.

[Krejlooc]

Similarly, if all I'm doing is giving my opinion on why I enjoyed something, I feel like I can't really ever be wrong, you know?

That's a big thing about writing a review; being able to jump out of your skin and see things from other viewpoints. Yet, every reviewer should have certain standards that they stick by and tell the audience why those ground rules apply. There should always be an x to y comparison that is logical. In movies the standard is "Would I rather watch this movie or watch the actors have dinner together?". So far the video game review standard is "I'd rather eat the rotten asshole of a roadkill skunk than play this game".

It also comes down to what you want from a review. If you're looking for a buyer's guide review, then logical comparisons are warranted. Most mainstream reviews are intended to be a buyers guide review.

If you're looking for an analytical critique like something that would come from Cashiers Du Cinema, for example, then you'll rarely see measured comparisons to other films. Perhaps contrasts, like "Citizen Kane popularized Deep focus, which requires a brighter mise-en-scene compared to a film that highlights shallow focus, like Rules of the Game" but never something like "Citizen Kane is better than Rules of the Game because it uses Deep Focus." I personally prefer that sort of review over a buyer's guide sort of review, because I feel I've cultured my taste to the extent that I can find what I'm interested in through interpersonal interaction on forums like this without having somebody dictate to me the "best games ever" or whatever. In short, I put more weight on the opinions of people I have at least a tenuous relationship with (like you guys on this forum) over a faceless author speaking at me, not to me.

FWIW, I do believe there is a gaming equivalent of Cashiers du Cinema, though -- Gamasutra. Terrific, technical website whose post-mortems and "reviews" rarely fall into rote hierarchical listings.

[dunpeal2064]

I'd say I agree for the most part that I want the reviewer to focus on why they like the game, instead of telling me what they think I would like about it. However, with this review style, there is always a point where I think, "Okay, this person obviously loves this game, but is it actually good, or does it just hit a random sweet spot for them"

At that point I think some perspective change helps. If you can't find anything to dislike about a game, maybe try to decide what others might not like about it. I'm more likely to check out a game after watching/reading a review that actually covers flaws as opposed to a review that amounts to, "Man, I love this game, its awesome"

At the same time, if the reviewer just focuses on what others might think of the game, I am more likely to think the reviewer has barely/never played the game, and is just telliing me what other reviewers have already spouted off about the game.

So, I guess its about finding that perfect balance, which I have a very hard time doing when trying to write mini reviews.

[ZeroAX]

For all the amazing games Miyamoto made till 2006/7, his refusal to make anything new since then (or allow anyone else to do so for that matter) has turned Nintendo into this soulless zombie of the company that it used to be.

[Krejlooc]

If you can't find anything to dislike about a game, maybe try to decide what others might not like about it.

I disagree, because at that point you're not writing what you know. If you can't find anything to dislike about the game, you should make that point clear and hope that your analysis has provided the reader with enough context to know if what you value lines up with what he values. Then it's up to the reader to figure out whether or not he agrees or disagrees.

I feel like writing to a supposed standard is self-deterministic. Obviously, I understand that's not your point and I'm taking this in a slippery slope direction, but it does potentially lead to head-scratching cases like the infamous Game Informer review of paper mario 2 where they gave the game a glowing write up, then awarded it a 6 because they felt gamers would find the game childish.

Of course, I don't particularly believe in review scores either

[dunpeal2064]

If you can't find anything to dislike about a game, maybe try to decide what others might not like about it.

I disagree, because at that point you're not writing what you know. If you can't find anything to dislike about the game, you should make that point clear and hope that your analysis has provided the reader with enough context to know if what you value lines up with what he values. Then it's up to the reader to figure out whether or not he agrees or disagrees.

Well, I can see that, but at the same time, I don't see anything wrong with, for example, "I really enjoyed the item synthesis in Star Ocean, but it is fairly deep, and might not be to everyone's taste. However, whether or not you are into item synthesis, the game is still an enjoyable experience". It seems like, if I only ranted about the synthesis, readers might not get that the game is enjoyable without it, and might think that, because they won't like the synthesis as much as I do, that they might not like the game at all.

I mean... I get what you are saying, the reviewer should be able to come to this conclusion on their own... and I guess I never really think about that.

I'm learning a lot from this discussion so far.

[Krejlooc]

If you can't find anything to dislike about a game, maybe try to decide what others might not like about it.

I disagree, because at that point you're not writing what you know. If you can't find anything to dislike about the game, you should make that point clear and hope that your analysis has provided the reader with enough context to know if what you value lines up with what he values. Then it's up to the reader to figure out whether or not he agrees or disagrees.

Well, I can see that, but at the same time, I don't see anything wrong with, for example, "I really enjoyed the item synthesis in Star Ocean, but it is fairly deep, and might not be to everyone's taste".

I mean... I get what you are saying, the reviewer should be able to come to this conclusion on their own... and I guess I never really think about that.

I'm learning a lot from this discussion so far.

Oh I agree with that, but that should be a part of the dialog you have during your review. I'm mainly speaking in terms of extremes and absolutes. I've seen people strive to be objective by inventing issues they never encountered because they expect others to encounter them. Like, as a made up example, say I found Sonic Generations to be the perfect game, absolutely flawless. And I wrote a glowing review that pointed out not a single fault. And then, in pursuit of objectiveness and even-mindedness, I start going off about how the visuals are so colorful that it'll cause people to squint at their TV screens. Stuff like that.

Clearly it's a silly, exaggerated example, but it's the sort of stuff I've seen in professional reviews. I think simple humility is the best way to approach a review. I don't necessarily respect anybody's opinion over someone else's just because they write for a big publication, for example. Nor do I discount them. I don't need my opinion to be absolute or shared by everybody. I'd rather write what I actually feel, and let those who tend to agree with me follow my opinion. Everybody is free to disagree, and my writing should help them recognize my values so they can easily identify if they agree or disagree with me.

[dunpeal2064]

Oh I agree with that, but that should be a part of the dialog you have during your review. I'm mainly speaking in terms of extremes and absolutes. I've seen people strive to be objective by inventing issues they never encountered because they expect others to encounter them. Like, as a made up example, say I found Sonic Generations to be the perfect game, absolutely flawless. And I wrote a glowing review that pointed out not a single fault. And then, in pursuit of objectiveness and even-mindedness, I start going off about how the visuals are so colorful that it'll cause people to squint at their TV screens. Stuff like that.

Okay yeah, that would just be silly. Making up reasons that you think someone would encounter would be bad, but there are a lot of occasions where I am playing a game, and it just really catches me, so I am so into it that I enjoy every aspect of it. However, in similar games that didn't draw me in so much, I may have not enjoyed an aspect shared between both games as much in the game that didnt draw me in, so I might point that out.

For example, I love the world in Xenoblade, so I have enjoyed doing the 300+ quests so far, but in most cases, doing that many quests would be overwhelming, so I would try to get that point across.

Does this seem okay, or should I let the viewer decide that and just go full "Woo, I love this game, here is everything I love about it" and let the viewer decide what they will and will not like about the game?

[Krejlooc]

Oh I agree with that, but that should be a part of the dialog you have during your review. I'm mainly speaking in terms of extremes and absolutes. I've seen people strive to be objective by inventing issues they never encountered because they expect others to encounter them. Like, as a made up example, say I found Sonic Generations to be the perfect game, absolutely flawless. And I wrote a glowing review that pointed out not a single fault. And then, in pursuit of objectiveness and even-mindedness, I start going off about how the visuals are so colorful that it'll cause people to squint at their TV screens. Stuff like that.

Okay yeah, that would just be silly. Making up reasons that you think someone would encounter would be bad, but there are a lot of occasions where I am playing a game, and it just really catches me, so I am so into it that I enjoy every aspect of it. However, in similar games that didn't draw me in so much, I may have not enjoyed an aspect shared between both games as much in the game that didnt draw me in, so I might point that out.

For example, I love the world in Xenoblade, so I have enjoyed doing the 300+ quests so far, but in most cases, doing that many quests would be overwhelming, so I would try to get that point across.

Does this seem okay, or should I let the viewer decide that and just go full "Woo, I love this game, here is everything I love about it" and let the viewer decide what they will and will not like about the game?

I tend to have that problem of being very afterglowy after playing a game as well. The optimal solution is to simply give yourself a cooldown period after playing before putting your words on paper, but in big name reviews, that's often not possible because the name of the game is getting reviews out as soon as possible, as quickly as possible.

I like to be methodical in just about everything I do, however. It's a personality quirk. I need to meditate on my views on just about anything for a few weeks before actually putting my stuff down on paper. I'll go over and phrase how I want to describe parts of the game or system or experience for days in my mind before putting down a first draft.

[Menegrothx]

That is every game "reviewer" in a nut shell.

Post: Here's our review of the top 10 worst NES games.

Comment: You didn't review the games, you just showed screen shots and shouted "this sucks" .

Post: F--k off. If you don't like our reviews don't watch them.

Reminds me of the people on Nostalgia Critic's site (channel awesome?). Bunch of incredible hypocrites. First they decide to become e-famous by criticizing movies and TV shows on the internet. Fair enough. Then they turn it into a giant inside joke circle jerk where each episode has to include a lot of really bad acting, unfunny jokes, needless cameos between all the different characters of that site and completely irrelevant storylines that add nothing to the actual review. Then they decide to make some movies that are based on those characters. And when you criticize them for their bad acting, unfunny jokes, bad scripts, completely redundant scenes (the things they complain about in their reviews) and all the other BS that has nothing to do with the movie that's being reviewed, they throw a hissy fit, call you a troll, ban you from the forums/delete your comment, go on a tirade how no one is forcing you to watch their stuff etc. Naturally they themselves are actually being forced to watch the movies they review. Like that guy Phelous who starts every single video of his by doing some boring, prolonged intro where he's conveying with incredibly bad and exaggerated "acting" how he REALLY does not want to watch that horrible movie he's about to review.

I still don't get it how a reasonably smart and funny guy like Spoony can think that he is actually being funny or making his reviews more watchable by poorly acting unfunny characters like Dr Insano and pretending to be a homeless bum. You're a grown man, even a 15 year old would feel embaressed by doing something so incredibly stupid. I can't even fathom how god awful all the other guys on that site must be.