The Plight of the Game Critic
As many know, I write game reviews for this site and that technically means I am a professional game critic though I don't often feel like it. I always knew critics had it hard, after all, film critics have been ignored for decades now. I admit I've even engaged in my fair share of “Game critics don't know what they're talking about” rants when a mediocre game scores high and gets universal praise. I knew it wasn't easy to be a game critic, but I've been reviewing games for years now and I've noticed a few things: if you have a strong opinion on a game, you're wrong; if you give a game a low score, you're a hater; if you praise a game you're either a fanboy or were paid. The only way to be a successful game critic is to be as neutral as you can, and don't you dare give it anything more than an 8 or less than a 7, or fear the wrath of the internet!
One of the first reviews I did for the site was Dissidia 012 Duodecim Final Fantasy. In spite of the high score, I have a confession: I didn't like it. I don't want to explain why, but mostly it just wasn't for me. In spite of that, I was still able to give it a very fair and balanced review, I was able to comment on all the key aspects and explain why it's good or bad without letting my own tastes get in the way of a fair and honest score. I pride myself on my ability to separate objectivity from subjectivity and I feel this was a damn good example of me being fair and not letting my bias effect a game review.
Skip forward to another review of mine: inFamous 2. I ended up giving this game an 8.9 out of ten, praising the game's moral choice system, fantastic gameplay, engaging story and characters, and the amazing improvement on the presentation (graphics, sound) over the first one, but I opted to not give it a 9/10 (a score reserved for truly exemplary games, I avoid scores like this as often as I can) because it did have some glitches in both gameplay and presentation. While I enjoyed it thoroughly, it had its flaws that kept it from greatness.
I was lucky this time around, and I got endless praise for my fair review. I had responses claiming it was one of the most fair reviews and scores they'd ever seen. But don't put your faith in my words, go check out the responses for yourself: http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/review/39923/infamous-2/
“Now thats how you write a review. I know a few review sites that should take notes. By the way this game is currently my GOTY and if Skyrim, Resistance 3 and UC3 wern't out this November it probably would stay my GOTY”
Some disagreed with me and felt it should be higher, but the overall feeling was that it was well written and that I was right. Thank you for that, it's nice to be appreciated.
Then I got my next game to review: Duke Nukem Forever. I felt this was a perfect test to show how impartial I was and how I could be a fair judge of a game without letting 12 years of expectations effect my score. The truth was that I had no expectations, really. Unlike most people who thought that 12 years to make a game would result in the next coming of christ, I knew it actually meant it was plagued with issues and is likely to be mediocre at best, so my expectations were neutral and I felt I was able to review it fairly.
I don't want to explain the review here, but the fact of the matter is that Duke Nukem Forever is a bad game. It's not bad because it's storied history made me expect more (it didn't), it was bad because it was poorly made and filled with gameplay and presentation issues. It was poorly made in practically every way, yet almost every response to that review was that I was just jumping on the bandwagon or that I was trashing it for fun. I assure you, I am the last person who WANTS to hate something, in fact I often go out of my way to find something good about a game or movie to praise because I dislike negativity. The bottom line, however, was that it was a poorly made game and no amount of excuses will change that.
My frustrations have been at their worst regarding Final Fantasy XIII. It's no secret I hate that game, but the reaction to my criticisms has been quite funny. Either people are agreeing with me or claiming I'm grasping at straws and nitpicking. Something people need to understand is the chain of causality: I don't find all these things to nitpick because I hated the game, I hated the game because of all these issues I criticize. In fact, I quit playing the game no less than a half dozen times because of the issues that I've been complaining about but kept forcing myself to continue for two reasons: 1 – I love final fantasy and I'm willing to give the series the benefit of the doubt; and 2 – I heard it got better later. The fact of the matter is that I wanted to like it, and I did everything I could to give it every chance I could but in the end it was a frustrating exercise in patience, not an enjoyable game.
I admit I didn't like the plot, characters, graphics, or soundtrack, but that has little to do with my underlying hatred for the game. I can get past games that are uninteresting to look at, and I come from an era where “bowser stole the princess, get her” was all the plot I needed to motivate me. The problem that I had was that the gameplay was flawed, but the responses to that were broken up into two categories: those who agreed with me and those who think I'm just a hater, looking for reasons to hate the game, just like the other reviews.
This frustrates me because frankly I'm noticing more and more that the things gamers used to value are disappearing quickly. I can't criticize a game's clunky or unresponsive control schemes because “you should just get used to it.” I can't criticize a game's reliance on cheap kills or unfair difficulty because “you should play on easy, you pansy” or “you just suck at the game”. I can't criticize a game's level design because “that's not what the game's about.” it seems most of the things I grew up caring about in a game are long lost relics of the past, and complaining about them constitutes nitpicking.
I'm sorry, last I checked it wasn't nitpicking to demand that a game be functional and fair. Is it really so much to ask that a game's outcome relies on my skill rather than luck? Is it too demanding to request that a game be shipped without massive and persistent glitches? These are all things that should be at the very core of game design but lately they've been brushed aside for presentation and volume of content. I almost never see games praising or criticizing a game's control scheme or sensitivities, nobody talks about how fair an FPS game is or how often you die for reasons beyond your control. It's rare to see people actually mention level design or innovation anymore. It's turned into an entire industry where presentation is all that matters, and the worst part is that gamers worldwide seem to be okay with it. When a critic complains about cheap difficulty, poor controls, bad design, or stagnancy, they're harassed endlessly by the fanboys who feel you should just 'get used to it' or 'deal with it.'
As a game reviewer who has been playing and reviewing games for most of my life, I can assure you that in spite of not being a game designer, I know shit when I see it. I've been playing games long enough to know when something is wrong, I just really wish people wouldn't call me ignorant or picky for pointing it out.
I want a GAME, so to me GAMEPLAY is the most important thing to consider, is it really so bad that I complain when this most basic element is neglected?
(to clarify, I'm not saying you shouldn't call out critics when theysay or do something stupid, but it'd be really nice if more critics and consumers worldwide would make sure game developers don't fuck up either. If people actually complained when the game is broken, maybe we wouldn't have these issues.)
My Console Library:
PS5, Switch, XSX
PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360
3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android
