Edouble24 said:
Bodhesatva said:
Edouble24 said:
Bodhesatva said:
Edouble24 said:
I don't think Wii has many games worthy of good scores, and apparently a lot of reviewers agree. The console just isn't made for the type of games many people like, namely more hardcore gamers, who are the people reviewing games. |
This statement is pretty much the entire argument the original post made. Reviews aren't just for hardcore gamers, unless games criticism is intending to be a niche. It is quite apparent that a huge mass of people don't agree with what you happen to like, and are buying the Mario Parties and Wii Sports and Wii Fits and not 360 or PS3 games. These people are clearly the fastest growing demographic in gaming, and their wants and desires are effectively being ignored by games criticism. A review of Rambo by people who love violent, testosterone driven movies: A+++! Brokeback Mountain: F-----! |
The same can be said about any medium. Look at hollywood, where movies like Date Movie and other ridiculous nonsese make millions and millions of dollars yet are complete crap according to reviewers(as well as myself). Casuals don't pay much attention to reviews, they don't really matter much at all in the movie industry and that's what's going to happen in the game industry. I honestly think that's a great direction for things to go in. |
It's quite apparent that you don't know very much about critical philosophy. Every major film reviewer I know of (Denby, Kael, Ebert, even Travers) applies critical theory to their reviews, which is exactly what game reviewers are not doing (according to this article, and according to me). They are simply giving their own opinion about what they like based on their own tastes, which isn't how professional criticism works.
In other words, film criticism is exactly the opposite of the games industry in terms of applied critique. It is, in fact, the best example of why games criticism is broken. The fact that you used it as an example to support your position is, again, emphatic evidence that you haven't done much reading on critical theories. There's a reason why film criticism is generally taken seriously and gaming criticism isn't, why video game "journalists" constantly complain about lack of respect from the critics in other mediums, and it isn't that the big, bad, conceited establishment hates those gosh darn video games. |
I wonder why all the mods on this site get off on trying to belittle everyone. It's really a great way to make everyone feel welcome here. I was merely pointing out that every medium will have a huge number of fans that go against reviewers. No need to call me ignorant for that because what I said is true. Whether or not Wii Sports falls into the same category as date movie or not is up to you, my example was just showing that the mass market often times clashes with reviewers to the point where a movie with the worst reviews can still make a ton of money without issue. That was my point, not that game reviewers are just as fair/not as fair/equally as fair as movie reviewers. |
And this is the whole point. Who are the "movie fans" that go against reviewers? It's one thing if a single movie does well but gets poor reviews (such as 300), but quite another when an entire genre or subset is derided, as mini-games and casual games are.
You're right, I spoke too harshly, and I apologize. However, it really is clear, especially from this last post, that you really don't have a firm grasp of critical theory. I don't mean this in a derogatory way. Here's a simple breakdown: applied criticism isn't intended to just be your own opinion about a product. If that's all a critique was, then effectively anyone with a modicum of grammatical finesse could be a reviewer and say: "Here's my opinion about this game." That's how almost all video game journalists work. By contrast, most professional critics (of any medium) base their reviews on an entire set of objective critical values, none of which, in theory, involve their own personal opinions.
The most obvious result of this approach to criticism is all the industry "personalities" we have. EGM reviews are crazy and wacky, with their own individual tastes! Zero Punctuation, Angry Nintendo Nerd, and so forth. It is the complete opposite of applied criticism, where the ideal critic applies no emotion or personality whatsoever to their reviews. It's what most video game players think is "boring," but it is, for a variety of reasons, the accepted method of professional critical analysis.
In short, game criticism needs to stop asking "what do I personally like?" and start asking "will the intended audience for this game like it?"
