Kantor said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Kantor said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
This is so deeply disappointing. How are video games ever going to be taken seriously when the people responsible for rating and reviewing the games aren't real journalists?
I can barely even go to sites like IGN and GameSpot any more. I much prefer talking to everyone here about upcoming games. The users here are honest with themselves and each other.
As someone who's worked for a magazine and several newspapers, this lack of journalistic integrity really rubs me the wrong way. |
As opposed to, say, movie reviewers, who appear to have an average age of 65 and tastes stuck in the 1970s?
Reviews will always be subjective, but they are more objective with games than anything else because there are certain standards - good controls, good graphics, good music and sound in general, good length to which all games can be held, and because they are primarily about gameplay, which tends to be the same within a genre, rather than telling a story, which can be wildly different.
|
I was just responding to your earlier post when I saw your response to MY earlier post :)
Of course reviews will always be somewhat subjective -- that goes without saying -- but I think the corps of movie reviewers if so far above and beyond the corps of video game reviewers the comparison is almost pointless. Of course there are boneheads in each camp, but the very best movie critics are some of the very best writers, thinkers, and film historians.
I respect your opinion very much, but I have to disagree with almost everything in your final paragraph. There are just as many criteria to be reviewed with movies as there are in video games: cinematography, art direction, screenplay, musical score, direction, makeup, costume design, sound design, acting, editing, etc. Plus movies have been around in one form or another for 117 years. That's over a century of movies as a foundation for each critic willing to watch them and study them. Again, there are lousy movie critics out there -- no doubt -- but as a group they outclass video game critics easily. And I say that as someone who writes video game reviews every week. There is just a longer history and a much more disciplined craft in movie criticism.
Sorry for the rant.
|
Let me clarify what I mean.
An objectively good film as judged by a film reviewer is not necessarily remotely enjoyable for a viewing audience. As you say, many of them are excellent film historians, and people who are passionate about the technical aspects of films. However, the majority of filmgoers are not. It is therefore the case that a well-reviewed film will not necessarily be a successful or even popular film, and the reverse is also true.
A game reviewer, on the other hand, is really just a gamer, of similar gaming experiences to the majority of gamers out there. He therefore gives a more reliable opinion on whether or not you should like the game - though it is, of course, still an opinion, there are objective things you can look at which will tell you if a game is good, which correlate very well with whether or not the game is enjoyable. A well-made game is always enjoyable. A well-made film can be hopelessly dull.
Just consider Another Year, which, while technically marvelous and all of that, was one of the most eye-wateringly dull things I have ever seen.
|
