In almost every artform, there are times when critics and their audiences diverge, where their opinions and tastes seem worlds apart. Transformers 4 continues to make billions while I recover from the brain damage I sustained while watching it. I consider that movie to be so bad that it should be considered a crime against movie making itself. The critics generally agree with me. But that is just my opinion, based on my experiences. Much of the movie-going public no longer seems to care what critics think. They know the brand established by the franchise and the director and they know what to expect. Good for them. In the end, entertainment serves the main purpose of escape, distraction and catharsis. The vehicle is far less important than the journey. I know that trying to make a Transformers movie to please me is a sure path to financial ruin so I just happily move on to support the movies I do like.
In the artworld, one example that comes to mind is that of impressionism. Impressionism was initially hated by critics. HATED. Impressionism was actually a derogatory term coined by critics to describe these works. Louis Leroy, writing about these paintings, declared that "Wallpaper in its embryonic state is more finished!" Ouch! And you though game critics were harsh? The artists in question had to pool their own resources to promote their work. I bring this up because I love impressionist paintings. It is where my love and appreciation of art began. The first time I saw the paintings of Monet, I was transfixed. This was my gateway drug. If critics had their way, I may have not yet delved into a world that has now brought me so much joy and beauty. It underscores the importance of growth in a medium to cast as wide a net as possible for new converts.
Our beautiful pastime has now found its way at one such crossroad. Game critics seem to be positioned tangentially to their audience with many gamers perplexed by their fascination with games that we, as an audience, have derogatorily labeled “walking simulators”. The entire situation is understandable. Many of these critics are now in their late thirties and early forties. The online audience for the work they produce, however, has not aged with them. The people who find the time to visit gaming websites daily are skewed heavily towards the <25 year age group. These groups now find themselves generations apart.
Many have been in the profession longer than some in their audience have been alive. While some may play 10 -15 games a year, these people spend much more time gaming than that. They have to play (work?) a lot more. They have to play games they don’t like. They have to play it in a rushed manner so that they can get their review (book report?) out in a timely manner. Approaching something from a critical standpoint means that you never truly immerse or lose yourself in the experience because you must continually assess your experience as you go along. So it becomes work. The association of games with fun slowly but surely breaks. Instead, gaming is now associated with your career, stress, finances, respect of peers or family and professional aspirations/achievement. They start to have very different set of expectations and desires when compared to their audience.
It’s no wonder that after a few years, many become burnt out on their jobs. They’ve seen it all - multiple times. Familiarity breeds contempt and they are thus constantly scanning the horizon for something new that can break the monotony. When they find something new, they tend to overreact a bit. They are at times quick to discard what they have for something new and “better”. But one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Often gamers are left to wonder why a game with no traditional gameplay elements is suddenly the new pinnacle of the medium when it appears to do so much less than games produced years ago. We all get frustrated with the monotony of work – I empathize fully with that. But when you bring your work frustration and biases to an audience seeking entertainment and information, it becomes a problem.
Many gamers come to gaming sites and podcasts to further indulge the pastime that brings them pleasure. They become understandably distraught when they see something that brings them so much joy appear to cause a critic so much pain and discontent. Older critics become more concerned with the direction of the medium in the context of society as well as its artistic and intellectual integrity. Younger audiences generally just want to have fun and share in that with others. The interaction between critics and their audience mirrors the relationship between parent and child to the point that it is entertaining in itself. You can almost hear them scream “you just don’t understand!” at each other. The truth is that they both have valid points of view; they simply lack the tools or desire to understand each other. .
I have basically given up on gaming podcasts because most of them descend into an hour-long therapy session where I listen to them bitch and moan about their jobs, gamers and games. I don’t care in the least about their problems. I am there to be further entertained. I don’t want to listen to them mock games for what I consider to be frivolous shortcomings. The approach of a critic to a product is debatable, but a successful or relevant critic approaches something from the point of view of the consumer or their target audience that they are trying to serve. If your audience is young, they may not be looking for the same things that you are. You should definitely mention the finer points of game design, but the weight of each aspect in the final verdict depends on the audience that comes to you. The story in Call of Duty may be atrocious, but does your audience care? If you cannot find an audience for your particular approach or refuse to align with the audience that you do have, then you will have problems and discontent. Many game critics are failing to recognize this, and the consequences are already apparent.
Many younger gamers are migrating away from these traditional sites towards personalities that they see as their peers on Youtube. These are the people that they identify with. Many people hate (ENVY?) PewDiePie, but there is a lot that can be learned from him. I consider him to be a teen entertainer, who knows his audience very well. I admire his lack of cynicism and generally upbeat attitude towards gaming. He seems intent on having fun with a game no matter how bad or broken it may be. This is what his audience identifies with. They are not yet concerned with the greater philosophical issues of the medium. He is a valuable entry point into the world of gaming, like it or not. To combat this exodus many traditional gaming sites are migrating to YouTube in the hopes of finding success. What they fail to realize is that the medium they use to communicate with their audience is only part of the problem. Their inability to find congruency with the available audience is the main hurdle they face. Using the same approach in video form will not yield the success they crave. One of the great things about YouTube is that you don’t have to riddle your content with opinion. You don’t have to give a score. You can simply play and have fun, allowing the consumer to make up their own minds.
One thing that I find very disturbing in this whole tug-of-war is the attack on games as “walking simulators. These games are a great tool for you to use on non-gamers. It serves as a way to lure people into our world. I recently had an opportunity to recommend games to someone new to the pastime, and my first choices were Journey followed by the Walking dead and Wolf Among Us. These games act as an extension towards the world around us. They reduce the hurdles associated with becoming a gamer. They can serve as a valuable gateway towards console gaming and thus more traditional gaming genres. With a more story-driven approach, they can serve to entice persons who are accustomed to having the story or plot be the central aspect of their entertainment. Interactive storytelling has great potential in expanding the gaming audience in new directions. Why tear down a potential gateway for a future gamer? You may disagree with all the critical acclaim heaped upon them (and for the most part I agree), but don’t let that hate blind you the opportunities that they present. There is more to a toolkit than hammers.
Many gamers criticize these games as “not a game” and to a certain extent they have a point. Calling something a game establishes certain expectations in the mind of a gamer as a consequence of 30-40 years of past game design and they are right to be upset when these expectations are not met. These games like Gone Home could be more accurately described as a digital novel or interactive experience. That way we know what to expect when we spend our money. If you wanted a spoiler free experience and bought Gone Home based on critical acclaim alone, you almost certainly did not get what you were expecting. But gamers did a poor job of explaining this point and journalists did an even worse job of trying to understand their audience's viewpoint, all the while staying true to the parent-child dynamic. Each group is engaged in a futile attempt to remake the other in their own image.
I want to close by pointing out that in gaming as well as the others art forms I spoke about in the beginning, critical opinion rarely amounts to a hill of beans when compared to the power of word of mouth advertising by a passionate public. That is what YouTube achieves. Advertising and marketing don’t hurt either. Look at the recent success of Destiny post-beta if you don’t believe me. Minecraft is the product of YouTube word of mouth advertising. Different critics serve different purposes. Some can guide your purchases if they value the same things as you do – go find them. You can take the advice of industry critics or your peers on YouTube. The options are wide and varied. Other critics want to approach the medium as an artform and highlight more intellectual aspects. That is also fine. Its a conversation worth having for those who want to have it. There is place under the sun for everyone. If you encounter a difference in philosophy that appears to be without remedy then it may be necessary to move out of the house, because screaming at each other solves nothing.
"NetEase Games & Marvel Games are today very glad to announce that they are soon going to kick-off a closed beta for their Team-Based PVP Shooter Marvel Rivals. (the said closed beta starts this July for PC, PS5, and Xbox Series X/S)" - NetEase Games & Marvel Games.
Clocktower: Rewind physical version editions price, contents and details revealed alongside a new trailer as pre-orders kick off.
Anger Foot Hands-On Preview – A fast, furious, and intentionally silly kick'em up, Devolver Digital's latest is shaping up to be a riot.
I agree that some reviewers look at reviewing games, is more like homework , especially when it affects their money revenue . When JEFF GERTZMANN was laid off from GAMESPOT for simply giving his honest opinion , back a few years ago. He said it was so much fun , just to play a video game , without having to report on it.
Awesome job. Wish I could +up your blog entry. You've pretty much encapsulated everything I have been saying for years.
Nice little read. I get where he coming from on having fun dispite games been flawed or broken. But we should not be purchasing such things. I love bf4 but it was so broken on launch. But they got away with it because there is no standards. I refused to but the premium after that.
Same as gamers have voted with wallets so now games come half the content missing just to make more money.
My biggest argument now would be if bith new consoles are so much easier to develop for. How come games are more expensive than the pc conterpart. Its not really acceptable.
Oh and I know devs answers to that one. Sorry but it does not hold much water.
While I did enjoy reading this piece, I feel a bit conflicted as to how much I'd agree with here when it comes to specific parts regarding the critic.
"The approach of a critic. . .will have problems and discontent."
Placing some kind of emphasis on what determines the weight this or that complaint to your overall assessment by the audience itself isn't something I'm inclined to agree with. This holds especially true since a vocal portion of the videogame audience prompted how reviews turned out during much of the 7th generation. Those reviews getting shorter and shorter wasn't just an out-of-the-blue determination by lazier writers but by the audience saying "forget about the finer points, just give me the score." I remember this being voiced on older podcasts, including G4 back in the day.
Now, if you're talking about serving the audience in a more...casual way I can understand that when I look at an example like Roger Ebert. Rather than a bunch of snooty critics framing the review as if they were above the audience, Ebert would document his active involvement WITH the audience.
"If you wanted a spoiler free experience and bought Gone Home. . .all the while staying true to the parent-child dynamic."
Even if their point was properly explained, whose fault would it really be to purchase something solely based on critical acclaim alone and not least taking the time to read the product description before purchasing? Even every written review/video review--that I've seen--which tried to stay spoiler-free put it bluntly in saying there's no shooting, role-playing, etc. but only exploring.
Edit: In the end, I felt lucky to sneak in my initial reading of this on vacation before it snuck off the front page (got back recently which is why I'm responding now). I wouldn't say I clicked with everything brought up but it was still one that I appreciate due to its thoughtful analysis on both sides of the culture.