155
rate

Stuart: "Do Game Reviewers Understand Innovation?"

November 23, 2008 in Blog comments 12

The Guardian's Keith Stuart takes a look at the flaws in professional reviews of games, using Mirror's Edge as an example. Stuart believes that reviewers spend too much time critisising the "niggling details" of a game, rather than looking at the game from a broader perspective.

“Because, if it were a movie, Mirror’s Edge would be critically lauded by the specialist film press – it would be considered a forward-thinking masterpiece.” says Stuart.

(Go to the source for full article)

Mirror's Edge. Not perfect, but then neither was Apocalypse Now.

Many reviewers have criticised the combat, the repetition, a smattering of trial-and-error moments. There has been a general compulsion to counter the sequences of innovative genius with niggling doubts about core mechanics.

This is frustrating and I think it highlights one of the key issues of contemporary gaming – what exactly is a videogame and what are the fundamental elements every game must provide? Because, if it were a movie, Mirror's Edge would be critically lauded by the specialist film press – it would be considered a forward-thinking masterpiece. Sure, it's dangerous to compare two such different media, but there are key similarities – one is the way in which critics should be able to deconstruct the experience on offer and draw from it undeniable values that outweigh concerns about basic construction.

For example, no-one complains that, say, Pan's Labyrinth or Eraser Head lack the formal, easily recognisable narrative structure of a conventional movie. Their aspirations exempt them from that requirement. So should we really be marking Mirror's Edge down for control issues – a game that aspires to re-interpret the very interface between player, screen and character? Yes, I know, it's a clumsy comparison, but the underlying point is – should reviewers just accept that sometimes incredibly new experiences will lack some of the formal substance we expect from traditional games? That's what innovation is, it's leaping out into the unknown.
Miss Razz via guardian.co.uk »
Favourite this article Add source
| More
Report!
News story attached to:
Additional sources:

Comments

Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 0
    chautemoc Nov 23, 08
    Seems very similar to this article. Nevertheless, awesome, I was hoping someone would write about ME in this way. People's comments have gotten me down a bit for when the PC version comes around..now I'm more excited again.

    quote
    Games are games, true enough. They're not artistic statements in the same way as movies are, but they are creative works and creativity needs to be nurtured.
    Dont agree with him there though -- I think they completely can be, and ME is a great example of it. I mean, animated cutscenes telling a meaningful story, helloo.
  • 3
    Red 9 Nov 23, 08
    I agree with this guy completely. Sometimes I feel like reviewers are so adhered to their little checklist of "what composes a perfect game" that they fail to recognize the intentions of the game, as well as innovation. Their use of Mirror's Edge is perfect; it was never once mentioned it was a combat heavy game, so why would the devs focus on making combat seamless? The point of that game is to avoid combat, so what better way to do that than to make combat difficult?

    At many instances I feel like reviewers miss the point; they're so wrapped up in finding what's wrong that, on occasion, they fail to recognize what's done right. I've seen it happen so many times. When a game sets out to do something completely different, it's criticized for not being like other games. Tools of Destruction dared to be humorous, yes it was accused of "identity crisis" because it didn't stick to a theme, even though it played great.

    Like I mentioned, it's like game reviewers have these little checklists of what makes a great game. If a game doesn't have what the list has, the game is dubbed as either falling short, or a failure. And that's just not right.
  • 2
    Zerpent Nov 23, 08
    I barely listen to what reviewers say these days. Only a few are good enough to trust, but they are very rare. Anyway, it's always better to try for yourself rather than to listen to the opinions of others.
    • 0
      Red 9 Nov 23, 08
      Yes, very true, but proper and sometimes good reviews makes discussing games with other people so much easier. ie I know Folkore is a great game, but it's hard to convince some of my friends when its average score is seventy-something.
  • 2
    RabidChinaGirl Nov 23, 08
    Apologies in advance for this long-ass post.

    Then it depends what the player takes away from the review. My review for Mirror's Edge (Neoseeker) seemed negative because from a gaming perspective, it has many frustrating aspects. Truth is, with the millions of gamers out there, not everyone is going to want to put down 60 USD for "innovation." I appreciate Mirror's Edge for what it tries to do, but as my review also mentions (keeping in mind reviews ARE subjective, no matter how hard they try to remain objective) that all the hype about how new and exciting Mirror's Edge is turned out to be.... not so, for many people. At first, it has this refreshing feeling, full of untapped potential... and then it puts you into a loop, as many games unavoidably become (and it's the little things that keep us from thinking this way). I do like Mirror's Edge, but I'm not going to lie through my teeth and say it's the most amazing gaming experience ever.

    I read the Guardian article, and I can understand what he's trying to say. But what does he want reviewers to do, then? Talk about how absolutely WONDERFUL something is when we don't feel that it deserves so much praise? We're not only writing reviews for gamers; I think all reviewers compose their articles with some hope that the creators of the game will also take something away from it. Yes, we understand innovation, but we also understand that gaming is a craft, and like anything else, must strive for perfection even if it never attains such. What's wrong with saying, "This was good, I hope the sequel is better"? How is that patronizing? Isn't encouragement for further experimentation a good thing?

    I never complained about the combat though as I recall, many players did. As one of the article comments stated, the game received a lot of criticism because it is a first person action game. If it were a movie, we wouldn't have as much to complain about because we're watching all the events unfold with no say in it, no controller in our hands, no decisions to make. That is the biggest difference.

    He said himself the game isn't perfect. I want to see his Mirror's Edge review. His article is a matter of opinion, just like game reviews. Maybe this guy just needs to stop reading popular, big name sites/magazines -- it makes sense that such sources would be more conventional. Or how about looking at other titles which were also described as "innovative" but scored favorably?

    This guy tries to make a good point, but if I met him on the street, I still wouldn't be able to resist punching him in the face.

    BTW here's one of the comments I really liked:
    quote
    Firstly, game reviews have to take into account basic functionality in a way that reviews of other mediums do not. No-one reviewing Apocalypse Now had to point out that the new innovative film stock used for the third reel looks great when it works but causes everything to slow down drastically every time there's lots happening on screen.

    Secondly, there seems to be a tendency amongst gamers (and, dare i say it, games reviewers) to expect homogenity in game review scores. The idea that there are great games out there that many people might not enjoy seems to be one that is given relatively short shrift. If a game's a 9/10, it's a 9/10. This is probably partly, as you say, a product of the relatively narrow focus of the gaming press, but also i think relates to my first point - it's still reasonably impressive for a game to simply be functional, with no slow-down, tearing, long load times or crashes, and well-made games can score well simply on this basis. This conflation of functionality and artistry can lead to some confusion when your "innovative" new control scheme, carefully thought out to radically change the interface between player and environment, is marked down because it doesn't match the standardised FPS control scheme.

    Thirdly, the ludicrous insistence on marking games (and sometimes films and music, though thankfully not usually books) out of 5/10/100/whatever really doesn't help. Any system that can give, say, Eraserhead, Battleship Potemkin and Spiderman 2 the same score is self-evidently worthless. It's never been as much of a problem with games because the medium hasn't been able to offer the same variety of content, but we're getting there, as Mirror's Edge partially shows.

    Lastly, from what i've seen of Mirror's Edge (yes, ok, just the demo...) it simply gets as many things clunkingly wrong as it gets gloriously right. The environment looks cool and pristine and expansive, but the cut scenes look like bog-standard cell-shaded manga-lite. The central idea of a free-running game is new, but the poorly-executed kidnapped-sister story is older than the hills. The addition of your character's limbs to the FP perspective is a great idea, but everyone else in the game looks like they've been hamfistedly carved out of plastic. Most importantly, the moments when you're careening through the environment, disarming guards and tumbing through an iron-and-concrete obstacle course, are exhilerating and feel like the future, but the moments when you're very slowly looking for the path forward that you've missed, or attempting a jump for the umpteenth time because the game's quite niggly about how well lined up you need to be to catch on to that drain pipe, carry all the same irritations i remember from games on the humble Speccy. As Topscore said above, if only they'd just made it a free-running game, stripped of the extraneous 'action.'
    Or

    quote
    Reviewers shouldn't need to "get" innovation. The best reviews are by gamers... not movie critics, programmers or artists. Then we get to hear about the game and their experience playing it.

    A game review should ultimately be about;
    a) is it fun?
    b) is it worth buying?

    Detailed analysis of anything technical, artistic or "innovative" is just filler, unless flaws in those areas are somehow enough to ruin what would have been a fun experience, or are impressive enough to drop-jaws in light of how terrible the game was otherwise.
    • 0
      chautemoc Nov 23, 08
      Hmm I think that last comment goes with what the writer was trying to say though.

      I think there's some miscommunication going on here, but yeah, his arguments are probably somewhat flawed -- anyway he admits some of his comparisons are crappy. But I think fundamnetally he's trying to say let's not let the details run what would otherwise be a fun experience. Obviously there comes a point where the details can ruin the fun, or at least partly spoil it, but I think he's saying we let it more than it should, which I think I agree with.
      • 2
        RabidChinaGirl Nov 23, 08
        Or maybe the writer just doesn't understand what reviews are trying to do. Innovative games are yay, but everyone knew the game was innovative before any reviewers had typed a single word. All we do is look at it like a game, as a potential purchase. Our opinions on whether it is innovative or not are simply filler.
        • 0
          chautemoc Nov 23, 08
          Hmm, yeah probably, but that's a lot of journalism, really. Some opinion on these sorts of things I think is necessary unless your ideal is journalists cranking out press releases/screenshots/etc with no insight..but umm..I guess reviews aren't the place for it?
        • 0
          RabidChinaGirl Nov 23, 08
          They HAVE opinions and insight, and I think that's why Stuart is whining. But insight IS opinion, and opinions aren't always the same. He said himself reviews were mostly positive, but then complains that reviewers have no appreciation for innovation. This guy is just full of hot air.

          No decent review states outright whether the reader/gamer should purchase the game or not. We give our opinions, our experiences, and then the rest is up to the reader. If people hate us for it, then they can write their OWN version.
  • 0
    chautemoc Nov 23, 08
    Hm I think thats making it black and white when it isnt. I dont think hes saying reviewers have no appreciation for innovation -- I think he's saying they don't factor it in enough, at least in comparison to the details, and that's why the game didn't get as high scores as Gears 2/CoD:WaW, for example. Which, while great games, I would say have mostly been done before in some form or another.
    • 0
      RabidChinaGirl Nov 23, 08
      I'm not going to continue arguing/debating this here because it's already gone on longer than I prefer for a forum like this. Even if we were face to face, it becomes a matter of opinion, and ours obviously don't match (just like mine don't fall in line with Stuart's). Why are we even posting again? Aren't we on MSN right now?

      But I won't fully disagree with what he is... possibly TRYING to say. I'm sure there are reviews out there with totally invalid points. His arguments are just too flawed, and I'd like to perform a sliding kick to his nads for sounding like a crybaby about it.

      Maybe he just read some really terrible reviews.
  • 0
    Final Blade Nov 24, 08
    I'm going to have to agree with RCG here. I read her points, and truth be told it makes far more sense then what Stuart is saying. But like always its my thoughts and opinions.

This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.