GAME CRITIQUE IS DEAD: Why Reviewers SHOULD Be Skilled Players | The Definitive Discussion
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2024
- GAME CRITIQUE IS DEAD: Why Reviewers SHOULD Be Skilled Players | The Definitive Discussion. Today is a very special video where @boghogSTG and I discuss the current (and awful) state of video game reviews and critique. This isn't just a bunch of empty complaining, however (at least I hope so). Instead we discuss the nature of what is good critique, what is the role of the critic vs reviewer, what forces influence critics and reviewers, both conscious and unconscious. We also make our strongest case for why video game reviewers SHOULD be skilled players, why this is an important value a critic should strive for, and how being a skilled player not only improves reviews, but also is an important asset for game developers as well. We also get into the topic of access journalism that we see IGN and the major game publishers engaging in (such as IGN infamously "forgetting" to review Cyber Punk 2077) and how the video game review space has more in common with the Yakuza than it does open artistic discourse. Sphere Hunter may be invited to Capcom events, but she's not at the IGN level of access to be allowed to review the game before the release date. Imagine all the NDA's that level of access would involve.
Talking about IGN, eurogamer, Polygon, Kotaku, and Gamespot is one thing, but we also get into what is the role of the youtuber in this equation and how even if the youtuber is not directly being contacted by game publishers, he is still being indirectly shaped by the marketing of AAA games and their vocal fan bases. As a result, we see a cyclical trend of hype marketing around releases like Resident Evil 4 Remake, The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild (and soon to be Tears of the Kingdom), and Bayonetta 3, where all the reviews are going to fall in line with the marketing. And if you are more critical of these games during their release window, prepare to be hit by the hype train, which is not going to be a fun experience. As a result, I think we've seen a shift in the youtubing meta away from the over the top reviews that we saw in the Angry Video Game Nerd era of gaming youtube. Instead, we are now in the fluf**** era, where youtubers take games that are already hyped and highly anticipated, and then just dial the hype levels up even higher (as we see on Maxamillion Dood's channel). So now all average games are amazing and all good games are modern masterpieces.
Awesome thumbnail created by @boghogSTG
Patreon
/ electricunderground
[$2 tier = Monthly Game Review Vote, Name in Credits, Exclusive Monthly Podcast]
[$5 tier = Double Monthly Game Review Vote, By Name Shout-out, Name in Credits, Exclusive Monthly Podcast]
Website: theelectricundergr.wixsite.co...
STG Revision 2020 Discord:
/ discord
00:00:00 Bog Escapes the Thumbnail Dungeon
00:02:30 Difference Between Critics and Reviewers
00:16:00 Corrupt IGN and Access Journalism
00:24:00 Are "Reviewers" Shills or Critics?
00:32:25 Reviews Use Childish Humor to Hide Ignorance
00:39:12 If You Can't Play, You Can't Derive First Hand Insight
00:45:50 You Need Skill To Assess Difficulty Correctly
00:51:40 You Can't Understand Fundimental Design Without Playing
00:58:00 Critics Are NOT Marketers, They Need to be Capable of Independent Analysis
01:05:04 Your Hands Understand Faster Than Your Brain
01:13:06 You Can be an Expert and RELATABLE
1:16:10 - Devil's Advocate - #1 "There's too many games!"
1:20:12 - Devil's Advocate #2 - Toxicity
1:23:05 - Devil's Advocate #3 - Don't lose relatability
1:26:21 - Devil's Advocate #4 - How good is too good?
1:35:25 - Devil's Advocate #5 - Avoiding tunnel vision/genre conventions
1:43:20 - Avoiding peer pressure culture
[Why Gamedevs gotta get good]
1:48:00 - Gamedevs need to stay in touch
1:48:40 - How do you find the time?
1:50:40 - Why should you care about artistic merits?
1:54:28 - Take hardcore gaming to the normies
1:59:10 - The importance of intuition
2:07:20 - Staying in touch with your inner n00b
[A short segment about reviewers]
2:09:45 - Finding the vertical slice & completionism
[Devil's Advocate GAMEDEV VERSION]
2:19:00 - Devil's Advocate #1 - Avoiding becoming a slave of conventions
2:22:46 - Devil's Advocate #2 - Are all of us just coping from a lack of success?
2:24:26 - Devil's Advocate #3 - What to do if your tastes are too niche
[OUTRO]
2:30:25 - The end 😦
#IGN, #residentevil4remake, #tearsofthekingdom - เกม
I still think independent TH-cam reviewers are still as bad as IGN. They’re still scared of negativity and still rush out reviews for numbers.
Absolutely, they are caught in their own nasty ecosystem that highly encourages over positive reviews and shilling
Ign might be even better than the worst of the TH-camrs at least ign has to adhere to the barest minimum of journalistic standards while the worst of the TH-camrs can do business as unethically as they want to
@@otto_jkbro, have you played RAID: Shadow Legends?
or just straight up shilling an ideology instead of talking about if the game is good or not, recent example is Starfield
@@diizzii reviewer: Omg I HATE mobile games so much i never play any
same reviewer: GUYS YOU HAVE TO PLAY RAID SHADOW LEGENDS BEST GAME EVER
39:50 I think the actual videogame analogy for "film critics don't need to be directors" would be "gaming critics don't need to be game designers".
Film critics absolutely have to watch a ton of movies and engage with the medium in a way that's deeper and more knowledgeable than the average movie goer in order for their opinions to be unique, thought-provoking, and valuable; the exact same thing should be expected of gaming critics. The problem is that gaming journalism is corrupt as shit and effectively just another branch of marketing for many companies in the industry, and most content creators are no better because hype-baiting, rage-baiting, or simply reinforcing the current consensus, is the most effective way to get views.
It also doesn't help that videogames becoming mainstream means there's now an extremelly sizable normie audience that demands nothing but AAA "movie on rails" kind of games with no mechanical depth, style over substance in it's purest form, and companies not only oblige but also reinforce this collective brainrot with never-ending self-congratulatory marketing by buying reviews and awards. The fact games like TLOU1-2 or the new GoW are seen as revolutionary for the medium in any shape way or form is just fucking insulting.
I always remember IGNs God Hand review. The most embarrassing thing in human history.
yeah that was a perfect reality check that exposed how they form their reviews and how that has nothing to do with gameplay lol
Now that I've had time to listen through, I think the elephant in the room is this: many gamers like the way things are. The game press largely evolved from marketing materials and the focus has, in a lot of ways, stayed in that vein for a lot of outlets. They're dependent on favors for special access. But most gamers just want the hype. They churn their way through one game without engaging the gameplay elements that carefully and move on to the next one (which is why "carnival ride" experiences like nu GoW are so popular -- the story-heavy focus and general ease caters to someone who wants to zone out to a movie with interactive interludes and will not replay the game ever). A publication that doesn't have reviews ready on release day (which requires relationships) or which harshes everyone's vibe by saying a new game isn't that good is not going to find many readers. Engagement with deeper gameplay mechanics will largely be met by bewilderment and disinterest. I've read some of the comments on your Nintendo Life reviews so I think you've already encountered this to some degree.
To the extent this isn't true it's usually more niche genres that have lost "average gamer" appeal. Even publications like IGN generally have a "racing sim guy" or "sports game guy" who is ready with commentary that people who play those genres a lot would care about (I guess similar to your example of a Souls guy). But the constituency for a lot of genres is just not big enough to support niche interest in most for-profit publications... which I guess is also the reason Cave makes gacha games now.
oh I think this is very true! A lot of gamers are really comfortable with being pandered to and many do not take kindly to critique of the games they are overly emotionally attached to. Look at zelda ha
@@TheElectricUnderground Botw and ToTK is where I lost interest in the series, so I agree 100 percent. I really liked this video. Thanks for making such a thought-provoking video.
What it really boils down to is the death of arcade gaming. Its being superceded by the evolution of technology. And with that comes with more deplorable shit like mtx, cash shop, battle pass, subscriptions, dlc, pre-orders, early access. The general audience has grown complacent so corporations have turned a commodity into a major cash grab... And major scam with a sprinkle of time wasted.
Matthewmatosis' "The Lost Soul Arts of Demon Souls" is an absolutely essential video that should be seen by everyone interested in From Software's post-Miyazaki work
I remember watching that vid when it first came out and hating it, only having played ds1 and 2. But after playing des (og),ds3,and ER I came around to it and agree with most of what he said.
I'll be honest, I try to ignore the popular consensus as much as possible. There's a problem with games criticism that I like to call Comic Sans Syndrome. Comic sans was a font that was so incredibly popular in the 90's and early 2000's to the point that people were even using it for résumés and collage essays, people eventually became so sick and tired of it that it became maligned. Nowadays, people just say "comic sans bad" without understanding why it became hated.
You could also equate this to the rise of open-world games. Essentially, critics and normies alike had been noticing a trend of previously open-ended games gradually becoming more simplified and linear with each new entry, eventually culminating in such games as Final Fantasy 13 and Skyward Sword. Soon "linear" had become become synonymous with "dumbed down" and "casual" (which were seen as bad things back then). Game devs eventually caught on and started making as big and unlinear as possible and eventually created the mess we have now.
yes very good point! so in this case, both comic sans and linear games, the mistake that the critics are making is that they are doing their analysis based on audience trends, rather than analyzing the fundamentals of what is comic sans or linear level design. That's a trap as a reviewer that I think is very important to try and avoid, otherwise you are just once again parroting mainstream opinion without any actual analysis.
Now people hate on open world games tho, I dunno why it's so hard to see that a balance is ideal
Take Zelda as an example, feels like people can only communicate their opinion by reactively giving BOTW a 10/10 on release, or cynically calling it overrated and giving it a 6/10 a few weeks later
When both these camps really want the same thing - a balance of linearity and openness like, idk, the very first Zelda...
@@lounowell4171I would have loved BotW if it had the same kind of soft linearity of the first Zelda game. It would have been so cool if the exploration was actually challenging and required planning, improvisation and skill. The systemic design could have been actually relevant to core gameplay, for instance players should have had a far better reason to engage with enemy encampments. Instead we got a slightly better Ubisoft sandbox game with boring exploration, broken armor and healing mechanics and a dull story.
@@lounowell4171
I think you can make both design philosophies work, the claim that everyone wants the same thing is not true at all
@@Steve-Fiction when linearity and non-linearity are balanced well in a game, no camp of players has to lose out
it's as simple as having an options menu - games are interactive, after all
of course I like variety and different games should focus on different things
but take a practice mode in a shmup, where the player can pick any level they want. This is non-linearity in a linear game that is pure quality-of-life for all players
I 100% agree with your review on Bayonetta 3. In my opinion Platinum Games is a definition of "style over substance". I've never managed to beat MGR, because I always get bored. Like, can I just slice people in half, why do I have a stealth sections? And most of the reviews I've heard, at the time, were glorifying praises of the game, mostly because of the big and flashy cinematic combat. No one was talking about core gameplay mechanics, which, to be honest, are complete mess. In my opinion, one of the biggest problem of the game reviewers is what I called "the naked king effect" - it's when reviewers would give positive review for a game, to avoid possible backlash from the fanbase. And this is bad, because №1 job of the reviver is to inform the consumer. There were a lot of cases, when I bought a game, because of the positive reviews, and end up hating it. So now I usually read negative reviews first, because they may point out to some objective issues with the game.
Oh fantastic commenter cancer! Yes a lot of the platinum games have this armor against critique due to their reputation and due to the critics actually not understanding their games at all. Basically a lot of critics are told that bayonetta is good through 2nd hand sources, so that when they are presented with the challenge of analyzing a new bayonetta, like bayonetta 3, they actually have no ability to tell if it's better or worse than the other games ha. So they just play it safe and say the game is good (or a 10/10 in Nintendo Life's review, which is insane) because being overly positive is safer than being negative. Then they save up that negativity so they can clobber something like wanted dead for no reason lol.
Boghog asked when this was normalized... when it all came to a head and gamers started criticizing gaming journalism and the “Gamers Are Dead” articles starting appearing.
That's not true actually - back then the criticisms were reviewers (or rather the people running their outlets) being afraid to criticize games due to publisher backlash and the rather casual attitude indie reviewers at Kotaku and such had towards effectively giving their indie dev friends a publicity boost. Along with just a general resentment of reviewers for the reasons we talked about here that built up over years.
I followed it as it was happening which is why the whole pre-review thing stands out to me - it's new and the casual way in which IGN brought it up made it sound like it was common knowledge. Not that it's any kind of big shocking revelation, but it's a bummer seeing how mainstream reviewers are increasingly more beholden to publishers. What else can you expect out of a for-profit industry though...
You know I think it goes even further back to stuff like G4 and X play. I didn't think about it before, but when I was watching old x play stuff for the JPRG video, I realized how the whole channel was just shilling for microsoft shamelessly.
@@boghogSTG I agree with all that. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant was being normalized. I mean the normalization of the lack of backlash, or at least the marginalization of those that do, aand that it's "problematic" to expect them to cater to gamers let alone be gamers. I'm going by feeling not an actual timeline -- it's getting hard to find stuff online -- but this is also when I remember seeing "lazy dev" bans for criticizing performance issues, and sites lock down their comment sections. I could be conflating lots of things to be fair. Your right about Kotaku, but could you even imagine them giving any kind of 'bona fide' concession like admitting they didn't finish the game or even play it today?
I’ve been thinking of this phenomenon as like a “gaming industrial complex.”
Oh that's a really cool term! The gaming industrial complex! It is fitting too because there is absolutely an ecosystem around all this stuff the feeds itself regardless of quality of the games.
@@TheElectricUnderground You can see how marketing-speak filters down through the press to popular opinion: eg, cutting content = “streamlining,” or boring world design = “logical flow”
I'm going to play devils advocate. Most reviewers don't need to be skilled because most gamers aren't skilled. Most game players are not interested in a detailed analysis, it would put them to sleep. I know you answered this in the video Mark. You said something like, " a blind person shouldn't be leading a blind person across the street". I see it differently. To continue the analogy, some people are trying to cross the street and some people don't care about crossing the street and are fine to play with their toys on the sidewalk.
I think you can brake up gamers into two groups. One group is playing games and the other is playing with toys. When you play games, i.e. chess, baseball etc. There is a hierarchy of skill and you have to master the game to climb the hierarchy. Most "gamers" are not interested in mastering the game. They just want to have fun. It's more like they are playing with toys than mastering a game like Chess or Tekken. The two groups have different goals. Good luck trying to convince your average IGN fan to put down Super Mario Brothers and pick up an arcade stick.
I think riggel another analogy that helps put this into context is literacy. Based on what you are saying, essentially most gamers are illiterate (which I think is true ha) when it comes to game design. So yes because of their lack of interest, you can sneak all kinds of stuff by them as a reviewer because they cannot read beyond your analysis. But that's not elevating the medium and in fact I think it is massively damaging it. Because great design, just like great writing, is not just about how difficult or complex the design is, it is also how elegant it is. Dr. Suess has held up for decades now as core children's literature, and many other basic children books have come and gone. To a child, the difference between Dr. Suess and Rugrats might not be obvious, but there is a clear difference in the quality of the writing but in order to understand that difference, the critic need to have an understanding of reading beyond the basics. And that's the situation we have now with gaming critique. Everyone is reading at a first grade level and there is no analysis beyond that, even for books written for first graders. So to our current critics, Dr. Suess and Rugrats are the same, they cannot spot the difference.
@@TheElectricUnderground I have a hard time understanding what normie gamers care about and what IGN is up to but I agree with you. They definitely aren't elevating the genre. However I disagree with you on what to do with the normie gamer. I'm as jaded as captain Ahab and you're captain save-a-normie. It surprises me that we get any good games at all with the current incentive structure. The main reason we still get good games is because there are hard-core gamers out there that also develop games. Some people still make games for the sake of it. These people ignore the incentive structure.
I don't care if another good game is ever made again. There are already far more games worth mastering than we have time to devote to. I do wish there where more tournaments/competitions. That's one area I wish was thriving more in gaming. Good job with shmup slam by the way. It's super cool you take the time to do stuff like that.
Mario is more hardcore than your typical AAA consoomer slop like dad of war or something to be perfectly honest with you
@@HarrowingShadowsdad of war 😂
@riggel8804 What normie gamers want, plain and simple, is superficial escapism that takes little to no effort on their part. Like watching some kitsch Marvel movie, eating Pizza Hut, or playing a Ubisoft game... They want to completely turn their brains off and kill a couple hours before they have to return to whatever typically bland, frustrating reality awaits them... And then you have the niche weirdos (like myself LOL) who are actually interested in collecting 1CCs, climbing leaderboards, understanding the history and evolution of game design etcetera, for just a few hours, before they too must return to the typically bland and frustrating reality that awaits them...
Games journalists, and by extension, games journalism, has always been glorified advertisements, even dating back to the '90s. It's just marketing, and they don't hold games to any kind of standard. Especially not by genre, because certain ones will get lambasted more than others if they don't tick review boxes. I stopped reading these sorts reviews because they just don't get technical enough, and they barely describe how games actually play. There's just no substance to it.
exactly baldes! and in that sense they have no business calling themselves critics, as they do not follow any sort of code of artistic integrity. No one is perfect, but a lot of game reviewers don't even try to be consistent in their review process.
Yeah if you bash the wrong games there go your exclusive previews. And anyway insane fans will threaten to kill you. But it used to be more blatant; like Nintendo Power had no other purpose than getting you to buy more Nintendo games. It's an advertising circular you pay for
Since the paid reviews were exposed, i have nausea just hearing the """""experts""""" scoring the games.
oh absolutely, and it gets even uglier all around
Paid reviews have been a thing since gaming magazines existed. It's ingrained in the industry. We all knew it back then, but the magazines were our only source of info so you had to just accept it.
Dude, don't even get my ass started on shitheels like Adam Sessler and his rampant nihongophobia.
@@mattmaddogwheaton4724 Japan makes plenty of trash too.
@@catzor4795 How the fuck does that even relate to the topic at hand pal?
New viewer coming from your RE4 remake videos and I really like how you and Yahtzee (you probably know but the zero punctuation guy from the escapist) approach video games, as an art form. I have only played pvp "competitive games" (not good at them but still) for the majority of my life and have only started my sp game journey recently, and it honestly shocks me how certain channels talk about "executives are taking away creative control" and "art direction over graphics" without actually treating video games as art (remake culture, game movies, ...etc). Like you said it's like they want video games to be taken seriously but backpedal and revert back only to "fun" and "Is it worth my $?" for the points that matter. Both fun and value are subjective but even then it's perfectly fine to have those as your primary framework (especially for casual gamers), you just need to admit that and don't expect outsiders to take video games seriously if that's all you do. That or the English literature route of dragging on every point they have for a 20min video when 5mins would do.
I know this "video" (podcast let's be honest) wasn't about the points above but still. I look forward to your next videos and appreciate how you helped expand my framework.
Oh what an awesome comment!!! I m glad you tuned in for this videocast :-) I am going to speak extensively on this topic of games as art very soon!!
Mainstream game reviewers have had such a detrimental effect on video games. They have huge influence on the success or failure of games, which in turn gives certain outlets the power to offer paid positive reviews. They focus their reviews on story way more than gameplay, which has resulted in today’s games focused on story over pretty much everything.
I’m a music producer / label owner- I have a lot of experience with the music media (got review blacklisted at one point for not playing the fake bullshit media game). Even “respectable” magazines / media outlets offer paid reviews. The music media industry wouldn’t survive without it and I suspect it’s the same case with video game media.
Yup. People have to understand that these are big corporations whose main goal is profits. They don't give a crap about objectivity or honesty. All they care is that enough people buy and play these games. And positive reviews/opinions are crucial in helping push these sales. If people who are interested in a product hear glowing reviews which reinforce their interest...They are more likely to open their wallets and make the purchase. And it works the other way around as well. If they hear bad reviews, they will change their minds and decline the purchase. This has essentially led to a system where the video game creators control the game review industry, where they only allow "access" to those who are under control and give glowing reviews that are crucial to profits. If it's a mainstream publication or "big" TH-camr, chances are you can't trust them and they are bought and paid for.
Agreed 100% touraline and I think IGN pretty much admitted it in their video they made ha. Where they offer themselves as a marketing tool to publishers and in exchange I am sure they got some kind of money and early access to games, and in return the publishers can secure themselves guaranteed positive reviews. (or at least no review if things go really bad, like cyberpunk).
Just wanted to say this was an enjoyable listen. Should do more just you and boghog
Thanks my dude!!! Yes bog is a really fun guest and he ll be back for sure :-)
It was a fascinating discussion, you two have great synergy.
After seeing the episode title and the length, I almost skipped this ... Holy crap I'm glad I didn't. This was absolutely engrossing. Thank you to Boghog (and Mark's editing skills), this was far more interesting than I expected.
YAY!!!!! I'm really happy to hear that!
Chris Stuckman is the perfect way to describe these reviewers. Bland, unfunny, safe but somehow popular
yeah especially as of late, stuckman is on pure autopilot mode.
Enjoyed this conversation and also the defining shmup genre video.
Part of the problem with reviews…Viewers mainly want a 3-5 mins condensed format. If we had expert reviewers, these videos would be 20-30 mins.
Personally, I like the long format reviewers. It takes time to get your options and point of view across.
I think you could actually do proper reviews in 3-5 minutes, it's just a question of what you jam into that 3-5 min. For a short video like that, you should get right into the game design immediately, and then cut out all the waffle about the game's story and music ha.
Spot on! It's exhausting debating online weirdos that say games like Wanted Dead or Gungrave "totally suck!!!", when they've never played the games and solely base their opinions from IGN, Gaming Bolt, Gamespot, or other reviews.
Maddening!
Yeah once that public opinion starts rolling, it s really hard to help people see an alternative view
Reviewers don’t need to be skilled, but they do need to understand on a very deep level aspects of game design and have an analytically sharp mind
I agree that there should be critics with varying skill levels and approaches to playing games. Some critics should be skilled experts on the mechanics of playing and reviewing a specific genre. I think some critics should be speedrunners or "casual players" or any other type of video game player. Different types of critics with different types of analysis would reflect the different priorities of different consumers.
Mainstream review sites are pretty useless.
I'm so glad i've discovered that gigachad of a gaming channel thanks to crowbcat
That was really nice of crowbat to link my vid!!! Welcome to the channel :-) Thanks for tuning in!
Someone who isn't physically/mentally able to finish any game on "above mouthbreather" difficulty shouldn't have their criticisms taken nearly as seriously as someone who can take a game apart, no question.
WTF? Why? A lot of players are not "skilled".
@@MomockDamock Apparently not "literate" either.
@@MomockDamock Goddamnit....
I just think its crazy that a game that is among the highest rated of all time is acceptable to just "redo" In the eyes of critics
In ANY OTHER MEDIUM for ages, anything rehashing other unoriginal ideas would get torn to shreds by critics, even if it were a new IP with new story etc. Now you can literally copy paste and it is critically acceptable...
This is a great point. No one has tried to remake Citizen Kane, one of the greatest movies of all time. No one has tried to rewrite Moby Dick, one of the greatest novels of all time. People would reject the idea out of hand. But gaming? "We need to update this for modern audiences!"
Yeah the power of remake culture is very strong ha. What's crazy is that there is no metric to even judge the originality of a remake or if the remake is trying to genuinely improve the IP, or if it's just cashing in on a popular game.
Lots of movies have been remade, including well regarded ones
@@RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS77 this does happen in movies, but often times the first movie itself was an adaptation of something else, like pinocchio from disney vs pinocchio from guillermo del torro. Not a direct "remake," and even the better movie remakes justify themselves beyond just improved visuals with a better cast or a drastically different script, and new themes
@@zuffin1864 Yeah I'll always prefer 80s Pacino Scarface over the 1930s version. 80s told the same story but added more psychological elements. What I hate about modern remakes is that they dumb down & bastardize the gameplay like RE4make or the story like Final Fantasy 7 Remake which deleted the Jung & Gnostic plot of the classic to replace it with dumb Kingdom Hearts plot twists because Hironobu Sakaguchi was the only one at Square who seemed to actually read philosophy instead of stupid manga.
Not totally related to the video, but the rise of "movie" games as I like to call them has completely atrophied any kind of deeper analysis of the gameplay in game reviews imo. The whole discourse around whether or not games are art seems totally hinged on whether or not they can tell a good story, which just seems ridiculous to me. A medium should be judged by the aims of it's medium, not what ancillary things that can be sort of achieved by it. There are some great stories portrayed on film, but any serious critic will be more focused on the composition of shots, the shooting techniques and the editing much more than the story.
Which is why it's so ridiculous to me that games like Last of Us or GOW, that have, at best, passing gameplay, are hoisted up as the pinnacle of the medium by critics when really what they're focusing on is the story and the presentation rather than....oh I don't know, THE GAME? Absolutely drives me up a wall when there have been plenty games of recent vintage like Metal Gear Solid or even Resident Evil that told pretty competent and compelling stories, that are ELEVATED by their gameplay rather than it just being something you have to do in between cutscenes.
If we judge Games as Games
then Tetris is the best Game ever
think about it
what can Tetris offer you other than gameplay? Not much.
while other Games CAN offer you artistic experiences, but only at a compromise of gameplay
any Game with More Art than Tetris, also has More downtime where you aren't actually engaging in gameplay
even Something as fantastic as Devil May Cry lets you sit through cutscenes and lets you Walk from A to B without anything Happening (in Terms of gameplay)
the downtime enhances the experience, but Not the Game
so the Game shouldnt be judged as Game but rather as gaming experience IMO
sadly, Most reviewers aren't making this distinction
@@shitfacejohnson4085 I don't really disagree, I'd just say that the experience as a whole is diminished in my eyes if the core gameplay mechanics aren't solid. You could have a Citizen Kane level of presentation and story, but what good are those elements of the experience if the core they're built around isn't fun or thought out? At that point just watch a movie is my point.
@@ciananmeagher9005 what about Games that are mostly Text based, Like some RPGs or visual novels
Disco Elysium doesnt have anything I would traditionally call good gameplay
but its still a good experience (a experience that you cant really get from a book or movie)
how a Game should be judged heavily depends on its context
and judging it as experience doesnt mean that the gameplay cant be judged at all
after all its a Part of the experience and should enhance the Art
and the Art should enhance and give context to the gameplay
If God of wars Story and gameplay dont mesh Well together or the gameplay has flaws that it doesnt need
then you can still criticize that
or when the cutscenes are a detriment to your experience
which is perfectly understandable
then thats worthy of criticism
a Game CAN be too cinematic
I think Dark Souls is a better gaming experience than Uncharted because Uncharted tries to Force the Story onto me in a way that I dont enjoy
Sure thats subjective
but judging Games with artistic intentions is Kind of inherently subjective since we're talking about Art
Extremely on point comment! I am going to be making a vid in the future about this very topic!!
I've reached the conclusion (a long time ago) that mainstream game "reviewers" cannot be trusted. Simply put, they are dishonest shills whose incomes depend on the same video game creators that they are supposed to be critiquing. There is a massive conflict of interest. The thing that gets me is the fact that this is so obvious, and yet people continue to trust these reviewers and base their conclusions and purchases on their word. Let's be honest here; nearly every AAA title these days gets a minimum 8/10 score. Every big title is "a masterpiece". Zelda Tears of the Kingdom released today and unsurprisingly all the major reviews from mainstream outlets and big TH-camrs are giving perfect scores and calling it a "masterpiece".
According to these same reviewers BOTW was also a 10/10 "masterpiece". Even though it didn't revolutionize gaming in any way, shape, or form. Even upon it's release BOTW was graphically outdated. If someone told me the game came out in 2008 I would have believed them. It also didn't do anything groundbreaking or revolutionary in the open world genre. The world was rather empty and bland. The gameplay was decent but nothing too impressive or unique, and the exploration of the world began to feel monotonous after a while. Despite this the reviewers claimed it was the greatest Zelda game of all-time. Which is absolutely laughable when considering how much titles like Link to The Past or Ocarina of Time revolutionized gaming when they first came out. Those game literally pushed the limits of console gaming in their respective eras. They set new standards and expectations. While BOTW felt like a graphically inferior game more appropriate for the PS3 era, with an average
"open world" to explore, half decent gameplay at best and not doing anything particularly unique with the genre.
The same thing can be said of Mario Odyssey. Also a 10/10 game. And while that game actually looked very good for a Mario game, it required next to no skill. Again, it was monotonous gameplay and it wasn't very engaging. The game had no learning curve and didn't require mastering of it's gameplay in order to beat it. And with over 900 moons littered throughout the game the player was literally walking into moons left and right at every turn. Which ultimately took away from the satisfaction of finding these moons because it was a pretty constant occurrence.... Luigi's Mansion 3 received mostly 9s out of 10. Metroid Dread was mostly 9s and 10s. Animal Crossing New Horizons was the same thing. Kirby's new game also received mostly 9s. So on and so forth.
Are we seeing the pattern here? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that these reviewers are basically claiming ALL of Nintendo's major new games were the best ever in their franchise. "mAsTeRpiEcEs" which revolutionized gaming. Needless to say this is complete and total bull. Anyone would have to be extremely naive to actually believe this is the case.
I remember the days when actual revolutionary games like Super Smash Bros would receive 7/10. Or the Banjo Kazooie games which were arguably better than Mario 64 would only get scores in the 8s or low 9s. Even though they objectively topped Mario 64 in almost every department. And needless to say Mario 64 was truly a groundbreaking game, which not only revolutionized the Mario series but successfully transitioned gaming from the 2d to 3d era. 10 out of 10s were extremely rare back in the days. Reserved only for the true cream of the crop titles that blew gamers away. But today? 10/10 essentially means nothing, other than the fact that the people reviewing it are mostly likely shilling to push sales for the developers. It's sad but that's where gaming is at these days. And it's part of the reasons that channels like this are such a breath of fresh air.
Banjo Kazooie is not better than Super Mario 64.
I feel the same way. In fact I feel like I can almost always predict a games score before the game comes out ... based of it's marketing. Strong marketing = strong review scores. Weak marketing, then it's more of a toss up lol. Yes because reviewers are essentially at the mercy of developers to continue their business model of just shoveling mass quantities of generic reviews, that means they also have to play ball with the publishers, otherwise publishers won't give them free copies and so forth. It's a nasty self re-inforcing mechanism and as a result yes all zelda games are 10/10, all big nintendo ips are 10/10. Hell nintendo life gave bayo 3, which was plagued with many obvious issues, a 10/10 lol.
I would also like to point out the "score creep", where a passing score has moved from a 5/10 to a 7/10. The issue is that we reserve the bottom half of the scale for bad games, leaving only half the scale for good games. But at this point, we have both mediocre games and good games to rank, so we have to halve the scale again. That's why 7/10 became the baseline score, and anything that is just above average becomes an 8/10.
In my other comment, I mention that I personally use two passing scores instead, 4/10 to separate the bad games from the mediocre, and 7/10 to separate the mediocre games from the good ones. Lo and behold, I get close to a normal distribution with this system, because average games are *gasp* average! Who knew?
People may argue the "score creep" is because people curate the games they want to play, and so they are more likely to like the games they pick out. However, 1) these mainstream reviewers do not curate the games they review (except how much money is being slid into their pockets perhaps) and, 2) even if you try to curate, it's still a shot in the dark because other people have different tastes and standards from you (e.g. I saw another commenter saying how a JRPG feels very grindy, even though JRPG fans say there is no grinding).
So what you are saying is that quality doesn’t matter because all that matters is what it brings to the table? Because Zelda breath of the Wild actually mastered exploration for modern gaming. Who cares that it doesn’t have a hyper detailed art style, it still looks better than most current gen games just because it actually looks like exactly what it is, where other games haven’t reached what they want to look like.
I have followed several industry "journalists" over the years, for example from IGN, who over time have decided to quit to have their own media. They confessed that they never played the games because they didn't really have time to play them, and the important thing was to be the novelty, so they had to get the notes out as soon as possible to get as many clicks as they could. Their notes were clickbait. On the other hand, they had to please a game's fanbase to get the hits. If they played a game, they didn't get past 30% of the content and extrapolated everything they experienced to the entire gameplay experience. There are many examples of this, like the praise for Cyberpunk 2077, or when Skyrim was considered the best RPG ever when it was unplayable out of the box due to the amount of technical problems. Today, after how Resident Evil 4 Remake was praised, when any serious journalist would notice the artistic and core differences with the original and would see how different mechanics like stealth and parry were added for a matter of trends and that hurt the experience, it should be more than clear that the press is only publicity for the companies.
The thing is though you don't really need to be a God tier player to recognise a great game when you play it. You just need experience and exposure to a lot of great games over the years.
This was awesome!!!! Quite refreshing to hear takes on this topic. For a second I thought I was crazy, and I was the only one noticing this
The problem with Video Game critique is twofold;
1. game criticism borrowed the language and structure of other media such critique such as film, music, and literature. But most did not (or do not) understand the history and purpose of those concepts & languages.
2. Video game reviews are still largely written from the POV of a consumer. So consideration of value relative to cost is implicitly part of the cirque of something that has only subjective value; art.
I remember a video from the last gamer describing the embargo and early coverage of the Nintendo switch and in the video he said what the embargo requirements are. Like how the videos have to have them saying “wow it’s so small and compact” in a shocked manner. Then when looking back at the early videos I kinda denounced all the people who got early switches.
Oh wow I would love to get a hold of that term sheet and look at it!
I think there should be a mix and the review should be honest about their skill level. So you could have like mega mainstream or casual gamers review something but also have a skilled perspective. I come to this channel for a skilled perspective :) and for dope ass arcade style recommends.
I honestly have the opposite problem with RPG reviews, like I’m an rpg scrub… and I hate the idea of grinding…. So when reviewers (who are really into rpgs) say “oh this game has basically no grind and it’s so well paced” and then I play it and I’m like “this game drags like crazy and is so grindy!”
So it would be nice to know the perspective and skill of the reviewer.
yes I think if reviewers gauged the context of their critique more openly, that would go a very long way. Because right now a lot of reviewers make critiques of games that they don't have any skill at, like wanted dead, and then frame their critique as an overall analysis when really they don't even understand the gameplay system to begin with.
They used to! Before the gamer-journalist relationship became adversarial, even Kotaku used to post completion percentage and other details to “authenticate” their review. Now they can’t even be arsed to RTFM!
I love the vertical slice of Master Ninja mode of Ninja Gaiden 2 where the game starts, 2 shuriken hit you you explode and enjoy 5-10 seconds of loading
I laughed when you talked about every shmup review starting with a brief and ill informed history of the genre, I’ve noticed that myself. It’s either that or a four paragraph personal history of the writer’s time spent in arcades back in the day to establish enough credit to be reviewing the game I guess.
Yes part of it is because reviewers need to fill out the word count, and part of it is that all shmups are essentially interchangeable in their minds, so talking about the genre as a whole in every review makes sense to them lol.
@@TheElectricUnderground 😂😂 please go read the rockpapershotgun review of Deathsmiles, it is unhinged
No one is talking about the function of the shotgun in RE4 VS RE4make. In RE4 it was a means of blowing back a group of ganados without doing a lot of damage. In RE4make, it's practically single target and doesn't really send ganados flying, maybe apart from a single target. It's gone from crowd control to concentrated damage. Also yeah the lack of stuns.
What an absolute banger thumbnail, and video too I guess... In all honesty I really like the longer videos and those with guests (can boghog even be called a guest at this point?)
Yeah bog did a great job on this!! So I know this format isn't as like strong as a topic vid, but every now and then I do like to do these longform conversations as sometimes it is really hard to jam in too many points into a single topic vid ha. Bog is a guest, but probably the closest person to being the electric underground that is not myself ha.
Apart from all the valid issues here raised by others, there’s an inherent problem with the idea of “reviewing” or “critiquing” games in the same way as other media. Take movies for example: it’s true that oftentimes great films need time to marinate or are so ahead of the curve that it would require serious forward-thinking to appreciate them (Blade Runner & The Thing being the famous examples); but, generally speaking, the whole package is available on-sight and can be relatively well-assimilated within a few hours.
Video games just aren’t analogous. Not only are they considerably lengthier, but appreciating them requires a certain mastery. Yet, people are consuming them mainly for fun, an “experience,” diversion, what have you, not really with an interest in mastery, which can be stressful and contradict their motives for playing in the first place.
With movies, most of the time you can get a rough feel for the depths from the surface; with games, on the other hand, it’s almost the reverse - you have to mine the depths to appreciate the surface. People are more familiar with literary modes like recognizing themes and metaphors, or having their aesthetic sense tickled by holistic sequences where writing, music, acting, plotting, and cinematography all come together. But you don’t play movies, and their value doesn’t depend on *that* kind of interaction. Games cannot just tickle the aesthetic sense or present interesting themes or worthy philosophical thoughts and be good *games* thereby. They need actual substance in the place where their medium is defined: gameplay.
To presume to “review” that on day one or even before day one is nearly always a fool’s errand. Even if we grant the purest, holiest intentions among reviewers, they still couldn’t do it in a way that passes muster. They don’t have the time. They, along with most people, probably don’t have the interest and therefore the will either.
There’s a paradox, then, ingrained in the nature of the thing. Entertainment is a “now” business, and the essence of games is not. I suspect this is part of the reason games that go for pop culture glory have rapidly shifted into a more familiar cinematic mode. It’s easier to access that kind of quality. Everyone has at least a little informal training in it just by growing up watching tons of movies and shows. Game mechanics are another story, though. Most people’s thinking on the subject probably boils down to “it’s fun” or “it’s not fun.”
I’m not sure there’s any fix for it. Like I said, I believe that even if the industry was ethically above reproach the same problems would exist, albeit they’d be more honest about the limitations of their reviews. The corruption just follows as a matter of course, as it will for any industry with big money and “independent” outlets tasked with filtering the products of big money for the hoi polloi. The money will always try and to some extent succeed in capturing the outlets and holding them in thrall, whether through bribery, perks, status, or other alluring means.
My point is: take out the corruption and impure intentions and you still have a fundamental problem: reviewing “now” things that require time to judge properly. And that comes down even more fundamentally to the evident desire of the consumer base to treat these unique artistic products in conventional or at least more effortlessly assimilable ways - to subsume games under movies or books or visual spectacles, etc.
Horseshit take
Awesome video. I found myself nodding my head and laughing because I shared so many of these thoughts.
I could write all day, but I'll just touch on two things I wanted to mention. And hopefully it's understandable, and not a jumbled mess of a rant.
Going into some details, I feel the most important thing is the reviewer's literacy and understanding of deep nuances of what's being reviewed - even if they themselves are unable to put these understandings into practice within the games consistently or at all(and them mentioning this in itself would go a long way). It's just that being able to, being experienced, and or an expert on the subject of review, increases the likelihood, and the ability to better articulate and relay - though it is not a prerequisite. There's too many games, not feasible for someone to be an expert in more than just a few, or even a couple.
I think the prerequisite should be properly conveying their level of competency and credibility on constant renewal. So this leads into the next part.
Another big issue is review outlets and content creators rarely if ever, preface where they stand on credibility of what they're reviewing(or at least a place to find it), in addition to leaving out any ground personal standard or control variable. It's instead all left arbitrary, with a forced onus toward the viewer/reader to assume the level of competency of the critic.
So buzzwords get thrown around in an attempt to try and fake it or fabricate competency or expertise. Other games get compared(often falsely) aggressively, moving assumption goalposts until one of them sticks. Buzzwords(and other games themselves as testimonial buzzwords) in place of nuances, etc.
It can almost come off as if just reading or watching a review, is them challenging your own competency and credibility, if scores don't line up with your own. As they're saying a bunch of nothings. Discourse ends up being based on sentiment and public opinions, and less on substance. And it's sad because the ones that rely heavily on this as a deciding factor, are the ones that would be losing out on near endless enjoyment(even in the most poorly reviewed games).
This was a great discussion. Had some weird tangents here and there, but raised a lot of great, nuanced points. A shame you guys didn't talk about the operational side of reviewing, because I'm sure lots of mainstream reviewers would love to go more in-depth with some games if they didn't have to churn a review every week.
To me, the best reviews are those that explain the intended game experience, and how mechanics and content interact to achieve (or fail to achieve) that experience. It's why I'm subscribed to this channel, after all! For an unskilled reviewer, the "mechanics" part is very hard to evaluate, so the best they can do is review the "content", without the full context. So if the game has enjoyable content irrespective of skill level, like with big cinematic setpieces, it'll do better. No surprises here.
For a game that requires learning a specific skillset to reach the intended experience, it's critical for the game itself to communicate clearly how the game is SUPPOSED to be played, and what that intended experience is. So even if an unskilled player can't reach it, they will still UNDERSTAND it. Be it through good tutorials, clear UI/feedback, or just by drilling through level design, good teaching will result in more insightful (and positive) reviews. It's no wonder that Ikaruga is one of the best reviewed shmups ever: even though no mainstream reviewer could ever do a proper high score run, the game is super clear in how it's supposed to be played. Loved it when Bog Hog mentioned how a game not teaching the player properly is a bad thing. Sometimes I feel like skilled players tend to overlook this when talking about games they like, but I feel reviewers should definitely point out how well the game teaches the player.
HOWEVER, skilled reviewers have the capacity to compensate for a lack of a good, in-game explanation of the mechanics because they can find them out how everything ties together by themselves. As I said, I think it's the reviewer's job to explain how the game is supposed to be played and how you get fun out of it. If a reviewer provides such insights, they're not just recommending a game, they're helping other players enjoy it more. It's like they're improving the game just by themselves!
Finally, I also have to mention that there are different types of players, and we happen to all be in one category that derives enjoyment from gameplay depth. There are other ways to enjoy games, and it's important recognize that it's okay. I definitely do lean towards the devil's advocate argument that "unskilled" reviewers can produce good reviews targeted at unskilled players - but I do think it's important for them to be insightful and accurate about their experiences, and not just regurgitate a fact sheet and give the game a score.
There's a million more things I could say, this is a really fun topic because it delves a lot into the design of the games themselves. Sorry for the long post!
It's absolutely true that critics should put games through the wringer when they poorly convey important information. *BUT* it's still their job to understand & evaluate the game itself - even if it does a poor job at teaching its mechanics. It's true that they can sorta fix the game's issues accidentally by doing this, but I think that's desirable cause that's the hallmark of good criticism - it helps people understand games better, increases/decreases their appreciation, and makes them learn new stuff about themselves.
Battle Garegga is probably the ultimate example of this. It's one of the most nonsensical incomprehensible games around in terms of learning curve because it explains absolutely nothing and has a huge amount of obscure counterintuitive mechanics. But while this is a huge problem with the game, what's underneath that messy learning curve is actually an absolute schizophrenic masterpiece that has some incredibly interesting and well designed systems that flip shmup conventions on their head. And it would go on to influence countless other games, practically being part of the "shmup canon".
Critics can't just stop at "the game explains nothing", they need to note that as a serious flaw, and then keep going!
Also glad you liked the convo! Wouldn't be a podcast without weird tangents and some RE4make complaints :D
Oh awesome post my dude!!! Yes we do touch on the operational aspect of reviews a bit actually, where I think reviewers should be extremely well versed in genre generally, so that they can accurately and quickly assess new information. This makes reviews quicker to do and more in depth
My biggest issue with them is their lack of reference knowledge, yet they write as if they're an authority. My second biggest issue is much like film reviewers many have disconnected with the experience of being someone who enjoys the product - huge disparity between player opinion and reviewers. My third biggest issue is that many actually just go off on a tangent and complain about things which are not concerned with the *product* people are *buying*.
exactly system! Yes like with the wanted dead review, IGN wrote with such authority that the gameplay is awful when actually they have no idea what they are even talking about and the gameplay is fantastic ha. Action games tend to bring this out in a lot of mainstream reviewers, as it exposes how little they care about game mechanics and level design.
I just realized I don’t read or watch reviews anymore. I can watch a few minutes of gameplay footage and know if I’m going to like a game or not. I’m much more interested in tech reviews, I’m not buying a game at launch that’s full of bugs and has a broken framerate. Too many games are shipped in unplayable states these days.
yes exactly the same thing here inquisition. When a game comes out that i am interested in, which isn't too often now ha, i always watch gameplay footage as my primary buying decision, as I do not trust reviewers not only because they are inclined to shill, but also because they don't actually check the stuff that I want to be checked and discussed.
Agreed. As someone who has always thought "gaming is the only thing I love to do", I've started to look for other hobbies. The video game industry is so sad nowadays. At least good old games are always going to be around, but it's still depressing to see broken launch after broken launch.
Professional game reviewers were never good, looking back at the 90s magazines they were obviously bought out, even the "unofficial" ones.
Finished the video, very interesting discussions, thanks.
For a shmup example, look at the hype Gaiares got when it came out even though barely anyone played it or have heard about it. Its because Telenet paid the reviewers to say good things. Most notably, it was the first game that Gamepro gave a perfect score. Not a bad game, but a funny example.
absolutely! I agree for sure. I don't think we have ever seen much rigorous or serious game critique and analysis. And the stuff that we have seen is always rooted in some sort of games as story critique, which is lame. It's like the last thing critics want to talk about is the actual gameplay ha.
@@DonnyKirkMusic thought it was the efforts of Jamie bunker, professional gamer.
Those who are fans/experienced/"experts" of a certain game genre to me are more qualified to speak on or review a game that is in that general genre. What they say is actually worthwhile since they understand and showcase elements from transferable skills and reference from properly understanding these genre's.
that is absolutely true in many cases, but I will say that I think we undervalue what a solid critic can offer to the medium, because fans have their own issues as well. I'll give you a good example, fighting games. Fans almost always have better insights on the games they play than mainstream reviewers, but fans are also under their own sense of bias as they are forced to essentially make due with what the developers give them. That's how you end up with someone like Max Dood who will bend over backwards to justify the games he covers, because he has a stake in them as a fan because he has to continually engage with the games. Whereas a critic could analyze tekken 5 vs tekken 7 more objectively, as the critic does not have a conflict of interest in continuing to engage in the series.
You bring up a very good point. The way Max does it; maybe not outwardly saying it but his justification for his kind of bias and shilling is because his agenda is to have more people interested in fighting games even if the release is not up to par. He did though to his credit advocate for rollback net-code and better online conditions to his credit. But yeah I definitely see what you mean it reigns true.
I guess the other argument is, not all your readers are fans of the genre. If I read about some genre I don't play that often I might get a lot less out of the expert review and have a perspective more similar to the noob.
I've read the comments and I agree that game critique itself is dead. Game developers don't want it, game reviewers don't profit from it, and game players don't care about it.
However, I do think game criticis are still existential to the medium regardless simply because games are art, and these are the only people that you can trust to point that out.
Games like "Journey" or "SOMA" or indie games like Undertale or Disco Elysium are most definitely art, but the normies will never be able to fully comprehend why because of the lack of explosions and fan service.
That was SO ON POINT! Love you guys!
Thanks so much for tuning in!!!!!
Yay more long video content. Nice to listen to on the side.
On the topic, I think its a tricky line to walk because skilled players and casuals are effectively playing 2 different games. Ideally a review should be presentable and enjoyable to casuals while dropping some tidbits in that only more dedicated players are going to pick up on. Kinda like the "made for kids" vs "suitable for kids" discussion with movies.
Different view points can lead to really different reviews too, for instance one of my favorite games Darks Souls II, which was hated by many for more broad stroke sort of elements like story and world layout etc. But I loved it for its more in-depth core gameplay which gave it (imo) by far the best pvp dueling. But thats where I wanna see a break away from number reviewing because how do you attach a number to something like that, I greatly recommend DSII......for specific reasons, reasons that have to be explained and understood beyond just "is it a 10 or a 6 game?".
You see the incentives of well-worn paths to success and audience capture working on people in real time, too.
Someone who starts out more outsider subtly shifts as they gain followers and notoriety and the natural progression of their takes becoming more “nuanced” as they might charitably put it, but this nuance is always in one direction (one that makes them money, increases metrics), makes the piece resemble the consensus more, and sands much of it’s original or natural edge that made them stand out in the space in the first place.
It’s highly corrupting, it infects every medium, it’s driven both by the establishment and the consumers and involves the interplay of who enjoyed something initially “gatekeeping” to try and protect those elements, and new general audience complaining about that “gatekeeping” that just ends up being a form of gatekeeping itself and all you really do is shift who’s holding the keys to the door and the agenda that animates them.
I also don’t know how you stop this.
Everyone is mostly a bad actor in this or being manipulated by the key players of whatever side you more or less identify with and almost no one is questioning that itMs bad to identify intimately with any side of almost anything precisely because of the corrupting nature of these dynamics, especially when it’s your livelihood or shortcut to status.
Just recently found your videos, huge fan already
Video game reviewing is actually pretty hard for me. If I am going to review a fighting game, I will only say my piece according to what I mostly used like I will review Guilty Gear +R as a Dizzy main, Blazblue as a Rachel main, Hellsinker as a Fossil Maiden user, etc... By doing so, I still feel like I will miss alot of details but at the same time, I just wanna express on how I feel about a game I am playing.
Maybe reviews should be more of an expression rather than trying to convince people. I just feel like most game reviews are just to sell the product instead of expressing their experience.
absolutely, so the key to critique in this situation is that you want your tastes, thoughts, and experiences to be organized into a coherent logic for your reviews, that way you are providing a consistent frame of reference for people to understand what you value as a reviewer and why.
Honestly, it's difficult to give a truly all-encompassing review for any one game. What is perhaps more important is that reviewers should clearly define the scope of their reviews at the beginning, so that readers know exactly what parts of the game are being evaluated. And as long as a reviewer does that, I think it's perfectly fair to make a review, even if they have limited knowledge.
@@lunaria_stg ohh I also plan to do game reviews for Etrian Odyssey that talks more about each stratum/chapters. If I go for pokemon review, I will review each according to journey towards a certain gym. I do think people will lose their attention if I do it that way but who cares, hahaha. I can't do story reviews like most rpg people so I'll do my way.
@@soratheorangejuicemascot5809 If anything, it sounds like you're telling your personal story, which can make it pretty engaging! I can imagine it being like Jaiden's nuzlocke videos, but with a more critical lens to it.
And hey, it can't be any worse than the generic crap that mainstream reviewers are putting out, right? :P
This is such a great flowing conversation. Fun to watch and rewatch. Thanks for this, feels good man. Cathartic. Informative. Radical.
Babe wake up, new 3-hour Electric Underground is out
Yep, wake up the whole family, it's time to tune in ha.
I don’t know about you guys but Gradius 3 Arcade seemed challenging but fair to me. The combat was really satisfying and rewarding. 9.2 out of 10.
LOL!
I used the full power-up Konami code cheat repeatedly in Gradius III in the Gradius III & IV Collection on PS2 to get the two 1CCs to unlock Extra Edit 1 and Extra Edit 2 modes (Reduce II ftw!) and I still felt the game was unfair even with the Konami code lol. That game has the most f'd up bs game design ever, though I still enjoy playing it lol
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, you can't expect 'experts' to have the skills to know what they're talking about!"
ha it's just impossible
my fav reviewer is sseth, not because he's objective, or good at the games, but because watching a deranged man review obscure games with some funny editing is highly entertaining.
i also love civvie11 for that reason.
Tunnel vision was also in the 90s zine culture. Every RPG had to be Final Fantasy to these people.
Yes, and remember when every fps needed to be halo ha.
Call Duty as well. Held back First Person Shooters for many years. Not every FPS needs regen health, iron sights and a two weapon limits.
Love this channel. I am a gamedev, studio founder/CEO (emeritus) and 1000% feel all this shit. Big fan of your channel and share most of your views on design and the industry. I am battling this proverbially through my gamedev work. It's very challenging but the industry will flip these boomer investment bankers and lawyers into retirement soon and IGN is going to be about as relevant as HappyPuppy (if you were around in the mid 90s you know).
Loving the channel & interesting topics! I do admit, for a while I thought you were the shmup reviewer for The Electric Playground, being subbed to both and the similar names. You cover alot of topics I'd like to see you as guest on PlayerEssence's podcast.
Thank you guys for the video, very informative and insightful the video felt much shorter than 2 and a half hours due to how much I enjoyed it.
That's fantastic to hear!!! Thank you for tuning in my dude!
One thing I have to mention is that, even though really "good critics", who value stuff like speaking about game mechanics, the core game loop, the "jargon" types of reviewers, they aren't very good at games either! Matthewmatosis is actually such an outlier, because he is quite good at classic games (mostly action-platformers, but overall he is OK at most games he plays). The amount you know about game design doesn't really correlate to being "good at games"
I had this one discussion one time with these guys on Discord after I absolutely failed at the fighting game they were playing, they were like "dude, this is X, he knows everything about games, how is he not good at fighting games?", well, I know everything about them mechanically, I know which games started the fighting game craze, which games popularized mechanics, but that doesn't mean I'm good at every game. There are a lot of genres I still need to get into more, actually, like racing and strategy.
So, what I'm saying is that it seems like people's expectations have raised a bit too high, they are expecting not only for you to be a gaming enthusiast, but for you to have nearly mastered pretty much any genre you decide to review. Seems really overly-harsh to me, but then again I didn't freak out over that one Cuphead review where the guy can't make it past the tutorial, I just realized the dude probably was shit at action-plats so that's what happened: he played like shit on camera.
We need to deal with video games slightly differently from other forms of art because the other artforms don't actively challenge you in terms of hand-eye coordination; A painting doesn't fly around the room avoiding your gaze. You may be challenged by the content of the painting (there are some from the past that are totally incomprehensible unless you study history) but you won't literally be blocked from seeing the entire painting unless you get good at painting yourself. Though, in that analogy, learning to paint allows you to appreciate painting much better because you can appreciate it down to the smallest strokes.
Think of it like this - while bad critics may remain bad even if they get good at games (some cheevo hunting channels have very uninteresting reviews), good critics will get A LOT out of it. Its a good mentality to have, even if its not universally true.
That said like we mentioned in the "how good is good?" section, we are not talking about seriously high level stuff because that does get extremely time consuming and often heavily talent-based. But if you are say a character action game reviewer, I dont think its unreasonable to expect you to have beaten some Dante Must Die modes, some Non Stop Infinite Climax modes, some Master Ninja modes, SOMETHING. They should not be massively lagging behind the average hardcore gamer in terms of skill & knowledge.
Its true that game reviewing is uniquely demanding due to the skill element, but that's no reason to diminish the importance of expertise in my opinion.
@@boghogSTG yeah, I'm mostly just thinking of variety reviewers, where they are meant to just review any game that comes out regardless of genre, there are always going to be genres that the reviewer kinda sucks at. Mostly focusing on the IGN type of reviewers, because like you are saying there are lots of guys on YT who are good at reviewing AND can actually play the game they are talking about at a high level, but its quite rare, and I think we see it more often because YT is such a great place for people to start a channel about anything game-related, so you have some guys who will only focus on RPGs, character-action games, shmups, for instance, and will still get huge viewer+sub counts because the demand is there, but I'm mostly just talking about "professional reviewers/game journalists" who are just doing a job, basically.
In that respect, gaming is their job so you'd expect them to be good at games, but the job demands you to rush through games and basically not respect them in order to keep your job in the first place, as well as say things you don't want to say in order to make the publisher or whoever happy about your review. Its just the fact of professional game reviews, that's why most people watch YT if they want a good review of a game, they don't usually go on IGN anymore, but the thing is that IGN's scores influence Metacritic and other review sites, and most YT review scores don't count on Metacritic.
@@DonnyKirkMusic Yeah, the format itself is pretty crappy and discourages good reviews. Recently due to all the backlash to unskilled reviewers outlets have had to get experts on board (Will Freeman is the shmup buff at Nintendolife, theres often FROM Soft buffs at IGN and what not) and its been having positive impact on reviews. That said even among specialists theres a lot of problems (IGNs Sifu and Wanted Dead reviews were written by their "action game expert") and unless people keep the pressure up outlets wont be incentivized to try harder.
...then again it seems like these outlets can barely sustain themselves financially so maybe the whole industry is fundamentally broken and cannot improve.
@@boghogSTG "But if you are say a character action game reviewer, I dont think its unreasonable to expect you to have beaten some Dante Must Die modes, some Non Stop Infinite Climax modes, some Master Ninja modes, SOMETHING. They should not be massively lagging behind the average hardcore gamer in terms of skill & knowledge."
I honestly don't really expect this out of action game reviewers honestly primarily because most of those modes fucking suck. DMD hasn't been good since 1, 3s sucks, 4s is meh, and 5s a fucking chore. Master Ninja Mode was cool in NGO/Black, but it sucks in the sequels, and NSIC is just hard mode but with the core game play conceit stripped out, or mostly stripped out in the sequels. Ive also talked to plenty of people who can play those modes who are still fucking awful at talking about those games. Im far more interested in if you can understand the concepts and how they should be applied and then talk about them clearly and concisely. Far more important imo.
@@aureateseigneur5317
The fact that some of these modes suck is even more reason why they should play them - they either reveal fundamental issues with game design (for example DMC1's DMD being mid cuz the gameplay has no solid core to it besides enemy gimmicks and meter management), Ninja Gaiden 2 (MN is a fun mode IMO albeit very janky and RNG driven) having issues with funneling you towards UT & chaining, NSIC uhhh...exposing Bayo's confusing design maybe? NSIC in my opinion is actually really solid - it shows that witch time is a overly dominant crutch that's not needed. The game not only has enough benefits to perfect dodging without witch time thanks to meter gain & the bomb accessory, but also isn't even necessarily based around it since staying in mid range and using ranged charge modifiers is strong as fuck. I think it focuses the game's design, and would help them evaluate lower difficulties instead of just going hehe witch time fun!
Playing these modes won't turn them into great analysts for sure. But if they don't play these modes how are they going to learn any of these concepts? They can regurgitate what they've heard from other players, but then why would anyone come to them to begin with?
Agree! Reviews just became marketing tools not reviews anymore. Game reviewers should be skilled, experienced and educated professionals- like Mark and myself;) I mean should a reviewer that is unable to play the game properly be able to review? Of course not! Clear examples- Virtua Fighters-tough game that’s too rigid for most because most don’t manage to hit certain level of precision. It sucks when a bad players review creates bad marketing that impacts the sequels- and that’s when we get streamlined games! That’s why gaming is going down and I feel soon I will quit gaming for that reason because arcade games are not appreciated anymore. People just take games as a task lists and developers create experiences so people feel good about themselves to give a good feedback. So game difficulty became a weird exchange of information between lazy consumers and devs that are afraid to experiment anymore and have their hands tied!
1:37 Bog Hog needs to be part of Idol Showdown roster.
yes I want his thumbnail version (the pig in the suit) to be a fighting game character ha
this video is an underrated hidden gem masterpiece!!!!
Thank you my dude!!! It's one of my fav videocast eps :-)
@@TheElectricUnderground thx I gotta shill your vids using terms those capcom shills use for views hehe
two and a half hour discussion, now that is the true meaning of comfy. I enjoyed podcasting this in the background.
valid. "Relatable", many people more agree with something they more relate than the truth they have to face. it makes me remember about a prophet story in the middle age that people hate them for saying the truth XD
Oh yeah and you can bet youtubers play into this all the time ha. Look at max dood, whenever they need to do a bit of shilling for companies they turn the relatable meter to full throttle. Whereas I feel like being more critical of stuff is actually more pro consumer, but it's not seen that way ha.
Mark being a secret literature nerd is the biggest anime plot twist, I always linked JRPG aversion with lack of attention for reading
So it does in fact get good two hours in
It’s the purist idea that games need to be games, because that’s what is novel about video games despite the fact that film uses stuff that’s not novel to it like monologues in The Godfather, and acting in pretty much every genre despite the fact that monologues are from literature and acting from Theater. It seems strange to have different standards for video games.
"I always linked JRPG aversion with lack of attention for reading"
... ok?
Seriously why would anyone on the planet come to this conclusion? You alright?
@@mgg7756 talking to people irl who say they can't stand JRPGs, where else? Every single one mentioned that they can't sit through long cutscenes, exposition and unnecessary dialogue, which is awfully similar to reasons people would wait for a movie adaptation, but not read the original book. There is also grinding, but we're on shmup channel, nobody's afraid of that
Grinding is the worst part of any game
While I stopped tuning into general reviews from media, I'm also still skeptical about player reviews as well. Majority of the time the general player will just rate a game high because it functions "well", looks pretty, or delivers a good story/experience without ever talking about how well the game is designed.
yep great point hooks. Player taste is not the end all be all as a lot of the average playerbase wants games that all play and function the same, so if a game's design is unique, it can get clobbered by players as well as critics (see wanted dead)
Really enjoying this in-depth convo! I just have one suggestion. Whenever there's a censored word, the 'beep' noise is too high pitched, it sounds like tinnitus. Maybe for next time you could use a different sound that isn't as painful, thanks
yeah sorry about that, I don't know why my editor software started doing that, it's like some kind of glitch on the pitch shift. I'll remove it next time and do something else (damn software)
shmup reviews be like: it's just like ikaruga
or it's not like ikaruga - 5/10
What are some reviewers you guys like?
I just got into main homie here by chance and I wonder how many other honest reviewers are lurking out there that just haven’t gotten picked up by the algorithm.
Imo you should develop your own opinion of product with light research and then listen To other to cross reference.
Otherwise I personally listen to people folks who do analysis on game design then game review.
Their backlog battle, In-depth gaming, and retropolise that I am fan of. If course the folks at this channel too.
I find following people who specialise in a genre I follow GMANLIVES for FPS games ( though this guy now is a shill), Glen Plant N64 for Nintendo 64 games, Sega Lord X for Sega games and Electric Underground for arcade action games.
@@magicjohnson3121 Yeah Gmanlives was great. He used to be the fps version of Critical Drinker, then you get to his RE4remake review, he sounds like he was reading off of a bullet list. What's with all these RE4make reviews talking about how so many gamers looked under Ashley's skirt in RE4 OG? I never did that, nor did I know anyone who did but these Corporate bums portray us as scum.
I do like Mathewmatosis, even though we have different tastes in many cases I like how he is trying to create a framework by which he evaluates games. I also liked a lot of stuff superbunnyhop did, though once again I don't totally line up with his tastes ha. See the funny thing is that a lot of people I think do really useful critique are not "game critics" in professional sphere. For example the sources I look to the most and consult with the most are the talented players like Jaimers and Iconoclast, so their comments and notes on games are stuff that I often consult and evaluate.
@Max Master J I followed GMANLIVES before he became huge. He has become too much like Classicgameroom review where he’s not critical enough. You got to have that balance.
Great points from both of you! Well, I say that because I have the same thought process XD One of the examples I want to highlight is Boghog's explanation for analysing game design. When you feel irritated, or the game feels really good, think about why you feel that way. What design elements are coming together to annoy or satisfy you? Your emotions are an important clue to understanding what makes a game worth playing or not (at least for your tastes).
I don't know about making devs play their games as a no-hit challenge, because that falls under the umbrella of challenge runs. So, it opens up a can of worms, like maybe now the devs should also do a speedrun. Wait no, that IS a brilliant idea. It'll make them cut out a lot of unnecessary fluff if they have to optimise for clear times lol
Jokes aside, I suppose it applies for games in general. It's just that it's hard for me to dissociate Mark from shmups, so I kept thinking about no miss runs in shmups, and I feel that asking the devs to do a no miss run would make them dumb down the difficulty. I remember reading an interview with Ikeda where the CAVE devs apparently set the difficulty to where they can't clear, but they feel people should be able to clear. That was early on at least, no idea if that philosophy carried over all the way to Inbachi lmao. So I suppose for games that are designed around difficulty like shmups, what devs should be able to do may be a bit different.
On the topic of completionism, I 100% agree with Mark. A couple months back I picked up Nier Automata on sale. The first couple hours were pretty awful (at least to my taste), but I wanted to stick it out because it's so critically acclaimed, so it must get better later on right? Lol no. Should've just refunded it then and there. Maybe Yoko Taro has some fancy artistic direction he wanted to go for, but all I got from it was poor QoL and poor game mechanics. So yeah, if the game isn't agreeable with you in the beginning, it's highly likely you won't like it even if you finished it.
And in general, it's just a bad idea to invest in promises. It doesn't just apply to hoping the game gets better later on, but also to stuff like preorders, crowdfunding, early access etc., which are (predatory) practices I really dislike in the gaming space.
Lastly, when Boghog mentioned repacking arcade game design in a modern format, that's also something I think about too! If I were to be a game dev, I would definitely try to sneak in some arcade design into a game I make, even if the game is from a more mainstream genre. Alas, my local game design industry is completely dead in the waters, so there's no reason for me to be a game dev professionally.
And now comes my obligatory shilling for Rabi Ribi once again. It's basically shmup design in a mainstream genre (metroidvania). It's pretty cool how GemaYue recontextualised shmup mechanics to incentivise the player to interact with them. It ended up being way longer than I expected (because GemaYue put that much thought into his game design), so I'll move it into a reply below.
The example I'm using is the combo system. In an arcade game, it would probably be used for scoring. But in Rabi Ribi, there's no scoring. Instead, a larger combo boosts your damage, turning this system into an integral part of your DPS. The combo meter decays if you didn't attack the boss for a long enough period of time, incentivising you to play more aggressively. And this creates a nice gameplay loop: do damage to increase your damage multiplier, then to maintain the multiplier, attack the boss more! Should be pretty easy to see the similarities between this and shmup systems.
The combo meter also drops if you take a hit. This incentivises you to avoid taking damage, even if you have plenty of health or are playing on a lower difficulty. This also creates the "tension" between different goals: you need to play aggressively to maintain your multiplier, but this makes it easier for you to take damage. Sounds familiar? It's the typical risk-reward tradeoff from scoring systems!
Building the combo meter also has its fair share of nuances. You have both ranged attacks and melee attacks, but the ranged attacks build the combo meter slowly for the most part. So, if you really want to increase your multiplier quickly, you'll have to go close to the boss and smack them! That has parallels with pointblanking in shmups.
Repeatedly using the same attack also diminishes the amount of combo meter gained, so it encourages you to make use of the wide variety of attacks to make better combos. This probably doesn't have much to do with shmups (maybe we can draw comparisons with Hellsinker I suppose), but it's a nice subtle way to help players master the game more quickly. Compared to my experience with Hollow Knight, I definitely engaged with the mechanics more in Rabi Ribi on my first playthrough.
In Hollow Knight, I basically stuck to basic side slashes for my first playthrough, neglecting spells entirely. In fact, Hollow Knight has a negative gameplay loop. The soul gauge that is used for spells is also used for healing, so it DISCOURAGES new players from using spells, since they would want to conserve the soul gauge for healing. With this psychological restriction, new players end up relying too much on melee attacks, which gets them hit more often, so they waste more soul gauge healing, justifying their decision NOT to use spells.
However, as I found out on repeated playthroughs, spells do a ton of damage, allowing you to rush down most bosses (just look at Pantheon of Hallownest speedruns). The proper gameplay loop is playing aggressively to quickly build the soul gauge, then use spells. There's no reason to heal if you can kill the boss before it kills you, after all. So Hollow Knight also tries to encourage you to play aggressively, but the way the systems and mechanics are laid out actually intuitively encourages the player to do the opposite: playing defensively, which makes the game way harder and more of a slog.
So that's the difference between Rabi Ribi with arcade design, and a game with a more mainstream design. I could continue analysing other parts of Rabi Ribi, but with a single example of the combo meter, I think I already demonstrated how Rabi Ribi blows the vast majority of games out of the water. I have a list of close to 100 games that I've played, each one scored on a scale from 0 to 10, and Rabi Ribi is the ONLY game with a 10/10, because nothing else comes close. For comparison, Hollow Knight is sitting at a 4/10, because I feel it has quite a number of design missteps like what I illustrated above. If those design issues were fixed, it would've been an 8/10.
(4/10 is not as bad as it sounds, because instead of only having a single milestone of 5/10 to decide whether a game is good or bad, I have two milestones, 4/10 and 7/10, to classify bad, meh and good games. So Hollow Knight just barely clears the first milestone to be considered a meh game, in the company of about 45% of the list.)
fantastic comment as always lunar! I absolutely need to make a vid about competitionism at some point, because I think it is a fascinating topic because I think people have a general understanding that critics should be versed in the games they review, but to get stuck on the actual completion of the game is the wrong direction. Instead, what I think is that a reviewer should have a high literacy in the medium and genre they review generally, and should be playing the good games in the medium genre constantly. So that, when a new game appears to them they have the tools they need to quickly and accurately assess the game, but to sit though and play a bad game for 100 hours, just because, is completely unnecessary and a waste of time ha.
@@TheElectricUnderground That's a video I'm looking forward to!
Absolutely agree with you here. From my experience sticking it out with bad games, the only thing I gained from playing more of them is more examples of what they did badly. But at that point, I already have plenty of examples of why I dislike those games, so it was really an exercise in futility.
If you're eating a meal and the first bite you take tastes bad, then you probably don't need to finish the meal to know that it's bad.
@@lunaria_stg I hope Rabi Ribi and Tevi doesn't disappoint me. A game that I expected the most called Astralbringer disappointed me because it doesn't work on the pc I am using.
I actually made a comment/joke in the previous recording of this ep that if devs were forced to play their own hard modes we could either get better hard modes...or we would never see another hard mode in a game ever again LOL
It is a real danger cuz a lot of hard modes are made by extrapolating on the devs' current experiences and skills, making a challenge that they guess will be tough but fun, without truly knowing. But thats why I think forcing devs to do these challenge runs is important - because its intuitive guesswork, developers need good intuitions for what is and what isnt good difficulty. To develop those intuitions they need experience with that sorta difficulty.
But yea there is a limit where it becomes too unreasonable to expect devs to complete certain challenges. A lot of harder shmup no misses would definitely fall in that category in my book.
Whenever I check metacritic before picking up a game a useful thing for me is comparing the critic & player scores. If the players give it a higher score than the critics I'm more likely to give it chance. It's usually is an indication that the gameplay is good.
yeah the player scores are a really helpful metric. Though they are not always the best indication either, as mainstream player taste might not always line up with your taste. Like I love wanted dead and gungrave gore, but they don't have high player scores either.
It’s like the exact opposite of movies.
I just want to say, god, there is so much I want to talk about with you guys that I can't even fathom typing it in the comments. Thank you very much for the video I'm still re-playing a few parts.
Oh that s so awesome slinky!!! I am really happy to hear the vid has connected enough that you enjoy replaying parts of it, that's one of my big goals of the channel. To make vids with staying power rather than flavor of the week
@@TheElectricUnderground Honestly, the biggest mood for me was when you said and I'm paraphrasing "My goal is, when you play some dogshit, you'll realize it's dogshit"
I also wanted to talk a small bit about NG and NG2 vertical slices. I think NG has a much better vertical slice, because NG has a pseudo-open world with 'puzzles' where you must jump a certain way or wall-run and what have you. It has to teach you how to move around in the world and you absolutely must be able to perform these things before you can proceed further.
While NG2 is linear with huge levels and doesn't care about you exploring, even though there are a few platforming sections, there's a lot more fighting to do and often you can't skip these fights. Both slices are good I'd say but I like NG a lot better because it feels much more immersive. It's a good curve I'd say.
That's why I take most reviewers with a grain of salt. Most people can barely beat the game on Normal so how can you give a accurate review of something you haven't mastered?!
That's always a very good idea bulldog, I do the same thing. These days' I always approach games I play with an open mind because I think it's very likely a lot of stuff will be missed in most reviews.
@@TheElectricUnderground I got to ask, do you think re4 remake Is a bad game? I've been really enjoying it especially with mods, but I don't think it's as good as the original. The clunkiness of leon, lack of s, and getting stunlocked are my biggest gripes gameplay wise. I give the OG a 9 and the remake a 8. I just want your opinion as your two videos seem to me like you dislike the game all around.
some interesting points. The way i've often thought of it is, it's never clear to me if a reviewer is reviewing the actual "execution" of the game (how well it's doing what it's trying to do), or is it just a review of the reviewer's tastes in the games ideas/themes. For example, no matter how good say a Golf game is, if a reviewer gives it a bad score it's never clear to me, is it because that golf game is executed badly (that is, a person that's a fan of gold would see it as flawed), or is the reviewer giving that game of golf a bad review because they simply don't like golf or understand the sport? I've literally seen reviews of Golf games that claimed that the game was "broken", because the reviewer was doing "so well", with a great score, only to mess up a shot on the 18th hole, causing them to lose the round. A normal golf fan would know, "that's just golf" you have to pay attention straight through, one mess up on one hole can ruin it, you can't just coast on a lead like other sports. But the reviewer totally didn't understand this and claimed the game was broken. In the reverse example, take a game liked Grand Theft Auto. Reviewers claim it's great. But here, I'll admit my own bias, simply because I don't like what I'd regard as "hoodlum street culture", no matter how well that game may be executed I could never give it a honest review. The fact that I don't like or enjoy the theme of the game regardless of how well it might be executed, it would never get a good review by me simply because I don't care for the 'hood' culture which I don't relate to and to be honest, I'm somewhat disdainful of (and yes, that would be unfair to the game). That's what I mean by the distinction between a review that's reviewing how well an idea is executed vs the personal tastes of the reviewer.
a fascinating topic! This is why I think reviewers and critics should have a more fundamental understanding of what they value in game design. Like for me a core value is gameplay density, which transends any particular genre. So if I play a golf game that is dense in gameplay, I can see that as a virtue even if I don't personally like golf games.
Yeeeea I've noticed that too!
The reviews out there I'm hoping to find for some sorta insight on how the game plays n functions in those vids But all I get are very general explanations w lil to no info on the Actual gameplay.
Exactly why I started to play n review all these action games myself based on their mechanics.
So hey if you guys want a lil more indepth look into action games
I got you covered✦
Oh that's really cool!! I really like the idea of talking about the combat of games specifically, I'll have to give your vids a watch ;-)
@@TheElectricUnderground Yeeea its been something ive wanted out there for action games so tryna to deliver best I can. Thatll be awesome if you do - small time but its fun
Co-sign.
The worst type of critic is one who isn’t even knowledgeable or talented in the field they see fit to critique.
Especially when the manor in which they criticize is on their own superficial inexperienced terms, painfully reveals (to all but themselves) their own ignorance and inexperience in the subject of the criticism.
It’s super easy to identify these types of undeserving, unwarranted critics in the professional sports world, where blobs of redundant protoplasm like Brian Windhorst, who clearly never excelled at any level in basketball, critique the opponents of LeFraud Shames with some bizarre sense of entitlement that only smug fata$$es from “his community” seem to expect to have in televised media.
I’m curious to know who else besides IGN is most guilty of this phenomenon in video games…?
I suspect the negative feedback to your critique of IGN you mention stems from those of your audience not watching or reading IGN and not really wanting to hear about them. Though I might just be speaking for myself. On the one hand, sure, they are bad and deserve criticism. On the other, what's the point of criticizing what is essentially the marketing department of the "AAA" game industry. There's no value or integrity to them, but there's too much money involved for them to go away. Anyway, I watch your reviews for stuff I wouldn't have heard of otherwise (or passed over because the cover art thumbnail looked amateurish as in the case of Fight'N Rage, which is absolutely amazing and I wouldn't have tried otherwise).
Ha yeah that's a great point! I'm sure a lot of people just don't even want to think about IGN at all lol. Also I'm really glad I helped introduce you to fight n rage!!! Another really fun beat em up that has really humble presentation (overly so) but with great gameplay is final vendetta.
Loving your channel the more I find. Great conversation, feels like I'm among friends. Have you ever got around to playing Sekiro? Compared to the other souls games its miles and miles ahead and above.
Hell yeah mr gunvein himself is back. Love these episodes
Yes the bog episodes are always fun times!
Maybe I was just too young to to see the flaws, but I think the culture at EGM and their three-man review panels for big releases was the closest we ever came to game review perfection. I remember being so disgusted Mario Kart Double Dash got two 10s and a 9. That would be an illegal score for a Nintendo game in 2023.
49:30
This is how I felt about the survival mode of sor4… What are your thoughts, Electric? As soon as you get to like level 33 you just hope you got good drops and don’t get one of the levels full of pits. Really kinda killed the motivation to keep playing the mode, which was the only way to experience the jump cancels and electricity powerups etc. which was actually as much or more fun than the base game imo…
Damn mark you need a mic stand
I have one ha, I just never use it, holding the mic feels more dynamic :-)
I have a serious vision for the future of shmups. I’m not sure what the appetite for this would be since most players enjoy the shadowy cabal culture of shmups, but I see a nationally/internationally recognized competitive association that is structured and cohesive in the sense of in-person events, ranks, titles, or tiers of progression in a given region, and allows members to earn visible accolades.
I’m not talking about just getting your name added to the STG Wiki, I’m talking about a very robust, well thought out, multilayered rank structure from beginner to some sort of Grand-Elite status with a lot of steps between them.
You wouldn’t compete for accolades by streaming or taking a screen shot of your score at home. Competitions would be proctored, monitored, multi-day events held in-person with registered players in multiple locations, quarterly, semi-annually, and ending in an annual championship for top regional players. Think convention center floor, comic-con style, each event is a blow out celebration for shmups with big projector screens and people striving for new ranks, and earning the highest score of the weekend.
Awards and titles given to people who earn them at competitions would not just be a pat on the back. I’m talking about pins, certificates, titles, trophies, plaques, 1CC medals! All exclusively Shmup. Something to hold in your hands!
Competition rules would need to be discussed, agreed upon as far as which games to use, which score thresholds need to be reached for given tiers, time limits, which exploits are allowed, etc.
I always thought it’d be interesting if at gaming or industry events you see people walking around with ranked “shooter” pins on a backpack or their jacket. Something only achieved through an official Shmup event. It could spark a lot of competitive interest into the shmup world. It could alleviate the shmup “one-night-stand” syndrome, and actually drive people of all skill levels to refine their abilities.
Many in the gaming world are drawn to exclusive and competitive accolades that are part of skill based games.
I mean, look at chess. A nerdy, slow, boring game with a quiet following? Nope. There are many levels of in-person, international achievement in chess. Grandmasters are revered in and out of that community and its inspired others to give chess a look.
I’m talking about giving the shmup world a boost. Everyone, from your entry level hobbyist, to hardened top-shelf gamers, being visible to the gaming world. Bringing shmups out of perceived “antiquity” and into the limelight where they belong. Recognizing top players with nationally respected tiers and ranks that hold the same weight as winning a CoD tournament or DOTA event, because we’ve declared they do!
Other skill based games have immense visibility because they have been presented properly to a competitive audience. There’s incentive to play in an Overwatch tournament. There isn’t much incentive for a broad audience to master shmups. It’s a visibility problem. This genre needs more attention. It just does.
People know shmups are hard and their experience with them is usually short lived, but watching someone else excel at it, and be recognized/rewarded legitimately on the same scale as a League of Legends tournament, could ignite sparks! If an event like this was happening in your city, you’d probably want to compete or at least check it out. I know I would.
Start small, rent out a hotel conference hall, ADVERTISE, gain interest, give exclusive, tangible rewards, expand the next event. This isn’t impossible. An OFFICIAL shmup league, a society, a legacy! Give it a thought. We could make it happen!
If you wanna do it then do it, don't expect others to do it. There's no shortage of ideas on how to make shmups more popular around, what there is a shortage of is people taking concrete practical steps to make those ideas a reality instead of waiting for stuff to happen. I also wouldn't call renting out a conference hall "starting small". Being able to even reach shmup players to begin with, having enough money to give out prizes to participants, and proving that you can host tiny online events reliably without rage quitting (no small feat, just ask Mark how exhausting shmup slam can be) is starting small IMO.
@@boghogSTG First thing’s first, thank you so much for Gunvein, I can’t stop playing it. Brilliant game.
Yes, you’re correct. I’m sure everyone has ideas about how to grow shmups, I’m not alone in daydreaming. I wouldn’t expect anyone to take the lead on anything I mentioned above.
It would realistically be around $15,000-$20,000 US to host a small starting event like I’m thinking. A large portion of that would just be advertising and prize manufacturing.
I have an idea for a city billboard, advertising it as a family event for anyone to attend and enjoy, not just aimed at the shmup elite lol.
Of course a registration fee to compete for prizes would be a thing.
I’ll be retiring soon and could possibly be in a position to make the first few steps.
There’s huge risk with getting off the ground, but I believe it could work.
It’d be so worth trying for.
@@Retro_Jet_Elite Thank you very much! Glad you're enjoying Gunvein!
If you're going for a family friendly type of thing then I would advise staying very far away from shmup communities in general LOL cause a single elite player can just break the whole event very easily since the games have such a large number of carryover skills. It's like letting pro fighting game players into "normie" events, the gap's just gonna be ridiculously huge even in new games.
Given you're talking about this on Mark's vid, I assumed you wanted to target general shmup players, in which case I thought it's good to approach with a prototype rather than an idea if you know what I mean.
One of the big problems in shmups is that while one off events can be quite successful (check Gusyphus run at GDQ) they tend to peter out and not cause a long term splash. That's why it's always better to kinda build things up and dip your toes into it, just to make sure there's that foundation of players/participants that get used to it being a thing. Mark sorta did this by starting shmup slam and then bringing it into the real world last year
@@boghogSTG ha! Yes it would be quite unfair, and not fun for a lifetime player to go against a first timer.
In my initial comment I mentioned competitive tiers or classes ranging from beginner to Master players, and everything in between.
Hopefully new players would only register to play in a tier or class they were comfortable in.
If an elite plays in a beginner class to ensure a win, well, then they’ll miss out on better prizes and recognition with the higher tiers. (Can only play in 1 class per event). I hope to eventually create some sort of chess “Elo” style of progression that only allows to you compete within your bracket.
The target is most certainly the general shmup players, hence posting here with a well respected shmuper and audience. I’ve been watching Mark’s content for years. He’s had videos on how to proceed, how to keep shmups alive. I figured this topic is well placed here.
The goal is to cast a wide net, make it as visible as possible beginners and Elites alike. The small shooter core will always be there. Gotta spread the word to everyone else. Make it as prominent as it should be and have recurring events to look forward to throughout the year!
Don’t ever stop making games, Bog Hog!
I guess I’m off to the drawing board!
@@Retro_Jet_Elite I would def recommend just throwing together some smaller events first to get practice in. So then if you wanna do work with others they can see that youre fully capable of organizing an event already, cause a lack of trust is also an event killer. Aktane's been running some Shmup Kumite events with mostly some friends in the community, something like that seems like a good way to dip your toes in.
Also as far as tiers go - the big thing that I know for a fact Mark struggled with will be encouraging newbies. Even in shmup slam which is non competitive, a lot of people feel self conscious submitting their runs. Not really sure this can be alleviated on a rules/planning level though, I think this is just a matter of making it feel welcoming and slowly getting more and more newbies to step up and realize oh hey this isnt just for Jaimers.
Also you bet ill keep making games 🙏 just getting started!
Yah same as hockey. If you haven't played the game or coached you shouldn't be commenting on television. Those pseudo-experts are saying irrelevent things and are by the same way teaching the fans to thinks the wrong way. (I'm in Canada->hockey)
Oh i bet it's awful in sports as well. I've watched a lot of tennis and thought, wow these commentators know nothing.
This video summoned matthewmatosis lol
It did lol!! He was inspired by it to make another video ;-)
I think a very important point you bring up is the lack of actual gameplay experiences.
So many reviews ( even by the gamers themselves) will say one game is just another. Like they might compare it to say fortnite. But the game they are comparing is nothing like fortnite, it just so happens that is the only game experience they can draw from for a comparison.
As a hobbyist game reviewer myself, I find this topic fascinating. I find myself agreeing with you generally about this topic, but the entire idea of having a professional game journalist review the game and have a "standard of quality" for game reviews sets up a big list of questions we have to answer.
Video games incorporate every other art form - writing, cinematography, music, voice acting, animation, character design, and game design. So not only should a journalist be good at games, but do they need to know what a Delorian scale is in music? Do they need to know what a Key Frame is in animation? Do they need to know what Foreshadowing is in writing? Naturally, most professional journalists get their college degrees in writing, so it makes sense that they gravitate towards story-heavy games and eschew actual gameplay difficulty. Their job isn't to PLAY games, but to WRITE about games. But if we're going to transcend the typical professional game journalist, then how do we measure when said journalist is "qualified enough" to review a game?
So this is topic that I will make a more focused topic vid on in the future, but the short answer to all this is ... no (ha). I do not agree with this analysis and view of video games. Because here is a fundamental problem with this games as multimedia experiences. What constitutes a video game? Do video games NEED all this extra stuff? If you take tetris and remove the music and story completely, is tetris still a game? Conversely, if I added a mode into FF7 where the game plays itself and you can sit and watch the game and story without ever needing to touch the controller, is that a video game anymore? What has happened is that game "journalists" are not engaging with the fundamentals of the medium at all, instead what they are doing is focusing on the elements of video games that are meant to contextualize the game play, but are not necessary. It would be like you go to a movie and you write a review about the movie's soundtrack. Soundtracks are nice and they help enhance a movie, but they are not fundamental. Stories, music, narrative, etc, are not fundamental to the medium. So before you spend all your time and energy talking about the curtains, you should probably focus on the foundation of the house first. (also thank you for this comment sincerely, as it got my juices flowing for the topic vid ha).
Because gameplay is a fundamental element of games that's wholly unique *to* games - art critics can look at a game's visuals/animations/etc. and break them down, music critics can listen to the soundtrack and analyze that indepth, literary critics can look at game stories, but nobody besides game critics can break down their mechanics, systems, interactions, etc.
Of course things get more complicated when we start talking about kinaesthetics, because those are a unique fundamental element of *video games* , and require knowledge of things like sound design & animation in addition to game mechanics. And more expertise certainly wouldn't hurt. But hey, baby steps💀
Yeah this makes sense to me. The way I see it, reviewing a game is like reviewing a steak dinner at a restaurant. Without the steak, it's not a steak dinner, but without the sides, it's also a rather paltry meal. But then there's the emotional state that the meal can evoke as well. Does this steam give me fond memories of my uncle's steak at family reunions? While the gameplay is why I keep returning to Tetris even after all of these years, I always associate the game with Korobeiniki (aka Music A on the Game Boy) and the Game Boy's pale shade of green. But I also associate it with Elementary School and hiding my Game Boy in the crook of my desk and the friends that I played with. A review of Tetris focusing on just the gameplay might read a little dry to some viewers, but throw in that human element and people might really resonate with it. But then you have modern mainstream websites that might focus too much on that human factor, and it stops being about video games. There's a lack of balance happening here.
Adding my two cents to this. What's the point of making a video game if you're going to focus on non-gameplay aspects *at the expense of gameplay*? If all a dev cares about is writing a good story, and neglects pairing the story with decent gameplay (note that I didn't even say good gameplay), then why not just write a book or use another medium? Why make a bad game, where I will be like, "This game has a good story, but..."? Why do that, when you can make a good book without anything holding your product back, eliminating the "but..." from the review completely?
I'm not saying the other elements of a game are unimportant. I recognise that they are and they add a lot to the experience (most of the music I listen to are game soundtracks, just to illustrate that I'm not trying to look down on these other aspects of a game). But no matter what, for a video game, gameplay MUST come first. Gameplay is what differentiates video games from other media. That's why earlier, I said the game needs to minimally have decent gameplay, even if you want to make it story-oriented, style-oriented etc. But a lot of devs are straight up neglecting the gameplay completely. It's also why I highlighted "at the expense of gameplay", because you shouldn't be trading gameplay quality for anything else.
Likewise for reviewers, if we must choose one thing to review from a game, it should be gameplay.
This is exactly true. Thank you for being reasonable. Honestly writing is more important than being good at video games because writing is absolutely necessary to convey how the game affected you.
Great listen. I agree with a lot of the sentiments here.
Thank you so much for tuning in and for the kind comment liteowl :-)
Game critics should publicly show their gamertag, necessarily finish the game (Campaign at least) and share a screenshot of their game stats/trophies/achievements for everyone to see them.
That's an interesting idea ha, but I don't think a critic needs to play games all the way through all the time. I think what's more important is that reviewers/critics are skilled and experienced in the genre overall, so that they have strong frames of reference for their critique. So basically they should be playing the good games that form the foundation of their analysis all the time, so that when a new game i presented to them, they have the tools they need to be able to judge that game accurately and quickly. This is how a critic can end up being skilled in the genre, but not needing to slog through all the bad games they come across ha.
we just need an international ban on game reviews in general. that way nobody would be able to share their stupid opinion and people would have to check out games themselves.
Let's say matthewmatosis reviewed God Hand for IGN and gave it a 10/10. How many people would still read IGN if all their reviews would reflect such opinions? Enjoyed your discussion so far (halfway through).
Yes in a more healthy review system, larger outlets like ign would seek out more rigorous reviewers like matosis
i have no hands and i must review
No gameplay required, you should be good to go ha.
30:14
“Nintendite.” 🤣
Your criticism is, as usual, well argumented...videogame critics need to change and evolve...going the youtube, kinda amateurish, route is your best bet nowadays when talking about unbiased review stuff
Awesome discussion mark and boghog! I was really enjoying it when the tekken 3 soundtrack playing.
A man of fine taste!
I feel there is a bit of nuance to this one, at least based on the premise.
The typical mainstream viewer is essentially a reflection of, and ideal for, the typical mainstream gamer. People who are shit at games review them for an audience who are also shit at games. The mistake here is not looking for a reviewer who shares your game preferences and tastes.
Though that is a stance made harder to take when you see just how stupidly bad and bafflingly incompetent some of these mainstream reviewers are. And the fact they are essentially the "face" of gaming and the conduit through which much of general audience sentiment and opinions on the games are filtered really sucks.
After watching the premiere, I came around to your pov somewhat. If the reviewer is incompetent and not even able to properly engage with the games systems then the review becomes functionally useless.
Regarding the idea that bad game reviewers are a good thing because their opinions are "good" for the players that are bad at games? I think that still just barely stands but in a sad way. Even if presented with all the knowledge they need and reviews from competent people, the general gaming audience will still gravitate to easier, player pandering games. The majority of players are not going to invest the time to learn a game and they are also never going to play enough games to build up the skill and knowledge base needed to deal with and overcome a broader set of scenarios.
Of course if all that is simply taken for granted and allowed to exist freely, it will be a trend that can only go downwards. If the only opinions that get noticed are bad reviews that lead players to never challenge or expand their horizons then the already low bar can only ever go lower.
yes the problem is that if game reviewers do not critique from a framework of values that they think about a lot, they are still going to critique based on some kind of value system. and these days that value system is determined by marketing, rather than game design.
Yeah, I've been saying this for years. Even on TH-cam, I haven't paid attention to game reviews in just about 12 years. And I stopped reading official publications well before that.
Long video so I'm gonna write some thoughts before I'm finished with it. My initial thoughts are this:
No, reviewers are not requried to have above average skill. I say that because I value the experience and insights that a layperson has. An advanced player has a totally different experience from a beginner player. It is practically impossible to inhabit a different position and perspective than the one your current skill level places you at, both sides will inherently focus on certain aspects and miss others, that the opposite site will not. As such, reviewers of different skill levels are required to offer comprehensive insight into a game.
I suspect you will be talking about reviewers who have very little interest in a game beyond producing an article for their job. People who have a low skill level because they are not inherently interested in the medium, or because they have a dozen games to check out each week and thus can not build the skill each game requires, or something like that. I think the flaw in that kind of content lies a step before the reviewer with the outlet that produces low quality content for clicks to get ad-money.
I think low skill review and low quality review are two separate things.
ahh we discussed this entire point in the devil advocate's section of the vid :-) So I do respond to it in the video. So there is a comprehensive response, I'll link the timestamp 01:11:17 . And from that point we go on to discuss why critics should be striving to gain deeper knowledge and insight and it is literally impossible to do that without having hands on experience.
Advanced players werent born that way, they usually had extensive experiences being beginners. The question is do they remember those expriences or not? And can they extrapolate on them well enough to relate to newbies in general? Its not a gap that cannot be crossed.
Sure its more likely that advanced reviewers will be out of touch but I feel like we already take this risk in other fields because the payoff is worth it - look at teachers. A good teacher is an expert who also understands how laymen talk and think, and can convey complex ideas to them really well. Both expertise and relateability are valued, and they arent seen as mutually exclusive.
A critic MUST be talking about something they know because they actually enjoy that media, be that games, movies or comics.
It's literally essential to the job ha.
Nice one.
I think the easiest way to tell that critics are missing something important by and large is that there's no reasonable explanation for the continued growth of fighting games after the release of SF4 contrasted against their contemporaries. Compared to the design of its contemporaries, what SF6 asks of the player in terms of mechanical engagement and decision making in shorter than a second-to-second basis makes it seem as though there are people out there practically begging to be tortured by developers. If only there was some other explanation that didn't instantly remind people of Dark Souls!