The other day, I had an interesting discussion with a mate who told me it's not right that I go apeshit on game developers in my reviews, if they don't live up to my ridiculously high standards. That I and other reviewers are being obnoxious in what we do. My friend has a good point. After all, game devs put a lot of effort into their craft. Why should we criticize if we only consume and not contribute?
In my opinion however, someone's got to have those high standards if we're to get any advancement in games development.
I'm not trying to prove my friend wrong with this post, but I am going to think more about what it means to write a review.
---
Journalists are not artists. They aren't the ones that mold sculptures, direct films, produce TV shows, or make music. Yet they are a step up from the simple consumption that the masses engage in. Journalists take that extra step to reflect on what it is they've consumed. Granted, the masses are capable of reflection too, and I'm very certain a lot do but where journalists are better and significant to the process is that they've taken their extensive experiences on their chosen subject matters/passions, in order to critically posit the artistic work of another in the time-line of our human existence.
By critically positing an artistic work, we are able to see how far we've come from the simple drawings found in caves all those centuries ago. The same is true for games development. It may still be a young art form but it's fueled by rapid technological advancement so in the gazillion years it takes for us to develop other art forms, it only takes fourteen to go from The Day of the Tentacle to Crysis. In that sense, if there are no journalists, no critics to say what needs to be said, the evolution of game development comes to a halt. The weeds will not be rooted out, and the bad stuff will just keep getting worse. Of course the developers are the primary catalysts for the evolution of video games, but the journalists are just as vital. The latter are especially needed in an industry where development is volatile, anything can happen, and mega-corporations swimming in greenbacks do not answer to anybody.
Activision can go on screwing over Infinity Ward and yet people will still buy their Call of Duty games. Valve can release Left 4 Dead 3 next year with no more care for Left 4 Dead 2, and I'd still want to get it. Heck, as much as I love Valve, where's Episode 3? Do they owe it to the masses though? Hell no. But journalists will be there writing about the wrongdoings of companies, absent games or failed promises (looking at you, Molyneux) so that the public will be reminded what they should be getting, not what they have been given.
Of course, I'm not saying that no one should hold journalists accountable. Most recent scandal I can think of is games writer Quintin Smith's review of MMO Age of Conan's Godslayer expansion being pulled off Eurogamer; it was considered an inadequate review as he only played beta rather than the full game. But really, I'd say it had something to do with Smith's negative review (read: corporate power over online media). Look at Kotaku Japan's snipe at Famitsu for the latter's excessive high praise given to PSP title Metal Gear Solid: Peacewalker. Also look at the firing of ex-Gamespot editor Jeff Gerstmann because he didn't score game reviews high enough.
Rupert Murdoch may be the evil villain of mainstream media but every games corporation could be a Murdoch in their own right; they certainly have most games media outlets in the palm of their hands. Especially with the economic crisis, most media outlets either have to crash and burn or unfortunately, stop biting the hand that feeds the most, and that's the games corporations. After all, it's the corporations that let journalists play their games earlier to write reviews and more importantly, buy out advertising space. Us folks at the bottom of the ladder don't do nothing but consume. We read journalists' words on games, but we're not the ones paying them.
This is sad because I've come across too many cases where the words of professional reviewers don't align with personal experiences I've had of some games. Take Alan Wake for example. This game got some crazy good acclaim from most major media outlets but when I played it, I thought it was a piece of shite scraped off the sole of better horror titles like Silent Hill, Dead Space, and Resident Evil. Sure, you can argue about opinions being "each to their own" but with some games, it's clear.
Let me think about this personally. Why do I write reviews? I'm not being paid for my opinion. And yet I do it because I love video games. I love playing something worthwhile, something that'll blow my mind. I'm sure that's the case for a lot of people, but journalists love what they do because they have license to translate their love into something others can read about. Someone needs to do it because it'll keep the masses informed. It will also keep games companies in check, making sure they keep doing what they do best better not worse. Journalists can also make sure our money goes into the right hands like indie devs and small companies that constantly push what gaming can do for us.
At the end of the day, I don't think I've got any major point to make other than that there are people out there making sense of video games on your behalf. It's no walk in the park, a lot of them have to do it for a lot less money, and at times, they'll get flak for it too. But by gawd, it's exciting. And thanks to these journalists, there's a large information flow that connects everybody to opinions, ideas, and the collective, undeniable love for video games.
No comments:
Post a Comment