|
Post by Lightwarrior11 on May 24, 2019 13:59:44 GMT -5
I wish more articles on this site aimed to be analytical rather than critical.
I can read personal reviews of games anywhere I want online, but I choose to spend time here instead because this where I can deepen my understanding of games as a technological artform by reading the thoughts of people who have deepdived into the history of the industry. That's what sells the site to me, and distinguishes it from its competitors, IMHO. Sam Derboo, John Szczepaniak, and Kurt Kalata are people who have consistently wrote articles that bring me back to this site, for example; I wish more authors tried to emulate their directness, objectivity, and systematicity of treatment.
If any criticism of a game is included in review articles, I really think it should only be as a sampling and/or a synthesis of what other reviewers - past & present - have said about the game. That tells us something substantial about the game's reception and reputation. Otherwise, the more neutral in their own perspective on a game writers on this site can be, the better.
Just a thought. I hope Mr. Kalata will consider upgrading his editorial standards to enforce this distinction, because to me it's what makes this site enjoyable to read, worth visiting, and of a unique and lasting value to our culture.
Wondering if anyone else feels this way?
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on May 24, 2019 15:14:36 GMT -5
It's a tough line to balance for sure. There's no such thing as an objective review, but at the same time, some level of criticism should be required, because if it isn't, what sets this place apart from Wikipedia?
Anything I write, I do try to get a broad consensus of what the audience feels about any given game (unless it's a recent game where nothing has really been formulated, or something so obscure that few have any opinion) and bring that into the piece, to help more opinions than my own. Dragon Warrior/Quest VII, for example, is a game I really don't care for much but I've also read up enough about it to understand why other people like it and highlight those, while at the same time giving my own critiques. This is part of the editorial guidelines which I try to enforce, though again, case depending, some end up doing a better job of it than others.
Some games just don't mean much. Like Legend of Makai, which was just posted today. We end up covering a lot of mediocre games just because myself or one of the writers go "hmm, I saw this in MAME, what's this about?", or we need to do a big genre or development overview, and then write something on it. I do try to go the extra mile to provide some historical context, but that's mostly because I spend a lot of time browsing Japanese wikis, and I know not everyone can do that (though I do edit in anything that I come across that might be interesting).
|
|
|
Post by toei on May 24, 2019 16:53:34 GMT -5
^I think writers should avoid writing articles for games they aren't interested in one way or the other, though, unless it is part of a larger series that they want to cover, as you said. Personally I only ever pick games where there's some kind of angle that makes it interesting to me. It could be that the game is good, or does something other games don't; it could be the developer's history. It could even be its flaws. Either way, the worst kind of article is the one that goes, "it's pretty much standard genre fare", "there's nothing really special about it", etc. There's almost always something, if you look closely. On HG101, once the article's been written, that's it. So if a particular writer just doesn't get a game or feel any way about it, it's probably better to let someone else handle it somewhere down the line. I also don't like to talk about the "general consensus" because I find that it creates a misleading impression of objectivity. A collection of subjective opinions is still just as subjective, and most of the time our impression of said consensus is built on a very thin foundation - say, a couple of reviews or a few Internet comments. It's more honest for a writer to write, "Phantasy Star IV is the best game in the series", or to let the article imply it, than it is to write "people say it is", because this way you know exactly whose opinion it is - the writer's. Talking about something like a game's influence, when possible, is more interesting, provided you're not passing off pure speculation as fact. Finally, even without reading Japanese, there are a few good sources for research in English. Shmuplations.com has a ton of developer interviews. The Game Developers Research Institute has some, as well as lots of information on the numerous companies that often went uncredited for their work (though it's important to know that games are often developed by multiple companies, so seeing a game listed on a company's page doesn't mean they did everything; Red Company, for example, often designed games and directed them, but had them programmed and generally put together by other companies). Mobygames has a lot of game credits. Sometimes you can find credits at the end of youtube longplays, too, if you're really curious. There are even times where an auto-translated Japanese Wikipedia page can be helpful, as long as you're extremely careful about how you interpret the poorly-translated info. Once you start looking into who did what, you start to see obvious connections that you weren't aware of before, like the fact that, say, Wurm's multi-genre formula and narrative ambition is a continuation of what the same director / game designer did at another company with Golgo 13: Top Secret Episode a few years before.
|
|
|
Post by lurker on May 24, 2019 17:42:25 GMT -5
^I think writers should avoid writing articles for games they aren't interested in one way or the other, though, unless it is part of a larger series that they want to cover, as you said. Personally I only ever pick games where there's some kind of angle that makes it interesting to me. It could be that the game is good, or does something other games don't; it could be the developer's history. It could even be its flaws. Either way, the worst kind of article is the one that goes, "it's pretty much standard genre fare", "there's nothing really special about it", etc. There's almost always something, if you look closely. On HG101, once the article's been written, that's it. So if a particular writer just doesn't get a game or feel any way about it, it's probably better to let someone else handle it somewhere down the line. I also don't like to talk about the "general consensus" because I find that it creates a misleading impression of objectivity. A collection of subjective opinions is still just as subjective, and most of the time our impression of said consensus is built on a very thin foundation - say, a couple of reviews or a few Internet comments. It's more honest for a writer to write, "Phantasy Star IV is the best game in the series", or to let the article imply it, than it is to write "people say it is", because this way you know exactly whose opinion it is - the writer's. Talking about something like a game's influence, when possible, is more interesting, provided you're not passing off pure speculation as fact. Finally, even without reading Japanese, there are a few good sources for research in English. Shmuplations.com has a ton of developer interviews. The Game Developers Research Institute has some, as well as lots of information on the numerous companies that often went uncredited for their work (though it's important to know that games are often developed by multiple companies, so seeing a game listed on a company's page doesn't mean they did everything; Red Company, for example, often designed games and directed them, but had them programmed and generally put together by other companies). Mobygames has a lot of game credits. Sometimes you can find credits at the end of youtube longplays, too, if you're really curious. There are even times where an auto-translated Japanese Wikipedia page can be helpful, as long as you're extremely careful about how you interpret the poorly-translated info. Once you start looking into who did what, you start to see obvious connections that you weren't aware of before, like the fact that, say, Wurm's multi-genre formula and narrative ambition is a continuation of what the same director / game designer did at another company with Golgo 13: Top Secret Episode a few years before. Kinda reminds me of when Game Informer used to give the same reviewer the latest installment of Mario Party to review even though he hated the series.
|
|
|
Post by Lightwarrior11 on May 27, 2019 14:56:14 GMT -5
...what sets this place apart from Wikipedia? That's a very interesting question, and gave me a lot to think about. Just to throw some ideas out there, here's things I think could distinguish an analytical HG101 article from a Wikipedia article:
- Conversational writing styles that follow a natural stream-of-thought and focus primarily on the most salient subjects that distinguish the game from others.
- An attempt to convey the subjective experience of playing the game, both at the time of release, and in the present day (this is where the author can introduce subtle criticism while maintaining a neutral tone, especially if they're careful to clarify whose opinion they're relating - e.g., 30 major reviewers, a few forum threads full of hardcore gamers, or just themselves, etc.).
- A willingness to state personal theories about the related esoteria of video game culture (e.g., whose influence can be felt in what parts of the game, what the original intentions were for the game/franchise/label which may not have been realized, what the game would have been like with an unlimited timeline/budget, etc.).
- An attempt to derive universal lessons in game design, game marketing, interactive storytelling, the digital arts, etc., from an involved, knowledgeable, and nuanced study of the game, especially by pointing out where the game did something unique and/or remarkable that could/should be carried forward by future game developers.
Honestly, I feel like this is what the best articles here already do.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Chungus on Jun 7, 2019 17:03:24 GMT -5
I think it's always going to be a tricky thing to do, and a big reason for this comes down to the individual writers behind the reviews. Everyone who writes a review is going to have a different focus on what they want to discuss while reviewing a game, and they're all going to go about it differently. What one writer feels is important in a game could be completely different from what another writer feels is important. For example, my reviews tend to look at games from a largely mechanical stance, with the occasional bit of discussion of level design and flow being the closest thing you'll get to any deeper analysis. Compare that to Brian Crimmins' review of Generations Lost, which examines the game almost entirely by analyzing what its various elements are trying to thematically express - it's a vastly different way of looking at a game, and one that I'd likely never attempt unless it particularly struck me. And that's just between two reviewers; nevermind the countless other people who've written for the site over the years. Personally speaking, I like the fact that reviews on this site can be written in so many different ways. Yes, it leads to an inconsistent tone if you're attempting to examine the site overall and try find an objective perspective, but I find that's part of the fun. I love Crimmins' review for Generations Lost, and one of the reasons is that it breaks away from what might be expected of the site to offer a fascinating analysis that's worthy of being recommended on the likes of Critical Distance. Each writer has their own unique voice and perspective, and I think those are worth cherishing - even when they don't line up with what you feel suits the site. Something that I love about video games is that there's no single way of approaching anything: even if you make the exact same game twice, if you alter the controls just slightly or change the art direction or make any kind of minor alteration, you'll end up with two completely different games that end up getting all kinds of reactions. I think it makes sense that for a site that's all about covering the history of video games as comprehensively as possible, a similar degree of variety in perspectives can and should be offered. (If any of this reads weirdly, it's 11pm as I write this and I'm having a bit of issue expressing my opinions - I had a couple of ideas about the nature of providing objective coverage, but couldn't figure out how to write any of it. Sorry about that in advance.)
|
|