I recently read an article on edge.com about an interview with Joseph Olin who is the president of the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences. In this article he mentions how he has a pet peeve for reviewers who neglect to finish games before reviewing them. Joseph uses a comparison with reviewing movies, he says things like"You wouldn't just watch the first reel of a movie and review it." He uses GTA4 as an example stating, "How can you give a comment about a game like Grand Theft Auto IV, that has 40-plus hours or more of gameplay, if you've only spent 2 1/2 to 3 hours playing it? While, I think alot of reviewers out there can be lazy, I really think the points Joseph used didn't support his arguments very well. Comparing seems wrong for the plain fact that games and movies are different, sure they hold some similar qualities but what makes them what they are is different, what makes them games or movies is different.
It's easy to finish a movie. Movies are normally shorter than a game and naturally it's a very passive experience. While, the average video game is still longer than a 2 hour movie adding in the face that it is also an active experience, the whole time you are interacting with the game and in result it can lead you to becoming much more tired of a game. Many times before I have lost motivation to finish a game regardless of how good or bad it was.
Simply when you play a game your always going to end up having to concentrate in playing the game forcing you to deal with the many different things that make up the game, Most notably the core mechanic. A mechanic in the game that is going to be used throughout the entire game, albeit it may be changed up once and a while, but it will still be the same mechanic. If that mechanic is handled poorly or just isn't really fun at all,naturally, it will be like that for the rest of the game. In a movie the plot can have a twist and change the happenings in the story making it more interesting to watch. Although,being so inconsistent isn't normally a good thing, it can happen more in a story focused piece of entertainment. While in a game a developer isn't going to completely scrap the original gameplay halfway through. In some cases the developer may switch to different characters with different game mechanics, but its rarely the case that you don't see the older mechanic later in the game. Eventually a player can get to a point where he/she knows the game will be like this in the future.
Joseph speaks about how even if you complete the story in GTA it doesn't mean you done. He says "...Would a review of GTA IV in which the writer finished the story but did nothing else be more complete? I don’t personally think so." Although, I understand his reasoning it's still a lot to ask. Going back to my first point, you are actively participating in the game. This, in some way, can cause a lot of mental exhaustion for reviewers who naturally have a deadline. In a way I wouldn't call reviewers lazy because of this.I would say that this is normal for any human. For the most part getting 100% in GTA is extremely hard and its natural for one's motivation to deplete. It's like being forced to do laps around a gym, sure some people can do it but eventually someone is just going to lose energy. By the time you finish GTA you have done around 64% of the game. The idea is that other 36% is more content yes, but that extra content most of the time uses those same game mechanics you have seen during the entire story, you have already reviewed those parts what's the point if you've already gone through that before?
Really, its just the difference between the mediums. We approach each one in a different manner. Trying to review these two mediums in the exact same way isn't always the best idea because they're different,simple as that. Its unreasonable to ask someone to evaluate them in the same way, yes they are both entertainment, but the way they entertain us is different. You can't review a book the same way you review a movie. In a movie there's different aspects in it that effect the quality. Eg) The quality of the acting and cinematography. All these mediums may have similar aspects to them but they have certain things that are different that define them. Asking someone to evaluate them in the same way can't happen because you are still reviewing different things.I can see where Joseph is coming from but I have to disagree.
It's easy to finish a movie. Movies are normally shorter than a game and naturally it's a very passive experience. While, the average video game is still longer than a 2 hour movie adding in the face that it is also an active experience, the whole time you are interacting with the game and in result it can lead you to becoming much more tired of a game. Many times before I have lost motivation to finish a game regardless of how good or bad it was.
Simply when you play a game your always going to end up having to concentrate in playing the game forcing you to deal with the many different things that make up the game, Most notably the core mechanic. A mechanic in the game that is going to be used throughout the entire game, albeit it may be changed up once and a while, but it will still be the same mechanic. If that mechanic is handled poorly or just isn't really fun at all,naturally, it will be like that for the rest of the game. In a movie the plot can have a twist and change the happenings in the story making it more interesting to watch. Although,being so inconsistent isn't normally a good thing, it can happen more in a story focused piece of entertainment. While in a game a developer isn't going to completely scrap the original gameplay halfway through. In some cases the developer may switch to different characters with different game mechanics, but its rarely the case that you don't see the older mechanic later in the game. Eventually a player can get to a point where he/she knows the game will be like this in the future.
Joseph speaks about how even if you complete the story in GTA it doesn't mean you done. He says "...Would a review of GTA IV in which the writer finished the story but did nothing else be more complete? I don’t personally think so." Although, I understand his reasoning it's still a lot to ask. Going back to my first point, you are actively participating in the game. This, in some way, can cause a lot of mental exhaustion for reviewers who naturally have a deadline. In a way I wouldn't call reviewers lazy because of this.I would say that this is normal for any human. For the most part getting 100% in GTA is extremely hard and its natural for one's motivation to deplete. It's like being forced to do laps around a gym, sure some people can do it but eventually someone is just going to lose energy. By the time you finish GTA you have done around 64% of the game. The idea is that other 36% is more content yes, but that extra content most of the time uses those same game mechanics you have seen during the entire story, you have already reviewed those parts what's the point if you've already gone through that before?
Really, its just the difference between the mediums. We approach each one in a different manner. Trying to review these two mediums in the exact same way isn't always the best idea because they're different,simple as that. Its unreasonable to ask someone to evaluate them in the same way, yes they are both entertainment, but the way they entertain us is different. You can't review a book the same way you review a movie. In a movie there's different aspects in it that effect the quality. Eg) The quality of the acting and cinematography. All these mediums may have similar aspects to them but they have certain things that are different that define them. Asking someone to evaluate them in the same way can't happen because you are still reviewing different things.I can see where Joseph is coming from but I have to disagree.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment