Personally, I really couldn't care less if a reviewer likes a given genre or not. Their job is to give you the high points and the low points of a game, and if they're worth a damn, not let their personal feelings on the genre taint their review. In other words, they should be objective. If they can't do that, then they have no business being paid to tell people what's good and bad in the video gaming world, because no matter how good the game is, it'll get skewered because of their dislike for its genre.
If the game they're reviewing is in a genre they've never played before (which would truly be a sad thing given their profession), then they should sit down and try out a few games in that genre so that they'll have something to compare it to at least. If someone knows very little about the history of a genre, how much of an informed opinion can they be expected to give? I mean, that would be like a college instructor who has only ever dealt with and created illustrations giving an opinion on abstract art. Sure, they'll be able to give some points, but if they've never dealt with abstract art before, then I personally wouldn't expect much in the way of enlightening insight from them.
After all, if you have someone playing Raiden III for the first time, and this is literally the first shmup they'd ever played, you're not going to get the same level of feedback as you would from someone who's been playing them since Gradius. Now that doesn't mean that the person who's played shmups all their life is going to be spot on with everything they say, but at the very least, the chance of getting a good, thorough review would be considerably higher than the other guy who just played a shmup for the first time.
EGM vs. GI on R-Type
-
BenT
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:20 am
- Location: Bay Area, CA
I've been doing the game writing/editing thing for going on seven years now, so I have a few things to add based on real-world experience.
Second, there is no such thing as an objective reviewer or an objective review. How can you quantify things like how nifty the art is or how "fun" the game is? These things are very subjective no matter how hard you try to convince readers that your scoring system is infallibly scientific. (Ha!) So generally, we literally can't be objective. We can give the appearance of it, but we mostly can't actually achieve it. We're not computers spitting out 1s and 0s.
It's a good thing we have opinions to fill in that huge gap. Opinions are subjective and unscientific, but perhaps their analog nature is better suited to describing the vagaries we deal with in game evaluation. What is a good review if not the writer's opinion?
It's true that sometimes writers try to "fake it" and augment their real opinions with those they expect to find in their target audience. For example, they might personally dislike a big-name game but inflate the score several points so as to avoid controversy and avoid being the lowest score out there. This does happen and I feel it's both dishonest and harms both the author's and the publication's credibility. If you're not comfortable giving your (mostly) accurate opinion I'd suggest that it's better to pass on the assignment so that someone better-suited can take it. Of course, this is often impossible due to staff workload or deadline issues, in which case the reviewer just has to muddle through and hopefully not screw up too badly. The trick here is to know as much as possible about what you're getting into before you take an assignment so that there's less likelihood of an unpleasant surprise.
Anyway, that's about all I've got to add at the moment. Now I have to write two previews for games in a genre I'm not really into. Nope, not even kidding.
I'll do my best, or try to. So it goes when you're a games journalist.
Your animated icon is amazing, by the way. Jealous!
Well, two things come to mind. First, someone who isn't into (or worse) actively dislikes a genre should not be reviewing a game in it. It does happen once in a while, but it shouldn't.The Coop wrote:Personally, I really couldn't care less if a reviewer likes a given genre or not. Their job is to give you the high points and the low points of a game, and if they're worth a damn, not let their personal feelings on the genre taint their review. In other words, they should be objective. If they can't do that, then they have no business being paid to tell people what's good and bad in the video gaming world, because no matter how good the game is, it'll get skewered because of their dislike for its genre.
Second, there is no such thing as an objective reviewer or an objective review. How can you quantify things like how nifty the art is or how "fun" the game is? These things are very subjective no matter how hard you try to convince readers that your scoring system is infallibly scientific. (Ha!) So generally, we literally can't be objective. We can give the appearance of it, but we mostly can't actually achieve it. We're not computers spitting out 1s and 0s.
It's a good thing we have opinions to fill in that huge gap. Opinions are subjective and unscientific, but perhaps their analog nature is better suited to describing the vagaries we deal with in game evaluation. What is a good review if not the writer's opinion?
It's true that sometimes writers try to "fake it" and augment their real opinions with those they expect to find in their target audience. For example, they might personally dislike a big-name game but inflate the score several points so as to avoid controversy and avoid being the lowest score out there. This does happen and I feel it's both dishonest and harms both the author's and the publication's credibility. If you're not comfortable giving your (mostly) accurate opinion I'd suggest that it's better to pass on the assignment so that someone better-suited can take it. Of course, this is often impossible due to staff workload or deadline issues, in which case the reviewer just has to muddle through and hopefully not screw up too badly. The trick here is to know as much as possible about what you're getting into before you take an assignment so that there's less likelihood of an unpleasant surprise.
I apologize, but I think this is unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky stuff. It's just not practical given common publishing industry time constraints, nor do I really think such a rushed introduction to a genre would provide the reviewer with much meaningful context that they couldn't have gotten from a bit of online research. Better just to hand the game off to someone else who's already better-educated in the relevant areas. If that's not possible, well, best of luck not looking like a heel.The Coop wrote:If the game they're reviewing is in a genre they've never played before (which would truly be a sad thing given their profession), then they should sit down and try out a few games in that genre so that they'll have something to compare it to at least.
I'm with you here -- the answer is very little. This is precisely the reason why Game Informer's R-Types evaluation is so tragically, painfully ignorant. The hardcore game fan in me makes me want to slap 'em. But all the same, it's just a crappy article in a bound sheaf of paper that most people will throw away after a few months. It's not worth getting too worked up over. Save your real anger for politics and other things that really matter.The Coop wrote:If someone knows very little about the history of a genre, how much of an informed opinion can they be expected to give?
Anyway, that's about all I've got to add at the moment. Now I have to write two previews for games in a genre I'm not really into. Nope, not even kidding.
I'll do my best, or try to. So it goes when you're a games journalist.Your animated icon is amazing, by the way. Jealous!
-
The Coop
- Posts: 2948
- Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:57 am
- Location: Outskirts of B.F.E.
Thanks for the compliment on my avatar. Thunder Force all the way baby 
You made good points with your comments on opinions and reviewers playing examples of a given genre they're not familiar with. It's true that things like art style, music and such can boil down to "I like/hate the designs" or "I like/hate the tunes", but what I was referring to was more of a "I don't like sports" or "I hate shmups" (KILL THE SCURVY BASTARD!) level of opinion... the kind of opinion that keeps them from having even tried the genre they're reviewing an entry of. I still feel though, that if all a reviewer has to base their review on is opinion, then there's a problem. This of course, brings me back to having at least some experience in a genre.
In a review, I really feel there needs to be at least some past experience with a genre, so that the reviewer's able to give comparisons between aspects done right, and aspects done wrong (even if those comparisons are opinion-based). It's true that if someone's handed a copy of Sonic & Knuckles, it's going to be hard to sit down and play through other games like Sonic 2, Super Mario World, Tinhead and any other platform games to try and get a quick feel for different takes on the genre. That takes time, and reviewers only get so much of it to do their job. However, it's also true that, as you alluded to, a reviewer isn't always going to able to pass the game on to someone else. As such, something needs to be done, or else what you're going to get is a review that's mostly opinion with little in the way of backing. As such, surely they could find the time to fill a little of gap they have. While the review for that game they were handed wouldn't be helped, surely they could find the time to do a little research, read up on what are good and bad examples of a genre, and then try those examples. While something like RPGs would be pretty tough to play through given how long they are, there's no real excuse for now trying sports titles, shmups, platformers, and other genres that people can play through in a half hour to a couple hours' time (with some longer ones in there to be sure).
After all, if someone decides to become a reviewer, they've taken on a responsibility. They're trying to tell others what's good and bad about particular games, and if they don't want to be blown off as being uninformed or not knowing what they're talking about, they need to be able to back up their statements. This requires experience, and knowledge of the game-type they're reviewing. You can't get that by looking at screenshots or even reading the reviews of others. You get it by taking up a controller, and playing. If that's not possible, well, keep a flame retardant suit handy
Anyway, I hope I'm not sounding argumentative or pushy. I just feel experience is an important part of being able to give an opinion, and then back that opinion up properly with stuff like this
You made good points with your comments on opinions and reviewers playing examples of a given genre they're not familiar with. It's true that things like art style, music and such can boil down to "I like/hate the designs" or "I like/hate the tunes", but what I was referring to was more of a "I don't like sports" or "I hate shmups" (KILL THE SCURVY BASTARD!) level of opinion... the kind of opinion that keeps them from having even tried the genre they're reviewing an entry of. I still feel though, that if all a reviewer has to base their review on is opinion, then there's a problem. This of course, brings me back to having at least some experience in a genre.
In a review, I really feel there needs to be at least some past experience with a genre, so that the reviewer's able to give comparisons between aspects done right, and aspects done wrong (even if those comparisons are opinion-based). It's true that if someone's handed a copy of Sonic & Knuckles, it's going to be hard to sit down and play through other games like Sonic 2, Super Mario World, Tinhead and any other platform games to try and get a quick feel for different takes on the genre. That takes time, and reviewers only get so much of it to do their job. However, it's also true that, as you alluded to, a reviewer isn't always going to able to pass the game on to someone else. As such, something needs to be done, or else what you're going to get is a review that's mostly opinion with little in the way of backing. As such, surely they could find the time to fill a little of gap they have. While the review for that game they were handed wouldn't be helped, surely they could find the time to do a little research, read up on what are good and bad examples of a genre, and then try those examples. While something like RPGs would be pretty tough to play through given how long they are, there's no real excuse for now trying sports titles, shmups, platformers, and other genres that people can play through in a half hour to a couple hours' time (with some longer ones in there to be sure).
After all, if someone decides to become a reviewer, they've taken on a responsibility. They're trying to tell others what's good and bad about particular games, and if they don't want to be blown off as being uninformed or not knowing what they're talking about, they need to be able to back up their statements. This requires experience, and knowledge of the game-type they're reviewing. You can't get that by looking at screenshots or even reading the reviews of others. You get it by taking up a controller, and playing. If that's not possible, well, keep a flame retardant suit handy
Anyway, I hope I'm not sounding argumentative or pushy. I just feel experience is an important part of being able to give an opinion, and then back that opinion up properly with stuff like this