Gamers need to be more Elitist

by artie

Kieron Gillen has wrote up a decently sized article over at Rock, Paper, Shotgun . Not that I follow the site, I just saw it on Kotaku . The basic jist is summarized in this quote: But in games what you don’t often get is the really fucking odd stuff in end of year charts. For even the equivalent of pop-records which show up have the maintream’s level of production and accessibility – both in t...

Kieron Gillen has wrote up a decently sized article over at Rock, Paper, Shotgun. Not that I follow the site, I just saw it on Kotaku. The basic jist is summarized in this quote:

But in games what you don’t often get is the really fucking odd stuff in end of year charts. For even the equivalent of pop-records which show up have the maintream’s level of production and accessibility – both in terms of being able to pick up and play and the fact they may have actually seen a copy. There are two problems in getting genuinely indie stuff hailed. Firstly, the problem in that not enough critics have actually experienced it. Secondly, the problem of expectation, with critics failing to understand their emotional response to the game is what counts, not some odd check-list of what a “great” game should be. On the 360, Earth Defense Force 2017 is a better game than Gears of War. Stepping more PC and indie, Desktop Tower Defense is a better game than Supreme Commander. Until critics are willing to actually fight for stuff they actually believe in, we’re screwed.

I think both problems are well on the way to a solution.

Shadow of the Colossus is the closest gaming has come to artI'm posting this blog to get people's opinions on reviews, and how they think they should be written, or viewed. In terms of GiantBomb, both Jeff and Ryan have expressed before that they are blatantly "industry press." Jeff has explained that reviewing a game is like reviewing a car. There's a checklist of things you have to analyze and decide whether or not the game is worth a purchase, or more specifically worth YOU purchasing it. For a car you may have simplistic standards like: Does the engine work? Are the seats comfortable? How many miles can it handle? What's the maximum speed? What's the acceleration? How does the car handle? etc. For a game, Jeff might be thinking: Do these graphics look nice? Are the controls acceptable? Is the game really repetitive? Are there any glitches? And stuff like that. If you don't believe he said that, listen for yourself. (Now on YouTube)

The clip is from an old Hotspot episode back in July 2006, they were discussing an article saying that Video Game Journalism needs a Lester Bangs of Video Game Journalism, so obviously they're talking about something slightly different than what we are here. If you want to listen to the entire clip, you can.

Braid has been getting a lot of flak for being "pretentious"The problem I have with Jeff and Ryan having these types of viewpoints is that they say "games are not art" or something similar, and then go right ahead and admit they've never played, or never finished Shadow of the Colossus, the most artistic game out in the industry right now. It takes full use the interactivity found in video games, and passes on a point, and a story, without throwing cutscenes in your face, or lengthy dialogue to read through for hours and hours. So who are they to judge games and their artistic merit? Okami may look really pretty, but it's not anymore artistic than a Mario or a Halo, because in the end you're still going to X, saving the world, or some princess. They might as well claim that movies aren't Art either, basing it off of seeing The Marine and Crank.

I'm a strong advocate of video games pushing their boundaries to be more acceptable to the Just cause it looks pretty, doesn't make it art public's eye. Obviously the majority of gamers right now are used to Mercenaries, Halo, and Gears of War, so when they try to branch out they shun the games off and call the creators "pretentious" or "snobby" much like the treatment Braid has been getting for trying to have a story outside of being a puzzle game. Maybe if Jonathan Blow replaced the metaphors with dark humor one liners the game would be getting more renown and praise.

I think gamers as a whole should start thinking more about the games we're playing, the messages that developers may be trying to convey towards the players, whether they actually end up being in the game or not. It's not like taking games seriously is bad for anyone. They'll start being more respected in the public's eye so Grand Theft Auto won't be the only name in the headlines, and we'll start to see more variety amongst games themselves.

So what do you guys think? Are you more with Jeff and Ryan and thinking all this is bullshit? Or do you think games can, and should be taken seriously? Should reviews be like car reviews, extremely technical? Or do you believe part of a game's creation is how many emotions to inspires out of you (Like movie reviews)?