Very Well, I Contradict Myself
August 24th, 2008So after my previous post, I find myself disagreeing somewhat with Kieron Gillen here. I agree that there needs to be a place for people interested in “serious” games to find and discuss them. The industry (and gamers) as a whole are better off when there are more games, and types of games, in the marketplace. Yet Gillen seems to believe that these “serious” games are objectively better than the others because of their attitude… which seems to me to be misguided at best.
Gillen’s jumping off point is end-of-year awards, which generally tend to reward the most popular games over the most sophisticated. I agree. Movies and music tend to reward obscure critical favorites more than the gaming industry. Yet Gillen seems to view this as a strong negative rather than a different viewpoint:
“[Critics fail] 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 Defence Force 2017 is a better game than Gears of War. Stepping more PC and indie, Desktop Tower Defence is a better game than Supreme Commander. ”
And Gillen fails to understand that whether EDF 2017 truly is a better game than GoW is an inherently subjective question, and one that reflects differing aesthetic tastes rather than some pronouncement from the heavens. He is the type of gamer who is interested in some deeper questions about gaming and the nature of the industry and thus one who gravitates towards more “challenging” material.
I actually like his suggestion of the blind-vote award process. But I think it’s valuable as a supplement to the other dialogues out there, not as a replacement for them. The Eurogamer system has its own flaws; it’s likely influenced by the voting pool (reviewers are likely to have their own preferences and biases, like anyone else, and they’re more likely than most to have “elite” tastes), by the on-going dialogue and pressures that exist within the reviewing industry group, by the mere fact that changing the identities of the voters doesn’t make their votes more “legitimate.” You can’t judge it simply because its results are more closely aligned with the ones you prefer. Maybe to most people, Gears of War really is preferable to EDF 2017.
I think Gillen realizes this, at least implicitly. He views this system as a way to increase gamer awareness of titles he views as undervalued. It very well could be. But we should be careful not to confuse our own preferences with those of the mainstream, nor to impose them upon them.
Posted in Geoff, Industry, Journalism |
August 24th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I agree, Gillen is begging the question here.
August 24th, 2008 at 7:41 am
“we should be careful not to confuse our own preferences with those of the mainstream, nor to impose them upon them.”
That’s certainly true.
I would add that it’s possible to RECOGNIZE that game “X” is better (even objectively) than “Y” while still preferring “Y”. It’s certainly the case for movies. I know, understand, and appreciate that The English Patient is a vastly superior movie compared something I just watched yesterday (and loved); The Legend of the Shadowless Sword but I’ll take that over The English Patient any day of the week.
But, even so, I would say that it is more important that one experience the games/movies that really do achieve something special, even if outside your area of interest, if for no other reason than to let them “effect” you.
Using my comments on Braid as an example: While I don’t appear to be a big fan of Braid on the surface, I would highly recommend it to others and would say it’s a must play even though it didn’t strike me the same way it did others. I recognize many things in it that are worthy of further investigation. I want to let it effect me. For lack of a better term, I would say the game is powerful. Like such games or not, these are the types of games that I HOPE will win awards and get recognition rather than just the games that have features a,b, and c, or super great graphics.
August 24th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Geoff: Your final statement is entirely right.
I was taking the fact those statements are subjective as a given. If we go around saying “In my opinion” after everything that’s clearly a subjective statement… well, discussions tend to take up twice the space. We’re all grown ups. We know this. The first point is even if a critic prefers a game like EDF, they’re traditionally reticent to hail it above Gears of War because Gears of War is A Proper Game. The examples was purely illustrative.
The Second Point - as you note - is that it serves little purpose for critics to go around hailing Gears of War. Everyone knows about its merits. Critics acting more like the ‘orrible snobs they tend to be in other media actually is more useful to the readers, because it shines a light on stuff you may *not* be aware about.
If critics are *just* a barometer of the prevailing opinion - and in games they mainly are - they’re only serving half their purpose. The piece was hailing the fact that we’re starting to see a trend in the direction of the other half.
Of course, People will hate critics as snobs. But that’s what critics are for, and that’s fine. But even then they’ll have more use for them than they tend to now.
KG
August 24th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
@Kieron,
I appreciate what you’re saying, but I’m not prepared to concede the point that critics need to be snobs or that it’s necessarily beneficial. I may be misunderstanding your thrust, and I’ll admit that, in the situations you mention there are potential benefits (assuming the elitism can be forgone by the reader in an attempt to get something out of the review). But I think a balance can and should be struck by critics. I’m thinking that a critic should be snobbish in what they attempt to consume, but be more populist in how they relay their experiences. The reader should never feel condescended to, nor that he/she must be a part of some elite group to appreciate the critiques. That’s not to say that reviewers don’t write to a specific demographic, I think they do, but I think it’s important for the reviewers “snobbishness” to be of benefit and not simply to provide the reviewer with a sense of superiority. Something, I often feel ends up being the case. Worst of all, is when we get reviews/critiques that are clearly written to an audience of other critics.
August 25th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Well, I’ll agree and try to moderate my own behaviour in such ways. But you’re talking “shoulds”.
Critics being - on average - more snobbish than the majority of the consumers is something that happens in all cultural forms. What I’m talking about is about why it hasn’t happened in games so much, why that may be changing and what unexpected benefits there may be to it if it does.
It’s a cultural trend post, not a manifesto. This is how I think humans *will* act, because this is how they’ve always acted. Clearly, there’s the downsides you mention - but rather than focus on that, I’m focusing on the positives that go hand in hand with it.
KG
August 25th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Thats a very good point and an interesting way to look at it.
I’ll add a new word to the growing calculus of human behavior: Hope.
Based on what you say people “will” do, I certainly “hope” they also do what they “should”, lest the benefits of the “will” be overshadowed and less meaningful.
Thanks for the response, this has been a very thought provoking thesis.