froghawk on 16/9/2018 at 14:04
Not remotely what I said. I mean, I'm here, aren't I? If I thought this was a frivolous waste of time, I wouldn't have posted gigantic walls of text about gaming in my current review thread? I'm saying getting up in arms about these sorts of things while remaining silent on real serious issues is a problem and shows an issue with priorities.
Plus the only thing more irrelevant than gaming journalism these days is music journalism, and I say that as someone who contributes to music review blogs. With the amount of user reviews out there today, I think hardly anyone is making the decision to buy games solely on professional reviews. On top of that, the fate of franchises doesn't rest on review scores - the latest Deus Ex and Dishonored entries got great reviews, but the franchises still got put on hold for low sales. Or, for a tv example - Iron Fist got horrendous reviews, but lots of people watched it anyway, so it got renewed for season 2. It's a nonissue being blown up into a crisis, taking attention away from issues that actually have an impact.
Sulphur on 17/9/2018 at 06:05
Since when have positive reviews and mass consumption of a media product ever enjoyed a direct correlation? Everyone knows Michael Bay's Transformers movies are a trash fire, but that's not going to stop the kids from wanting to see them, is it?
Having said that, I like reading professional reviews when the reviewer is knowledgeable about the subject and offers a perspective that's interesting, or at the very least can appraise the thing in question in a fair and balanced manner to inform my purchasing decision. User reviews do not follow such stipulations, and as such are only useful en masse in the majority of situations as a barometer of public opinion - and even then, with review bombing for random causes, that needs an ample pouring of salt to go along with. I'd much rather take a Roger Ebert review who, for the most part, I don't agree with, but he always had insight and a way of telling his perspective on a film that made you acknowledge he had a point (except it when came to video games). For example: (
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-yojimbo-1961) his review on Yojimbo.
Gaming journalism done right can shed light on a topic without polarising it - see EG's (
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-02-11-the-god-who-peter-molyneux-forgot) interview with Bryan Henderson and Molyneux, which offers both parties a chance to talk about their sides of the situation, and now compare that with this (
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/02/13/peter-molyneux-interview-godus-reputation-kickstarter/) vitriolic garbage approach.
There are many things to talk about in every sphere, and yes, some of them should be prioritised higher than others, but the more important point is
how someone talks about them. Eva clearly does this shit to fan the troll flames in his heart, so call him out, or ignore it. We ought to be mature enough to deal with stupidity in an intelligent manner.
Thirith on 17/9/2018 at 06:34
I have a soft spot for Ebert's dismissal of video games; without it, there wouldn't be a "Ma è arte? I videogiochi sono inferiori al cinema come forma di espressione artistica?"* :p
*It's an (
http://mbf.blogs.com/files/intermedialitaindice.pdf) article I wrote ages ago that was published, in an Italian translation. It's not a great article, but I still get a kick out of having an Italian article on my CV even though I don't speak or write the language.
Sulphur on 17/9/2018 at 06:58
My knowledge of Italian is limited to 'allegro', 'moderato', 'con te partiro', some other words that end in o, and the entire run of accents in The Sopranos episodes. I wouldn't mind reading the article through a Google Translate filter though, unintentionally added linguistic Brownian motion always spices things up.
Games: not art because affording interaction with the audience destroys any semblance of artistry. Yeah yeah, Ebert, you old codger. God rest your soul.
Thirith on 17/9/2018 at 07:04
I'll see if I can still find it in the English original; it does sound a fair bit less operatic, though.
But yeah, Ebert's argument was pretty ridiculous. Not because games are the best ever (I get equally annoyed when proponents of games as art start talking about "active" and "passive" media), but because... oh, because of so many things. It was inherently reactionary, intellectually lazy and pretty much the kind of thing that old men said about most media at some point in time.
froghawk on 17/9/2018 at 12:54
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Having said that, I like reading professional reviews when the reviewer is knowledgeable about the subject and offers a perspective that's interesting, or at the very least can appraise the thing in question in a fair and balanced manner to inform my purchasing decision. User reviews do not follow such stipulations, and as such are only useful en masse in the majority of situations as a barometer of public opinion - and even then, with review bombing for random causes, that needs an ample pouring of salt to go along with.
See, here's the thing - at least in music, the vast, vast majority of professional critics historically have been no more educated on what goes into the craft than your average listener. They've been better writers, to be sure, but they've had no more knowledge of theory, audio engineering, sound design, form, orchestration, or any other technical aspect of music than anyone else, which to me makes them unqualified to judge it. I don't think you can fairly judge a final product without a solid understanding of what goes into making it, at least not if you're getting paid to do it for a living. Obviously you still need to be able to translate that to the general public for an accessible read. But the bottom line is that everyone from the pitchfork writers to Robert Christgau may as well have been random people on the internet for all their music expertise. I don't suspect gaming journalism is much different.
Granted, this can be socially harmful. Christgau felt best singer in England was Mick Jagger - a man with absolutely no technical singing ability and frankly little expressive capacity. Meanwhile, the incredibly skilled and expressive black women who performed backing vocals on Rolling Stones songs like Merry Clayton and Lisa Fischer are basically ignored. I think the critics are more a reflection of the times in this regard than the cause of the problem, though, but that doesn't make them any more relevant.
Sulphur on 17/9/2018 at 14:16
I'm not sure a comparison to the music industry is entirely warranted as video games don't completely map onto the same set of dynamics, but are you saying that Pitchfork introducing me to small indie bands I'd never otherwise listen to like The Antlers and Wilco with deconstructions of their context, lyrics, and instrumentation, or their retrospectives on important works like Hendrix's albums is reducible to the average person going 'Gee whiz, this Taylor Swift song is good'? The idea of taste-specific curation is important to me, and random opinions don't hold as much weight as someone who can offer an articulate exploration of something I may like. The reality is, if you're not a musician, the latter is generally harder to find in your circle of friends.
froghawk on 17/9/2018 at 14:25
I'm saying that their 'deconstructions' come across as highly inadequate to someone who has actually studied music and has a lot of practical experience creating it. For the average person, I see how they could appear to be more informed, but generally I think these 'tastemakers' are unqualified and lacking in knowledge. They're certainly more articulate at explaining themselves than the average person, but in terms of actually understanding the process, they're no better off in my book.
I think all critics in a particular art form should have a background in creating it. That always yields the most informative and informed criticism. Without that background, they're simply finding more long-winded and flowery ways of saying 'Gee, this is good.' I certainly acknowledge that there isn't really a better way for the general public to find music at this point, but I nonetheless think the quality of music journalism needs to be vastly stepped up for it to be truly relevant.
icemann on 17/9/2018 at 14:37
I say that video game music is not what it used to be, with exceptions (eg Witcher 3 and Skyrim had some good music). If you look at games today vs 90s and before, their used to be MUCH more in your face good music at play. Where as now it's generally more ambient and in the background, thus far less memorable. I miss the days when the majority had decent stuff.
Thirith on 17/9/2018 at 14:46
@icemann
It's ironic that you say so in a thread that used to be about The Witcher 3, which has a fantastic soundtrack. I also think that "the days when the majority had decent stuff" is pretty much the usual "things used to be better in the past". There are plenty of games with good music, there are plenty more games with mediocre, forgettable music, and that's how it's always been.
@froghawk
I have some sympathy for your point of view, but I also think it's very limited. Technical accomplishment isn't the only aspect that's relevant when it comes to music, and it may not even be the most important one some of the time. You call Mick Jagger "a man with absolutely no technical singing ability and frankly little expressive capacity", but to my mind that's massively dismissive to the things that he did bring to the table. It's also an inherently conservative view of quality, because you always compare to an ideal that's already there, which means that you're less likely to see the value of something new that doesn't easily fit into the old categories.
