The State of the Industry
So far, 2017 has been a curious year for video games. We’ve already seen a new console, games that set the bar for “excellence,” huge disappointments, and more than a few gaming controversies (in terms of remarks and decisions).
Personally, I’ve had a lot of deep, philosophical gaming-related discussions with friends and coworkers. Now, as a former editorial writer, I’m always ready for a good debate. But these talks have been different, rational and intent on understanding different perspectives rather than trying to prove one side’s superiority over another. (And it helps that we have so many gaming controversies to choose from.)
These conversations have been a really nice change so far. Still, I can’t help but think these topics would be great to dive into as a long-form editorial.
Spoilt for choice
Two weeks ago, a friend asked me how I rank the major reviewing sites. Specifically, he was curious which gaming news sites I turn to and rely upon…which led to an interesting discussion: What do I value in news about my favorite industry?
I hadn’t thought about that before. Sure, IGN is a news hub for pretty much every entertainment medium, but it has become a hotbed of entitled gamers, constant complainers, and juvenile commenters. However, the plethora of news coverage, podcasts, and industry insights keep IGN at the top of the food chain, and it’s hard to see that changing.
The rest of the “field” approaches the business differently. GameInformer is a magazine first and foremost; in my mind, they’ve always represented journalistic integrity and professionalism. Giant Bomb focuses on video content and serves an older and more mature audience; their long-form series provide excellent entertainment, and they’ve built a stellar team of industry veterans. Polygon dives more into the editorial side, handling gaming controversies and long-form opinion pieces (and headhunting some of the better writers from other gaming outlets).
There are a lot more, of course. This list is more of what I consider to be the “cream of the crop,” and also the group that most mainstream gamers have some familiarity with.
“But wait, what do you look for in gaming coverage?” you ask. (Or at least I hope you do, since you do come here to read my opinions on games.)
Well, I’m glad you asked. The truth is that it depends on a variety of factors, and while I’ll address them in a bit, let’s take a short detour. Last week, I stumbled upon an editorial that really made me reconsider what I look for in reviews and articles about video games, and it’s something worth investigating.
The process of reviews
When The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild released on March 3, it quickly earned critical acclaim. I mean, we’re talking perfect 10s across the board—the game quickly secured the poll spot in “Game of the Year 2017” talks while also spearheading both a console launch and the rejuvenation of Nintendo (and Zelda) as a brand.
I mean, it is a big deal. And, for once, the community and media seemed to agree on something. The game received perfect scores from every major source, as well as the masses.
…well, except for Jim Sterling.
Sterling’s been around the industry for awhile, and he’s developed a reputation for hard-nosed honesty, sometimes to the point of excess. Yes, he has a knack for coming across as the internet’s biggest troll, but his wit and intellect supersede his “crimes” of pressing people’s buttons and going against the grain. He’s never been afraid to point out the flaws in things that other people gloss over because of a title’s reputation, and that’s not a liberty held by most major review sites.
Anyway, Sterling decided to give Breath of the Wild a 7 out of 10…and was then attacked by the gaming community in earnest. Angry fans berated him constantly via social media, even going so far as to digitally attack (and temporarily interrupt the services of) his website, all because he bucked the trend and shared his subjective opinion about a game he didn’t love.
For some reason, it was considered an unforgivable sin. And if you believe the commenters, it could even be one of the biggest gaming controversies of the decade. (It clearly was not.)
Polygon’s Owen Good dove into this issue, and his perspective is very much a must-read. He called attention to how often the gaming community loses its collective mind when someone (especially a reviewer) disagrees with public opinion. While Good didn’t say it in as many words, this trend is becoming a cancer that is literally tearing the gamer-family to pieces, and it’s something that draws the wrong kind of attention to our still-young medium.
Welcome to the digital age
We live in the age of digital anonymity where I could sign into popular sites as “ChocoChipPancake001” and spew vitriol at anyone I want, bully anyone I want, and generally be the crappiest and most despicable human being I could imagine…and no one would ever put a name or identity to my voice. Social media feeds on this, and today’s mindset of “political correctness is king” has already indoctrinated so many of us into the idea of opinion-policing. I mean, when did subjective analysis become a capital offense? Why would people flock to a site to read one person’s review, then somehow devalue the journalist as a human being because their opinion on a video game (not politics, or religion, or even racism) differed from what was expected?
As Owen Good so eloquently said in his editorial:
“People who gripe about a ‘bad review’ aren’t doing so because they were cheated out of their time or money by putting trust in the laziness or inarticulateness of another. In the tone of their complaint you can see a mind already made up. Instead, it’s about affirmation they expected and didn’t receive. It’s not about the game getting universal praise from every writer reviewing it. It’s about getting universal praise for buying it.”
Have you ever wondered why people see the gaming industry as the domain of an elitist, exclusionist, whiny bunch of entitled adolescents? It’s because members of the community hack the personal accounts of people who don’t supply the “purchase affirmation” they wanted. It’s because the community lashes out at one another for fear that maybe—just maybe—someone made a bad choice and bought a mediocre or inferior product. Honestly, this is the state of the video game industry in 2017. It’s sad, really, but it’s certainly a byproduct of our society and the mindset of the up-and-coming generations.
I never really thought about that until reading the Polygon article. Personally, I use reviews to help me decide on a title before buying it. People who don't only add into this gaming controversies drama.
Personally, price point is king for me. My goal is always to get one hour of entertainment for every $1 spent—not always an ideal measuring stick, but it’s a practice that has helped me from overspending during my years of active game.
The search for validation
When I buy a game, I decide for myself if it was worth it; I don’t need to seek validation from someone’s review or the overall opinion of the community because I’ve already made the investment. And if I’m interested in an upcoming game, I’ll read previews and listen to podcast discussions to find out about the strengths and weaknesses that will mean the most to me. Is there a story? What are the game’s issues? What does it excel at? How is the gameplay? Is there a co-op element?
Let’s look at an example. I preordered Mass Effect: Andromeda months ago out of a commitment to my favorite game series ever. However, now that we’ve come to the release date, I’ve read enough previews and listened to enough podcasts to know that the game will probably earn scores in the 7.0-8.0 range.
(And yes, early reviews have pretty much confirmed my guesstimate. It looks like we're going to hear a lot about BioWare's latest tick in the disappointing "gaming controversies" column.)
As a longtime and diehard fan, that’s hugely disappointing, but you know what? I committed to the game out of a love for Mass Effect as a brand, and I know I’ll get return for my investment. And even if the game does fail to meet my expectations, I’ll have no one to blame but myself. I won’t criticize reviewers who disagree, or send death threats to BioWare for failing to meet my expectations.
Yes, reviews are important. But are they the end-all, be-all in whether or not a game is worth getting? Absolutely not.
I (and apparently many other gamers) have noticed that reviews have drifted away from the traditional format. Journalists rarely focus on the mechanics of a game anymore, but rather the artistic excellence and cultural relevance and political correctness of it.
What's in a review?
Most recently, I saw this in a review of Ghost Recon: Wildlands. The article in question criticized the moral implications of a game that focuses on the Bolivian drug trade, and specifically on how the protagonists bring down a cartel. Are they destabilizing the region by supporting a local militia? Should the U.S. military really have a hand there at all? Why are the protagonists so casual in their regard of torture or racism or sexism?
The whole thing was presented as another one of 2017's gaming controversies, but I don't get it. Yes, there’s a lot to tackle in a game like Wildlands. Built within the Tom Clancy franchise, the game inherits an identity from both earlier Ghost Recon games as well as the real-world-thriller nature of Tom Clancy novels, films, and games.
But, ultimately, Wildlands is a video game. And, for some reason, the review in question focused most heavily on all of the above questions rather than the mechanics, the cooperative elements, and many other key components that make up a video game.
Anyway, here’s how one gamer (Thanks, “carlson275”) felt about the review:
“I feel like ‘reviews’ of this nature should be separate from gameplay mechanic reviews. The ethical nature of gaming, the tone it sets, or the clash with reality—to me, which I wholeheartedly admit is my own perspective—doesn’t apply. I play games for fun. Fun to me is fluent gameplay, choices, beautiful graphics, bug-free experiences, and story. When I get home from work, the gym, taking care of the house, I want to sit down and have fun. Sometimes "fun" is blowing stuff up and killing baddies. So what I want to know about the game is, is it fun? What makes it fun, or perhaps not fun? What choices do I have? The story doesn’t have to be realistic or "equal" in terms of drama, action, flair, humor—it just needs to be compelling or fun.”
After reading this, I sat back in my chair and nodded in agreement to something I hadn’t really considered before. My support was echoed by other members of the community, with comments like, “Glad I’m not the only one who feels this way. I’m very irritated by reviews of games that make little-to-no mention of gameplay. Surely gameplay is still the main reason people play games, right?”
These comments sum up a lot of what I’ve been feeling lately. My gaming habits changed a lot since last summer, and my free time is precious. If I’m playing games, I need to be enjoying them. I had a lot of fun with the Wildlands beta, but knew it wasn’t something worth investing $60 into.
The power of artistic merit
Price is still a factor in my gaming purchases. If a title isn’t fun, I can’t afford to struggle through it. Instead, I bought Pillars of Eternity (an RPG paying homage to the games that got me into writing) and Astroneer (a passive exploration game built for co-op).
“But what about validating the ‘game is art’ theory?” you ask.
A community leader replied to that comment. He went so far as to argue that valuing “game as art” is more important than any other factor, going so far as to belittle “fun” as a childish qualifier that should have been left back in elementary school.
The community rallied against this idea. It was a beautiful and heartening series of comments, even if it was the minority. And the final, conclusive thought?
“This is exactly the problem I have with this mindset … as if play itself wasn’t a wonderful, valuable activity worth engaging in and celebrating for its own sake. No, it has to be justified as ‘art’ in order to make it sociably viable. I think that’s terribly wrong. Play for the sake of playing is of huge value, especially in adults who, sadly, often forget how to do it. There are countless other avenues that we can explore to experience art but video games are one of the few avenues that adults go to to play.”
The truth of 2017's gaming controversies
Gaming, literature, sports, the outdoors—all of these are invaluable means of entertainment and joy, especially for adults. We shouldn’t define ourselves as “bankers” or “marketers,” but as “gamers” and “mountain bikers.” Devaluing those things to shoehorn them into elitist experiences is laughable. In the end, art is subjective anyway.
Valuing artistic merits above all else is a slippery slope, and feeds into these "gaming controversies." It allows people to interpret the final product and judge one another based on interpretation. But, in the end, it’s all up to the artist and that individual’s efforts to express something in a way that others enjoy.
My job as a consumer is to sit back and enjoy it for what it is, whether it’s silly-stupid fun in Wildlands or galaxy-saving narrative in Mass Effect. Trying to do anything else is…well, utterly foolish.