I was thinking about this topic as I notice my favorite video games tend to get relatively low Metacritic scores, so it appears that a lot of video game critics and I have such differing opinions that I can't seem to trust if I would truly love a game that scores "high", or not like a game that doesn't get as great a score such as the new Xenoblade Chronicles 2, a game that made me consider buying the Switch. I'm holding off for now as discussed here.
There are only two major critics that I noticed so far who have the same gaming tastes as me, and they happen to be the extremely controversial Colin Moriarty and Jim Sterling. Regardless of their politics and at times, abrasiveness, I find both refreshing because they're not afraid to criticize powerful game companies and developers when they are being unethical. In fact, whenever I see Moriarty blast a company for being anti-consumer, I enjoy watching his partners cringe and try to smooth things over, but Moriarty pressing his point even harder. However, both Moriarty and Sterling would also praise the same company when they do the right thing.
So, integrity is the very first thing I would look at to see if this critic is to be trusted. I don't have to spell out why someone who looks out for and wants the best for gamers is to be more trusted, over someone who shills for a large corporation for important advertising dollars and interview space at major conventions.
While I do agree personality is important (most of Colin Moriarty's political views make me cringe and Jim Sterling can be abrasive to his readers), however, despite both critics having rather strong opinions and convictions, they have been humble enough to change their minds and perspectives if new information presents itself.
Although integrity is actually more important than the next criteria, you should also see if this critic (who has integrity) is enjoying the same games as you. However, even if the critic happens to love a game that you absolutely hate and vice versa, which will inevitably happen, it doesn't make sense to suddenly not respect him or her.
If the critic tends to agree with the games you love, examine whether they are specific in detail, so you know why they find the gameplay compelling or problematic, and if it makes sense to you. Way too often, reading other video game critics' articles, I'd see an extreme score such as 10/10, but upon reading, one wonders why this particular critic feels that the game is so brilliant.
I'm generalizing, of course, but I would read something to the effect of, "this game is sheer magic and is undoubtedly one of the greatest of all times, if not the greatest", but then there's no explanation as to WHY it's magical, and worse, the critic would use further vague claims such as "I've never seen such depth and impeccable detailed level design", but WHY is the level design complex or intricate? I hear crickets.
On the other hand, you have Colin Moriarity, and here's a specific example of why I appreciate his criticisms. I'm a huge fan of Duck Tales and would spend my lunch money on the comic books, and watch the tv shows religiously growing up, so I have tons of nostalgia factor going into playing Duck Tales: Remastered video game. The game was even more attractive as it was free, so you'd think that I'd love the game.
I wrote this post and part of it went into why I hate Duck Tales so much. Although the topic is not about Duck Tales per se, even if I were to write a review of the game, I don't think I'd be able to explain why it's so unpleasant to me, despite the nostalgia and the added bonus of being free, until I read Moriarty's piece. He really hit the nail on the head, and offered rather specific instances of tbe problems he had with the game, most notably the unresponsiveness of controls, which I totally forgot about while forcing myself to play the game.
From my limited experience with platforming, precision of button pressing is of the most vital importance, otherwise one slip, you can't make a jump and die. And yet there are times that for unknown reasons, Scrooge doesn't react to the same button press you've been using as Moriarty clearly explains, so you'd die through no fault of your own. Although, I disagree with Moriarty's distaste about the added cutscenes, this is where his piece differs from many. He discusses them in detail and why he finds them annoying, so you can see if this is actually going to be annoying to you, or a plus. For me, since I like story, being a fan of the cartoon, that was one thing I actually liked about the game.
But as you can see, reading Moriarty's piece on the hated Duck Tales: Remastered, I wouldn't buy the game if it weren't free, despite all of my strong nostalgia ties.
Conclusion: Integrity, having roughly the same taste as you, and specificity in discussing gameplay details are the three criteria to look out for in a video game critic that you can mostly trust. Ideally, you'll have a handful of such critics to then base your decision on whether you should invest in a game (or better yet, rent from library if possible).
There are only two major critics that I noticed so far who have the same gaming tastes as me, and they happen to be the extremely controversial Colin Moriarty and Jim Sterling. Regardless of their politics and at times, abrasiveness, I find both refreshing because they're not afraid to criticize powerful game companies and developers when they are being unethical. In fact, whenever I see Moriarty blast a company for being anti-consumer, I enjoy watching his partners cringe and try to smooth things over, but Moriarty pressing his point even harder. However, both Moriarty and Sterling would also praise the same company when they do the right thing.
So, integrity is the very first thing I would look at to see if this critic is to be trusted. I don't have to spell out why someone who looks out for and wants the best for gamers is to be more trusted, over someone who shills for a large corporation for important advertising dollars and interview space at major conventions.
While I do agree personality is important (most of Colin Moriarty's political views make me cringe and Jim Sterling can be abrasive to his readers), however, despite both critics having rather strong opinions and convictions, they have been humble enough to change their minds and perspectives if new information presents itself.
Although integrity is actually more important than the next criteria, you should also see if this critic (who has integrity) is enjoying the same games as you. However, even if the critic happens to love a game that you absolutely hate and vice versa, which will inevitably happen, it doesn't make sense to suddenly not respect him or her.
If the critic tends to agree with the games you love, examine whether they are specific in detail, so you know why they find the gameplay compelling or problematic, and if it makes sense to you. Way too often, reading other video game critics' articles, I'd see an extreme score such as 10/10, but upon reading, one wonders why this particular critic feels that the game is so brilliant.
I'm generalizing, of course, but I would read something to the effect of, "this game is sheer magic and is undoubtedly one of the greatest of all times, if not the greatest", but then there's no explanation as to WHY it's magical, and worse, the critic would use further vague claims such as "I've never seen such depth and impeccable detailed level design", but WHY is the level design complex or intricate? I hear crickets.
On the other hand, you have Colin Moriarity, and here's a specific example of why I appreciate his criticisms. I'm a huge fan of Duck Tales and would spend my lunch money on the comic books, and watch the tv shows religiously growing up, so I have tons of nostalgia factor going into playing Duck Tales: Remastered video game. The game was even more attractive as it was free, so you'd think that I'd love the game.
I wrote this post and part of it went into why I hate Duck Tales so much. Although the topic is not about Duck Tales per se, even if I were to write a review of the game, I don't think I'd be able to explain why it's so unpleasant to me, despite the nostalgia and the added bonus of being free, until I read Moriarty's piece. He really hit the nail on the head, and offered rather specific instances of tbe problems he had with the game, most notably the unresponsiveness of controls, which I totally forgot about while forcing myself to play the game.
From my limited experience with platforming, precision of button pressing is of the most vital importance, otherwise one slip, you can't make a jump and die. And yet there are times that for unknown reasons, Scrooge doesn't react to the same button press you've been using as Moriarty clearly explains, so you'd die through no fault of your own. Although, I disagree with Moriarty's distaste about the added cutscenes, this is where his piece differs from many. He discusses them in detail and why he finds them annoying, so you can see if this is actually going to be annoying to you, or a plus. For me, since I like story, being a fan of the cartoon, that was one thing I actually liked about the game.
But as you can see, reading Moriarty's piece on the hated Duck Tales: Remastered, I wouldn't buy the game if it weren't free, despite all of my strong nostalgia ties.
Conclusion: Integrity, having roughly the same taste as you, and specificity in discussing gameplay details are the three criteria to look out for in a video game critic that you can mostly trust. Ideally, you'll have a handful of such critics to then base your decision on whether you should invest in a game (or better yet, rent from library if possible).
I have a lot of respecr for Jim Sterlung, Total Biscuit, Colin Moriarty, Joe Vargas, critics like those I like because they explain their point of view with everything. This is crucial to me, because I come to my own conclusions after considering the facts. I might disagree with their stance on a game, Jim specifically has been waging war against micro transactions, and I feel they have fantastic potential when they aren't abused for money. Total Biscuit swears by 60 FPS in all game period, and I disagree there too, especially for Console with limited resources. The ideal scenario is offer both for the player, but that takes dev time and money. (I can elaborate on these if you wish, but thats a little off topic.) Regardless of my personal views, they give reasoning for there views, and that reasoning gives them a lot of foundation for their argument, so whether I agree or not, I can at least respect it.
ReplyDeleteIf I may discuss Ducktales a little though, ducktales the original came out in the 80's. Sure the game may suck by todays standards, but we have learned a lot in the past few decades about games design, it's not really fair to critise it by todays standards. Even the remake which isn't an entirely new game, it's just ported to todays systems.
I've heard of Total Biscuit and Joe Vargas, but not familiar with their work. I can see why Sterling is so against micro-transactions as it tends to be anti-consumer; i.e. those who can afford gets the best things, when, ideally, all elements of a game should be enjoyed by anyone who buys it. I think Rise of the Tomb Raider did micro-transactions that was actually a win-win--I was easily able to get these cards by playing, so I never had to buy micro-transactions, and there really is minimal grinding involved. However, those who don't even want to play the game can just buy the cards (though that defeats the point of playing the game in the first place). It helps pay for the ever burgeoning production costs.
DeleteI am in the Total Biscuit camp where ideally, 60 fps should be the goal in FPS, but in RPGs, 30 fps is more than reasonable. I'm more of an adherent of steady frame rate, preferring 30 fps, rather than frame rates varying b/w 30 to 60 fps.
Even though we may not agree with them, at least they give out detailed reasons.
I haven't played any platform games, but how does Ducktales compare to other platformers in its era? I think the old Marios hold up, and I have a feeling that 10 years from now, DS1 would still be my favorite game, because of the gameplay, level design and enemy variety. I think the mechanics and the repetitive level design of Ducktales made it so awful so even in the 80s, it may have been considered a bad game.
Certainly, that also points to the remake also being bad, because despite new technology, they have NOT fixed the input problems where Scrooge doesn't jump when you press the jump button.
I actually disagree, I feel like microtransactions were messed up in Rise of the Tomb Raider. Because whilst sure you didn't need to buy them to proceed, they still offered nothing to the game. You could've removed them with a butchers knife and the game would still have been exactly the same. I feel like there are very few games that really nail microtransactions, especially in recent games, however I feel like they are at their best when they offer personalisation and personality to the player, for a small cost to add weight to that decision (that's the controversial part). The biggest way to offer this, would obviously be cosmetics. League of Legends offers microtransactions in exchange for skins of the various champions, they allow you to express yourself a little more because that skin might "speak" to you in a way, it aligns with your tastes and personality. You can go a step further than this, with games like Warframe where you can pay real money in exchange for new characters, however that's greyer territory up for debate. As for the cost, I think it belongs in both bigger titles to an extent, and obviously free to play games. If you are going to put a price point on it after they already paid for the game, it needs to be outragously small, we're talking no higher than $5 for a completely new set of customisables. Having this small price point adds a certain exclusivity to your look, and makes you really feel like you developed your own style, much like buying a cute top you liked down the town, you feel like you can identify with your look a lot more because of it. That is when I feel microtransactions are at their best, not just because they are pay to finish faster and not nessecary for gameplay.
DeleteOn the FPS argument, I wholeheartedly agree that 60 FPS is more enjoyable, easier to play than 30 FPS, however I play on PC, I don't have to give up anything for that 60FPS, (hell I play my in 144 FPS with no downside as of yet) whereas consoles do. If the game is optimised to run in 30 FPS over 60, it will have better graphics, they will be able to do more with the engine, because they have to worry less about performance, they can stretch their boundary's much further. Tomb Raider and Uncharted would not look even remotely as good, were they made for 60 FPS, they would have to hold back on the high quality models, the high resolution textures, the complex shaders and lighting, because console just wouldn't be able to run it. And at that point it becomes do you prefer these intense graphics, whether you value high framerates, and most importantly understanding which one of these your audience will prefer. Another good example of this is Super Smash Bro's 3DS, where they made the decision to downplay and optimise the graphics to get it running at 60FPS on a reletively weak console, but it was completely worth it because with it being a fighting game, that 60FPS clarity is extremely important.
I haven't played Ducktales, it was before my time and never stood out to me to try. However after watching a 5 minute youtube video on it I reckon I can consider myself an expert (/s). I think it's just fine for it's era. It seems they have done a number of touching up on the graphics, however kept the gameplay exactly the same. It feels like it was supposed to be bringing the game back for people nostalgic over games for newer generations to experience like the Crash Bandicoot remasters and Ratchet and Clank remastered. Ducktales was fine for it's time, however you need to compare it to other games of it's generation, where we didn't know a thing about levels getting repetitive or what have you, we were still learning how to code it all at that point. Learning how to make games in general, good games can come later when we got the hang of it. WayForward wasn't the one to make that game by the way, 1989 DuckTales was capcom.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete