Check it out - the first editorial I wrote for the new site I work at just got published. It’s about the way most game critics give, in my opinion, sophomoric critiques of storylines in videogames.
http://gamerlimit.com/2009/04/an-honest-critique-of-story-critiques/
well done
You do bring up many good points. It would be nice to know why the story of a game is so special. (Or not)
I totally deserve a byline. I helped write that editorial! And you totally should have called them niggards.
Sorry, but I’m going to strongly disagree here.
A movie consists of two hours of dialogue and action. There simply isn’t much that can happen in that time. Not talking about the plot would mean not talking about anything at all. It’s disingenuous to compare games to movies, because I daresay that most people don’t consider the first two hours of a game spoilerrific either, and will happily discuss it in a review.
The difference between a movie and a game, particularly an RPG, is that games are really, really LONG. The good stories aren’t always good because of particular events or personalities, but because you begin identifying with characters you spend that much time with, and you appreciate them. You don’t want to spoil those interactions because you want to experience that as is.
You’re comparing it to the wrong media. Try looking at reviews for TV shows instead (not comedies, obviously. And of course I’m not referring to reviews of a single anime DVD here, which generally has only 4 episodes on it). Chances are there will be discussion of the dialogue, the acting, the stylistic choices, and the setting and basic plot elements, but not of what happens anywhere past episode 3 or 4, because we don’t have to know that far, and telling us runs a high chance of making the experience less enjoyable.
Now, I’m not saying that absolutely nothing should be divulged - as I said, the first couple hours of an RPG are up for grabs. But I’m perfectly happy with being given a general opinion of how the story plays out and content to experience it for myself. Whether or not I agree with a particular reviewer is something I’ll find out as I read more of his/her reviews of games I’ve played. But I shouldn’t have to be wary of reading reviews out of fear that the review will ruin my enjoyment of the game.
I would say the opposite is true; because a movie is shorter, any little thing you spoil reveals that much more of the story than the long-winded stories of video games. Conversely, video games give you a lot more to work with concerning spoilers, because so much happens in the game, that spoiling a few things don’t even ruin the surprise factor that much.
Another thing: It’s not like, for every medium, there’s a ‘first two hours cutoff point’ for story discussion; spoiling the first two hours of a game is equivalent to spoiling maybe the first five minutes of a movie, and movie critics discuss a hell of a lot more than that; why shouldn’t we?
Also, like I said in the editorial, the “What” is not really the most important factor of a story; it’s the “How” and “Why”, and this applies even to your character example. It’s perfectly possible to empathize and grow fond of characters in video games, but movies are no different. If a character(s) and his(their) interactions are well-done, it does not matter how much time you spend with them. It does not matter how many lines of dialogue they have. If they are well-written, you will appreciate them. If you don’t believe me, try playing Suikoden 2; there is a part in that game that happens, maybe 3-4 hours in, tops, that made me cry TWICE, in two different ways. It does not take a long time to have an emotional attachment if it’s done well, and there’s no spoiling the POWER of scenes like that, even if you may know it’s coming. Though, to be fair, I don’t think I’ve ever revealed the finer details of any scene quite that important, nor do many critics of any medium, nor am I advocating something quite like that. That’s a whole different extreme.
You’re comparing it to the wrong media. Try looking at reviews for TV shows instead (not comedies, obviously. And of course I’m not referring to reviews of a single anime DVD here, which generally has only 4 episodes on it). Chances are there will be discussion of the dialogue, the acting, the stylistic choices, and the setting and basic plot elements, but not of what happens anywhere past episode 3 or 4, because we don’t have to know that far, and telling us runs a high chance of making the experience less enjoyable.
I don’t really see what the difference is. A plot-driven TV show or anime is just like a long movie. If you want to keep reviewing it as it’s being made, you need to talk about some plot elements or it won’t make any sense. In fact, I would even challenge you to find a TV or anime review that hardly talks about anything that happens in the story, but gives me a clear picture of what to expect from it.
Now, I’m not saying that absolutely nothing should be divulged - as I said, the first couple hours of an RPG are up for grabs. But I’m perfectly happy with being given a general opinion of how the story plays out and content to experience it for myself. Whether or not I agree with a particular reviewer is something I’ll find out as I read more of his/her reviews of games I’ve played. But I shouldn’t have to be wary of reading reviews out of fear that the review will ruin my enjoyment of the game.
I already made my case about the “first few hours” concept, as well as how I feel about a general opinion on how the story plays out (because that’s what my entire editorial was about :P). These are not critiques; they are just advice. I’m not looking for advice; I’m looking for REVIEWS. Reviews critique stuff; consultants advise.
I guess that’s a huge difference in the way we look at reviews, because I can tell that you look at reviews differently from me just by the last few sentences, where you say that you determine whether or not you agree with a critic based on if they have similar opinions to you. If you can do this, I suppose that’s nice; but for me, I find myself flagrantly disagreeing with even my favorite critics. When I read a review, I’m not looking for someone to shove their opinions in my face; I want a real argument, examples, qualifying statements. Otherwise, why even write a review? I could just say something like,
“Well, Final Fantasy 7 had good gameplay. The music was good, and the graphics were kind of gross, but it was impressive in its time for the pure spectacle of 3D. The story is long and epic, and has some really excellent plot twists and excellent characters. Play it, because I liked it.”
I think when dealing with gameplay this is important, because for the vast majority of games, you’re spending more time (and certainly more cerebral effort) in gameplay than in story. If the gameplay is badly done, that’s very important to me. Unfortunately, the majority of RPGs still haven’t really gotten to the “awesome story” aspect. I can barely count on one hand the number of RPGs whose story - the actual plot -stands out as something really awesome and interesting. And I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to read a review that deconstructs those events before I have a chance to experience them.
Though, to be fair, I don’t think I’ve ever revealed the finer details of any scene quite that important, nor do many critics of any medium, nor am I advocating something quite like that. That’s a whole different extreme.
But who decides which events are important? Something that really touched you might be seen as kind of stupid by someone else, and something you felt was minor might be important to others. How is this an extreme? What decides which plot points are “spoilerable” and which aren’t?
Yes, movie reviews will spoil more of the experience, but that’s because the experience is almost entirely defined by the plot. That’s just not the case with video games (and, as stated, neither is it true for most TV series), as the events of the plot are only one small part of the overall experience. And even in movie reviews, plot elements that are meant to be surprises are rarely discussed outright.
“Well, Final Fantasy 7 had good gameplay. The music was good, and the graphics were kind of gross, but it was impressive in its time for the pure spectacle of 3D. The story is long and epic, and has some really excellent plot twists and excellent characters. Play it, because I liked it.”
Let’s not devolve into using straw men. We’re discussing taking a single aspect of a game - the plot; not the characters, or the dialogue, or the acting, just the plot - and saying that we’d prefer not to spoiler it. All other details - graphics, music, gameplay - can and should be specified because the reader doesn’t lose any experience by therefore doing. Similarly the basic premise of the plot can be deconstructed. But by discussing plot details, you’re going to be destroying the very purpose of the review, because as soon as I read your review my experience is going to be different than yours (because you spoiled it for me) and therefore I won’t enjoy it as much.
So even if technically and idealistically you may be right, the end result is profoundly negative in my opinion, and should be avoided.
Even if it’s true that not very many RPGs have stories that are truly riveting, if time was spent on them, then they’re worth critiquing. As for not wanting to read a review that deconstructs the events before you have a chance to experience them…
I’m guessing you don’t read a lot of movie reviews, and
I’m not saying you have to analyze every single event, either. I mean, just read any of my reviews - I know you have, and I know you know I don’t do that. You’re arguing the opposite extreme of what I’m criticizing, but I don’t take a diametrically opposed stance; I simply think it merits being able to discuss individual aspects of the plot at the sake of making a a better point of whether the story is well-written, does a good job of exploring any themes it may present, or just simply FEELS excellent.
But who decides which events are important? Something that really touched you might be seen as kind of stupid by someone else, and something you felt was minor might be important to others. How is this an extreme? What decides which plot points are “spoilerable” and which aren’t?
Movie and literary critics do this all the time. The extreme of what you’re talking about, by the way, is something I mentioned above, which is “I’m not trying to say you should talk about the entire game, or always reveal the most important points.” However, if you need to do so to make your point (a rarity, but sometimes, yes, it will happen), then go for it. If the story is really good, then it will have a powerful dramatic impact regardless of whether you already knew, or even saw it coming.
Yes, movie reviews will spoil more of the experience, but that’s because the experience is almost entirely defined by the plot. That’s just not the case with video games (and, as stated, neither is it true for most TV series), as the events of the plot are only one small part of the overall experience. And even in movie reviews, plot elements that are meant to be surprises are rarely discussed outright.
That’s a bit tangental, don’t you think? If I’m understanding what you’re saying correctly, you’re saying that video game plots are more sacred than the plots of movies - a medium that has NOTHING ELSE TO IT but its story, which should mean that spoiling a movie should theoretically be a greater detriment to your overall experience than spoiling a game - simply because it’s multifaceted. Why should I have to treat story spoilers like a cardinal sin for video games simply because I can also critique gameplay? If substantial time is invested in both, then both are equally important to the experience!
Let’s not devolve into using straw men. We’re discussing taking a single aspect of a game - the plot; not the characters, or the dialogue, or the acting, just the plot - and saying that we’d prefer not to spoiler it. All other details - graphics, music, gameplay - can and should be specified because the reader doesn’t lose any experience by therefore doing. Similarly the basic premise of the plot can be deconstructed.
Actually, I definitely grouped all of that into the subject matter of my editorial. Not to mention, you already brought it up a subset of plot (characters) in your first post:
The difference between a movie and a game, particularly an RPG, is that games are really, really LONG. The good stories aren’t always good because of particular events or personalities, but because you begin identifying with characters you spend that much time with, and you appreciate them. You don’t want to spoil those interactions because you want to experience that as is.
Even if it weren’t a part of the topic of my editorial (which it was), you’ve brought it up, which would make it silly for you to try and deter me from discussing it now.
But by discussing plot details, you’re going to be destroying the very purpose of the review, because as soon as I read your review my experience is going to be different than yours (because you spoiled it for me) and therefore I won’t enjoy it as much.
I might be destroying the review for the purpose you read it, which seems to be for advice, but what I’m arguing is that this should be changed - especially if you WANT to see deeper, more meaningful storylines in games. It’s definitely not going to singlehandedly change things, but the more we place the most superficial aspects of the storylines on a pedestal, the more we may be encouraging writers to focus on that, too.
Don’t you think it’s a little fallacious to say that you won’t enjoy the story as much, simply because my experience is different from yours? How would you know if you’re going to enjoy it less, anyways?
Furthermore, you’ve already admitted that what makes a story good is not necessarily the events (the “What”), but perhaps the characterization, writing, etc. (The “How” and “Why”), which I completely agree with. I would even go as far as to argue that 99% of the time, it’s the characterization, writing, and themes that make a story intriguing.
With that in mind, why does it even matter to you if a story event is spoiled to you? There’s only so many ways you can write a story, so it’s not like we’ll ever see any individual plot points that are truly original. If you really believe that the “How” and “Why” are what makes a story great, then why be so irrationally afraid of knowing the “What” in advance?
Heh… sometimes I have a strong visceral reaction to something, and then I flail around trying to figure out why it bothers me so much.
I had an epiphany this morning precisely what the enormous difference is between spoiling a video game plot and a movie plot.
When you see a movie, the plot is there for you. It goes from beginning to finish. You watch it.
In a video game, plot is the reward for your efforts.
Think about it. In video games, you’re punished for doing badly (generally by having to redo things you’ve already done). What’s your reward for doing well or accomplishing goals? Getting experience and items? Depending on the game, maybe. But in all RPGs, the real reason we beat that boss is because we want to see what happens next.
Telling us what happens next reduces the desire that we’ll want to see it, and hence reduces our reason for playing in the first place.
On a more practical note:
I think both of us more or less agree that minor plot points can be spoiled and ones which are supposed to be surprises shouldn’t (they rarely are, even in movie reviews). We’re arguing about middle-of-the-road plot points, really. I think you can discuss them without necessarily saying what they are. There’s a big difference between the mock statements you’ve been making (“The story was pretty good/pretty bad”) and statements like “There’s a plot twist at around the fifteen-hour mark which I found to be astounding and thought-provoking, dealing with the issues of loss and rediscovery”, or “the events in (X place) made so little sense and used such ridiculous cliches I wanted to hurl the controller at the TV”.
It’s entirely possible to critique the plot without spoiling it, in fact.
Perhaps because when someone “spoils” the story they relay the events in their own way instead of allowing the game to relay it in its own way, which incidentally constitutes the “How”. So a spoiler disturbs the “How” too, not just the “What”. Not that it destroys the game experience, but it changes it, depending on the (“How”-) ability of the reviewer/spoiler.
That’s certainly one way of looking at things that no one has ever made me consider before. Even still, as a matter of preference, I think that revealing things about the plot doesn’t ruin the experience for me.
For example, I knew one of the biggest spoilers there is to know about FF7 - that Aeris dies…I even knew how and when - months before I ever played it. Still, the scene had such a dramatic impact that even with all the prior knowledge about the event and the details, I was still very shaken up by it.
Or, in Suikoden 2, I had the hugest plot twist of the game revealed to me way before I played it (by way of Sephiroth Katana’s review, no less). Not only did I still find the scenes revolving around it to be powerful and intense - as I stated before, enough to bring me to tears - but I even still find it to be one of the best RPG stories I’ve ever seen. Hell, KNOWING about that plot point is what actually drove me to seek out the game and play it!
It’s true that I have no way of saying if I would have enjoyed it more if I didn’t know about it, but the converse is true as well. Still, it’s safe to say that, even if my enjoyment of the game’s story was somehow subconsciously diminished, the degree to which it was diminished was clearly not that much.
Also, I think the sentence “The reason we press on in RPGs is just for the story” brings up a completely different subject about RPG gameplay being stale enough that we simply tolerate it…but that’s for another day.
On a more practical note:
I think both of us more or less agree that minor plot points can be spoiled and ones which are supposed to be surprises shouldn’t (they rarely are, even in movie reviews). We’re arguing about middle-of-the-road plot points, really. I think you can discuss them without necessarily saying what they are. There’s a big difference between the mock statements you’ve been making (“The story was pretty good/pretty bad”) and statements like “There’s a plot twist at around the fifteen-hour mark which I found to be astounding and thought-provoking, dealing with the issues of loss and rediscovery”, or “the events in (X place) made so little sense and used such ridiculous cliches I wanted to hurl the controller at the TV”.It’s entirely possible to critique the plot without spoiling it, in fact.
It warrants clarification for me to say that I am definitely not saying we should spoil all the amazing plot points of the game, just as you said. What I’m arguing is that critics tend to do those mock statements I’ve made. Actually, the ones in my editorial were all the information I could garner from REAL reviews at places like RPGamer, RPGFan IGN, and Gamespot; and, whether or not you think that any of these sites are the pinnacle of gaming journalism, there’s no denying that these are popular websites that gamers read for their reviews.
The other statements you made are definitely more on the right track…
Let’s pretend we had a slider scale from 1 to 10; 1 being the least amount of spoilers, 10 being the most.
1 is where most reviews with stories fall, unfortunately.
10 is what most people I’ve discussed this editorial with on the internet think I’m suggesting, lol.
The hypothetical statements you made, which are much better than what I read in most reviews, would fall at maybe 4-5.
What I like is 5-7. I definitely wouldn’t spoil a big plot twist if I can find another way (and, as you said, it’s pretty much always possible to avoid it), but I also think that examples are equally important, because without anything to qualify your statements, you’re still just asking the reader to take your word for it.
I’m shocked though, that we’re actually coming close to an understanding for once. I think the world is about to end 
Ah, come on, we don’t disagree that often. 
…Do we? D:
I think you’ve summarized it admirable. So let’s compromise at 5, shake hands and go get yourself a beer. 8p
In any case, try reading the reviews at RPGamer. I have to say they’re the only review I ever bother reading. Not only are they very objective and easy to read, they include all the pertinent information and exclude things I don’t need to know. They give a great way of figuring out whether I, myself, would enjoy the game. There’s only been a single review so far (Rogue Galaxy) which I really thought was off base.
Heh, we might not disagree often, it just feels like when we do, it’s such a strong disagreement, lol! Oh well
As for RPGamer, they are definitely one of the websites that I think do story critiques that are too shallow. Let’s use an example of a recent game, Suikoden Tierkreis:
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/suiko/suikodends/reviewssuikodendsstrev1.html
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/suiko/suikodends/reviewssuikodendsstrev2.html
Let’s start off with the second review: The second review sets up the narrative, which is important…but that’s all he does; he then just insists that the game’s story is its highlight. That tells me nothing, which is awfully bold for giving it a 5/5.
The first review makes a lot of promises about what the game’s story has to offer, but doesn’t really say a lot about it. The story is ‘political’. The plot is dark. There’s a lot of characters. The story becomes deep. Characters are presented in shades of gray. If I took this guy at his word and played this game, I would have been severely disappointed.
Now, look at my review, where I point out all of this stuff, but actually elaborated upon it. The picture will suddenly look much different:
http://gamerlimit.com/2009/04/gamer-limit-review-suikoden-tierkreis/
I think in general you just concentrate more on the story than most reviews do. For example, RPGamer has a rating for challenge, but they don’t spend more than a sentence or two on it (nor should they, at least not more than a paragraph). Each part of the rating gets one part of the review. On the other hand, your reviews seem to spend at least half of it deconstructing the story, which is not necessarily half of either the enjoyment or even the point of playing a particular game.
Personally, I scroll past both story and gameplay details, and want to see opinions. The details simply don’t matter to me as much as how they’re pulled off, and perhaps I’m just not as critical of my critiques as you are: I trust them when they say something is good or bad without demanding they explain all of their reasoning. RPGamer’s reviews have very detailed opinions, which is why I like reading them.
Yeah, but see, this is a huge difference in the way we read reviews. While it’s true that I concentrate more on story than other reviews, listen to what you’ve said:
RPGamer.com reviews are very objective. Yet, you just said that you don’t read the details, and you just read the opinions. Not even considering the fact that reviews necessitate opinion and, therefore, are subjective in nature, you just said you skip the details and read just the opinions - the most subjective part!
RPGamer.com has detailed opinions. But, read the only opinion on the story in that second review I posted:
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/suiko/suikodends/reviews/suikodendsstrev2.html
“A lengthy and interesting tale, Suikoden: Tierkreis’s story is the game’s highlight.”
It’s one thing to just read opinions, but this just seems to contradict things hugely. You enjoy that RPGamer reviews are ‘objective’, but you skip past the only objective parts and read the opinions. You claim that the opinions are very detailed, but how is the above opinion detailed at all? Really, how are opinions detailed at all unless you qualify them? They couldn’t possibly be! Maybe I’m just not understanding what you’re saying, but could you show me some examples?
Maybe I’ve failed to see it, but I don’t really see what’s detailed about their opinions. Furthermore, admitting that you don’t even read the majority of the written content of a review isn’t much of a way to make an argument about how well-written someone’s review is (or isn’t).
I never said the reviews were well-written. I said I read them because they contain the information I’m looking for, and said information is accurate. I think the’re well-written, but I can’t quote you chapter and verse of any particular review I really liked, because I don’t generally remember them after I finish reading them.
I should also note that I never read either of the reviews you link, since I have no interest in the Suikoden series, so bringing proofs from them won’t help this argument.
I think my last post was too vague and a bit silly, actually. Most of it was mostly true. I do skim the facts. I do look for opinions and respect and trust them. What I like about RPGamer’s reviews is that they present the important information and how well it stacks up without going into too much detail and getting bogged down. I think my use of the term “opinion” was wrong but I’m not 100% sure what I was trying to say any more. X-X
I didn’t mean that I paid no attention to the facts at all, but that I skimmed them and paid more attention to the summary and opinions in question rather than the minutiae of battle systems and whatnot.
But yes, we definitely do look for different things in reviews, and that very fact should make your editorial (where you demand that all reviews change to suit your method, and that those that don’t are inherently bad reviews) over-the-top, as obviously not everyone is looking for what you are.
Quite frankly, I don’t think I ever really thought about why I do or don’t like particular reviews… this whole thing is a bit much, frankly. It’s enough critiquing the games without critiquing the critiques, especially in making generalizations like we’re doing and then singling out one or two reviews that support or reject our views.
And it’s like 1:30 AM now so I daresay half of what I just said makes no sense. X-X
This actually touches on a wider criticism I have with reviews of video games, which is the fact that they’re written entirely as reviews of entertainment, not as reviews of art, to use that slightly pretentious divisor, because it’s the only way I can describe the flaw. Think about a film review of a summer blockbuster, it’ll describe the thrills it offers, if the plot can hold interest or makes sense, but it will usually admit there is little substance to the film. A game review will neglect the last part, assuming only how much one is entertained by a game, not things the game makes one think about or larger social points it makes, is worthwhile. For instance, I haven’t yet seen a review that mentions, let alone discusses on any serious level, the fact that one gets a better score for the less people one kills when playing Metal Gear Solid games. This is not only a unique use of the medium something like a film can never really replicate, it’s also an important ideological point of the game, and adds a lot of weight to its statements.
Things are moving in the right direction, though; Penny Arcade mentioned Metal Gear’s use of postmodernism; many sources have recognized the cultural satire of most Rockstar games, if only because of Jack Thompson’s attacks on GTA.
Yeah, I agree on that. Actually, what really made me realize this - and in turn, made me start looking at game reviews in a different light - was this article: “The Lester Bangs of Video Games.”
I think I always sort of realized this on a subconscious level, because there are certain reviewers that I noticed always talk about how a game feels. Like, I remember what first spurred me into wanting to write reviews was how cool some of Sephiroth Katana’s reviews are (read his Ico and Suikoden 2 reviews to see what I mean). Or, I also think that Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw of Zero Punctuation reviews does this, even if he does say outrageously dumb things about games that are outside of his niche.
For the most part, though, I think game critics avoid talking about games as much more but a game, just like you said. I don’t entirely agree with the article. For example, he seems to shun the entire idea of using a game review as advice, but at the end of the day, the product you’re making was made as a GAME, first and foremost. What this really brought to my attention is that, as long as we keep looking at video games as just_games, we’re gonna see a lot of pointless, shallow reviews.
I’ve never seen a single review of a video game that mentions symbols, motifs, allusions, or imagery; formal, artistic criticism is left to themes and feelings, and most reviews are considered high end if they mention the story in terms besides “good” and “bad.” I’d like to see honest criticism in addition to the purely commercial reviews.
That’s probably because most games aren’t designed to be art. The closest you get to that are the Team ICO games, and I’ve read reviews of SotC that will go into the artistic thrust of the game.
Grim Fandango, The Metal Gear series, the first two Oddworld games, the Fallout series, Beneath A Steel Sky, Sanitarium, etc.
To name the ones that come into my head and I have played recently enough that I feel comfortable discussing them. It may not seem like that many, but consider the number of mindless romantic comedies or action films, the mystery/thriller “airport novels,” compared to art films or great works of literature released in the last ten years or thereabouts.