You have an ugly child! [part 2]
![You have an ugly child! [part 2]](/content/features/23/header.jpg)
OPINION
So, what happens when we -do- write negatively about a game? Believe us when we say that being objective is not always appreciated by everyone.
I did -not- say "Ugly", I said, "Not handsome."
There are many elements that go into a game. The odds are actually against getting everything absolutely correct. As the saying goes, "You can please some of the people some of the time, can't please all of the people all of the time." The challenge to doing (p)reviews is to successfully communicate accurate impressions to all of the potential consumers. Given that different people have different tastes and different priorities it is literally impossible to do so. Yet we try. We do so by trying to be objective in what is pointedly a very subjective situation. We must act as the judge, jury, prosecuting attorney, defending attorney and, if need be, the executioner of what it is the manufacturers have put out there. There are very real consequences that result from our findings. If we recommend a game, there is a very large probability that some readers will see what we have written and, based solely on our recommendation, buy the game. Remember those "different tastes and different priorities"? Rest assured that there will be consumers that will want to let the world know, "Because of that idiot's assurances, I bought the game and it turned out to be total crap!" Alternatively, what happened if the (p)reviewer did -not- recommend the game? Then there's a chance that the consumer missed out on a game that he may very well have found enjoyable. In the former situation, he is out maybe $50; in the latter he still has that $50 to spend on something else.
Now let's look at the same situation from the perspective of the manufacturers. In the event of a favorable review, there is a 'potential' for thousands of people to rush out and spend $50 each on the manufacturers game. But if the review was negative, then that is potentially thousands of people spending that $50 on something else. Think they might be a tad concerned? You betcha. And everybody knows that a good offense is a good defense which explains why the writer of a negative (p)review can expect some seriously hot-under-the-collar letters from designers, publishers, marketers, and developers. As the author of a number of less-than-favorable (p)reviews, I have received such letters. It seems that these people think pretty much alike, despite differences in geographical location, product genre, native language, etc. The complaints/defenses that I hear most often are:
"You can't possibly have experienced the full depth of the game unless you've played it to its conclusion!"
Well, I guess that means that -no one- can write a review, much less a preview of a game that has yet to be released, in time to give the potential consumers some concept of what to expect. Many games today take in excess of 50 hours to play to the conclusion. How many people are in a position to set -everything- else aside to focus on just that one project? And if Real Life was so kind to them to permit such a fortuitous situation, how representative would they be of John Doe Consumer? Playing a 50+ hour game will most likely take several weeks to complete. That's several weeks of potential consumers not being informed about the game that holds their interest. So (p)reviewers must "go with their gut", relying on their impressions from sometimes just a fraction of the "total experience". Yes, we miss many of the subtle nuances, and definitely without the brilliant revelations that occur 90% of the way through the game. But likewise we will may be writing without having discovered that major bug that crops up near the end that has not been fixed yet. Manufacturers should look at this one as, "You win some, you lose some. So take the good with the bad."
"What do you mean that there wasn't enough fill-in-the-blank? There is literally some-huge-number-of-gigabytes of that in the game!"
Any "not enough" comments usually means that the (p)reviewer felt that the consumer would appreciate more of that to properly appreciate what the game -does- offer. Just because there was several gigabytes of a certain kind of graphic does not mean that the graphic provided was the right -kind- of graphic to fulfill the user's needs. Like, many megabytes of wave action on the screens with water is not as useful as animations of characters interacting. You may have animations of characters interacting, but in those animations, the characters lips never move, so the experience is diminished. The designers & Company may feel that what they produced has what they thought was needed -- for their tastes. But on the consumer side, we may not appreciate or understand that what we like or want would require more gigabytes of programming than is practical; all we know is that "it would be nice if there was more fill-in-the-blank."
"What do you mean when you say that the plot lacks depth? There are some-large-number of pages to the storyline!"
This is mostly an argument over definitions. In this regards, quantity doesn't always equate to quality. War And Peace has over 1500 pages and 72 developed characters to it; at what point did it pass "a lot" or "enough"? Compare that to the few pages of Cask of Amontillado with just two characters. Did Poe leave us feeling short-changed with such minimal numbers? The goal of the author is to leave the reader not wanting more. Would the game's storyline have benefited from having more characters, with more background information provided for each? Was there enough information provided to make the object or situation of interest seem 'real', despite being a patent work of fiction? Was the development of the story properly paced, or did it feel 'rushed' to its conclusion? The designers -know- the story inside and out because the story is inside them. What frequently happens is that many of the details don't make it into the finished product because those features are 'assumed' to be obvious by the authors.
"If you don't say our game is great, you obviously ‘don't get it'"
Well, yeah. Of course, if I "got it", I'd most likely have been kinder in my (p)review. But of what was there, I was not impressed enough to say "great". Like, maybe it's a cultural thing: the game was designed by a German, and you need to be thoroughly versed in German history to understand some uniquely German nuances. Is it the consumer's obligation to do adequate research to learn of such nuances? Or is it the designers' obligation to take into account that not every potential player is going to automatically know that Brunhilde was a Valkyrie?
"Your article was too superficial. As such, you are actually doing a disservice to your readers."
The word "superficial" definitely is subject to different interpretations. Literally, it means "didn't go deep enough." But who is to say what "enough" is? To the manufacturers, "enough" apparently means, "Such that you will say ‘great' or ‘good'." That may require playing the game all the way to its conclusion. What if the (p)reviewer -does- play the game all the way to the end and -still- won't use the words "great" or "good" to describe the game? Well, then...
"You apparently do not like this type of game, so you had no business writing an article about it!"
One of the first things a (p)reviewer must understand is "Different strokes for different folks." Not everyone has the same tastes, likes and dislikes, etc. A good article will actually stipulate which kinds of people will find the game appealing and which kinds will be disinterested in it. However, most manufacturers in the business simply do not want to hear that anyone would not find his game to be of interest; that would put a crimp on potential sales. The company's bank account and the manufacturers' egos simply cannot always accept such an opinion gracefully. This reason, more than all the others combined, probably accounts for why a manufacturer would be motivated to write a letter of complaint to the author of a less-than-favorable (p)review.
"If You Can't Say Something Nice, Don't Say Anything At All!"
We at Hooked Gamers are actually fortunate in that we do -not- rely on the advertising dollars of game manufacturers. Thus, we have no motivation or implied requirement to say only "nice" things about the games we (p)review. Neither are we required or motivated to predominantly say bad things about those games. We can simply, "Call ‘em like we see ‘em." We are first and foremost, consumers of games, telling of our impressions of the games we have encountered or heard about, talking to other consumers. In doing so, we can and will be totally honest, totally candid. Much to the displeasure of manufacturers whose products we deem as being less-than-favorable. To those people that would dearly love to shout us down, or bully us into writing a rebuttal or retraction. We are committed to relating the truth, -as we see it- with the understanding that we are simply offering our opinions.
When you read a (p)review at Hooked Gamers that you totally disagree with, that you feel the author simply got -everything- wrong, you may be inclined to agree with the manufacturers that are ranting, "You guys haven't a clue about what you're writing about!" Fine. You're entitled to your opinion, and in the forums you can even say so out loud and publicly; we welcome the input and discussion. But also be very cautious about how much you agree with the manufacturers. Do you really agree with their assertion, implied or otherwise, that they should have control of what is said about their products?
Caveat emptor