Game Criticism Discourse Analysis
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 Ethan Meydrich Mr. Berge English 103 30 October 2018 Game Criticism: A Developing Form of Narrative Criticism Game criticism is an important component to the gaming community that has had controversy since its humble beginnings. Players look to critics and reviewers for opinions and ratings on games, often helping them decide if they should buy a game or not. Companies have even gone as far as paying youtubers or critics to play and give positive reviews of their games to hopefully boost sales. Major gaming media platforms such as IGN, Kotaku, and Polygon have capitalized on this and have focused heavily on reviewing games, offering criticisms, and ranking games. Videogamedunkey’s video, “Game Critics”, brings forth an important view on the current state of game criticism. With almost 8 million views to date, Dunkey argues the ineffective nature of current trends in game criticism and satirizes popular trends in reviews done by major gaming media platforms. Dunkey’s main points include: decentralized opinions, misunderstanding between critic and reviewer, reviews that read exactly the same, critics too afraid to give actual criticism, and rushed reviews. Critics, players, and gaming media sources alike all had different reactions to Dunkey’s video. Some critics had strong dissenting opinions such as Paul Tamburro from Mandatory, but others such as Patrick Klepeck from Waypoint believed the points he made in his video have been plaguing the community. Players in general seemed to support or follow Dunkey’s view on the topic especially in discussions on Reddit revolving around game review sites. It wasn’t until I came across a study done by Ayse Gursoy on game criticism that I found a major point that wasn’t being discussed, the difference between reviewing and critiquing. Dunkey’s video focused on what would be considered reviews under 2 Gursoy’s definition and not actual criticism. This study along with the article written by Chuch Klosterman led my research in another direction I didn’t quite expect. The major differences between reviews and criticism that even exists in other forms of narrative such as films and literature. My discourse analysis will go over Dunkey’s argument and how it is correct/incorrect while also looking into the gap of information about the difference between game reviews and game criticism. Dunkey’s video Videogamedunkey’s argument goes over key problems in the current state of game reviews. Dunkey’s first point is decentralized opinions in large mainstream media sites such as IGN, Gamespot, and Kotaku. These decentralized opinions lead to conflicting voices and ratings from the same media source and lead to a confusing outcome on the overall opinion of the game given to the audience. Dunkey then continues, stating that the most important factor for true criticism is a built-up understanding between the critic and their audience. Dunkey claims that all reviews should be an extension of the last so that the audience understands what kind of games the critic responds to. The importance in following a critic is not to always see eye to eye with them, but for them to be consistent and give you a valid opinion and understanding of the game through their experience. Another major point Dunkey argues is that the writing for the reviews is often lazy and repetitive. Dunkey compares the “professional” writing to the summary on the back of the box but with a number score at the end. He continues by accusing critics of being too afraid to give their true opinions on games due to the relationships they have with game companies. Factors such as early copies and footage supplied along with being paid for their reviews cause critics to not be as honest in their ratings. Finally, Dunkey ridicules sloppy writing 3 by the critics, pointing out that the numerical score they give often does not align with what they said during the review. Major Sides While not the first person to call attention to game criticism, Dunkey’s video seems to be the catalyst for major reactions throughout the communities involved in this topic. At first, angered game critics took to twitter and berated Dunkey for his video. Game critics in general seemed to disagree with Dunkey’s points and some even went as far as to insult him. Critics such as Paul Tamburro, Phillip Kollars, and Paul Tassi all gave Dunkey respectable responses he admired and responded to. The players, mostly on reddit discussions, at large agreed with Dunkey’s argument. Many players also saw the reaction by the game critics as unprofessional and something that proved Dunkey’s points even further. The video created a clear divide in stance between the two major groups, critics and players. 4 Critics The large majority of critics who ridiculed Dunkey or his video did not give adequate responses to his video. However, Paul Tamburro argues against some of the main points Dunkey used in his argument such as decentralized opinions in mainstream gaming media: An outlet as big as IGN has multiple different departments working on multiple different elements of the site, from reviewers through to video producers and podcast hosts. With so many elements in play, it’s inevitable that the site may host a positive review of a new Sonic game (a specific example made by Dunkey), only for its video presenters or podcast hosts to then criticize the same game. (Tamburro) While Dunkey may be right about differing opinions throughout a media site such as IGN, with such a large company it is inevitable that different members of IGN will have different opinions on games. Although this may cause some disparity in an overall view of a game, this is not an issue that can truly be fixed while allowing all members of a source such as IGN the ability to give their thoughts and opinions. Tamburro also digs into Dunkey’s point on the problem with numerical review scores. However, whereas Dunkey believes the flaws of this system is solely the work of the gaming media, in reality there are a number of factors that prevent the numbers 1 – 6 being utilized as much as they arguably should be. Game reviews indicate to the reader whether or not they should buy a game. That is their sole purpose. Over the years, the goal posts of review scores have been shifted due to a number of factors, from score aggregation site Metacritic causing publications to make their review score standards more homogeneous, through to consumer perception of what does/does not equal a good review score changing. (Tamburro) Tamburro agrees with Dunkey on the issue of numerical review scores, however, Tamburro claims the true issue lies in the purpose of a game review. Tamburro believes that the purpose of game reviews have changed overtime from sites such as Metacritic and the consumer valued numerical rating system. At the end of his article Tamburro concludes: In the end, Dunkey’s video unwittingly serves as a summary of what many people get wrong about the review process. While each outlet is different and there are certainly criticisms to be leveled at the current scoring system and the looming presence of Metacritic, his complaints echo the frustrating lack of logic employed by some when it comes to analyzing how games media should operate. Given that Dunkey’s video has 5 been met with praise outside of the media he’s criticized, it seems that these preconceptions are unlikely to change anytime soon. (Tamburro) Players and Consumers Players and consumers in general appear to stand behind Dunkey on the issue. As a YouTube personality with a following of over 5 million subscribers, Dunkey clearly has an upper hand on his audience compared to critics. Using Reddit as an outlet for player reactions, one can find a clear negative connotation associated with mass review sources. For instance, user CMDR-FusionCor3 posted a discussion titled, “What gaming review sites are actually trustworthy?” and the general consensus of the responses was to find a single personality of choice or to focus on watching gameplay. Another reddit discussion by user Sterisk asked, “Are game reviews actually bribed?” to a gaming subreddit community. User Warskull replied: The way it happens is that the PR at the gaming companies puts subtle pressure on the review sites to keep the scores high. They create conditional review embargos (you can't release your review before X date unless the score is higher than 80), buy ads on the site, and the gaming sites are reliant on the developers for content. So there is a lot of pressure to keep developers happy on the business end. Warskull’s reply shows a clear negative view on review sites and game critics in general that seem to be held by a large number of players. Are the points Videogamedunkey made in his video and the negative views held by the players towards game critics true? In another video by videogamedunkey, “Microsoft Sucks” Dunkey talks about how Microsoft offered to pay Dunkey for him to make a video on one of their new games for the Xbox 360. Dunkey criticized the game heavily, calling it boring and making fun of the game throughout his video. Microsoft upon seeing this, took down the video and did not pay Dunkey for the video he made. In an article by Luke Plunkett at Kotaku titled, “Yes, a Games Writer was 6 Fired Over Review Scores”, Plunkett looks into a controversial situation where an editorial director was terminated from Gamespot suspiciously. So disclose Gerstmann has, confirming with GameSpot's Jon Davison that after a succession of challenges with management and advertisers he was "called into a room" and "terminated" because he "couldn't be trusted" as editorial director (ie, in charge of reviews), kicking off one of the saddest and sorriest episodes in an often sad and sorry relationship between games writers and games publishers.