Review Have they got no shame? Oblivion and the media

[Saint_Proverbius]

Pity he's been banned like a kid from coming here anymore...

I don't think anyone here banned him.

 

[Twinfalls]

Todd Howard banned him. Or, I should say, 'expressly forbade him', from posting here.

I am surmising this, of course.

 

[Risine]

We have seen this phenomenon a multiple times. Remember Doom3. Every magazine, press or online, except one or two, said that Doom3 was great,excellent, and so on, with the same scores than Oblivion... But six months later, what could be said about this game was that it was great visually, but concerning the gameplay, it was...really bad, or at least average.
The problem is that magazines need publishers to get the games for reviews, they need publishers to pay their adertisments and cannot afford losing this money, so they cannot make them angry particularly with big blockbusters like that.
We'd really need independant, powerful game magazines with professional journalists, no 18 years old game fans, who take the time to investigate and test a game, and most important of all, who keep the memory of video games in order to compare and evaluate them. ( A game is not the best ever because it is the only one in its category when it's launched. )

 

[Licaon_Kter]

since i've read this: The 5 Problems with Videogame Journalism i'm a little suspicious (sp?) about game reviews/reviewers.

 

[Jiles]

If anyone is interested (and I'm sure a lot of you aren't), I'm posting a diary of my time playing Oblivion here. It's hardly journalism of any description, but I can assure (spelling wtf?) you that I'm not getting paid by anyone.

 

[Twinfalls]

Hah, that was rather good. Do keep updating it, Jiles.

 

[elander_]

Oh boy. MSFD should really be roasted over this one. Pity he's been banned like a kid from coming here anymore...

MSFD has much too learn yet if he didn't get his ego too inflated with little Obllivion big score. Anyone could pick up an Amiga game from the 80 (being 2d of course) and have better combat gameplay than Oblivion just by studying its mehanics.

 

[Solik]

Please don't be daft. Obviously, judging whether or not a game is 'great' is subjective and directly tied to how much you enjoy it. The more one enjoys it, the higher one would rank it compared to other games. At best, you can objectively judge quality of visuals and such, and the game certainly doesn't falter there.

Thus far, for instance, I'd rate Oblivion in my top 10 of all time easily. And I expect it to continue to climb as I play it more.

Brushing me off as a "retard with ADHD" is your call, I suppose, but it only shows your ignorance.

 

[LlamaGod]

Saying that Oblivion is 'easily a top 10' shows your ignorance.

Subjective this, subjective that, it's a shitty game and you have shitty tastes.

 

[Kraszu]

Yes you can't acusse solik of being ignorant since he didn't play Fallout for good but secret reason.

 

[Solik]

Subjective this, subjective that, it's a shitty game and you have shitty tastes.

Statements like this prove my point, dumbfuck.

Yes you can't acusse solik of being ignorant since he didn't play Fallout for good but secret reason.

I'll probably play Fallout 3. And enjoy it.

 

[Kraszu]

Yes you can't acusse solik of being ignorant since he didn't play Fallout for good but secret reason.

I'll probably play Fallout 3. And enjoy it.[/quote]

How irrelevant.

 

[LlamaGod]

I'll probably play Fallout 3. And enjoy it.

Statements like this prove my point, dumbfuck.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Obviously, judging whether or not a game is 'great' is subjective and directly tied to how much you enjoy it.

Simply not true. It's only as subjective as those who judge it want it to be. A game can be judged as 'great' regardless of subjectivity or enjoyment, and based exclusively on objective analysis of its elements. EvoG is an example of a gamer who judges a game by the game's ability to provide him with enjoyment while someone like Vault Dweller will base his judgement of a game based on how its attributes work on their own and in comparison to what has been previously established.

Indicating that a game handles a given feature better than its predecessors or even contemporaries is based on neither of your ideals and it's an entirely valid perspective. That you may not agree with it doesn't nullify it.

 

[elander_]

Right now there are millions of imbeciles who never played anything better and are crying that Oblivion is the best thing ever so the game deserves a 10/10? Game reviews today are a joke.

 

[kingcomrade]

since i've read this: The 5 Problems with Videogame Journalism i'm a little suspicious (sp?) about game reviews/reviewers.

You needed the article? Do you play games and are you literate? Anyone with half a brain could tell the gaming "journalists" are nothing but a bunch of immature slavering buttfuckers.
www.gamespy.com

 

[Solik]

Statements like this prove my point, dumbfuck.

See, that's the thing. I couldn't care less what you think about a game. I don't care what games you like better than others, which you judge to be higher quality, or even how you choose to define "RPG." I certainly wouldn't consider you an idiot for any of those opinions. People like you, on the other hand, are doing just that. If someone doesn't agree with your subjective assessment of an entertainment package, then they're ignorant / have mental problems / are children. That kind of view doesn't make you intelligent or elite. It makes you equivalent to intolerant backwater rednecks that demand echo chambers.

A game can be judged as 'great' regardless of subjectivity or enjoyment, and based exclusively on objective analysis of its elements.

Except that the purpose of a game is to provide entertainment, and the judgment of how well that game provides entertainment depends upon the person playing it. You can try to insert objectivity with things like comparative smoothness, loading times, quality of visuals (though that one's quite difficult with stylish games), but going beyond that is really stretching it. Interface? What's fluid and intuitive to some is frustrating and incomprehensible to others. Gameplay systems? What's sensible or ignorable or entertaining to some is annoying, nonsense, and unfun to others. Character creation that's deep and flexible to some is shallow and a waste of time to others.

It's like judging music for purposes of entertainment rather than art. You can talk about how technically impressive an album is, but is it enjoyable to listen to? Did you find it inspired, catchy? Was it recycled? Does that even matter from an entertainment perspective? Taste plays a huge part here, too. Black metal fans would be likely to rip apart an album by Three Doors Down, even if it was a solid album for people who like that sort of thing.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Except that the purpose of a game is to provide entertainment, and the judgment of how well that game provides entertainment depends upon the person playing it. You can try to insert objectivity with things like comparative smoothness, loading times, quality of visuals (though that one's quite difficult with stylish games), but going beyond that is really stretching it. Interface? What's fluid and intuitive to some is frustrating and incomprehensible to others. Gameplay systems? What's sensible or ignorable or entertaining to some is annoying, nonsense, and unfun to others. Character creation that's deep and flexible to some is shallow and a waste of time to others.

Your argument is specious for several reasons, but primarily because you're using personal interpretation as ultimate expression of criticism simply because of its widespread use as opposed to any inherent value it may have. Videogames, like other forms of art are not inherently or strictly striving to provide entertainment; even if their creation has entertainment as their final goal their appraisal is not limited to its original concept or the artist's own concept. Just as there isn't any widely accepted criteria that defines the concept of art, there also isn't any widely accepted criteria that defines how it should be evaluated.

It's like judging music for purposes of entertainment rather than art. You can talk about how technically impressive an album is, but is it enjoyable to listen to? Did you find it inspired, catchy? Was it recycled? Does that even matter from an entertainment perspective? Taste plays a huge part here, too. Black metal fans would be likely to rip apart an album by Three Doors Down, even if it was a solid album for people who like that sort of thing.

You keep dodging the issue. Judgement of value in art is not limited to the appraisal of the artform's hold or impact on the viewer; it can be evaluated based on its own intrinsic values, which in turn may or may not be conductive to aesthetical appeal. You can't arbitrarily state that objective criticism has no place when it comes to judging multiple forms or expressions of art, and that only entertainment should be considered; nor can you expect your narrow vision of the ultimate value a work of art may have on a personal level to be solely based on entertainment alone. Simply put, there are multiple ways to evaluate art; wheter you personally choose to only look at it from an entertainment perspective has no bearing on others' decision to judge it for different elements and scrutinize it under different methods.

 

[kingcomrade]

Didn't the dickhead who gives everything two thumbs up educate us all as to how video games aren't art?

 

[aweigh]

Bashing Solik's head with a heavy rock until his brains squirted out of his ears and his eyeballs popped out would be very entertaining, BUT WOULD IT BE ART??????????? SUBJEKTIVISM LOLZ

 

[Solik]

Videogames, like other forms of art

Yep, that renders your post nonsense right there.

 

[kingcomrade]

I was being sarcastic, retard. You don't think video games are an art form, there's something wrong with your head (it's stuck up your ass).

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Videogames, like other forms of art

Yep, that renders your post nonsense right there.

Your attempt at a counterargument via a pedantic dismissal is laughable. To reject videogames as an art form is rejecting the artistic expression that is found in film, music, literature and even in performance art for it carries the same underlying principles and applications.

In any case I should thank you because your reply was all that was needed to expose your argumentation deficiencies and to clearly outline you as nothing but a pissant troll. Confronted with a contrary perspective, you show a glaring incapability of accepting it simply because it opposes your own. Unfortunately your credibility crumbles the minute you automatically a) assume it's wrong, b) assume it's wrong without expounding on why, c) assume it's the bulk of the opposition's entire argument, d) assume that this fraction of the entire argument is reason enough to dismiss everything else that has been written, and e) assume it somehow excuses you from justifying your poorly conceived notions.

 

[Solik]

I'm the troll? Are we reading the same thread? People are directly insulting large numbers of people because of their tastes in entertainment, and I'm a troll for having a problem with that?

No, you're just another pseudo-intellectual that demands an echo chamber.

I will not get into a "video games are art" argument with you or anyone else. Even after all the insipid debates I've been drawn into here, that one remains beneath me. Having studied game design and read a lot on the topic, the consensus is quite clear -- video games, being objects of entertainment rather than mechanisms of self-expression, are a craft rather than an artform, with the caveat that they may at times contain some art included with them (in the form of added stories and visual artwork). I don't give a flying fuck if you agree with that or not; I'm not about to argue it.

 

[aweigh]

Since you won't argue it, your opinion is moot.