As people, we like to compare things. It’s not a bad thing; we simply use our past experiences and knowledge as a point of reference. For instance, we can say that this Chinese place has better egg rolls than that one, or that this movie wasn’t as good as that movie because the acting fell flat. Now, we certainly do this with video games, but we always seem much more forgiving. I’m here today to try and end this forgiveness. No longer should we forgive a video game on its underwhelming graphics or poor controls just because the developer didn’t have the money. It’s time that we start reviewing games based on the gold standard set by others because if we don’t, we’ll always just settle.
Now, I know that I’m going to lay out some extremes here for the sake of illustrating a point, but I want you to ask yourself if, in the end, is it really is that extreme? So, let’s start with a couple of examples to make some sense of what I’m talking about. A lot of people played Batman: Arkham Asylum. A lot of people fell in love with the silky-smooth combat mechanics, and rightfully so. They were deceptively deep, and when the player learned them, they weren’t just button mashing their way through a fight. Fast-forward a little bit to the release of Brutal Legend. I know that this is a different type of game, and that fighting is just a small part of it, but the fighting mechanics, which were similar, felt like a major step backwards. It felt clunky and heavy, and, even though we’ve alluded to the fact that it may have been intentional, I don’t think the developer deserves that much credit. I think that the mechanics just weren’t up to snuff. The controls were by no means broken, but at the same time, they were nowhere near Batman level of controls for a similar mechanic. So, to me, in this case, with Batman setting the standard, Brutal Legend failed to meet that standard and would therefore, in that category, receive a score of 0.
Other aspects of a game can come together and make up for an area that is lacking; there is no questioning that. But, in breaking down a game section by section, each one of these should be compared to the best in its field. If a game tries for realistic graphics and doesn’t come close to Uncharted 2, fail. If a game tries to do platforming and falls short of a Mario game, fail. Obviously other teams can reach this standard, so there is no excuse. If the money isn’t there, then aim lower. Work within your means. We need to stop letting games skate by in certain areas because maybe developers will start to see exactly where they need to improve.
I know that that sounds harsh, but think about it in terms of other media. If you went to a movie and nearly half of it was out of focus, you wouldn’t enjoy that movie. You would probably rate the camera work a 0. Or, if you were listening to a song and the guitar player kept missing notes or playing too fast, you would probably think that the song failed. No matter how good everything else was in the movie or the song, the viewer or listener would certainly be taken out of it or dislike it all together. And this is understandable. As consumers of media, we expect a certain level of polish to what we pay for. When that isn’t there, it’s certainly hard to just let that slip by.
My question, then, is why do we always let it slip by with video games? Is it because so few quality titles come out each year that we are forced to take what we’re given? Or is it that our reviewers aren’t real critics and just like review on the gut level, as Aaron had written about previously? In all honesty, it’s probably a little bit of both, and it needs to end. There is no reason that we should have to settle as gamers, especially when we’re shelling out 60 dollars and hours of our time for something. We need to start being more critical of things ourselves. Reviewers, we’ve said a million times here on Pixelosophy, need to start being reviewers and not just gaming enthusiasts.
If these two things can start happening, maybe publishers and developers will start to see that we won’t just buy something that’s pretty enough or handles alright. We should demand the best as gamers. We all know the gold standards in each category for games. We can look at Uncharted 2: Among Thieves for the best graphics or Modern Warfare 2 for the best controls and start to hold other games accountable that try to emulate this and fail. If a game doesn’t meet these standards, or even your standards as a gamer, don’t fork over the cash just because. Rent it, borrow it, find some other way to play it without giving the makers the satisfaction that they did a good job. Now, if you find that you enjoy the game for other reasons despite its shortcomings in a certain area, by all means, buy it. But, if we continue to review bad games well and hand over money for every mediocre title, that’s exactly what we’ll continue to get. However, it is the job of reviewers to let us know how far a game falls from that gold standard.