AllDC FLOPS GB GBA GCN GENESIS GG N64 NDS NEOGEO NES NGPC PC PCE PS2 PS3 PSP PSX SATURN SMS SNES Wii X360 XBX

Editorials and Features

Game Discussion And Dissection   Article by: MrCHUPON

Editorial: Game Discussion And Dissection [Written 2010-04-21]

When we start dividing games up into bits to critique them, or find ammunition with which to argue with others, we lose context. We end up justifying or criticizing games via checklist--much like publishers hype games in press releases and game boxes. Two weeks ago, I played through Aksys Games' PSP role-playing game, Mimana Iyar Chronicles for a Gamespot review. It wasn't pretty. It started out okay, and as such I had decent hopes for it to be a serviceable dungeon crawler with an action-centric battle system in the vein of Tales of Phantasia, Star Ocean II and the like, but... well, click that link there and see for yourself.   It's a little upsetting. I've been on an RPG kick, having played through Final Fantasy VIII on the PSP, finally beating Final Fantasy III on the DS, starting Final Fantasy X on the PS2, and also revisiting Final Fantasy IV on the DS. As a result I thought it would be awesome to get my hands on a newly released RPG, a seemingly old-school romp, but instead of going old-school, the game leaned on loopy level design, failed to capitalize on the supposed "Harem RPG" (think Thousand Arms) trappings it tried to employ, and took way too long to get the story going.   The level design thing in particular got me thinking about how we enjoy games, and I'm by "we" I mean everyone who likes videogames, versus how reviews end up dissecting games. When I was a lot younger, I used to think that everything was weighted on an even scale. For example: Given two somewhat similar games (in the same genre, specifically), if both games suffered from shoddy level design, then I'd fail to understand why someone might lambast game A for poor level design while not really harping on game B for the same flaw. The answer is quite obvious--no games are created equal, nor should they be weighted equally. Ideally, when we play a game, we know whether or not we like it--and then we take a look at its many elements, together, to understand why.   When I first started taking reviews seriously, before I started freelancing for Gamespot but right around the time I joined DrFish and Draqq_Zyxorian's Community Contributions Union on Gamespot, I got into the dangerous habit of playing games and dissecting them right on the spot, which had me going down the equally dangerous path of reverting to my older ways. "Well, I criticized game A for having uninteresting gameplay mechanics, but I'm loving Phoenix Wright and not really criticizing it for having almost no play mechanics (aside from point-and-click trappings and navigating through menus). How can I review it highly?" The key for me was to just relax, enjoy my games, and then talk about what I liked, disliked, and how everything merged together.   For whatever reason, this doesn't come entirely naturally for me when it comes time to write that review, and to this day it's still a bit difficult for me to just take that relaxed stance and holistic view. To this day, I'm still fiddling around with my own personal God of War III review, unsure of whether I think it's a 4 or a 5, weighing the individual aspects it gets right and wrong against other games one night and weighing them against each other another.   I think it's particularly important to get this right not just for the sake of reviews but just having intelligent discussion about games in general. I saw a comment on Chris Kohler's Wired.com review of Final Fantasy XIII that basically asked him why it was okay for a game like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 to be praised when it was a linear experience, yet meanwhile he was criticizing Final Fantasy XIII for following a similar m.o. Nevermind that the two games are from different genres--the commenter was asking the question from the viewpoint that Square decided to make it a linear game so that it could direct the experience as Infinity Ward does with its shooters, and it's a valid question. But the answer is simple; Kohler more or less said that the mechanics of the combat couldn't support it for way too long from the beginning to the middle of the game.   Translation: Just because two games share a similar concept doesn't mean they should be critiqued in the same way, especially without first thinking about how said concept is executed.   When we start dividing games up into the littlest bits in order to critique them, or find ammunition with which to argue against critics we love to hate, or the crusty denizens of dank forums, we start to lose context. We start to lose sight of what's right or wrong about a particular game as a whole, and we end up justifying or criticizing games via checklist--much like publishers hype their games in press releases and on the back of their boxes. How about this: If you want a better way to understand why you're in favor of or against a particular game, let's remember to contextualize its disparate elements; understand not only how its high level concepts are executed at a low level but how they create (or fail to create) balance with one another. Hopefully the next time we reach for that "Comment" button, we'll be starting a more informed--and informative--discussion.

The entire contents of this Web site, unless otherwise noted, are Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Triumvirate Games. All Rights Reserved. ™ and © for all copy, products, characters, and indicia related thereto which are contained herein are owned by the companies who market or license those products. This Web site is not endorsed, sponsored, nor otherwise affiliated with ANYONE unless specified otherwise. It has been created for the sole purpose of entertainment, knowledge and hobby. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form without consent from Trigames.NET is strictly prohibited and is punishable by law.