Comments on: Water Off A Duck’s Back The only thing that's still confusing is the difference between scores and reviews. But, as you said, there seems to be little chance for any publisher to try buying critical acclaim. Hopefully, I'll be able to get some insight into their work but until then, I'll just leave it at that. :) The only thing that’s still confusing is the difference between scores and reviews. But, as you said, there seems to be little chance for any publisher to try buying critical acclaim. Hopefully, I’ll be able to get some insight into their work but until then, I’ll just leave it at that. :)

]]>
By: Thaddaeus Frogley /2011/04/04/water-off-a-ducks-back/#comment-2334 Thaddaeus Frogley  Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:26:12 +0000 Before I go back to ranting, I wanted to note that by "studios" I really meant mostly publishers, in case someone read this and thought of developers only (I wouldn't really believe that myself). So - what I was saying is that publishers somehow seem to make a heavy influence on the reviews. <blockquote>I don’t think studios have as much control or influence over reviews as you imply (or they would like!).</blockquote> That may be the case, of course. If we believe that the reviewers have a huge sense of honor and respect for their work. However, according to the reviews that I have seen for the latest games, something seems to be wrong. Take a look at the <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/crysis-2/critic-reviews" rel="nofollow">Crysis 2 reviews</a>, for example. There are lots of reviewers that are saying lots of bad things about A.I. and game design. But I didn't see a review with a less-than-70/100 score. I have tried only the MP demo and I have to say that the only thing I did there was examine the level design and interactions of light and textures and... - in one word, graphics. Gameplay simply was too convoluted and misdirected (more time is spent on finding and noticing enemies instead of shooting/thinking) to be worth the attention. I haven't played the whole game myself so I can't really confirm this "conspiracy" with these reviews. But there are recurring patterns of misrepresentation of facts in reviews of many high budget games (that I've also played). <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/grand-theft-auto-iv" rel="nofollow">GTA IV</a> being the prime example. Before I go back to ranting, I wanted to note that by “studios” I really meant mostly publishers, in case someone read this and thought of developers only (I wouldn’t really believe that myself). So – what I was saying is that publishers somehow seem to make a heavy influence on the reviews.

I don’t think studios have as much control or influence over reviews as you imply (or they would like!).

That may be the case, of course. If we believe that the reviewers have a huge sense of honor and respect for their work.
However, according to the reviews that I have seen for the latest games, something seems to be wrong. Take a look at the Crysis 2 reviews, for example. There are lots of reviewers that are saying lots of bad things about A.I. and game design. But I didn’t see a review with a less-than-70/100 score.
I have tried only the MP demo and I have to say that the only thing I did there was examine the level design and interactions of light and textures and… – in one word, graphics. Gameplay simply was too convoluted and misdirected (more time is spent on finding and noticing enemies instead of shooting/thinking) to be worth the attention.
I haven’t played the whole game myself so I can’t really confirm this “conspiracy” with these reviews. But there are recurring patterns of misrepresentation of facts in reviews of many high budget games (that I’ve also played). GTA IV being the prime example.

]]>
By: Thaddaeus Frogley /2011/04/04/water-off-a-ducks-back/#comment-2330 Thaddaeus Frogley  Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:56:41 +0000 Precisely! Precisely!

]]>
By: Thaddaeus Frogley /2011/04/04/water-off-a-ducks-back/#comment-2328 Thaddaeus Frogley  Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:55:20 +0000 I think the Metacritic developer rating was a very bad idea and would only harm more than help. The main reasoning behind this opinion is that I think you can only be judged fairly on your own work. As a (former) graphics programmer, I could only really be judged by graphics, but that is very much dependent on the ability of the artists as well, which is mostly out of my control (save for things I can do to improve their workflow, of course). And going a step beyond that, you would have to factor in the amount of time and support that was given to a developer. As an example, if you were only given a week to implement shadows and you had very little memory or processing available, chances are good that they will look subpar even if you did a great job given your constraints. I'd say even metacritics policy of rating people for TV and movies is flawed using the same logic as well. It might work for some high-profile people who have a great amount of control, but I would think the vast majority of people would be misrepresented. I think the Metacritic developer rating was a very bad idea and would only harm more than help. The main reasoning behind this opinion is that I think you can only be judged fairly on your own work. As a (former) graphics programmer, I could only really be judged by graphics, but that is very much dependent on the ability of the artists as well, which is mostly out of my control (save for things I can do to improve their workflow, of course). And going a step beyond that, you would have to factor in the amount of time and support that was given to a developer. As an example, if you were only given a week to implement shadows and you had very little memory or processing available, chances are good that they will look subpar even if you did a great job given your constraints. I’d say even metacritics policy of rating people for TV and movies is flawed using the same logic as well. It might work for some high-profile people who have a great amount of control, but I would think the vast majority of people would be misrepresented.

]]>
By: Jérôme Muffat-Méridol/2011/04/04/water-off-a-ducks-back/#comment-2319 Jérôme Muffat-Méridol Mon, 04 Apr 2011 13:28:08 +0000
Or you can look at any photography site and witness the impressive gap there is between one person when he’s the author and when he is the critic.(interesting to see Baudelaire vs critics and as one)

Thing is, a critique can be as wrong as the work it is about, with respect to what the public expects. It’s very clear with cinema critiques (especially here in France). At the end of the day, the real matter is do kids dig the game or not. And they’re the real tough nut to crack…

(so, wholeheartedly agreeing, every amount of criticism should be taken with an open mind, as the potential direct or indirect source of a bit of precious wisdom, and never allowed to become personal (as an offence or a gratification).

]]>
By: snake5/2011/04/04/water-off-a-ducks-back/#comment-2317 snake5 Mon, 04 Apr 2011 09:34:16 +0000