Too Critical Critics

After reading through a few of our readings, I see a theme of critics being critical of other critics. In short, the gyst is that a lot of critics are too hung up on petty details instead of praising games that deserve them. I do agree in some sense. One example that comes to mind is the Zero Punctuation 'author', Yahtzee. He refers rather often to his Psychonauts review in which he said it was one of the best games ever made. After getting enough responses about his lack of finding problems, he adds them into his more recent reviews. His latest about Arkham Asylum is one of those that he praised and said was an excellent game, but it had its flaws.

Is this such a problem? As Simon Parkin said in his "Truth and Judgment" article, Games are defined just as much by what they don’t do as by what they do". True it's more often that we look at what a game offers in our decision, but what they don't do can take away from the enjoyment of the game. There's nothing worse than a good game with a horrible camera. Just recently I was talking with a store manager about one of the games he really liked, and the one downfall he said was that the graphics weren't as good as they could be. In a day where we have so much technological ability with videogames, is it acceptable for some to skimp on some of them?

True, the graphics don't make the gameplay. On the other hand, they can detract from the game. It's like the old NES games that most of us remember fondly and spent hours upon hours playing, yet when we replay them, they lack a little something. Many times its the old graphics that we find fault with. Case in point, Final Fantasy 7: I can't remember how many letters to the editor sections I've read where people are asking and pleading for a remake to that game for the new consoles. There's nothing wrong mechanically with the PlayStation version, but it would look amazing with the new Blu-Ray technology. Nobody is asking for battle system changes, or the materia system, but simply the graphics to show the game in a better light.

One other topic that's always a peeve of mine is whether reviews actually do anything. I think we need to remember that reviews are going to be an individual's take on the game. However, depending on what they say can sway readers. If a magazine rates a shooter 10 points out of 10, doesn't mean that everyone will rush out and grab it. I tend to suck at shooters, but every so often I have this urge to try one. The reviews do help figure out whether I'll at least tollerate the game or not. If I'm not good at patience and taking cover, then I realize that Gears of War isn't for me. But if I'm looking for a much more relaxed and straight forward shooting game, I might opt for Resistance or Left 4 Dead. At the same time, if I buy a shooter, I'm not going to get angry with the reviewer for saying it was a good game when I didn't like it. It's a tool just like the pictures on the box. You can get a good idea of what the game can be like, but the only way to be sure is to actually play it.