Like anything you do in life, career wise, you're inevitably going to come across obstructions that prevent you from doing exactly what you want. In reviewers cases, they are under huge pressure from publishers, the hands that feed them, when certain constraints are put into place. According to Kieron Gillens, a games reviewer, a video game magazine is put together in 19 days in which time all has to be covered from research to the finished piece. The strict deadline between each issue means there is less time to think about things. Then as soon as one is finished your onto another one equally as time and attention consuming. The pressure isn't eased anymore knowing, as a reviewer you could be brushed aside at any moment if you don't make the cut. After reading reviewers opinions, to put a long story short, they are rushed to do their job quicker than it takes to weigh up everything properly therefore they have to cut corners, not being able to spend time on every aspect equally.
Personally, I think that an objective take to reviewing is something that without a doubt is necessary for games, but not completely necessary for sales. If someone likes the look of a game, regardless of what is stated about its shoddy game play a fan will still buy it. For example I am a big fan of the metal gear solid franchise and initially when I saw the new game entitled ' metal gear solid rising' being brought out where your ninja raiden as the main character, I was a bit sceptical on whether it would be as good as what had come before it. Especially when I saw game play trailers of hack and slash rather than the trade mark stealth I was rather disappointed. But regardless I will still buy it just to experience it, which I think is a mentality shared by most gamers.
Whether or not objective ranking is even doable is a good question to ask. I think that a well made, genuinely good game will sell itself when its reviewed. You may say well what shows a genuinely good game in a review and I suppose its when a games positives outweigh its negatives without being subjective.
For me, new games journalism isn't really my thing. I wouldn't read a review in that style and it have any influence on me liking or buying a game. I found it too narrative, half the time i was reading it i felt like a child being read a story. I'de much prefer reading about pros and cons of a game rather than someone's personal experience. For example, i read a review called 'a rape in cyberspace' by Julian Dibbell, and it was like the reviewer was writing their own novel, it didn't seem like a review and I lost interest quickly. I would rather a review similar to the IGN website where it breaks down which particular aspects compliment or hinder the game, so I can make an informed decision quickly rather than decipher the sand script that some of the NGJ reviewers are publishing.
In my own writing I definitely favour objectivity, but I suppose as human beings we all have a tendency to be accidentally subjective because we want to sway others towards what we like as an individual. As far as my writing goes, I think I am making improvements but I still find it difficult to express myself, I'm the type of person where it's all in my head but it's such a struggle to put it down on paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment