Criticisms and Why We Need Them

          Before I start this off, I just want to ask a simple question: do you have to technically finish a game before you can review it? I haven’t finished Antichamber, but I know how it works. I love the mechanics and the bits of vague advice given to the player. If you do have to finish a game, what about online games? You can’t finish those because they have no end. Maybe if there is a story mode that can be completed, then yes they can still be finished I suppose. I think so long as you play the game enough to understand what it’s all about and you’ve had time to really try out as many features as possible, then it can be reviewed. And yet, some games are so dull that most players won’t even bother playing it for more than twenty minutes. Worse, if the game has game breaking glitches that render it unplayable, then it becomes impossible to fully review. In that case, it’s getting the lowest scores possible.

          That being said, why do we bother reviewing games anyway? The same reason we review anything: we want to know what we’re investing our money into. We look at reviews for books to see if it’s something worth reading, we check Rotten Tomatoes to see if a film is “Certified Fresh”, and we swarm to game review websites to see if the games are fun and engaging. As consumers, we want to get the most out of our dollar, so a little research is perfectly normal. But we do get a bit lazy when looking at critics’ opinions.

          The most convenient of game review sites is probably Metacritic. They have scores for every game out there. Critics put up a brief write-up, enter a number, and we look at the number and the color of the circle around that number. Green means it’s good, yellow means it’s mixed, and red means it’s bad. Now how many of you have actually read some of the things said in these reviews? They look like the paraphrased quotes put on the back of the box. Stuff like “It looks graphically impressive… worth your money.” That’s part of a bigger quote. It might actually say “It looks graphically impressive, but the framerate drops below 60 way too often, it crashes harder than Maya, and the story is non-existent. This is not worth your money. It’s not difficult to take something out of context and make it have a new meaning. We also shouldn’t rely too much on just one person’s opinion.

          A single person with a reputation for reviewing games professionally can influence just about any consumer. As soon as you see the name, you might think “Oh, this guy’s steered me away from terrible games in the past. I bet I can trust him when he says this game’s phenomenal.” Maybe, but different people have different opinions. It’s best to get a few perspectives from various critics in order to understand how a game might work out for you. And just because a game is deemed “critically acclaimed” or “a cult classic”, it doesn’t mean you will like it.

          An example of this is The Witcher. It’s a highly praised game… and I can’t stand to play it more than an hour. I get people like it, but one thing pushed me away and that was the combat. The story was not quite pulling me in, but I was giving it time to build up. Maybe it was going to be stunning. The graphics were dated, but I’ve played games with worse looking aesthetics and they turned out fine. But when it came to a core element of the gameplay, combat was literally a quick-time event. I didn’t feel like I was actually fighting. I felt like I was in a cutscene where I could move around a bit and hit something. This made me lose interest and I never played it again.

          As for me, probably my fault for not reading enough reviews on it. It was just deemed a good game by the gaming community. No matter how great of praise a game gets, you should always look into it first. It might not be what you want… or it could be everything you’ve ever wanted. Dust: An Elysian Tail was arguably that game for me. It had a good story, memorable characters, a great combat system, and stylized graphics. I only checked one review, but I should have checked more. That decision payed off this time, but it won’t work every time.

          However, I noticed that the gamers and the developers have some kind of war with critics every time their game is panned. In the case of the developers, they make a game, have it shipped, and it turns out terrible. Most developers know when they messed up and they take criticism quite well. They make improvements and make a better game (hence why I liked The Witcher II a lot better than its predecessor). But a few of the other devs take offense at what the people say about their games. They defend it as if they are martyrs and sometimes insult the players for not playing their game properly. There’s honestly no proper way to play anything. You can make up your own rules and mess around if you want. I did this with Goosebumps books. I read the last paragraph of the last page before anything else, then I read the whole book. I don’t know why, but it was just more interesting that way.

          As for the gamers who get upset at critics, they get furious. They will see a particular IP as perfect and immune to criticism. Once a critic gives a negative review (or worse, an 8 as opposed to a 9), the fan base loses their heads. I get it, though. They grew up with this game and it gave them great memories. It’s a nostalgia thing. But when one entry doesn’t turn out quite as expected, sometimes the loyal player wants to desperately find something redeemable about it. And maybe they can, but a few harsh words aimed at somebody who disagrees with you won’t help.

          But why do we need criticism in the first place? To get better at what we do. It’s so we can point out when things aren’t as good as they could be and then taking that feedback and expanding upon it. One of the most important lessons I learned was when I took a class in 3D Design. I was good at coming up with concepts based on prompts, but I didn’t do a great job with the aesthetic and construction of the pieces I made. As such, I got pretty low grades due to poor craftsmanship. The professor emphasized the importance of building a strong, presentable piece. If you make something with as few flaws as possible, it becomes incredibly hard to break down. And I don’t mean you can throw it against a wall and it doesn’t even crack. I mean the work you create ends up not only looking great, but it doesn’t break, it’s engaging, and ultimately no one will be able to think of something bad to say about it.

          And I know criticism can hurt. It feels like a direct insult, especially if you think the critic doesn’t understand what you are trying to portray with your work. Thing is, you must learn how to grow a thick skin and take in the feedback to improve your work. It also helps to know how to sort out useful feedback from pointless information. Someone saying your work is “pretty good” doesn’t really tell you what makes it work. It just means that they sort of like it. As for little nitpicks such as “I don’t like pink. Why did you use pink?”, you can always defend your reasons for picking which colors. A more useful piece of information will sound more like “Pink works pretty well, but what if you used a dark red? It might make your piece appear more bold.” That’s something worth considering.

          Ultimately, we need people to look at our works and provide feedback. It’s really easy to look at your own stuff and deem it perfect, but without a fresh set of eyes from a different perspective, it could have several flaws you may have overlooked. The critics may say things that feel like insults, but they aren’t trying to hurt you; they want to help you. Well, most of them anyways. If you want, you can review this article. Was it worth a read? Was it grammatically correct? Or was it just a bit short and in need of covering more points?

A Rundown of Genres

          Video games come in a variety of flavors. At first it, all started with a few genres. Now there’s so many that those genres have their own children (also called “sub-genres”). Gaming veterans are likely to know every type of game that can be played in existence, but for those of you who may be brand new to gaming, it can be overwhelming. You sort of have to try a game from every genre before you can find the one you ultimately like.

Arcade: A style of game found typically in arcades, hence the name. They have a high focus on gameplay and fun with very little focus on story. What’s the plot to Pac-man? Who cares? You’ve got ghosts trying to get you and you gotta eat those pellets and fruit. They can be easy to jump into and hard to quit.

Simulation: Also known as simulators, this type of game tries to emulate a real life experience. Most simulations games are used for educational purposes, but now the genre has begun to branch out into simulating things from a theoretical point of view. Look at Goat Simulator; I don’t think the things your goat can do in that game are even physically possible for humans, but it’s proven to be a ton of fun. There’s hardly a story needed, but setting a scenario can help add immersion.

Strategy: These games require tactical planning skills in order to play right. You command an army of troops to take down the enemy forces. Some of these games are turn-based and some occur in real time. The strategy game is all about patience and careful planning. When everything goes right, you feel amazing. When something goes wrong, you’re doomed.

Role-playing Game (RPG): A genre that originally stemmed from strategy games, RPGs are a type of game that has the player take on the role of at least one character. The focus is on the individual unit and how they progress. There can be more than one character with more roles to play. These games have some strategic gameplay mixed in with powerful storytelling. Lots of games borrow elements of this genre such as experience points, health bars, and class systems.

Racing: Racing games are all about speed. The first one to cross the finish line wins. Most racing games involve cars or karts. The main dynamics of these games are to either out maneuver the competition or to sabotage the other racers. They can be great to play with a group of people, but are also fine solo.

Party Games: Any kind of game designed to involve a large group of people. Typically, a party game is played with at least four players. With online multiplayer, this can expand to even more people. However, what sets party games apart from multiplayer games is the fact that they emphasize fun with mini-games and prizes. 

          Those aren’t all the genres of video games. That might take too long to list, plus there’s more than just video game genres. There’s also board games that have either similar genres or game types unique only to the non-digital format. Examples of non-digital games include:

Card Games: Any kind of game that focuses on the use of cards. There are video game equivalents, but I’m mainly talking about the non-digital versions. Card games are probably the easiest to play and the easiest to make. Some card games have a sort of outside gameplay in the form of collecting. These are what are called trading card games, or TCGs.

Board Games: Typically a game that uses a board of some type. The term is also used to describe most non-digital games (sometimes even referred to as “bored games”). The special thing about boards is that the boards themselves present the game world and rules. All play occurs either on the board or in the hands of the players if there are cards involved. Board games are easy to learn, but difficult to master.

Paper Games: A type of game done mostly on paper. Most video games are tested via a paper prototype. The world is created on the paper, like a board game, then a set of rules is established. The great thing about paper games is that you can set them up pretty easily. All you need is notebook paper and a pen/pencil. Then you let your imagination do the rest.

3D Games: I’m not sure what the true name of this genre is, but it refers to any game that uses 3D pieces such as wood blocks or plastic structures (not including tokens or totems). They have a similar set up to board games, but do not always rely on having a board. They usually have a creative set of rules and require some assembly before play begins. Examples of these kinds of games include Bandu, Jenga, and Funny Bunny.

          So we have digital and non-digital games. But what about sports? Those are technically games. They’re known as physical games and involve some physical activity in order to play. However, we give the name “sport” to any game that draws a crowd. If that game happens to be physical, we call it an “esport”. So what do we call non-digital games that draw in a crowd? Whenever there’s a tournament for a TCG, we always refer to it as a “TCG Tournament.” I’m not sure if we have even given a name to a type of non-digital game that can be spectated. 

          There’s a ton of games out there with seemingly limitless genres! All I can say is do some research on genres and see what intrigues you most. Eventually you’ll find one you like. Kind of like music.

Who is Your Favorite Protagonist?

          This has always been a tough question for me. When I think of protagonist, I think of the hero of the story. While this is technically true, we always picture someone who we think is a good hero, but may have actually not been that memorable. I’ve been looking back at older games and seeing how the protagonist develops as a character. Honestly, I’m surprised I looked up to some of these characters. Very few of them I would say are good protagonists that have a clear backstory and origin of some kind, they go through adversity and overcome obstacles, and develop as a person. I’ve got a few nominees for whom I feel may be my favorite protagonist of all time.

          I have fond memories of a game called Radiata Stories. It was this RPG on the PS2 that had real time combat and a ton of recruitable party members. Some of the things you had to do to recruit people included finding and talking to them, answering all the questions correctly on a radio quiz show, and even fighting them. As for the main protagonist Jack, he was pretty relatable to me at the time. In fact, I still think he’s relatable. He’s what one would describe as the reluctant hero. He has to join the Radiata Knights and live up to his father’s legacy. However, Jack is kind of lazy and prefers to do his own thing. He’s very optimistic and enthusiastic, even in the face of danger. But the best thing I like about this guy is his sense of loyalty. Even after he gets kicked from the Radiata Knights, he still holds up to their creed: “Knights are as family.” He saves his friend’s life, he stands up to potential bullies, and he even turns his back on humanity just to do what’s right. He doesn’t become evil, but the world sees him that way. The sad part is they never know just what he did to save them.

          Many of you might be familiar with the Walking Dead TV series. Whether or not you watch the show, I highly recommend you play The Walking Dead by Telltale Games. It has one of the best protagonists I’ve ever played. You play as a history professor named Lee Everett. He’s on his way to jail for murdering a man who slept with his wife. As he sits in the police car remorseful of his actions, the driver talks to him. Now I had the option to be a complete jerk to the guy (as well as to everyone else in the game), but I always opted to choose the most polite dialogue choices as I felt Lee wasn’t just some psychotic serial killer. He killed that man for a reason, even if it was ultimately wrong. Over the course of the story, he takes care of a little girl named Clementine and several opportunities arise in which I the player could kill people who had wronged us. I avoided as much taking of life as possible because for one, Clementine was always present in these moments and two, I wanted to prove that even though Lee did wrong before, he was worthy of redemption. In the end, Lee was able to come to grips with his own personal problems including the murder of his wife’s love affair as well as keep a little girl safe in the impending zombie apocalypse.

          My third choice would be Jade from Beyond Good and Evil. I didn’t get to play this when it first launched, but I rediscovered it and found it to be interesting. It had a cool combat system, fun characters, and a badass hero. Jade is an action reporter taking care of kids at an orphanage with her pal Pey’j. When aliens attack her home, she springs into action and fights them off with her daijo staff. She’s quite protective of the orphans and is determined to find out who the aliens are and what they want. A group known as the DomZ take over her homeland and it’s up to her to infiltrate their bases and snap photography proof of their corruption. She risks life and limb to make it happen and even when she hit her lowest state, she still found the will to save the world. That ability to recover from a devastating blow is what made me love Jade as a hero and protagonist.

          As for you reading this, who would say your favorite protagonist is? It can be anybody, even an antihero. So long as this person has a story following behind them and they go through character development along the way, it qualifies. As for me, I’m going to have a hard time deciding between Jack, Lee, and Jade.