The Case for Bloodborne and Games That Aren't For Everyone
-
Category: News ArchiveHits: 1665
USGamer's Bob Mackey has penned a piece on "games that aren't for everyone" and their critical reception, in response to a critical opinion piece from Forbes contributor Dave Thier, who argued that the near-unanimous praise Bloodborne has received from the press speaks of a lack of tempered viewpoints and fails to inform the public of the fact that the game might not be to their taste.
An excerpt from Mackey's piece:
And that's what makes game reviews such a complex beast: There's just so many perspectives out there, it's impossible to take all of them into account. I assume some sites set out to write these one-size-fits-all reviews, but really, the idea of the "universal gamer" is a complete fallacy. Long ago, Game Informer shot themselves in the foot with an attempt to address this nebulous entity known only as "Gamer" with their review of Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door which still stands as the perfect example of why this goal isn't very realistic. This 2004 GameCube release netted a 6.5 out of 10 from the magazine, simply because reviewers Jeremy Zoss and Lisa Mason felt it was too "kiddie" for GI's audience. Needless to say, the responding echoes of rage can still be heard on the Internet to this very day.
In an e-mail to disgruntled subscribers (subsequently posted to all corners of the web), Zoss tries to justify the magazine's decision, which underlines my issue with this take on reviews: "Yes, we know that many people out there will love [Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door]. We also know that it is a well-made game. However, it also WILL NOT appeal to many people - I would safely say that more people will dislike it than like it. Why? Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - it's [sic] target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low. Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them."
To be fair, I'm not sure if Game Informer's editorial direction has shifted away from this approach in the passing decade, and it's very possible that Zoss and Mason's perspectives could have changed, too. Still, I feel GI's approach to this issue comes close to Thier's ideal: GI's editors published their review in the best interests of the readers, and not just as a platform for personal opinions. Personally, when I read a video game review, I want nothing but personal opinions, and the same goes for other types of media. I'm a huge fan of Roger Ebert, and, as I read his work over the years (and dived into the archives), I grew to know him best through our many "agree to disagree" moments. One of his most infamous pieces took the form of a one-star review for David Lynch's Blue Velvet; in it, he attempts to justify his low score by explaining just how repulsed he was by the exploitive scenes featuring Isabella Rossellini's character. (And yet, Ebert wasn't immediately declared an "SJW" and bullied out of the industry by an angry mob funny, that.)
I don't think Blue Velvet is an amazing film, but I feel it deserves much higher praise than Ebert's one-star analysis. Still, his review makes for an interesting read, and I would have lost a lot of respect for him if he came out and said, "This film sickened me, but I bumped my final score up to two-and-a-half stars because I figure some of you out there will probably like it." Obviously, Ebert's case is a bit different; people had the chance to know him over the passing decades, and we game journalists aren't really given the opportunity to become institutions most likely, we'll write for a solid five years or so before the industry bucks us off and we ascend to PR heaven.
