Menu Close

Can Someone Explain The Appeal Of “Critics” Like Angry Joe?

Ben-Dutka 58 Comments

I'm well aware that nobody reads. Well, more specifically, nobody reads on the Internet. With the digital directive always being "less text, more media" from every single producer on earth, and places like BuzzFeed and YouTube ruling the world, this much is obvious.

But there's one thing I will never understand.

And that is why people like Angry Joe are popular, or even relevant. Now, I'm certain that at some point, text reviews for video games (and for just about anything when intended for the digital audience) will disappear. It's very difficult to get anybody to read them now and the trend is clear. But I don't really have a problem with critics standing before a camera and issuing their analysis that way. It gives the consumer more to look at and they can match the comments with the game. It's great for the would-be consumer.

That is a logical progression, I suppose. But I have never understood the fascination with people having meltdowns. I've seen several of Angry Joe's "reviews" and as far as I can tell, his lone claim to fame is getting pissed off and yelling at a game. He's obviously no journalist – can he write at all? – and I don't even understand what qualifies him to review video games. There's virtually no insight or intelligent commentary; it's just a mess. How is this entertaining? How is it even informative?

Various industry people have already come down hard on this guy, including Dave Jaffe and most recently, a DICE developer who basically accused Angry Joe of flat-out lying in regards to the Star Wars: Battlefront beta. I have also heard this guy state things that are completely untrue, so it's not like we can trust his analysis in the first place.

Of course, he doesn't have to be a journalist or even a qualified critic. I suppose if he just had a personality that didn't resemble a train wreck and he offered some interesting commentary on various products, it would make sense. But this…why? After ten seconds of this guy, I feel brain cells dying. Why, why do we bother with him?

Read more →

Critics Should Pay To Review A Game? Guess We Quit

Ben-Dutka 18 Comments

These are the kinds of statements that often get taken out of context or blown way out of proportion.

I haven't dived into the nuts and bolts of the inflammatory situation , but I can certainly address the notion that video game critics should pay the developer to review a game.

I can't possibly imagine anything more backward. In other industries, it is backwards; very often, for example, writers have to pay to have their books reviewed by notable critics and sources. The review is not only a service to the consuming public, it's also a service to the artist. Even bad reviews are essentially an advertisement, simply because it circulates the name of the product; "there's no such thing as bad publicity" in business, remember. And any product that does land a great review is only helping the artists and anyone associted with the product's distribution.

You want me to pay to review your game? You've got to be kidding. I wouldn't give anyone a dime, not even if they were willing to give me some sort of exclusive. No, that's not how it works. We provide a service; you're not providing anything but the product to be reviewed. Hence, you should be paying us . Don't forget, in the game industry, entire studios can sink or float depending on critical reception. Remember Haze ? What happened to Free Radical after that? If Crytek hadn't come along and bailed them out, they'd be done. What scores did that game get…?

And that's hardly the only example. In so many ways, an industry professional's career is made and broken due to reviews. You rely on us , not the other way around, my friend. Granted, if there were no games, we wouldn't be able to review anything, but what exactly are the chances of that happening? There's a far greater chance that your team shuts down because you put out trash and the critics acknowledged it as such. There's another chance that you put out a great product and those same critics told everyone to run out and buy it. We're holding the cards in this business scenario. We tell consumers to buy your stuff.

Unless you've got the advertising pull to override a poor critical reception (and let's face it, you'd have to be Activision to do that), you are, for all intents and purposes, at our mercy. Therefore, I find this entire issue utterly, completely, shockingly absurd.

Read more →

Simulators Require Expert Knowledge Most Critics Don’t Have

Ben-Dutka 31 Comments

It can be difficult for a critic to admit that he or she simply isn't qualified to provide the reading public with an accurate, fair analysis of a certain product.

When it comes to simulators, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that most video game critics are not equipped to properly handle a review. This has been a problem in recent years, especially as the subject pertains to Gran Turismo .

Back in the day, gaming experts and even regular everyday gamers could judge a simulator's realism and authenticity. It wasn't hard. In that time, games were so far away from the real thing that even the inclusion of something like the hurdle in Madden was viewed as a big step forward. And it was obvious what wasn't realistic. We all know that there isn't one spot on a basketball court that is 100% money for every player on earth. Really, things were just so much simpler in those days.

But now, as gaming continues to push forward, most game critics find themselves outmatched when trying to review simulators. They're too ridiculously intricate and in-depth; it's rapidly reaching the point where if you're not an expert on the sport in question, you'll inevitably miss a few critical points. Actually, in the case of GT, it's far more important for someone to be a car and racing expert than it is to be a video game expert. Now, the latter can still do a ton of research (as I did for FIFA 14 ) but in the end, he or she must still make the difficult admission.

This is an admission I'd like at least one critic to make in regards to a Gran Turismo 6 review. I know more about it than most, so at least in the realm of reviewers, I'm better equipped than most to handle it. But I'd be willing to bet that a real-life racer would still offer you a better analysis (even if he couldn't write it as well). I've reviewed flight sims, but I always make it plain that I am really not familiar enough with the subject. Hence, I always advise that the consumer find a more informed source. The problem here is the ego of critics, who apparently never want to admit that they just shouldn't review something. This is a big issue, especially when review scores have become the be-all, end-all.

Sure, qualified critics can still evaluate certain aspects of any game; graphical quality, frame rate, control, etc. We should know about those things. But if you have no idea what camber is, if the only thing you know about your car is its color, you're outmatched. Please just do the consuming public a favor and admit it .

Read more →

Should Campaigns And Multiplayer Get Separate Review Scores?

Ben-Dutka 36 Comments

On the surface, this seems to be an easily answered question.

After all, we're issuing an overall score for the entire product, and that product often includes both single-player and multiplayer entertainment. Hence, both must be considered, and it's up to the critic's discretion as to how heavily to weight each side; for instance, the multiplayer might be more heavily weighted in Medal of Honor: Warfighter than it was in Resident Evil 6 .

On top of which, there's a general assumption that the majority of those who buy a game will play both the campaign and multiplayer. However, as time goes on, I keep running across people that almost exclusively buy titles for one reason or the other, and I've also heard of people only reading the parts of reviews that deal with either the single-player or the multiplayer. Furthermore, it really is true that the two experiences are extraordinarily different; quite separate and distinct beasts, in fact. Therefore, maybe it's not such a bad idea to split the two up and deliver two scores for certain games.

Some may say this could pose problems because readers might get confused, but it's not like we have a standardized form of reviewing games. The classic is still a 10-point scale but that's hardly the only system used by major sources, and some – like Game Informer – hand out multiple scores (from different critics). So it's not like we'd be breaking some sort of cardinal rule and besides, it could really help consumers make easier purchase decisions. It also doesn't help that reviewers approach the analysis process very differently; some spend a lot more time talking about multiplayer (or the campaign) than others.

What do you think?

Read more →