![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This article from The GhettoLearn to Counter (which I've mentioned before) is particularly timely for me, given a couple of recent posts I've made.
The article is about half and half between talking about "simple games vs complex games" and "why games journalism in general is useless."
For the second point, I've long since come to the conclusion that most mainstream video game review sites are not only useless, but are worse than useless. Far too many people read a review and treat it as set in stone, objective fact about how good or bad a game is, instead of treating it like what it actually is: merely the opinion of the person writing the review. This is, for example, a big part of the reason I have a destructoid sucks tag,[1] which I mention here because the article above specifically points out a couple of Jim Sterling's reviews as examples of the problem he's addressing.[2]
For the first, I don't have a problem with "simple" games, on the whole, as long as they're fun. Sometimes, I just want a game that I can sit down and play for a few minutes or half an hour or however long, without feeling like it's not worthwhile to even start playing unless I have a huge chunk of time set aside in order to really get into it.
However, with that said, I generally much prefer games with some meat to them, you know? For example, I am currently (still) playing the X series, which I've mentioned before. If these games had just been simple "fly around in space and blow stuff up" games, I would have long since given them up. But again, with that said, there is still an appeal to games that are just "fly around in space and blow stuff up" too.
[1] - I'm thinking it might be more appropriate to change it to a more general "video game journalism sucks" tag, since lately it seems like more and more sites I used to enjoy reading are starting to go down the same route Destructoid took toward maximum suckage.
[2] - Though I can't say that I agree at all with Mr. Lowell's view that Jim Sterling is worthy of being "value[d] and highly regard[ed] for his criticism of industry ethics and practices." Maybe if I tilt my head and squint really hard, I could view him in that manner.
The article is about half and half between talking about "simple games vs complex games" and "why games journalism in general is useless."
For the second point, I've long since come to the conclusion that most mainstream video game review sites are not only useless, but are worse than useless. Far too many people read a review and treat it as set in stone, objective fact about how good or bad a game is, instead of treating it like what it actually is: merely the opinion of the person writing the review. This is, for example, a big part of the reason I have a destructoid sucks tag,[1] which I mention here because the article above specifically points out a couple of Jim Sterling's reviews as examples of the problem he's addressing.[2]
For the first, I don't have a problem with "simple" games, on the whole, as long as they're fun. Sometimes, I just want a game that I can sit down and play for a few minutes or half an hour or however long, without feeling like it's not worthwhile to even start playing unless I have a huge chunk of time set aside in order to really get into it.
However, with that said, I generally much prefer games with some meat to them, you know? For example, I am currently (still) playing the X series, which I've mentioned before. If these games had just been simple "fly around in space and blow stuff up" games, I would have long since given them up. But again, with that said, there is still an appeal to games that are just "fly around in space and blow stuff up" too.
[1] - I'm thinking it might be more appropriate to change it to a more general "video game journalism sucks" tag, since lately it seems like more and more sites I used to enjoy reading are starting to go down the same route Destructoid took toward maximum suckage.
[2] - Though I can't say that I agree at all with Mr. Lowell's view that Jim Sterling is worthy of being "value[d] and highly regard[ed] for his criticism of industry ethics and practices." Maybe if I tilt my head and squint really hard, I could view him in that manner.
