You Should Trust Me When I Say You Shouldn't Trust Me: A Meta-Review

A fair warning, this is probably the most pretentious thing I've ever written. That said, it is written out of love, not for the sake of hearing my pretentious opinions. Now then, on to today's topic: Fact vs Opinion.

I really like video games, but you probably already knew that. You probably also know that I like to talk about games. I will be absolutely honest with you; my opinion doesn't mean much. That's not to say it's worthless, it holds value to me and a handful of friends, but overall it's not very valuable to anyone who isn't me. Why bring this up? Well to be honest, and this is a big one, I feel that the game industry as a whole has lost a lot of journalistic integrity. That is not wholly the fault of the industry, far from it, it is simply the fact that there is no monitor for what is put on the Internet. From sites like IGN who present themselves as a professional source to Blistered Thumbs as the "indy scene" reviews and even previews are being presented in mind numbing fashion. That is to say, they are being presented with a heavy slant on personal opinion.

Opinions must be presented delicately when in a journalistic fashion because the people reading might not be able to separate fact from fiction. The unfortunate part being when someone mistakes opinion for fact and misses out on an experience because of it. It is all to common to see on message boards below a review "Yeh dis gai wus totaly rite, dis gaem lookd like it SUCKD". Granted, such jargon would usually be found under a video review, as the writer probably isn't to fond of reading. It is for this reason that when I review a game I never give it a final score or grade. There is simply no such thing as a universal grading system for games because Video Games are in themselves unique experiences and as such each person will have differences in approaching, playing, and reviewing them.

An Example: Let's say two people played Minecraft for about 20 minutes each. Your character begins life in a randomly generated world with nothing to his name but his fists and a penchant for punching trees. Player 1 immediately beings experimenting and discovers how to use the wood to build a work bench, tools and so on. Before long Player 1 has secured a cave home with a few torches to keep him safe. Player 2, on the other hand, spends the entire time harassing chickens and pigs until the sun sets, where upon he is killed by several zombies, a spider, and perhaps a Creeper for good measure. At this point Player 2 would likely comment how lame this game is and move on to something more stimulating to their own tastes. Meanwhile Player 1 is busy mining and building a new home and having a great time.

It is easy to see how these vastly different experiences will relate to vastly different reviews. Even to the point where the player's individual past experiences would make a difference. I know that my childhood spent playing with Legos and my love of the Harvest Moon franchise greatly contributed to my pleasant experience with Minecraft. Personally, I find that I disagree with the "professional reviewers" quite often. To the point where I have to wonder if some of them even have fun playing games. Again, this is all just opinion.

Just recently I saw a preview by Greg Miller, one of the foremost editors on IGN, declaring that he was not impressed with the current build of Ratchet and Clank: All 4 One. He didn't have a lot of fun playing it, fair enough, but that isn't true for everyone. Instead of just presenting the facts he is putting his own personal feelings into the mix. The same goes for Bennett the Sage from Blistered Thumbs. In a recent review he lamented how boring a game was and the tedium of "gaming now-a-days" (which by the way sparked that awesome rebuttal by Benzaie 'Gaming in the 90s Sucked'). As I said before I don't have a problem with opinion. What I have a problem with is personal opinion presented as fact.

Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw of Zero Punctuation fame is just about the best reviewer I can think of. He makes it clear exactly what he is bias toward and against. Lets think about this though, Yahtzee will review a game, say, one that you really liked, and will tear it a new one. When asked why you didn't take his opinion it's easy to dismiss because hey, it's Yahtzee right? So why then would we defend the opinion of someone like Bennett the Sage, Angry Joe, or [insert IGN employee here]. What really grinds my gears is when a person presents opinion as fact, and it happens all the time. Every time a review professional uses relative terms like "boring" or my least favorite "repetitive" he is petitioning his subjective opinion under the guise of an objective review.

The fact of the matter is this simply isn't going to change, what needs to change is our perspective of reviews. It is, and will continue to be, simply one persons opinion, and it must be taken as that, just an opinion. The only person who will be able to tell you whether or not you will like a game is you.

Through our own individual experiences, prejudices and bias' we shape an entirely unique opinion. it would be a million to one shot to find a person to appropriately represent your opinion. You can find people with relatively similar opinions to latch onto, but relying on reviews, professional or otherwise, is a mistake. It's almost disheartening to think of how many people have passed on games they might have greatly enjoyed just because of a review.

Sorry for the rant, it's just my opinion.

TL;DR: Take reviews with a grain of salt

Art: The Pretentious Frontier

I am on the verge of a headsplosion. This subject is very near and dear to my heart as a student of art, but this may take a while. I am attempting to organize what is potentially pages and pages of rambling into coherent thought, so please bear with me as I tackle this…er … bear.

A subject that has recently been on everyones mind is video games as art. There's a contingent of people who have never played video games that decided to take it upon themselves to profess games cannot be art. In return the majority of people who do play games come back with the argument of "yes they are, you just don't know, shut up". In short, most just get mad instead of giving evidence as to why games are legitimately art, and an amazing and unique form to say the least.

While this rhetoric is not helpful for either side it continues none the less.

I recently found myself in an art museum in San Francisco. While browsing the halls with my wife I came upon a large canvas, I can't recall the name of the piece but it was basically just painted purple. This was right across the hall from a masterful piece showcasing Niagra falls circa 1890 in beautiful detail, oil and canvas. This led to a peculiar pondering that I never thought I would ever have: Do games even want to be considered art.

We live in a day and age where essentially anything is art. I will borrow a quote here from an excellent Pixar film, The Incredibles. Basically the villain Syndrome has created items that emulate super powers that he plans to sell to the public so that "everyone can have powers. Everyone can be super! And when everyone's super… No one will be." My bias love for Pixar aside this line is amazing. It's so true! Think of it this way: If everything is art, then nothing is art.

Art has gone through many phases and changes and we are now in what I like to call the "immature age" of art. All pretentiousness aside the fact is anything is considered art nowadays and the reason seems as simple as this: A person does something and calls it art and we have to accept it as that. It's like some people can't stand that they have no artistic talent so they make something, ANYTHING and then call it art, then whine and complain if YOU don't call it art.

There is a flip side to this as well: People who are to artistically inclined. I'm going to switch gears here from art as art to music as art, savvy? Good. I've been a musician for many years and I've met many extremely talented people. There's this pattern I noticed, some people get so good that they go full circle and become bad. They will play these incomprehensible progressions that are neither technically impressive nor pleasing to the ear. Why? The best answer I can come up with is that they just get full of themselves, but it's shocking how many times I've seen this happen in MANY different areas of art.

Another argument that recently peaked my interest was one between two friends about photography. One of my friends thought that only digital photography could be art while the other believed only classic film could be. Here's something to understand: mediums evolve. There will always be new and sometimes easier ways to express artistic talent (notice, you must have said artistic talent). Don't tell me a picture is any less striking or powerful because it was taken with a digital camera, and vice versa. Can things that are created digitally not be considered art? Is it the medium that really matters or the artist? The person behind the medium with the creative force driving the project.

The next part of the argument started when someone said Photoshop isn't art. Wow. Now thats the ignorance I'm talking about and the same ignorance that surrounds Games. Here's some simple examples of Art vs. NOT ART (in my humble opinion of course)

Modern Art Win

Modern Art Fail

Photomanipulation Win

Photoshop Win

Photoshop/manipulation Fail

Post Modern Impressionism Win

Post Modern Art Fail

Modern Sculpture Win

Modern Sculpture Fail

Art Win

Video Games as Art Win

Video Games as Art Fail

Let's look up the definition of this word people are having so much trouble with

art ¹ |ärt|

noun

1 the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power : the art of the Renaissance | great art is concerned with moral imperfections | she studied art in Paris.

• works produced by such skill and imagination : his collection of modern art | an exhibition of Tibetan art | [as adj. ] an art critic.

• creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture : she's good at art.

2 ( the arts) the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance : the visual arts | [in sing. ] the art of photography.

3 ( arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects) : the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible | the Faculty of Arts.

4 a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice : the art of conversation.

When I look at that definition I have no trouble whatsoever in calling games art. They fit that to a T. Creativity, Imagination, heck, games even take it a step further by making it all interactive. Other things people are calling art, say, modern masterpieces like "My messy room" (which is literally just a persons dirty room on display in a gallery) take no effort, imagination, skill or talent. Alas though, it is all just opinion. Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It just really grinds my gears that movies can be considered art and Video Games are left by the wayside.

You might have noticed the picture I used for "Video Games as Art Win" was Ico. I chose this because I feel it is something that truly solidifies games as art. From the stunning vistas that would enrapture even the old masters, to the subtle dialogue (or lack thereof really) this game is a masterpiece. No story is shoved down your throat through exposition and cutscenes, there is no contrived romance. It is a very simple story that is touching and exciting, told almost without words but incredibly powerful.

This game was crafted with skill and love. The best thing is, there are more games like it! I don't mean carbon copies of Ico, but games that attempt to be something more then mindless fun (though as I have stated before I have no problem with that). Games are art, just like movies, just like music, just like literature, just like art. These are things that draw people in and enrich there lives. I know that is what video games have done for me, as have all the other things I listed. Now, if one of those had not really enriched my life, it wouldn't be fair for me to dismiss it as a whole. So naysayers, please calm down, and game makers; thank you.