I don't think I can call myself a critic, although I have certainly criticised games for not doing things right, or having something incredibly frustrating in them or for being completely unfair (I've used that last one a lot), but as I'd rather heap praise upon games than criticise them (unless I feel they deserve them), I'd much prefer to be called a gaming enthusiast. But I was just wondering if sometimes critics can be far too harsh on games.
Say you were made to create a game, but had a lot of things going against you, like, for instance time constraints or this being your very first game and what have you, and your finished product doesn't come out quite the way you wanted it to and thusly receives a bunch of negative reviews. You'd feel pretty hard done by, wouldn't you? Imagine having all the work you've just spent the last 2 or 3 years on being paraded in public and roundly criticised. That wouldn't feel too nice, would it?
Obviously, reviewers can't (and, in fact, shouldn't) take into account the many obstacles the developer had to overcome when they were trying to create a good quality game and get it out onto the shelves. All reviewers can do is work with what they play with and in no way should this influence their overall feeling of a game, because it'd be the average gamer who suffers, having to spend their hard-earned on a game they don't like, as critics can hold a lot of sway with gamers, and can sometimes decide if a game does well or not. Obviously, some game reviews don't really influence how well a game does. Even though GTA IV got relatively universal praise, I doubt very much that if it hadn't it wouldn't affect how much that particular game will sell. However, GTA IV is an incredibly well established franchise, what happens when a fledging developer puts out a new IP only for it to get completely derided in the gaming press? It'd hit the games' sales and would affect the developer's future a hell of a lot.
To be honest, I'm not too sure what I'm getting at. Maybe it's that I feel new developers should be helped along the way when they first start. They should be nurtured and cared for until they finally have the confidence to take off their metaphorical training wheels and go it alone in the big bad world. Maybe even smaller, or indie, developing houses could get the same treatment? Surely it would only benefit the industry if this were case? So, maybe critics and reviewers and the like should tread a little more carefully around a game from a new developer. Like I said, their final opinion of the game should be the same as if it'd come from a major developer, but could they at least go a little easier on them?
Say you were made to create a game, but had a lot of things going against you, like, for instance time constraints or this being your very first game and what have you, and your finished product doesn't come out quite the way you wanted it to and thusly receives a bunch of negative reviews. You'd feel pretty hard done by, wouldn't you? Imagine having all the work you've just spent the last 2 or 3 years on being paraded in public and roundly criticised. That wouldn't feel too nice, would it?
Obviously, reviewers can't (and, in fact, shouldn't) take into account the many obstacles the developer had to overcome when they were trying to create a good quality game and get it out onto the shelves. All reviewers can do is work with what they play with and in no way should this influence their overall feeling of a game, because it'd be the average gamer who suffers, having to spend their hard-earned on a game they don't like, as critics can hold a lot of sway with gamers, and can sometimes decide if a game does well or not. Obviously, some game reviews don't really influence how well a game does. Even though GTA IV got relatively universal praise, I doubt very much that if it hadn't it wouldn't affect how much that particular game will sell. However, GTA IV is an incredibly well established franchise, what happens when a fledging developer puts out a new IP only for it to get completely derided in the gaming press? It'd hit the games' sales and would affect the developer's future a hell of a lot.
To be honest, I'm not too sure what I'm getting at. Maybe it's that I feel new developers should be helped along the way when they first start. They should be nurtured and cared for until they finally have the confidence to take off their metaphorical training wheels and go it alone in the big bad world. Maybe even smaller, or indie, developing houses could get the same treatment? Surely it would only benefit the industry if this were case? So, maybe critics and reviewers and the like should tread a little more carefully around a game from a new developer. Like I said, their final opinion of the game should be the same as if it'd come from a major developer, but could they at least go a little easier on them?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment