So yeah, that one VentureBeat video with Dean Takahashi playing Cuphead.
Everyone is talking about it, so I guess I may as well too.
For those that don't know, a guy who isn't a game critic - but actually is if you decide
to do some research - decided to play Cuphead for 30 minutes and… well, I was gonna say
it was shit, but that can at least be used as fertilizer.
Now, some have pointed out that despite this guy being a games journalist for 18 years,
he's more into the tech behind games and not the actual playing of them.
Well, maybe he shouldn't have been given the controller then.
Maybe he shouldn't have made objective mistakes like saying it was made by the Super Meat
Boy boys.
Maybe he shouldn't have passed judgment on games like Mass Effect and Warhammer 40k
with his clearly flawed understanding and limited experience.If he's not a reviewer,
maybe he shouldn't title his articles "Reviews."
Also, if that really is the case, and he was only put on the spot because VentureBeat needed
someone to play the game and just anyone at all would do - then I guess VentureBeat is
just as much at fault as Dean is.
If he's really all about tech, then I guess all I can say is - it's a good thing Nintendo
didn't listen to his advice when he advised them to buy the Ouya.
But ya know, credit where credit is due, Dean did call out Microsoft in the past for trying
to pay off reviewers with free Xbox 360 consoles.
Anyway, I wanted to just voice some responses to … responses that I've seen on the net.
"you don't need to be mechanically proficient to provide review on whatever, otherwise only
pro-gamers should be the ones reviewing games."
I'm sorry, you don't need to be mechanically proficient?
You don't need to be able to understand the mechanics of a game to review it?
So do you not have to have ANY qualifications then?
I would think understanding a game on a mechanical level is THE MOST BASIC REQUIREMENT.
Mechanically proficient is not savant-level mastery, it's just having an understanding
of the skeleton, so to speak, of the game.
Would you trust a film review from someone who didn't know what cinematography means?
You don't have to be a star athlete to be a sports journalist, but you do need to understand
the rules of the game.
Being able to write a review is only part of the equation.
You wouldn't let a guy write a report on theoretical physics just because you liked
his work in Penthouse.
Also, semantics, but pro-gamers are the ones reviewing games.
Professional means you are getting paid.
Thus, anyone who reviews games for a living is by definition a pro gamer.
"This was not a review, so there's really no reason it should spark that debate again."
You're right, it's not a review.
It was a preview.
It was meant to give us a taste of what the full game was like.
This is going to leave a very sour taste in most folks' mouths.
If it was purely just a joke, then they should have had another video to complement this.
Like I said, suppose this guy is just a tech reviewer and it was like giving your mother
the controller and recording it.
Well, maybe the organization that's doling out the checks should have … given a shit?
Also - HE IS A REVIEWER.
He has plenty of reviews on VentureBeat.
Skill doesn't just deactivate when you aren't on the clock.
"Considering the sheer volume of games a reviewer has to crawl through, expertise at
any specific form of gaming isn't reasonable to expect of them."
Expertise?
Is basic reading and problem solving skills an expertise now?
It tells you how to jump, then it immediately tells you how to dash.
It shouldn't take nearly 2 minutes to figure out that the game wants you to combine these
skills.
Again, keep in mind, this guy is getting paid to do this - and has been getting paid to
do this for 18 years.
If he's supposed to be talking purely about the business or science behind gaming, then
don't put a controller in his hand and expect us to be satisfied with his output.
Don't have him tell us that Warhammer 40K is a Gears of War rip off or that Mass Effect
is too hard and expect us to let him continue spouting misinformation.
"I'm bad at shmups and 2D fighters.
I got Jamestown and Skullgirls because reviews said they were accessible to people who aren't
good at the genre yet.
That perspective is valid and valuable, even if it isn't to you."
You'd have to be well versed at 2D Fighters to know that Skullgirls is more accessible
than the likes of Street Fighter or King of Fighters.
You'd have to have played shmups like DoDonPachi and Mushihimesama to be able to understand
that Jamestown is much more lenient than them.
How can you definitively say that Game A is more accessible than Game B if you do not
understand both games on a mechanical level?
You can't.
Without that understanding, it's just an opinion with a basis on little more than a feeling.
Anyone can do a review.
God knows YouTube has plenty of yahoos who do them, and plenty of let's plays with a
shit ton of likes that aren't that good.
This is the stupidest response I've heard.
I really, really don't understand this line of thinking.
YouTube didn't hire those people.
They aren't being paid for the professional opinion.
This guy is.
There is not a bit of equivalence in this.
"Hey, it's okay that the doctor performed the surgery wrong, back alley doctors make
mistakes all the time!"
You are a professional.
You damn well better know what you are talking about.
When I can instantly think of a dozen amateurs who have more credentials than you, that's
not a good look.
The debate is ostensibly, "Should video game journalists be good at video games?"
but it's more like, "Is it OK to unleash all the firepower of an angry mob against
a video games journalist who is bad at a video game?"
The answer to both of these questions is: Yes.
What power do we as the general public - the ones you are supposed to be in service of
- have other than this?
Oh, but wait, let's look at Dean's response to the response.
I've watched the comments on this thread just to see how mean they would be.
I think it's useful to show my gameplay experience.
I did not intentionally play poorly to "troll" anyone.
But it serves as an interesting social experiment.
I walk into a game cold, and this is the play that results.
The video shows it's a notch more difficult than your typical Mario game.
A social experiment?
Really!?
That's a pretty poor excuse for your terrible gameplay.
A notch more difficult than your typical Mario game?
I don't think anyone could glee anything from your video other than it was played by
a near-sighted drunk with an inner ear infection.
Demon's Souls was a lot of me dying my first time playing it, but I at least guarded, attacked,
dodge rolled, could move in a reasonable manner.
And that game had no tutorials.
We're not expecting you to speedrun the game, but we are expecting you to show basic
competency that any gamer of a year or two would have - how you managed to be in this
industry for two decades with this level of understanding of gaming is beyond me.
There are THOUSANDS of people who are dying to take your job.
He also points to Mario a lot in his response, saying that they should have done more to
differentiate it from Mario.
You do realize there's a lot more than just Mario when it comes to platformers, right?
In just the past five years, we've seen more new and returning big name platformers
since any time after the 90s.
How many games actually come with a tutorial these days?
A LOT.
They're not popular.
THEY ARE.
Games like Eat Lead, Saints Row and Far Cry have made fun of the ridiculousness of the
extremely commonplace forced tutorial in games, and Eat Lead came out in 2009.
It's been almost a decade.
Jesus, I'm old.
Making this statement makes it clear that you haven't actually played many games.
But if it's necessary, that is a signal this is going to require some skill.
It wouldn't require nearly as much skill if you'd actually READ.
The instructions are right there on the screen.
Now granted, some of the times that you failed were clearly cases where you knew the solution
(probably because someone straight up told you) but had execution errors, but those were
about 4 times.
You failed the jump more than 20 times.
I'm sorry, I can't feel sorry for you.
So when people tell me that I shouldn't be playing this game because, on my first
play, I was pretty lousy — that's an attitude that argues that games should be shut off
in their own little corner, only played publicly by the masters and the experts.
I disagree with that view entirely, and I believe it leads to elitist attitudes that
allow gamers to look down on other people, and that only leads to a more fragmented world
of haters.
And in a later article: That industry will grow bigger, and gamers
will get better games, if we embrace the new gamers.
We don't need to dumb games down.
We can have adjustable difficulty, so that the unskilled and skilled alike can play.
We can make tutorials even easier than the one that I failed at so miserably.
Some games have their entire identity built around their non-adjustable difficulty, from
games like Dark Souls to games like Super Mario Bros.
Would you really wish to strip away that identity, just to make yourself more comfortable?
Are games art, and as art should repel some who would experience it?
Or are games merely a product meant for mass consumption, that should be pleasant for everyone?
Games are not movies.
Games are not books.
They aren't music or TV.
They are games.
Think about some games.
Football.
Basketball.
Chess.
Why is it that no one bats an eye at these games requiring skill, but when it comes to
video games - oh, those have to have all the edges sanded down until it's nice and round
and anyone can win?
Have we really gotten to that point where everyone wants a participation trophy?
Everyone wants to win even if that victory is completely and utterly hollow?
As bad as you feel the "elitist attitudes" are, do you realize how entitled you are when
you call a game too difficult for failing to read instructions in a tutorial?
And you've seen the response, you are CLEARLY in the minority.
Even other members of the gaming press are calling you out for your incompetence.
Yet it's the elite gamers that are the problem, and the devs should break their back pleasing
you, NOT THEM.
It's the equivalent of complaining about Birdman being too difficult to understand
because you were expecting The Amazing Spider-Man.
I know a lot of people are trying to give Dean a pass for various reasons on this, but
look at this previous work.
Look at his review of Mass Effect, his review of Warhammer 40K Space Marine, his review
of Deus Ex Mankind Divided, his review of X-Com 2, heck even his coverage where he made
incorrect statements on objective facts like who developed Cuphead.
How can I trust anything he may have to say about his supposed field of expertise when
some much of the bullcrap that has could out of his mouth can be easily corrected with
a quick web search?
Dean has still shown himself to be WOEFULLY uninformed about gaming both here and in his
previous output.
Even with the gameplay completely thrown aside, he's gotten it wrong so many times in the
past, it truly is an inspiration.
He shows that all of us are able to get a job in the industry, as long as we know the
right people.
There's more important things than sinking Dean, though.
A lot of folks, especially within gaming journalism, are defending him despite his incompetence.
At best, this is them failing to do research on Dean and showing their own incompetence
when it comes to research.
At worst, this is them covering for Dean knowing fully the damage he does to this industry,
and likely a signal that they know they are just as incompetent and don't want the same
light shone on them.
Remember the names of those who would defend this fraud well.
If the only reason you are into gaming is for the cinematic experience that's about
on the level of a fanfic acted out by your local high school, then maybe gaming isn't
for you.
Maybe instead you should download Cody or Zack or whatever XBMC is calling itself today
and just download a movie.
I'd recommend The Room or The Last Vampire on Earth, as that's about on the same level
as what you are familiar with.
"But Mumkey!
It's expanding gaming for everybody!
Now everybody can be a gamer!"
Bullshit!
Just because you can cook spaghetti doesn't mean you are welcome to Flavor Town!
A game without gameplay is like a movie without a picture.
Possible?
Yes, technically, but you aren't taking advantage of the fullest extent of the medium.
I hate that so many people prefer to think that there's no such thing as artistry and
creativity within game mechanics themselves.
That's how we'll truly make games into art - by making art from the game, not the
story or the graphics or the music or any other aspect that can be replicated with more
control in any other medium.
For more infomation >> y West residents stays put: We're praying that it won't be a Hurricane Andrew - Duration: 3:31. 
For more infomation >> 'Wrap up those activities now,' says Palm Beach County EOC on curfew - Duration: 15:54. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét