Game Critics - Response

A lot of critics proved my points in the video with their pathetic responses.

http://www.funnyjunk.com/channel/vidyagaems/Dunkey+pisses+off+game+critics/zrlrLme/



On the other hand I've seen a few level-headed more thought out responses as well, which is something my video unfortunately did not cover. There are quality writers in the field. Here I'm going to respond to a few of the better responses to my video.



Paul Tassi's article on Forbes.com

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2017/07/09/i-dont-follow-dunkeys-contradictory-arguments-about-video-game-critics/#887bc5d4bc96



Philip Kollars response on twitter

https://twitter.com/pkollar/status/884283045758459907



Paul Tamburro's article on Craveonline.com

http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/1292341-dunkey-many-others-get-wrong-game-reviews



"If you make the effort you can follow individual writers who appear on the big websites"



This is semi-true. Most people when they see a review by IGN, they just go ok IGN gave that game a 7. They don't bother looking at who wrote the review. Some websites are formatted better than others, but clicking on the authors name on IGN is particularly worthless.



http://people.ign.com/dornbush-ign



Following them on twitter is probably a more universal approach, but I wouldn't recommend it myself because GOD DAMN. A lot of these cats are tweeting 100+ things a day. That shit is not acceptable.



Kotaku is formatted in a more thoughtful way as to just give you a list of the writer's previous articles when you click on them. https://kinja.com/ceciliadanastasio



"Game Critics are consistently wrong"



I wasn't actually trying to make this point, but i'm sure there are reviewers out there who just have terrible taste. Just a quick look at the highest rated games of all time on metacritic will give you a pretty solid list of classics.



Ocarina of Time, Tony Hawk, Mario Galaxy 2, Halo,, Mass Effect 2, Bioshock



But it also reveals a lame infatuation with the technical side of videogames.



Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Grand Theft Auto 3-5, Half Life 2, Littlebigplanet



These games were hugely impressive when they released, but are much less so today. Now that their technical innovations have been absorbed by everything else you can look at the core design in a cleaner way.



"The scoring system is fucked"



Pretty much every critic response has agreed with me here, with the exception of Paul Tassi's article who disagrees. The irony is that his article illustrates beautifully why the system is so fucked.



I've seen responses by critics detailing how editors will guide them towards what kind of score they should give a game. I've seen responses about how they're pressured by fan reaction to give certain scores.



I feel there's a consensus here that while review scores are dishonest in a lot of different ways.



"Rushing reviews"



This is probably the most contentious point in my video. I've seen responses claiming there is no "rat race" at all to get your review done on time and I've seen others saying "of course time constraints and deadlines are going to effect reviews".



I know for a fact that websites want to get their reviews up on the day of a game's release, or better yet before it actually comes out. Maybe not every single website approaches it like that, but it's obviously a generally held belief.



Do reviewers get games early enough to form strong opinions on them? Do review embargoes actually work as to not give advantage to reviewers sacrificing quality to be earlier.? I'm still not so sure.



"There are no good sonic games"



Now you fucked up. Go play Sonic 3 right now and realize the error of your ways.









Reply · Report Post