User Info: Mwulf Mwulf 10 years ago #1



I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to call Ryckert out on his review of Yakuza 3 in the latest issue of Game Informer. Before I do so, I should state that the criticisms I'm about to level against him also apply, perhaps to an even greater degree, to the majority of your staff and the entire gaming industry itself--from the journalists to the developers and marketers and yes, even my fellow gamers.



The Xbox 360 marked a major turning point for the gaming industry. It was the first time an American company was able to compete in the home-console market, that until then had been completely dominated by the Japanese. You know this, I know. It also marked a turning point for gaming journalism and criticism: Western games became inherently superior to Japanese games, and Japanese games became inherently inferior to Western games. Any gamer who has ever voiced an appreciation or affinity for a Japanese game on any online message board in the past five years knows exactly what I'm talking. In terms of gaming journalism, Japanese games have been buffeted with nonsense criticisms like linearity, cliche, lack of innovation, and archaic gameplay--and review scores suffer. Western games, too, are bolstered with equally nonsensical praises--every blockbuster Western title is praised as innovative, no matter whether it or isn't (I look now very specifically at Dragon Age). Non-linear gameplay and "multiple ending" have become synonymous with "good," despite the fact that the games built upon those buzzwords feature some of the absolute worst writing in gaming history. No, I'm not going to provide examples because I'm endeavoring to be concise.



Frankly put, it's a mess. It's an environment of favoritism that does both the industry and the consumers an immense disservice. And it needs to stop right now. For me, Ran Ryckert's review of Yakuza 3 was the final straw. I just cannot tolerate this kind of BS any more.



Dan gives Yakuza 3 a 6.5 out of 10. Why? He complains of performing too many menial tasks right off the bat.... as though the plethora of optional content (a huge array of side-quests and mini-games) is somehow uniformly bad, and ALSO mandatory. He complains about fighting generic, weak enemies--and I defy you to name me one good game in recent memory that did not inolve fights against generic, weak enemies.



Worst of all, he complains that the combat mechanics are "last gen." What, then, is next gen? Halo 3, for example, played to me nearly exactly the same as Halo 1. God of War III, too, plays virtually identically to God of War I. Why have neither of those games been singled out for last-gen gameplay, their scores docked?



"Outside of the repetitive fights," Dan says. "gameplay is mostly confined to walking around and talking to people... to advance the story." Don't most games take that approach? Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, Final Fantasy XIII, The Witcher, Ratchet & Clank, Fable II... all of these games took the exact same approach. How is that a demerit? How does a game like Yakuza 3, with a deeper melee combat mechanic than any other game this generation, get criticized in this respect? Dan says nothing of the game's writing. He says nothing of the actual combat mechanics, save to intimate that they are somehow tedious and dull, which is an opinion I refuse to believe anyone who has ever spent any time with any Yakuza game can possibly hold. His criticisms stand solely on "last-gen gameplay" and repetitive optional content.



"...Blame this on the misfortune of your birth."

-Char Aznable I actually wrote a letter to 'em criticizing every aspect of that godawful drivel. I mean, goddammit. In case any one cares (yeah, I know most of ya' don't) here's what I told 'em.I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to call Ryckert out on his review of Yakuza 3 in the latest issue of Game Informer. Before I do so, I should state that the criticisms I'm about to level against him also apply, perhaps to an even greater degree, to the majority of your staff and the entire gaming industry itself--from the journalists to the developers and marketers and yes, even my fellow gamers.The Xbox 360 marked a major turning point for the gaming industry. It was the first time an American company was able to compete in the home-console market, that until then had been completely dominated by the Japanese. You know this, I know. It also marked a turning point for gaming journalism and criticism: Western games became inherently superior to Japanese games, and Japanese games became inherently inferior to Western games. Any gamer who has ever voiced an appreciation or affinity for a Japanese game on any online message board in the past five years knows exactly what I'm talking. In terms of gaming journalism, Japanese games have been buffeted with nonsense criticisms like linearity, cliche, lack of innovation, and archaic gameplay--and review scores suffer. Western games, too, are bolstered with equally nonsensical praises--every blockbuster Western title is praised as innovative, no matter whether it or isn't (I look now very specifically at Dragon Age). Non-linear gameplay and "multiple ending" have become synonymous with "good," despite the fact that the games built upon those buzzwords feature some of the absolute worst writing in gaming history. No, I'm not going to provide examples because I'm endeavoring to be concise.Frankly put, it's a mess. It's an environment of favoritism that does both the industry and the consumers an immense disservice. And it needs to stop right now. For me, Ran Ryckert's review of Yakuza 3 was the final straw. I just cannot tolerate this kind of BS any more.Dan gives Yakuza 3 a 6.5 out of 10. Why? He complains of performing too many menial tasks right off the bat.... as though the plethora of optional content (a huge array of side-quests and mini-games) is somehow uniformly bad, and ALSO mandatory. He complains about fighting generic, weak enemies--and I defy you to name me one good game in recent memory that did not inolve fights against generic, weak enemies.Worst of all, he complains that the combat mechanics are "last gen." What, then, is next gen? Halo 3, for example, played to me nearly exactly the same as Halo 1. God of War III, too, plays virtually identically to God of War I. Why have neither of those games been singled out for last-gen gameplay, their scores docked?"Outside of the repetitive fights," Dan says. "gameplay is mostly confined to walking around and talking to people... to advance the story." Don't most games take that approach? Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, Final Fantasy XIII, The Witcher, Ratchet & Clank, Fable II... all of these games took the exact same approach. How is that a demerit? How does a game like Yakuza 3, with a deeper melee combat mechanic than any other game this generation, get criticized in this respect? Dan says nothing of the game's writing. He says nothing of the actual combat mechanics, save to intimate that they are somehow tedious and dull, which is an opinion I refuse to believe anyone who has ever spent any time with any Yakuza game can possibly hold. His criticisms stand solely on "last-gen gameplay" and repetitive optional content.