I'm simply saying that in light of this discussion that despite my dislike of the game there is enough evidence to suggest that a lot of people did like the game. That is ALL I'm saying. I'm not saying reviews should have any regard to sales but we're having a discussion here about a game and a review of a game that has been out for ages and I'm just saying that it is possible to justify ones position by saying "I'm not the only person who loved the game."
Here's something to ponder - I'd rather watch Robocop, Starship Troopers, Total Recall or even Showgirls than Citizen Kane, 12 Angry Men, Chinatown or Schindler's List. With my (unquestionably bad) taste, should I be a paid film critic? Definitely not. Well maybe as part of a niche market that intentionally reviews bad movies for their ironic entertainment value.
By the same token, should a critic who has quite happily ignored the terrible scripts, acting and poor production quality of such films point to my opinion as justification for their own ignorance? Does "I enjoyed the movie, and I'm not the only one" constitute a meaningful criticism?
To keep it going, is it really that hard to attach qualifying statements to praise and criticism of various facets? "Oblivion has oodles of content for players who want to jump in and have adventure at their fingertips, but more seasoned players looking for depth or challenge will be left wanting, blah blah..." If nothing else, games reviews are guilty of assuming all tastes are the same.
But I digress. Just a little.
I'm just raising it here in this discussion; this is not an indication of the review procedure. Just a response to the theory that positive Oblivion reviews are 'wrong'.
Well aren't they? I'd have thought that a professional critic is paid because they have an informed opinion and an ability to cut a game to pieces and evaluate it objectively.Or at the very least, recognise and acknowledge the sub-sets of gamers likely to be interested in a game and address their primary concerns. Is that unreasonable?
Of course their should be positive reviews of Oblivion out there, because it holds a lot of appeal to a lot of people. And with the utmost respect, a good many of those people seem ignorant of historical precedent. Within my own social circles, the RPG nuts stayed well clear, and scoffed at Oblivion. The gamers took a look and were fairly divided. The guys with no gaming background and enough disposable income to have nice LCD TVs and 360s/PS3s thoroughly enjoyed it. For a while.
And I have no problem at all with critics serving all those varied tastes. But shouldn't the reviews for the casual players be written up in the entertainment/tech pages of the newspaper, while the dedicated gaming publications serve the dedicated gamer? Obviously the RPG nuts take refuge in sites such as this one, but there should at least be some sort of gradient ranging from the ebullient praise of the casual to the scathing cynicism of the fanatic. As it stands, there's a massive drop-off because the gaming publications serve the casuals.
I don't know how you can claim that, but it is false. Simply put, telling people they only thought they liked something but they actually didn't is just really arrogant.
I don't think it's false. You can't take anyone's enjoyment away from them, and in the case of any other form of criticism, there is usually a divide of snobbery between the layman and the critic. The whole "Fuck you if you didn't like Police Academy, Roger Ebert. Me and my friends thought it was fucking hilarious!" kind of thing. The whole "Sucks to be you, RPG Codex, you basement dwelling mouth-breathers - Oblivion is awesome, and by hating it you're missing out on the best game ever" thing.
I don't see a problem with critics and the layman being at sixes and sevens. And I don't see what there is to be gained by pandering to the tastes of the ignorant, or pretending their opinion is any more informed than it is.
And yes, that's arrogant to the point of sheer cuntedness. But isn't that exactly what "my opinion is so informed and highly-regarded that people will
pay just to hear it" is? In any case, a critic has no duty of care toward his audience or the object of criticism besides telling the truth. I don't think "not wanting to hurt their feelings" should come into things.
Not that I quite meant that the way it came out. I'm not denying anyone's enjoyment, I'm just saying that their enjoyment is not necessarily based on the immediate gameplay, but rather the pursuit of intangible short term goals - which is grounds for criticism of both the underdeveloped immediate gameplay and also the lack of more effective short term rewards, like a better character levelling system or a random loot/quest generator.
Besides, what's a more effective review? The one that states a long list of flaws that many players will dismiss as unimportant nitpickery and enjoy the game regardless of - or one that regurgitates the PR hotpoints, features and hooks, slaps a "best game ever" label on it, and leaves more experienced players wondering if they're playing the same game that sounds so wonderful.
I personally didn't like Oblivion much. I vastly preferred MW, although that had flaws as well. But I'm not going to go claiming that just because I thought that, anyone who thinks different is either self deluded or an idiot.
It's not about calling anyone deluded or idiotic - it's about ignorance. Admittedly, many people might take that personally because everyone wants to think they're a fucking expert, but most Oblivion reviews I read failed to make comparisons to Morrowind, let alone unfavourable comparisons to Morrowind, and that's just not good enough, because it's ignorant to even the last five years of gaming.
At the very least, a critic should be able to critically evaluate a sequel with reference to its predecessor, but as far as I'm concerned, if a critic can't trace Oblivion back to its roots in Arena, then they're not qualified to offer an expert critical view on the subject.
So if a man that intelligent liked Oblivion that much, how do you reconcile that fact with your views on the title? And he isn't the only one. I work with some incredibly bright people at my job, people who develop really complex software systems and do it very well. Many of them are console gamers, many loved Oblivion, and Halo, and WoW. These are not stupid people. Not by a long shot.
I'm not calling anyone stupid. Over the christmas break, I spent a day drinking beers and playing Halo with a Doctor of Biochemistry, a fourth-year med student and a lawyer with a couple of university medals under his belt. Not stupid people by any stretch of the imagination. But ignorant of games and gaming history.
So would I trust any of them to critically evaluate Halo? To a small extent. They obviously enjoy the game and can describe high and low points, but lack the fine analytical detail and comparative perspective. For instance, in their eyes, the sniper rifle was useless, the active camoflage "cheating" and the best maps were those in tight quarters. Are any of those criticisms valid, or can we chalk them up to lack of experience?
The same applies to any critical analysis. It's not about people being stupid, it's about being uninformed or lacking understanding of the particular subject at hand.
So saying "I don't believe the market really enjoyed Oblivion", I'm sorry, I disagree, even if I personally didn't think it great.
That's not what I was trying to say. I'm questioning the reasons for their enjoyment - ie, not because of it's gameplay, but because of the higher level aspects - and even then, they're limited to a huge range of simple quests and fairly cosmetic character choices.
And, for the record, these people don't go and rate the game online, most don't give a damn about joining gamespy or whoevers online community. But these people all thoroughly enjoyed the title. So while I personally found Oblivion pretty unsatisfactory in many, many aspects, I do think, for many people, it did count as a "great game". And since gaming media represents the common viewpoint, rather than the niche one, I don't think this means they are all lying douchebags, yes?
Yeah, and I'm arguing against the gaming media opting to represent the casual viewpoint. With the exception of the 360 version, the user review
average for Oblivion is about on par or
below the lowest "professional" review. There's obviously a clear disparity between the internet-posting gamer and the gaming media. So who exactly are they writing for? I'd be happy enough for non-specific media outlets, such as newspapers to present an ignorant and inexperienced viewpoint, but shouldn't we expect more from specialist game media?
And I don't really agree with your wine analogy. Do people like Coyote and my co-workers have bad taste just because they get something different from Oblivion than I do? Are their opinions "wrong"?
Let's not call it bad taste. We'll go with less-refined, less-discerning, less-experienced, or in certain cases just outright different. Whatever the case, is it that hard to make a distinction, especially in the context of a professional review? I haven't seen many reviews in recent times that actually address the differing tastes of gamers. The closest we seem to get are fluff pieces about Fallout 3 trying to condemn the fan(atic)s. And without expection, they utterly fail to understand the reasoning of the Fallout "faithful" and dismiss them out of hand.
And to specifically address Coyote's point of view:
Oblivion was over 120 hours of play, and probably 20 of it was really awesome. [...] I know there's a lot of disgust at how much shorter games are getting these days, but frankly, as a working-class joe with a family and free time at a premium, I'd rather play a really awesome 15-hour game than a 45+ hour game with lots of "filler."
Oblivion - the story sucked. I mean, it really sucked. Your character was a fill-in-the-blanks person, and I didn't find most of the characters to be all that likable. But the world - wow. The world was compelling, and I don't just mean graphically. It felt explorable. There was interesting stuff to find all over the place, and the bajillion subquests were often very entertaining and had some nice twists.
the only thing minimalist about NetHack is the graphics. From an underlying gameplay standpoint, Oblivion is minimalist by comparison.
Note there's actually criticism and qualifying statements among all of that, and aside from more praise for the exploration elements, a point of view not too far from my own.
Certainly they are wrong for me, but claiming they are self deluded is unjustified, I reckon. Also, your high and mighty critics are losing influence in comparison to things like metacritic, why? Because people are interested in what other people like them think about Media Product X.
Of course. However, I can still see a place for informed criticism to coexist along with peer customer opinion. There's even a place for humourous critical excess, such as Zero Punctuation. I'm not quite so sure where the future is in publishing a review that reads like a "user reviews" comment. With the advent of the communication revolution, marketing and advertising is continually evolving. One day, the ad revenue that the gaming media relies on will be spent elsewhere, and it's game over.
Having some asshat sneer at Iron Man just because it isn't deep or whatever is not something I have any interest in, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and plan to buy the DVD. For what it is, it rocks. I want people who enjoy what I enjoy telling me that this product X is the type of thing I will probably enjoy. Thats why I read the Codex.
Even though I have a distinct preference for trashy movies and such, I can still see the value in informed criticism, and think it fills an important role within the system of consumer entertainment. If nothing else, it keeps those responsible for production of said entertainment on their toes and moving forward - if they care about criticism.
For me as a consumer, I'm like you. I generally make up my mind about movies/games based on comments from likeminded individuals. For me as a developer, I'd rather see my ideas torn apart on their merits or lack thereof. Professional critical analysis has its place.
I'm not going to begrudge ElPresident from enjoying the game as he did, and serving people like Coyote who have different interests from me. Especially given that he rated Witcher etc highly. I mean, I don't like the Sims either, yet many people, including one of my best friends, absolutely love it.
But can you see why they love it? Do you make an attempt to analyse the game beyond your own subjective lack of enjoyment?