Opinion: It appears that honest opinions aren't welcome in the world of games. I wonder why...
Yesterday we posted a gallery on the contents of the shiny new Reviewer's Kit for Gran Turismo 5, and took the opportunity to share our opinion on the game.
In short, and at the risk of further abuse... I don't get driving games of that kind, so took the opportunity to rant a little. The intention was to be a bit comical, a bit ranty, and to explain our thinking on why the game leaves us cold.
Which, it appears, is remarkably unwelcome.
The matter of personal opinion, subjective review, and objective appraisal comes up often in regards to gaming, and it seems - at least in parts Atomic - that a personal opinion of a game is remarkably unwelcome. But I cannot help but think that when it comes to games, just like cinema, personal opinion is all you can have.
A game is more than a mechanical array of code and mechanics, now more so than ever before. They are emotive stories, relying upon narrative investment to hook players. Even detailed simulations, of any kind, rely upon a base emotional interest. In the case of GT, for instance, it's the love the car, of that fine racing line. Even less serious games rely upon comedy, or just sheer happiness for their allure.
So, it seems natural then that some games are going to be liked, and some disliked.
Of course, this is a truism that probably doesn't need explaining - look at our forums for many such opinions for and against pretty much any game you can name. Even complete game reviews draw that same commentary, and it's business as usual to see people both passionately agree and disagree with a given ruling.
However, it seems that, as a games journalist, having any kind of similar personal opinion is strictly verboten.
Well, in all honesty, I quite utterly reject that.
Games are not like hardware - they cannot be reduced to suite benchmarks or numbers. Instead, they are quite purely subjective, and there's not way around that. Look at Halo - it's a hugely popular series, and our own estimation of the game just happens to gel with the larger consensus. But does that invalidate the thousands of gamers who don't like it?
Of course not! And we'd consider it remarkably un-Atomican if we were to look down on gamers who disagreed with us.
Of course, the inversion is even more of a challenge. When we do honestly dislike a game - even one from a genre that we're fond of - it's a common cry to hear that game X scored well on MetaCritic, and therefore any opinion otherwise is invalid.
The full extension of this kind of thinking leads to dangerously homogenised state of play. Imagine if all reviewers checked their real opinion at the door and moderated their scoring on the mass of reviewers that have gone before... how would that serve the gameplaying public?
And even more than that, how does me keeping my opinions quiet help you, as a reader? I believe that honest, personal disclosure helps build a picture of the reviewer. Anyone who reads a few issues of Atomic can work out quite easily where my gaming predilections lie. If it has power armour or Napoleon for instance (and I pray for the game that delivers both!), I'll probably like it, for instance.
It's often all too easy to forget that the person writing a review, or a news piece, or whatever, is a gamer just like you. And it's often all too easy to forget that Atomic has been built on robust opinion, honest review, and a certain degree of "Hey, we're just like you"-ism. Just like you in that there are games we love, and games we hate.
And, that when we know we have a possibly biased dislike of a game (a la GT5), we'll find a more appropriate reviewer, or even not review the game if we can get away with it. I'm sure no one wants the alternative - an empty review written based on others' opinions, rather than our own honest one.
I think it would be doing readers a disservice to not be honest about our gaming biases. And if that's going to lead to people losing respect for me or Atomic, I honestly suggest the problem is not with the reviewer.
Issue: 137 | June, 2012