I legitimately, honestly, genuinely don't get this. Uncharted 4: A Thief's End releases, and everybody trips over themselves to give the game a 10. That's fine- I personally don't think the game is worth a 10, but if someone were to tell me they thought it was, I wouldn't argue the point with them much, I'd just assume they got more out of the things the game did well than I did.
So far, so good then- but then the end of the year rolls around, and none of these critics who were gushing over themselves calling Uncharted 4 the next evolution of storytelling in videogames, and other equally hyperbolic crap, are willing to award the damn game with the Game of the Year award- a lot won't even nominate it. Gamespot, IGN, Eurogamer, The Game Awards, you name it- Uncharted 4 apparently doesn't deserve a Game of the Year from any of them.
I'm not here to argue that it does- personally, I won't award it the award myself either (it's not even the best console game I have played this year). I don't actually care if Uncharted 4 gets an award or not, I do care about consistency- if these guys were willing to award Uncharted 4 with the highest scores, to the extent that Uncharted 4 is currently the highest rated game of the generation (tied for it anyway), then why not follow through on that? They clearly thought Uncharted 4 was a game that was something special- why hesitate to give it top honors? Giving the game top scores, but not awarding it implies dishonesty- either critics are being dishonest with their awards now, or they were dishonest when they awarded the game a 10, hyping themselves up into a frenzy and ignoring all its faults.
Which is it? And in either case, can we really trust critics in this case?
The problem with gaming critics and the gaming community at large is that they don't even know what they should like in their own medium. What should be praised first? Gameplay, or story? Can you neglect one while excelling in the other? It's amazing how different the opinions are in what constitutes a good video game, and this isn't good.
Prior to the shitastic Star Wars and the emergence of asinine blockbusters, most audiences and critics generally agreed upon what would constitute a good film: this is why a film such as The Godfather was both the highest grossing film of 1972 and considered a stone-cold artistic classic upon release. But even when critical standards are lower for "popcorn films" today, you can't get away with bad acting, production values, dialogue etc just because you're focusing on special effects and movie star power, because the ideas for "the standard" have previously been entrenched in the minds of critics and audiences.
Critically assessing games is still generally up in the air. I fully believe that there are games out there from which you can derive what should be assessed in a great game (Overwatch and its critical and commercial, seemingly longtail success comes to mind. Hitman's critical long tail also comes to mind), but critics haven't yet done what music, film, and television critics have done and extrapolated from excellent examples of yesterday, just what makes a video game good.
Thus, when you don't have a list of standards from which you can refer to, you're easily swept away by glitz and glamour, such as a Playstation 4 exclusive, heavily marketed, with huge production values and cinema-like presentation i.e Uncharted 4.
Log in to comment