Jacob Ross at Save/Continue writes:
"When I read a video game review of any sort, be it professional or otherwise, I carry aboard certain expectations. I expect the critic to have a base level of gaming competence as to not compromise the review with irrelevant frustrations of their own creation. I expect the critic to have the writing ability to expound on their praises with clarity and levy criticism with incisiveness. I expect the critic to have finished the game, or to have experienced enough content to render sound judgement in the rare cases where just "beating" the game would be short of comprehensive.
Many reviews fail to meet even these most basic of standards."
Microsoft just posted the third quarter of its 2024 fiscal financial results. The software maker made $61.9 billion in revenue and a net income of $21.9 billion during Q3. Revenue is up 17 percent, and net income has increased by 20 percent.
Xbox content + services up 62% while hardware down 31%... seems about right with the way they tout you don't need the hardware to play. People can play on their phones or smart tv or other means. I don't hardly play on my consoles directly since getting devices like the logitech g-cloud and ps portal. Which is to also say I have been playing more digital than physical because of these devices.
Too expensive hardware when others offer the same or more for less? Good work, Green Team.
"Despite some early successes for Xbox games on rival platforms, Xbox hardware is down by a massive 31 percent this quarter."
"Without Activision Blizzard, Microsoft’s overall gaming revenue would have actually declined this quarter."
"Xbox content and services would have only been up a single percent without Activision Blizzard..."
"It looks like next quarter is going to be a similar story for gaming at Microsoft, too."
That is crazy... so A/B/K is carrying the whole Xbox gaming.
Oh and Microsoft will be fine. Windows, Office and Cloud are growing with each pc purchase.
As of right now, there are no monopolies in the games industry, and for the sake of the medium as a whole, they never should either.
And yet the biggest tech companies in America are essentially that. They buy up all the small comps only to kill them off and steal what they have, and if they can't buy em they bleed them to death.
They buy IPs not talent. That's why these buyouts never work and the IPs die. Right now it's too expensive to develop games - but I expect that to shift maybe as AI tools can make it easier. The best games have been indie games for awhile as big developers fuck their ips to death with "games as a service" -
GL compiles a list of some of the most mind-blowing video game narrative twists in recent memory, from The Last of Us to Outer Wilds
With articles like these cant you tag the games mentioned so that we can know ahead of time if there’s a spoiler to avoid?
Not clicking on your article otherwise.
This guy's just another one of those people who desperately want games to exist in a bubble safe from issues of politics and culture, and he's trying to force them into that bubble. They can't and never will be able to exist outside those things.
This isn't "ideology" we're dealing with here. We're dealing with humanism, sensitivity, decency, and responsibility. If it were ideology, there would be an underlying power motive- a grab for some manner of supremacy. Ideology is deployed as a "hypothetical universal"- a distorted form of reality taken as reality itself as a whole. This allows for exclusivity and exclusion, as well as elitism. These things enable the assertion of a kind of power over others. This is not what cultural critique is. Cultural critique aims to question preconceptions and complacencies we have, as well as to heighten people's consciousnesses about what is fundamentally the idea of living in a world with other people, and the responsibility, consideration, senstitivity, decency, inclusivity, and respect that this requires.
I don't really think he is saying that, after reading most of the article so far.
He even went as far as to say:
"Subjectivity within reason."
...which related to one of the main themes of the article, which is that reviews are supposed to be mostly objective, leaving out personal prejudices, bias, agenda, etc. (for the most part)
You are correct that games shouldn't exist in a bubble, but he mentioned that critics are free to address those issues as long as they don't ignore positive aspects of the game as well.
The author references a review of bladerunner where the author ignored positive aspects of movie because they personally(subjectively) were angry about certain aspects, therefore making them lose an unreasonable amount of objectivity.
I find that a lot of the overly sensitive sensationalist reviews are often pushing some agenda anyway, like trying to get people riled up, make a name for themselves, get hits or sales, exact some kind of fury upon something they don't like etc.
A responsible reviewer can voice their concerns and still give commentary on what other positive aspects the game may have to offer.
I am speaking as an artist and one who wishes to see video games elevated into high art within the cultural eye.
Firstly; posting an article attempting to convince others to leave notions of fully critiquing art at the door in favor of formalistic review might be better served if the author didn't place pictures of sexualized women all over their piece. It comes off as immature, and gives me the idea you're simply defending your desire to see over sexualized women in the medium of games. Which you are.
There is a difference between a review and a critique. A review is an overview designed to benefit the consumer. A critique is an assessment of artistic concepts using many different viewing methods to explain the piece and it's meaning if any.
I am all for defending games as a medium of art. Games should be allowed to tackle mature, controversial topics as much as film or books can. However, defending the medium as an art to achieve a selfish agenda that does not benefit the medium as an art, is a fruitless and pathetic endeavor. The over sexualization, the pandering to people based on their gender, the conditioning of a product to sell as much as possible---is not art and does not lead to art. The inclusion of any of these should classify the game as poor. Gameplay can not and should not forgive sexist, racists, or other any other type of dehumanizing ideas. Holding up the “art” shield to defend your position when it suits and benefits you, not only damages the elevation of the medium of as art, but makes you look foolish.
On a final note: “Because despite your vile portrayal of us as oafish, adolescent boors who instinctively holler and drool at even the slightest glimpse of cleavage, we are not stupid.” --Quote from the article.
I find it interesting the author didn't refute the generalizations made against him and the group he represents, he simply clarified -as they stand- to be of satisfactory intelligence. Made me giggle.
In total agreement. Reviews should at least strive for objectivity. Once you let your personal feelings seep into a piece, it loses credibility as a review.