Websnark

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 7, 2005 11:50 AM

Okay, it's really funny to see someone complain about the lack of passion in SoulCalibur. Given how central greed and coldly clinical death is to the game, passion has always something the player and not the programmer put into the game.

I don't know so much that it's that much tougher. Namco tweaked the AI, and you just haven't found its glaring deficiencies yet. Trust me, they're there.

As for the new characters - I'll admit, fighting games generally benefit from a badass wielding a scythe (exhibit A: Testament from the Guilty Gear series). However, the girl with the bladed hula hoop (and don't try to pretend it was something else) completely wiped out my hopes for good new characters. It would be one thing to see a fighter like Clay Fighter or Ballz 3D revived and make a character like that. But she is completely out of place in SoulCalibur.

Also, I don't think that they've ever over-powered new characters. If anything, I always thought Talim was Namco's way of saying the game had too many good characters. I think you just need to get used to the new characters more.

And before you do anything so rash as buy the Brady guide, go to GameFAQs. They probably have it all there for free. Just don't go on the message boards.

Really, beyond the fluff, I just don't see the game being all that worth it if you have SC2 already. Unless, of course, you're a SC die-hard like Eric.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 7, 2005 12:39 PM

32 -- the game has plenty of passion. The opening video, on the other hand, does not. ;)

Hula hoop girl's hula hoop is desperately silly, but I enjoy her. She's like if Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy had a love child who was into LSD. However, Setsuka (sp?) is a vastly better character in pretty much every way, from moves and attacks through motivations and storylines.

Comment from: RoboYuji posted at November 7, 2005 12:42 PM

No way dude, Tira is total hotness!

And I totally hate fighting Setsuka or whatever. It's primarily because of her that I'll probably never get throught a story mode path without continuing, which is supposedly the only way to see Night Terror. And unlock a lot of the extra characters.

Still fun though, and well, when you're a huge fighting game fanboy like me, three new characters and minor gameplay tweaks do make it worth it (I buy every King of Fighters game as they come out, even the ones that I had imported for Dreamcast already).

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 7, 2005 12:59 PM

I'd say that was silly, RoboYuji, if I didn't own two copies (one English, one Japanese) of We Love Katamari.

Again, Eric, I think the passion you're finding in the game is the passion you're putting into the game, not the passion that the programmer put into it. Given how much of the game feels recycled from SC2 to me (and keep in mind I really liked SC2 alot), I really feel the passion is absent. It reminds me alot of comparing Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask to Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Sure, Majora's Mask had its cool elements (like Link's transformation scream and the Fierce Diety mask), but it didn't have the passion of Ocarina of Time.

And I always feel that unless the entire game is desperately silly, elements like bladed hula hoops just hurt the game.

Comment from: RoboYuji posted at November 7, 2005 1:04 PM

Ha ha, well, it IS about a bunch of weirdos, including a zombie pirate and a gimp, looking for a sword which resembles a huge slab of meat with an eyeball on it. Which while supposedly very serious, it actually rather silly.

Comment from: Archon Divinus posted at November 7, 2005 1:16 PM

Actually 32, i have to dis agree with you on the Zelda thing. Both Majora and Ocarina were equally bad. The last good Zelda game was Links awakening on the Gameboy. The old Gameboy.

As for SC3, I really wish I had a PS2 right now. I love fighting games, but ever since I played SC on the dreamcast, I haven't cared about any other fighting franchise one bit.

Comment from: Tice with a J posted at November 7, 2005 1:20 PM

Sword...with eye on it...

Sword of Omens, give me sight beyond sight!

Comment from: larksilver posted at November 7, 2005 2:10 PM

Ocarina of Time = one of my favorite console games ever. I've completed it.. oh, I don't even know anymore how many times. Heck, when the cable's down, I'm still apt to pull out the N64 and play.

Majora's Mask was good too.. but it lacked something, I agree. Mostly, I hated the restart every three days. I guess I need a wee bit more continuity than that. It had its high points, certainly. I liked the different mask transformations, and the world was cool. Just.. the restart, well, robbed it of something for me.

I considered buying a Gamecube just for Wind Waker, and may yet. My nephew owned a copy, and once you get used to the huge graphics changes, it still feels like Zelda. And I loves me some Zelda gaming.

Comment from: Alexis Christoforides posted at November 7, 2005 2:12 PM

SC2's intro track is "Under the Star of Destiny". You might want to buy it from ITunes or something, I feel it's great to get you started on working on something. Er, if you like listening to video game music when working, that is.

32 - Majora's Mask lacked passion and while the 3-day time circle seemed novel and cool, it quickly becomes irrelevant . But the time at the beginning when there's a countdown to Armageddon and no control over time? Awesome, and very suspenseful if you're a dumbass like me and had trouble finding where to go.

Archon - I'll predictably disagree, though I will say that Link's Awakening is VASTLY underrated. Unlike most people my age, I went the Gameboy route instead of the NES one, so LA defined Zelda for me more than the original or Link to the Past. LA was the first game I played seriously, the first one that had me engrossed in its story (though it looks kinda simple in retrospect, bear in mind I was 10 or something). It's where I got the only nickname I have, and it's got an awesome final boss. Oh, and most important of all, it's got the best version of the Zelda overworld theme ever. Ever!

As for SC3, I cannot comment. I knew what I was getting into when I got a Gamecube. Yup. No regrets here. None whatsoever.

32, is there going to be a arcade release of Soul Calibur 3? I read that they decided against it or something.

Comment from: gwalla posted at November 7, 2005 2:14 PM

Archon: Heresy! Ocarina of Time was an awesome game.

I'm not sure the problem with Majora's Mask was a lack of passion. It's more that it's just kind of...depressing. And frustrating, because every time you do something good for somebody, you have to rewind time so it never actually happened.

Comment from: Archon Divinus posted at November 7, 2005 2:23 PM

I never really liked Ocarin of Time really. It was okay, but it was never as fun as Link to the Past, or Link's Awakening.

Comment from: larksilver posted at November 7, 2005 2:27 PM

The original Link was also one of my favorites in the series. Until our 3rd NES system finally tanked, it was still heavily played by my mom (console RPG junkie), my sisters, my nephews, and myself. Heck, I'm still convinced that the boys liked to come to my house just so they could play the "old, fun" games instead of their own new games which were (as they put it) "boring ALREADY."

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 7, 2005 2:32 PM

SC2's intro track is "Under the Star of Destiny". You might want to buy it from ITunes or something, I feel it's great to get you started on working on something. Er, if you like listening to video game music when working, that is.

I have the entire SC2 soundtrack album. It is in fact good to write to.

Comment from: Archon Divinus posted at November 7, 2005 2:45 PM

I'll have to look into that. I'm a pretty big fan of video game music (especially since playing Chrono Cross. Best game music ever).

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 7, 2005 3:10 PM

Actually, my issue with Archon isn't that I disagree with his opinion. It's that he calls my opinion wrong. So long as my opinion is founded upon verifiable facts, it can never be wrong. You can reach a completely different conclusion. But at least in this case, my opinion is not wrong.

This doesn't necessarily make it right, of course. I'm just not wrong.

And yes, at the beginning, when you're racing against time to prevent getting smashed by the moon, it is exciting. The resets bog the game down, but that's not my biggest complaint about Majora's Mask.

Finally, as I've said before, SC3 is a PS2-exclusive. That includes the arcades. The main reason for the lack of arcade release is because right now, Tekken 5 is the king of arcade fighters. Namco would just be taking money from themselves with a SC3 arcade release.

Comment from: Archon Divinus posted at November 7, 2005 3:34 PM

I never said your opinion was wrong, I said I disagreed with you. There is a vast difference between the two.

Comment from: ZedPower posted at November 7, 2005 4:07 PM

I understand what you mean, Archon, but after disagreeing, you proceeded to state your opinion as fact. The phrasing didn't reflect your intention.

It's amazing what the words "I think" will do to the impression a reader is left with.

Comment from: Archon Divinus posted at November 7, 2005 4:15 PM

Yeah, I don't tend to preface my opinions with "in my opinion", which does cause this kind of problem. This seems to happen every time I have a discussion about subjective matters. You would think I'd have learned by now, but I obviously haven't.

I always figure that, I can't speak in anyone elses opinon, and I can't state an absolute fact on a subjective matter, so it should be obvious that what I'm saying is my opinion.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 7, 2005 4:25 PM

If everyone believed that you can't state an absolute fact about a subjective matter, then it wouldn't be an issue. But I deal with people who try to pass their opinions off as fact (most frequently about video games, in fact) every day. I ceased assuming people would treat their opinions as just that a long time ago.

Comment from: Archon Divinus posted at November 7, 2005 4:29 PM

And that is exactly why I run into this problem so often.

Comment from: quiller posted at November 7, 2005 6:07 PM

Perhaps they just make the newer characters easier for button mashing? I know that in SC2, weapon master mode if I'm having trouble I generally switch to either Talim or Raphael. They are so fast I can frequently win before the other side has a shot, particularly with the right weapon selection. I'm still pretty much a button masher in SC2, with some vague ideas of where particular moves are, I'm a bit better in VF4:Evo where the pace is a little slower, but there the problem is controller sensitivity.

In any case, I was inspired to play a little more SC2 last night (it would be nice if I had someone around to play against) and unlocked the Extra Survival, Deathmatch mode which is thoroughly ridiculous. (Weapons do infinite damage, so first blow to connect wins). Talim: "Strike", you win, next opponent, "Strike", you win... Introductions take longer than the fights, particularly if you don't use play button to skip them.

Comment from: Phil Kahn posted at November 7, 2005 6:16 PM

"You think you can beat meat?"

"Some things can only be conveyed through meat."

"Heaven's meat is wide... but let's nothing through."

"It seems I may have underestimated meat."

"You are not worthy of witnessing this glorious meat."

Comment from: McMartin posted at November 7, 2005 7:32 PM

I mostly played Raph in SC2; they modified his moves so that (a) he wasn't quite as stance-happy as he was in SC2, and (b) he was a little more in line with which types of moves are good compared to others.

(Raph pwnt the leeg out of newbies in SC2 because the "charge forward hitting B" attack did damage more proportionate to the other guys Big Slow Sweep attacks. But if you dodged him, he was overextended and got thrashed. Both of these properties were lessened in SC3, ANAICT.)

Raph is *still* really cool, of course. The generic Rapier weapon, though? HARD.

I still haven't managed to win -- at all -- with any of the three new characters. I keep facing off against Super-Kilik and getting my butt handed to me.

Simply playing lots and lots of battles will suffice to unlock all the characters.

This appears to include the "infinite-damage weapon" gimmick mission in the Soul Arena.

Comment from: Thomas Blight posted at November 7, 2005 7:59 PM

Oh yay, the meat game!

"Come with me to meat!"

"Meat again? I've had enough of meat!"

Anyway, yeah, Soul Calibur 3 is definitely harder. I'm having trouble doing normal without continuing now. On SC2, I could do hard or sometimes (if I was lucky) very hard without continues.

Comment from: quiller posted at November 7, 2005 8:12 PM

"I accept your meat!"

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at November 7, 2005 9:08 PM

"Meat shall not pass!"

"My god -- it's full of meat!"

"You never can tell with meat."

"Happiness is a warm meat."

"Abandon all meat, ye who enter here."

"I have been, and always shall be, your meat."

Comment from: Archon Divinus posted at November 7, 2005 9:10 PM

In SC2, I played Talim (mostly), and my friend played Nightmare (mostly). He would that one move where Nigtmare spins around and 360 slash. Got me every time. The only map I could beat him on was the sand one, were you sink down, because the I was to short to be hit.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 7, 2005 9:24 PM

See, I always preferred doing the substitution game with "uterus." Someone with a working knowledge of DDR lyrics can go on for hours.

But since we're already working with meat... (and not sticking to SC)

"You did your best... I respect meat."

"But your meat told me more than I needed to know."

"So gently, you touched my meat."

"My return was not my own doing. Meat resurrected me."

"Warriors, restore the light to the meat!"

"Fight, Megaman! Fight for everlasting meat!"

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at November 7, 2005 9:44 PM

Oh. Has everyone else been quoting SC? I had no way of knowing.

Comment from: RoboYuji posted at November 8, 2005 12:10 AM

When I first saw Raphael's new costume (the first one) in SCIII, I immediately thought "ha ha, he looks like a vampire now" and then I read his new character profile, which essentially said he was a vampire now.

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at November 8, 2005 12:20 AM

Oh. Has everyone else been quoting SC? I had no way of knowing.

Obviously, this is my cue to use "meat" in yet another A Fire Upon the Deep reference. Hmmm. A Fire Upon the Meat. Mmmmm. That's cooking.

Oddly enough, back on rec.arts.sf.fandom, where you'd expect such things to be more common, I was always popping off riffs on "To His Coy Mistress" instead (someday, I really must finish off my Heinlein version, "To His Harsh Mistress").

Comment from: gwalla posted at November 8, 2005 1:07 AM

"I've seen meat you people wouldn't believe..."

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 8, 2005 9:48 AM

"If only you knew the power of the dark meat!"

Comment from: Wandering Idiot posted at November 8, 2005 4:07 PM

32_footsteps: Really, beyond the fluff, I just don't see the game being all that worth it if you have SC2 already.

I felt a similar way about SCII, to be honest. (Still bought it anyway for the GameCube since I never owned a Dreamcast) I can certainly understand Namco's predicament; they created one of the most perfect fighting games to ever exist, and now they're stuck trying to add bells and whistles instead of making actual changes for fear of upsetting the apple cart/golden goose/metaphor of your choice. I'm not sure what I want from the series, I'd say a Revolution-exclusive SCIV that makes good use of the controller, but I doubt Namco'd be willing to make that big a leap.

32_footsteps: Normally I wouldn't do this, but as this snark is sort of a continuation of the last I figured it's OK to put my belated reply involving Tim Rogers to you here rather than there (where probably no one, including yourself, would see it)

You wrote: It wouldn't necessarily be so bad if Rogers didn't call his pieces "reviews." But he does, and it disgusts me how anyone could call them that. If he wants to blather on like an idiot about some tangential point, write an editorial like I do (but give it alot more focus than he currently does). I've had running debates over which was worse - his review of EarthBound, or his review of We Love Katamari.

Yeah, I probably should have been more clear that his stuff varies in quality somewhat. He tends to walk a fine line between engrossing introspection and pretentious navel-gazing even at the best of times, and occasionally just jumps over with both feet (that Katamari one is probably the worst I've seen, and although I disagree somewhat on the Earthbound piece, I admit that he spent way too damn long recounting the events in the desert. Really, I think his writing was greatly helped by the modicum of discipline imposed by doing it for Insert Credit, rather than his own blog). His articles are something of an acquired taste, and not normally something I'd recommend to people, except that they were the first thing that came to mind after reading Eric's Drunkpost. I suppose you could say that Rogers writes the way sober that Eric does when drunk, although I'm not sure exactly what that says about either of them.

You seem to have it in for him to a certain extent, aside from simply not liking his writing, because he doesn't play by "the rules". He seems to have never heard of the concept of a word-count limit, he brings in asides from personal life all the time, he doesn't feel any obligation to hurry up and talk about the game supposedly in question. Hell, his two-page Mario Golf:Toadstool Tour review doesn't even (as he explicitly notes) start to actually review the game until the second page. I can easily imagine someone coming to the end of the first page, saying "you haven't even talked about the game yet, you [censored] [censored] [censored]-[censored]!", and giving up entirely. I can relate. The first time I came across a Tim Rogers "review" (or almost any Insert Credit review, for that matter), I was all like "what the hell is this shit?" Yet I was intrigued, nonetheless, and eventually came to like the style (or Rogers' version of it, at least). I should note that I usually read the articles when I'm bored at work or late at night with nothing pressing to do in the morning, so anyone not similarly in a position where they've got nothing but time may be inclined to have less patience towards them.

His articles (whether labeled "reviews" or "features" on the site, it doesn't really matter which), are definitely not the sort of thing to rely on if you want to know what games just came out you should buy (although I have to admit his piece on Metal Gear Solid 2 made me interested enough to pick it up some time if it's compatible with the PS3*). For one thing, he doesn't write them often or soon enough. For another, reading them pretty much requires that you're already familiar with the game in question, or at least its series, and hence basic mechanics. If you're going to a Rogers review looking to become knowledgeable on the mechanics of an unfamiliar game, you're not only barking up the wrong tree, but one on a whole separate continent, and probably meowing.

* Also, after seeing interviews and whatnot where Kojima has talked about his underlying philosophies behind the MGS games, I have to think Rogers isn't too far off in his postmodern musings on them.

Here's the thing- I've read your site. I like your site. I just spent the last hour going back and reading every article linked from the front page and a few others (I'm a fast reader) to make sure I'm being fair. But the fact remains that if I had the choice of either one of Rogers' better articles (not the few aggressively pointless ones) - Soul Calibur II, F-Zero GX, even MGS2, ceasing to exist forever with me being unable to remember having read it, or the same thing happening to your entire site (minus the personal effect to you- we'll pretend you won the lottery and became a professor of Interactive Sciences), I'd choose the latter. Not because, as I mentioned before, I don't like the site. But because it doesn't have anything that I can't get in approximately 10,000 other places. I mean, it's nice that you seem to grade using the full number range rather than the top 1/3 like most sites, but that's ultimately a pretty small aesthetic distinction.

Tim Rogers' work is different. It's personal, it's quirky, it's meandering, it's highly concerned with historical context within gaming (even if he sometimes makes overly broad statements in that context), it's narrative and at its best invokes what it feels like to play games, not just the games themselves, but everything surrounding them, in a way that no amount of describing the base mechanics can. I've never been one to accept the (post?)modern-art-esque idea that novelty is a virtue in itself (although I've become more tolerant of it as I've grown older, perhaps since fewer things are inherently novel to me). But it's nice to see some someone writing this way about the things I spend so much of my time playing. And I don't see why it can't, or shouldn't coexist with the more traditionally informative and focused ways of game writing. [Insert overused quote about "we all", and the possibility of the getting along thereof, here]

Personally, I'd be curious to see Eric's thoughts on, say, the SCII review I linked above (I know he's familiar with the series, after all), since Eric is all about the critical dialogue. Of course, Rogers seems a bit more like a critical monologue at times since there aren't many people writing about games the way he does regularly, except Tycho from Penny Arcade when the mood strikes him.

And hell, if anyone else is bored at work and needs something to read, and just to annoy 32_footsteps further ;), Ten Unmissable Examples of New Games Journalism (a term I still find annoying). I seem to remember liking about half of them.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 8, 2005 4:51 PM

First off, you'll note I commented on that thread in Guardian GamesBlog. I also wanted to smack someone for accusing me of performing NGJ.

Also, suggesting doing something just to annoy me further is, to be blunt, flame bait. I'm not going to rise to it, but if you really want to start that kind of thing, my email is quite available.

On SC2 being marginally better than SC1 - perhaps that's a fair cop. Though I didn't have a DC (Sega, screwing up a console launch? Saw that one coming a mile away), so SC2 was a good investment. However, you're probably right in inherently suggesting that if I owned SC1, I wouldn't have bought SC2.

I think, to make the game work well, they'd need to tip things alot. There needs to be alot of turnover on the roster, and maybe some new mechanics needs to be brought in (or at least bring back weapon integrity meters - I loved that in the original). But most companies usually have to be forced into doing something like that.

I think you need to actually read my writing a bit more. I hardly play by "the rules" myself, other than ones I've laid out for myself. I mean, you're talking to the person who wrote over 5,000 words for a Mega Man game. I only play with a word count for my weekly column to force myself to get to the point faster (and I probably break that self-imposed rule every other month). I'm quite willing to go off on tangents, throw in things for only two audience members, and write to an audience that, quite possibly, doesn't exist.

No, my problems with Rogers are as follows:

1) He makes himself the primary focus. And I thought the point of writing on games was to make the games the primary focus.

2) He doesn't know when to shut up. He drones on and on and doesn't bother getting to the point on the rare occasion he has one.

3) He's just a bad writer. Seriously, he makes even the things I'm interested in (like EB or We Love Katamari) seem less interesting. And that's when he actually manages to address the topic in question.

As for whether you'd choose my site or Rogers' writing, if you had to... first off, it's completely unfair to remove my writing from the equation. It's a package deal - I'm a part of the site's core.

Besides, the simple fact that you do see the whole range of scores is something you can't just get an a thousand other sites. I think you're playing favorites, but of course I'm biased.

And to finish my thoughts on that, if I was offered the chance to eliminate Rogers' writing by eliminating my own... I'd have to think a long while on it.

See, I don't get that sense about Rogers' writing at all. He doesn't speak to me and what I feel as I play games. He doesn't speak very well to historical context at all to me - it feels more like he's grasping at straws (and to mix metaphors, yes, the blind pig finds the occasional truffle). I just don't see Rogers at succeeding at any level at what he does. He is, to more than just me, the poster child for the inherent flaws of NGJ.

Maybe my greatest issue with Rogers is his inherent self-indulgence. Pretty much every problem I see him having is indulging his own whims at the expense of the reader. All writers do it here and there, but he taxes even my liberal view of the practice. It's not that I don't see what people like in his pieces. It's that I can't push myself into the levels of self-delusion I'd need to hit to agree with it.

Comment from: RoboYuji posted at November 9, 2005 12:18 AM

It's all just blogging about videogames to me.

Comment from: Wandering Idiot posted at November 9, 2005 1:02 AM

(This will be my last post on the subject, just because this snark's starting to slip further down the page)

32_footsteps: Also, suggesting doing something just to annoy me further is, to be blunt, flame bait.

I though it was fairly obvious that I didn't mean that seriously. To clarify though- I was impishly pointing out that the mere existence of such an article was likely to annoy you (and seem to be correct, judging by your postings there; I'd read the comments before of course, I just didn't know who you were at the time), not suggesting that people read it for the sole purpose of annoying you.

There needs to be alot of turnover on the roster, and maybe some new mechanics needs to be brought in (or at least bring back weapon integrity meters - I loved that in the original).

Heh. This reminds me of arguments I've had about the evolution of the Samurai Showdown series (now there's something I'd like to see your thoughts on sometime). One thing I'd really like to see in SC would be to make the deflects more visceral, and make the animation for them last longer. It's a perfect opportunity to make it feel like you're actually fighting with swords. In fact, adding depth to the whole deflect/parry system seems like one of their best bets for a mechanics upgrade (which I understand they did to a small degree in SCIII), since I'm not sure how they could improve their attack system.

I mean, you're talking to the person who wrote over 5,000 words for a Mega Man game.

I look forward to reading it. I should mention that I already had your site bookmarked before we had this discussion, ever since I saw it mentioned on Websnark and browsed a bit. Just because I don't think it's a stunningly original review site doesn't mean I don't think it's one of the better ones I've seen. And luckily, no one's actually using their time machine to force me to choose between the current existence of your crew and Tim Rogers...

As for whether you'd choose my site or Rogers' writing, if you had to... first off, it's completely unfair to
remove my writing from the equation. It's a package deal - I'm a part of the site's core.

No, your writing would go too, you yourself would just be a respected professor of Gameology when you weren't too busy lounging in a hottub playing Shadow of the Colossus on a screen that makes the enemies look life-size. I was just pointing out that it was nothing personal.

Besides, the simple fact that you do see the whole range of scores is something you can't just get an a thousand other sites.

My point was that if you just mentally adjust for the fact that other sites pretty much start from 60% and go up when reading them, it's a fairly minor numerical distinction (although it bodes well for reviewing integrity).

Maybe my greatest issue with Rogers is his inherent self-indulgence. Pretty much every problem I see him having is indulging his own whims at the expense of the reader.

Ah! And we come to the crux of the matter. Rogers writes about himself because he's the one playing the game. His articles, as I've said before, aren't "reviews" in the usual sense, they're more like personal narratives that involve games. They're about his experience playing the game, within the context of his life as a whole, including every other game he's ever played. This is completely antithetical to the usual tendency in videogame reviews (carried out to lesser or greater extents depending on author and publication) to be a detached, objective observer of quality for whom the experience of the game exists in something of a vacuum. Except real people don't actually play games like that, and it's nice to see that fact reflected in an article occasionally. I can't really feel to sorry for anyone who feels hoodwinked by this- after a couple visits to Insert Credit, I'd think anyone would know what to expect (or more to the point, what not to expect, which is anything resembling a standard review).

Here's the dirty little secret I haven't mentioned yet in this discussion- I don't know how many Tim Rogers the world needs. I mean, I find his writing interesting, but shit, I've only got so many hours in a day (even taking into account my bored-at-work time). Sometimes I do just want to know what's come out recently that's good. But it's refreshing to see something a bit different every now and then. I think Rogers' writing works well within the context of a game journalism community that's overwhelmingly dedicated to paragraphs divided up by Graphics Sound Gameplay, whether or not they're labeled as such (and yes, I know his F-Zero review makes use of a similar conceit, but he also mentions John Lennon, so make of it what you will...) Although I certainly believe most game reviews could use a bit more personality and going off the rails, I'm not sure just how far I'd want most of them to go in his direction. To mention a more mature medium, I think Roger Ebert, in his best (print) reviews, is pretty good at maintaining this balance. They can be personal, he occasionally mentions his own experiences outside the movie without them taking over the review, he talks about both how the movie affected him and its larger context in the work of the director, etc. He doesn't really strive for objectivity, knowing it to be a fool's errand. I still consider one of his greatest reviews to be the three-star one he gave, in defiance of all critical precedent at the time, to Speed 2 simply because he saw it on a warm day and had a good time.

It's that I can't push myself into the levels of self-delusion I'd need to hit to agree with it.

I'm curious, deluded how? (And yes, I'm imprudently giving you the last word as to the extent of my delusions ;)

In closing, one thing I'm still confused by is how you can like it when Eric writes a long personal narrative that intertwines with gaming, but seem to detest Rogers for doing what as far as I can tell is essentially the same thing, differences in writing styles aside. Of course, Eric has the excuse of being drunk at the time, but maybe Tim does too. Who knows how much sake he ingests in whatever tiny Japanese apartment he's currently writing from?

- A tale of swords and meat, eternally meatold!

Comment from: larksilver posted at November 9, 2005 11:14 AM

Ow. Ow ow ow owie ow. Lookit all that meat. This, to me, just screams "guy thing." I think I'll move along now.

I like gaming, I do oh I do. But I can barely stand to be in the house with boys who are playing Halo, or Doom, or any of these other smack-'em/smash'em games. Give them a game controller and they morph into something so... icky.

(backs away from all the testosterone)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: