First...as a software developer (albeit not games at the moment) I understand the need to appeal to a userbase, and how it can reflect negatively on a product that you poured your blood, sweat, and tears into for the last year or more if you fail to take this into account. Negative reviews have an effect on sales, sales have an effect on company finances, company finances have an effect on employment, it's not rocket science here.
However, I've noticed lately in many articles (mostly referencing Nintendo's "casual revolution") that execs and developers blame reviewers for being harsh on their product for "not taking their target audience into account". Yes, they believe it's not "fair" for a games journalist to review their copy of That's So Raven GBA (OH SNAP) because it wasn't made for games journalists. Instead developers say it would be more fair to judge a game based on a focus group of the "target audience" (little girls):...
One of these articles can be found here (talking about Kane and Lynch): http://www.gamesradar.com/f/kane-lynch-how-it-feels-to-be-critically-panned/a-20080908102911734000/p-2
What this argument does is basically excuse any "flaws" in a game because the "target audience" (usually kids or "casual gamers") will forgive them. Bad graphics? Bad controls? "Meh, they're just happy to accessorize their ponyz". This argument can also be used to explain away bad graphics, control issues, and other gripes in rushed movie games: "It's for fans of the movie, they don't care about graphics or control - they're just happy to have an interactive vision of their favorite film".
BOLLOCKS.
This argument doesn't hold water for two reasons. While I can agree that certain assumptions need to be taken when reviewing a kids game, franchise game, or casual game, most of these games DO fall under one of the pre-existing game genres, and thus should be fairly compared against other games in the same genre on the same system. Does a side scroller "Hannah Montana" on the DS get a pass on its poor graphics or gameplay or whatever because the target audience is tweens? It's a SIDE SCROLLER. As much as the developer wouldn't want to admit it, it's completely fair to compare it to New Super Mario Bros. A game in the same genre on the same system that is for EVERYONE (hardcore and casual alike).
The second reason is even simpler: bad reviews should not affect your target audience if you're going after kids, women, or casuals. Because the vast majority of non-hardcore gamers WON'T BE READING GAME REVIEWS. Grandma doesn't care that the game Little Jimmy asked for for Xmas got a D+ in EGM. Look at Carnival Games for Wii -- hell, look at most of the non-Nintendo titles on Wii (Capcom excluded) it makes me sick how much shovelware is selling in droves. Game executives, you can't make this argument.
After all, what about the "casual" games that are actually good by hardcore standards? Look at EA's Boom Blox, a wonderful, fun, replayable puzzler that's just as entertaining for hardcore gamers as those who have never picked up a Wiimote...and wonder how much more it would have sold if it had Mario instead of generic sheep and monkeys in the background....Where do titles like this end up in your argument?
I'm 26 years old. When I have kids, if they end up being gamers, I'd probably look at reviews before I'd buy my kids a game, just so I know I wouldn't be wasting my money on something that would get played for 5 minutes and then tossed on the shelf to collect dust for eternity... but I'm special in that regard.
All that being said, I'd still probably seppuku myself if I had to code up Bratz Ponyz Fashion, Ninjabread Man, or one of its ilk...it's games like these that make me glad I'm not a game developer. I'm guessing for most people in the industry, bad reviews aren't so surprising as much as they are expected.
However, I've noticed lately in many articles (mostly referencing Nintendo's "casual revolution") that execs and developers blame reviewers for being harsh on their product for "not taking their target audience into account". Yes, they believe it's not "fair" for a games journalist to review their copy of That's So Raven GBA (OH SNAP) because it wasn't made for games journalists. Instead developers say it would be more fair to judge a game based on a focus group of the "target audience" (little girls):...
One of these articles can be found here (talking about Kane and Lynch): http://www.gamesradar.com/f/kane-lynch-how-it-feels-to-be-critically-panned/a-20080908102911734000/p-2
What this argument does is basically excuse any "flaws" in a game because the "target audience" (usually kids or "casual gamers") will forgive them. Bad graphics? Bad controls? "Meh, they're just happy to accessorize their ponyz". This argument can also be used to explain away bad graphics, control issues, and other gripes in rushed movie games: "It's for fans of the movie, they don't care about graphics or control - they're just happy to have an interactive vision of their favorite film".
BOLLOCKS.
This argument doesn't hold water for two reasons. While I can agree that certain assumptions need to be taken when reviewing a kids game, franchise game, or casual game, most of these games DO fall under one of the pre-existing game genres, and thus should be fairly compared against other games in the same genre on the same system. Does a side scroller "Hannah Montana" on the DS get a pass on its poor graphics or gameplay or whatever because the target audience is tweens? It's a SIDE SCROLLER. As much as the developer wouldn't want to admit it, it's completely fair to compare it to New Super Mario Bros. A game in the same genre on the same system that is for EVERYONE (hardcore and casual alike).
The second reason is even simpler: bad reviews should not affect your target audience if you're going after kids, women, or casuals. Because the vast majority of non-hardcore gamers WON'T BE READING GAME REVIEWS. Grandma doesn't care that the game Little Jimmy asked for for Xmas got a D+ in EGM. Look at Carnival Games for Wii -- hell, look at most of the non-Nintendo titles on Wii (Capcom excluded) it makes me sick how much shovelware is selling in droves. Game executives, you can't make this argument.
After all, what about the "casual" games that are actually good by hardcore standards? Look at EA's Boom Blox, a wonderful, fun, replayable puzzler that's just as entertaining for hardcore gamers as those who have never picked up a Wiimote...and wonder how much more it would have sold if it had Mario instead of generic sheep and monkeys in the background....Where do titles like this end up in your argument?
I'm 26 years old. When I have kids, if they end up being gamers, I'd probably look at reviews before I'd buy my kids a game, just so I know I wouldn't be wasting my money on something that would get played for 5 minutes and then tossed on the shelf to collect dust for eternity... but I'm special in that regard.
All that being said, I'd still probably seppuku myself if I had to code up Bratz Ponyz Fashion, Ninjabread Man, or one of its ilk...it's games like these that make me glad I'm not a game developer. I'm guessing for most people in the industry, bad reviews aren't so surprising as much as they are expected.
No comments:
Post a Comment