[MUD-Dev2] [OFF-TOPIC] A rant against Vanguard reviews and rants

[Sean Howard]

"Adam Martin" <adam.m.s.martin at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 26/02/07, Sean Howard <squidi at squidi.net> wrote:
>> "Jeffrey Kesselman" <jeffpk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > You can certainly hold it against a game if it doesn't go beyond the
>> > basics of the genre and explore interesting new ground.
>> >
>> > Anyway, I can.
>>
>> I can and do. But there's a difference between blaming the genre and
>> blaming the product. For instance, if I write a review of Harry Potter,
>> I'm not going to spend five pages talking about how books have too many
>> words and you can get paper cuts if you turn the pages improperly! And
>> bookmarks only save your page, not your paragraph and word. Oh, and
>> reading in poor lighting can give you a headache.
>
> That's not entirely fair - e.g. it may be valid to criticise the
> decision to publish HP as a fat novel instead of as a series of
> cartoons, or as machinima, or ... or ... or ... For a given market,
> and a given conceptual product, cricitiquing the way the product has
> been actualised is often valid.

It is entirely a fair metaphor. The complaints were stuff like "NPC
shopkeepers sit around and wait for you to buy stuff" and "Hobbits live in
huts with round doors" and "elves live in the trees" and "first level
characters don't have a lot of skills" and "I want advanced level content
within 30 seconds of me starting up the game" and my favorite, "gimme
vistas or I shoot this dog!"

> FWVLIW, I've found Oblivion has displaced a substantial chunk of my
> online play, simply because it was *better* in so many qualitative
> ways.

I like Oblivion too (too much, actually), but I don't want every game to
be just like it. When I judge games, I judge games according to how well
they are what they want to be. I think Vanguard is exactly what it wants
to be, and while we may disagree with that, it is not a mark against
Vanguard to do so.

When one tries to be objective about a game, one must necessarily minimize
or ignore that which is purely subjective. I hate fantasy - I don't avoid
the genre completely, but it is extremely difficult for me to get excited
about something where everybody's names have hyphens and a lack of proper
vowels. That being said, some people DO like it and when I criticize
fantasy, I have to remember that my opinion is subjective and personal.

When I write a review of Harry Potter, I would do so by talking about the
narrative structure, the characterization, the world cohesiveness, the
inventiveness of new ideas, the fluff, and so on. I would not attack the
book because it has wizards and I don't like wizards. I would not attack
the book because it is written for young adults and takes place at a
school. I COULD attack those things, but I wouldn't be making a fair or
accurate critique of the work. I'd just be bitching because I got some
sand in my underwear rather than actually contributing to understanding or
progress.

I'm saying he didn't "review" Vanguard so much as he just "bitched" about
it. If there isn't a difference between "review" and "bitch", then you can
bet your sweet ass I'm going to review all about it.

-- 
Sean Howard