Some Hypocritical Practices Of Game Critics And Why They’re Silly
All humans are hypocrites.
This is as much an established fact as the infamous ‘Everybody Lies’ ethos of the dearly beloved House.
- You’ll Be Able To Play (Expensive) PS2 Games On Your PS4 Now | 2 months ago
- Jessica Jones Disempowers Its Male Characters And The Effect Is Refreshing | 2 months ago
- Hell Is 30 000 Deathclaws Tearing Through Boston And It’s Glorious | 2 months ago
- Sony Santa Monica Is Teasing Something Truly Strange | 2 months ago
We are nature’s own contradiction and so naturally we consistently contradict ourselves. So it seems only fitting that we would go about our lives with standards in the doubles at all times, yes? No. You see, we have the capacity to not be this way. We have the capacity to know better. And more than likely, we have the capacity to learn from each other so that we don’t repeat the mistakes of those around us.
Somehow this capacity for learning is entirely lost on a lot of gaming journalists, or writers, or whatever you want to call them. Recently I’ve noticed of a lot of hypocrisy and today I’ve finally gone ahead and decided fuck it, let’s actually point out a few of these double standards, contradictions and such, and then talk about it for a bit. Hopefully by drawing attention to it, we can get less of it in future? Right… Sure.
Hypocrites with opinions
A while back, before the Jimquisition was as popular as it is now, a lot of people around me actually hated Jim Sterling. They utterly despised him, would be a better way to say it. They did not approve of his opinions, nor his techniques. Surprise surprise then, when one day I saw one of these people quoting and then using Jim Sterling’s opinion of something to back up their own opinion of that thing.
So… you hate the man and his opinions but when those opinions agree with your own, you will use his name to back up your opinion because it holds weight — not a fat joke — and adds brevity to your argument?
This, kids, is wrong. It is okay to dislike someone. And it is okay to accept that they are right if they are. However it is not okay to dislike someone and claim to think they are wrong and then when you have something you want to say, act as if they have never been wrong a day in their life. That is just not on.
You both can and cannot make a difference
This one has always been a sore point for me; almost a pet peeve. Sometimes you’ll get a writer talking about some form of movement where they will state that your single voice could matter. They will say that one person adds up to a lot over time and so you should support XYZ because your support will end up making all the difference.
Then that same writer will turn around and say that you are an insignificant gamer in the bigger picture and you belong to an insignificant market so you shouldn’t dare to voice your opinion or open your mouth. Yeah, tell that to the guys who were eagerly awaiting Titanfall.
Sometimes I can understand; for example, expecting Azure cloud servers to be installed in South Africa just for a game was not only extremely childish but also myopic and ignorant of the way the industry functions. But this isn’t always the case and if I opt not to purchase Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes because I’ve deemed it not worth my money, you are not then at liberty to tell me that my purchase won’t matter in the bigger picture because if DmC: Devil May Cry’s sales figures are anything to go by, if enough people think the same thing, then well…
Lack of proper consideration for content
The Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes example actually leads me nicely into my final point for today. When did we start looking at games as either, ‘too short to be worth our money’ or ‘long enough to warrant a full price purchase’? Excuse me, what?
So you’re saying that if I paid R600 for a game that lasts hundreds of hours but is mind-numbingly boring then I shouldn’t complain because of the amount of game I got for that money? Further, I’m not allowed to enjoy a short game that I paid R600 for because I obviously didn’t get enough game for my money?
A lot of times, writers forget that it’s quality that matters, not quantity. This is why we can look at Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes and call it not worth the asking price, while something short like Lollipop Chainsaw is great because although lacking in overall game time, it never overstays its welcome. This is also why the Call of Duty games feel relatively well-paced for me. You’re getting six to eight hours of rollercoaster action over and above the multiplayer focus of recent titles. That’s good value to me. I don’t need to have twenty hours of Call of Duty, ever. Ever.
Some momentary introspection
I am aware that I too am guilty of some of these at times, but being the human that I think I am, I fall under my initial statement at the beginning of this article. See how I did it? Do you see? What I did there? See it? Do you?
But on a more serious note, I’m not attacking any of my fellow writers here on eGamer, nor anyone anywhere else in a personal context. This is more a broad-spectrum rant at recent trends in articles I’ve been reading, and I felt it was time to address some of these, obvious though they might seem to some of us. If you can think of more, by all means hit up the comments sections with your own.