Videogames are about doing as you’re told. Short-leash shooters like Call of Duty keep you in line with objective marker sticks and action-beat carrots: they say jump, you press X to ask how high. Bigger games like World Of Warcraft and Fallout give you the space and freedom to play how you like, but they still have rules; sure, you can strip your Lone Wanderer down to his Vault-issue undies, but his pork ‘n’ beans are strictly off-limits (probably a good thing considering how accurate VATS can be).
Videogames are about doing as you’re told. And so too, it seems, are videogame reviews. We all remember the woeful tale of Jeff Gertsmann, the reviewer at Gamespot.com who, having had the gall to award Kane and Lynch a not-so-superlative seven out of ten, was hauled out of his job by the Eidos Thought Police. Though he’s since bounced back with GiantBomb.com (which in a poetical turn of justice was this year purchased by Gamespot owner CNET) Gerstmann’s story is a horrifying example of how ad revenue and PR influences videogame journalism. It’s scary that Eidos thought it could buy a good review with advertising money; it’s even scarier that Gamespot agreed with them.
It’s “good business”. If you want access to review copies, leaked screenshots and exclusive interviews, you have to keep developers on-side by chucking them some good press every now and then. But more than that, it’s about saving face. Gamespot had spent weeks bigging up Kane and Lynch. To call the game rubbish would be to admit they were wrong. Do that once too often and pretty soon your readership is going to start browsing for more confident opinions.
Which is why every review of Spec Ops: The Line has been saying the exact same thing. For six months or more, we’ve been fed a steady trickle of hype-pieces, touting The Line as a grisly, uncompromising treatise on the horrors of war. Official Playstation Magazine called it “harrowing” “macabre” and “very Apocalypse Now”. Back in April, IGN described Spec Ops as “bleak and dark… a brave attempt to break new ground.” Even I stuck my uninformed oar in, promising BeefJack readers that The Line would “leave you with some searching questions” and “examine the human condition more closely than any shooter to date”; all this without having actually finished the game.
We were doing as we were told. Yager had advertised a “provocative and gripping third person shooter, that challenges player’s morality” so to keep things sweet, that’s what we advertised too. And when the game turned out to be a pool of slo-mo, gore effect, rock soundtrack kill-spunk, it was too late to back down. Spec Ops: The Line has you blowing heads off and punching lights out, all captured in hell-yeah Zack Snyder speed ramping. And it’s fun – shooting games have been fun for twenty years, and Spec Ops’ mechanics are nothing new.
All the reviews calling Spec Ops gritty and harrowing, talking up the depiction of PTSD and battle fatigue, are bumph. Spec Ops: The Line is no more a look at the horrors of war than jumping on a bouncy castle is a look at people’s fear of heights. It’s a lark, a loud, bombastic, bloody shooting gallery that wants you to pull the trigger. Even if it doesn’t want to be, Spec Ops is enjoyable. War, I imagine, isn’t.
It’s cynical of me to chalk this up to good PR; developers can handle some bad publicity, and most game journos are happy to give it to them. I’m not sure it’s that the gaming press is necessarily toothless – it’s more that we’re just desperate. The piss-thin gruel that we’ve come to expect from computer games has us so starved of any real substance, that when a game like Spec Ops promises to be bold and provocative, we latch onto it like it’s the last loaf of bread. We’re desperate to find something profound; seemingly meaningful games are so few and far between that we inflate their worth beyond all proportion.
We do what we’re told: when ThatGameCompany promise us emotion and artistry, and then delivers lightweight froth like Journey, we nevertheless respond with fervour and gratitude. Good business is one thing, but when writers like me plug our ears, cover our eyes and just review the game we wish we’d played, we aren’t doing our jobs properly. Spec Ops: The Line’s awkward morality choices have nothing to say about the horror of war. But following orders and doing as you’re told despite your better judgement, in the hope that it might make things better, that is the horror of computer game journalism.
You Might Also Like...
- Spec Ops: The Line Review [Xbox 360]
- Black Ops 2: 5 Reasons It Will Be the Best Call of Duty Ever
- Are Games Journalists Lazy? Hear What The Escapist and IGN Writer Says
Want to write about the stuff you're passionate about and have your work read by an audience of over 10 million a month? Click here to become a contributor.
11 Comments
Good read, but as a video game journalist I do have some gripes. What you say is true, our own pre-conceptions can impact on how we perceive a game when finally reviewing it, but I don’t think this is a trait specifically found in gaming journalism. That said, I do agree with a lot of your points, and it’s refreshing to see some honest writing.
This article is just horrible, not only did the majority of reviews of Spec Ops: The Line acknowledge that the gunplay and COD style elements were the weakest part of the game but I see it as almost impossible to not see the themes and ideas about war present in the game. The notion of the lies soldiers will tell themselves to maintain their own heroic persona, the corrupting influence and anarchy of war it even asked why gamers enjoy killing in such huge amounts.
Onto Journey, not only was that game a shining example of the evolution of cooperative game design, it was also a wonderful example of the emotional power of the video game format. The way it so wonderfully created an intoxicating, beautifully realized world, the way in which it created the sense of isolation even when playing with an anonymous partner,the art style, the music, the lighting, the moving ending even the animation of the player character ALL succeeded in creating one of the most immersive, unique and wonderful games of the past year.
These two games are a shining example of the potential of the video game industry, both of them do things that are simply not achievable in any other media format and I find it shocking and offensive that someone can be so ignorant as to not see their value.
YES Spec Ops’ gameplay was derivative and boring but it was competent enough to simply follow the sensational story to its mind blowing and brave ending
YES Journey was perhaps too short and YES it is not for everyone but I find it hard to believe that someone cannot recognize the slightest value in either one of them.
So, Edward Smith I am curious as to know what you believe to be true hallmarks and pinnacles of game design as judging from your article they will be nothing more than the money grabbing yearly spin offs that games like Spec Ops: The Line and Journey are being smothered by.
Your sincerely,
Disappointed
Hi there. I’m not usually one for comment sections (I find it almost always devolves into digital poo-slinging) but I recognise that some of what I said could use some explaining, so here goes. Apologies in advance if this goes on too long.
Firstly, Chris, I think you’re right. It’s not like games journos are alone in their quest for closer access and more exclusives – every magazine wants to get there first. My problem is, regarding pre-conceptions, that the gaming press have suffered so long under the disapproving eye of mainstream culture, that now they’re determined to justify their field whatever the cost is to balance, truth, consideration. I can hardly blame them; the lengths film critics had to go to in the beginning to be recognised as serious commentators were absurd, but I’m glad they did it. The point I’m making is that we don’t always have to find something to praise, and that if I game is trying to do something, and isn’t, we should pick it up on that. Spec Ops tells us to think about war and violence, then herds bad guys toward us and tells us to let rip. It’d be reassuring and reaffirming to think that this said something about war, but I don’t buy it. It reminded me of the latest Mission Impossible film, where the premise was that the team was underequipped and rogue, but they still had access to all the usual gadgets – the film says one thing but does another. So does Spec Ops.
That said, Disappointed, I liked Spec Ops very much. I thought the ending was smart as well. I didn’t share in the game’s belief that I should be troubled by what I did. Instead I *SPOILER* let Walker live, as, like him, I’d never completely lost faith in my mission. He continually bellows that they need to go on, despite all the hideousness around and inside him. I felt the same; I wanted to complete the game. I liked sharing my character’s determination. I find the chin-stroking in CoD boring and hypocritical, because I’m playing with a full-heart. To have Walker feel the same, was really refreshing and honest. I liked it a lot. Journey too. It’s not that these games are bad, it’s just we’re too ready to hand them superlative and ill-conceived praise just because we’re so anxious for games to be art. I love computer games. I wouldn’t spend all my spare time writing about them if I didn’t, but they are not art. And as far as I can tell, they won’t get there for a long time, especially if we’re not prepared to properly dissect something that’s different, like Journey. I don’t want to launch an attack here, but game reviews depend too much on buzzwords like “immersive” and “unique” without really considering what they mean; game reviews are lazy. It’s very easy and quick to mark Journey down for being “too short” (I resent that games should be paid for like meat from the butchers – more money for bigger portions) when real artists are judged on the quality, not quantity of their work. I think I see the value of these games more fully. I wasn’t moved or really stirred in any way by Journey – that’s not because I’m cold or purposefully cynical, it’s because I think the game was thin and obvious. But I still contacted Jenova Chen, and we spoke for a long time on Skype because for one reason or another, I find his work interesting. Clear notions of good and bad infect game criticism too often. There’s something to be said for and against every game and it’s our job to dig up a complete picture and discuss it honestly. The potential of the video game industry hasn’t even been hinted at yet and that wont change until we improve the lazy criticism.
Also, if you asked me for one game that I believe represents some kind of ideal form for computer games, I’d say Freedom Fighters. Perfect blend of gameplay and narratives, consistent tone. Great soundtrack too, and all the usual stuff checks off: fantastic (FANTASTIC) level design, thin but fun plot, plenty of freedom and choice, thumping action beats. It’s wonderful.
Writing off big games as “money grubbing” and “smothering” isn’t helping at all. We need to think about all aspects of this emerging culture, and consider how they interact. It’s not smart to only play certain games.
Sorry. I know this sounds pretty condescending. That’s another reason I usually avoid replying to comments; I end up sounding like an aloof berk.
Ahhhhh, Thankyou for your reply Edward, I apologise if my comments were offensive. Your comments were much more informative and I now better understand your view point while I disagree with you about Journey I understand your thoughts on games journalism. I honestly have more of a problem with game previews more than reviews. Games like bodycount and and steel battalion receive very positive previews only to be panned by the same critics later on. I understand that previews are specifically structured to make the game seem good in the case of games like bodycount it must have been readily apparent that problematic aspects of the game.
Anyway, thankyou for your comments Edward as they helped understand and appreciate your viewpoint
Great article – and a very revealing and necessary window into a field of review that I agree, needs to have its compromised state identified, lest the misnomer of its ‘journalistic’ integrity continue to go unquestioned.
‘Journalism’ implies an objectivity that, unfortunately, is currently fundamentally compromised by the blur between pre-release spin and ‘honest’ critique.
Indeed, I’d throw the whole recent Mass Effect 3 debacle into this pile also. Numerous reviews seemed to have not even played the endings (certainly not mentioning them in their write-ups), merely repeating almost verbatim the PR speak of Bioware and it’s ‘satisfying conclusion’ filled with ‘meaningful payoff to decisions’ company line.
If I may – http://www.godisageek.com/2012/06/spec-ops-line-review/
Liked that review, well balanced and so on. “Interesting mess” is a good way to put it. When I’d finished Spec Ops, I would have called it “coherent by accident”
I love Your Site. Thanks The Good content :)
Awesome article. The community needs to grow up and understand that what defines a medium as art or as something meaningful is more then lights project on a wall, or CGI, or slow motion, or soldiers crying with piano soundtracks.
Spec Ops – the Line was defined as a product to be sold to a specific target – people who love action games but want a little more. The problem is that “little”. To this demography Apocalypse Now is the ultimate movie about war (it is indeed one of the best) and if any other medium that they also love (like videogames) just about scratches it’s genius it is suddenly ascended as the holy grail of such medium. In reality it is just a curious attempt of a dev to instill some better story then usual into a common, medium quality, shooter.