Finding a new way to talk about games
Joe Merrick
After 18 years, Shenmue 3 is finally with us, and along with it has come the inevitable discussion about dated mechanics, bad voice acting and expectations VS reality when it comes to crowd-funded games. At all points when discussing Shenmue 3 it’s extremely important that while it had a record-breaking Kickstarter campaign, its total budget is a drop in the ocean compared to the original games’ budgets, especially adjusted for inflation.
The reviews have been… mixed. I never doubted that it’d be a polarising experience, but it’s quite something to witness the spread of 5/10s all the way up to 8s and 9s. I’m not here to discuss specific scores though, and I’m certainly not here to criticise anybody else’s review of Shenmue 3. Almost every review I’ve read, even the negative ones, have been fair and professional in their critiques.
Some similar arguments have cropped up around certain aspects of Shenmue 3 that have made me think about the criteria we use to review games though, and I feel like sharing my thoughts.
First of all, I have to admit it’s a pet-peeve of mine when I see games described as ‘dated’ in some way. This isn’t a fault of any particular reviewers, but rather how video games have become so wedded to the idea of technological progress in everyone’s minds. Mechanics and features that were once-ground breaking and fresh are seen as old-hat come the turn of each console generation.
Take Shenmue 3’s focus on talking to people and gathering testimony, finding clues to where to head next. At the time of Shenmue’s release, being able to talk to every NPC and have them talk back with real voices and unique lines of dialogue depending on a huge number of situations was unbelievable to witness.
But here we are in 2019 and the same feature in Shenmue 3 is has been viewed as a negative feature; a pace-killing relic. I don’t agree with that sentiment though.
Yes, in comparison to the witty dialogue of an Uncharted game, Shenmue 3’s lengthy bouts of just talking to random folk is undeniably slower, but I don’t think that makes it any worse. It’s just a different way of doing things, and in many ways more rewarding in the long-term; I genuinely have loved every moment of conversation with the Bailu Village people, slowly learning the ins-and-outs of their various relationships and routines.
In the context of how we review and rate video games though, I can see why that pace is seen as a negative. Respecting the player’s time and keeping them entertained is highly important, but we’ve all become so used to that way of thinking that it can lead to dangerous way of thinking; that there’s a right way of doing things and lots of wrong ways.
The rush to get a review up in timely fashion can be just as destructive.
The nature of the online media world is that first impressions are what matters; if you’re not fast, you’re last, and those initial numbers of clicks and page throughs are what makes the difference between a website making money or not. That’s unfortunate, because it can mean a lot of video game features can get lost or skipped over.
Of course, it’s always better when publishers get game code to reviewers in time, but that’s a symptom of a problem rather than a problem itself. I remember reading some reviews of Yakuza 5 criticising the lack of a counter system in its fights. Had the reviewer spent some time with one of the game’s fighting tutors they would have unlocked just that.
Again, this isn’t any one reviewers fault, or even reviewers as a whole. It’s the fault of an entire culture that fetishes the new and the current and chastises the old and past-it. Let me put it this way; people still read Shakespeare, listen to The Beatles and they still watch early film from before the days of colour and even sound.
They’re all still considered just as worthy of praise and adulation as anything produced today. But with video games? They’re still reviewed by all of us - critics, publishers, fans and customers alike - as some sort of box-ticking exercise in tech-specs and contemporary ‘standards’ - whatever those standards may be.
