So my column this week was actually prompted by the fact that Resident Evil 4 recently got an HD re-release, and SuperBunnyHop did a retrospective on it.
But more importantly it’s prompted by the endless needling I get from Various Parties when I fail to like things. Or if I don’t like them enough. Or for the right reasons.
“It’s your own fault you’re bad at the game.”
Which doesn’t change that fact that some people really want to know how demanding a game is, and how punishing it is.
“It’s your own fault for not knowing the lore.”
Actually, it’s the storytellers job to make the story interesting for the audience. In any case, “This story is bad for newcomers” is valuable information for newcomers.
“You shouldn’t have played the game if you don’t like QTEs / morality systems / romance subplots / grinding.”
So what parts of the game is the critic allowed to critique? Using this logic, a game can only be reviewed by people who are already fans of it, and are only consumed by people who already know what they’re getting. Which means the fanboy is using reviews as as way of reinforcing their opinions, and basically declaring artistic reviews and consumer advice as invalid. Moreover, if I was supposed to know better than to play a game with [feature], how am I supposed to find out about [feature]? You’ve already said it’s wrong for critics to bring it up!
This is all a waste of time, of course. Fans will be fans. In fact, I predict reflexive defense of RE4 in response to my article about how reflexively defending things is terrible. There’s no cure.
Still, I can always hope to make a few converts.
T w e n t y S i d e d