When Critics Miss the Point

Written by Rob Savillo

Editor's note: We're not sure if we'll catch a lot of heat for promoting this story to the front page -- Rob sure calls out a lot of reviewers in his well-written rant.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with his specific points about the game -- that's not really the point here. He makes some excellent points about how seemingly innocuous statements in a review can raise so many legitimate questions for a reader. Yes, Mr. Reviewer...why do we need better graphics, exactly? -Shoe

The recent release and subsequent slamming in the press of Military Madness: Nectaris have revealed to me the lack of historical appreciation amongst game critics.

Many of the reviews I read knocked the game for lacking modern innovations, but few explained what those innovations are or how they would improve Military Madness.

The other common criticisms were of graphics and story -- that each were lacking to the detriment of the game. But both of these strikes, I feel, are of little consequence to what Military Madness achieves as a game.

As I read these reviews, one thought continued to cross my mind: Did they miss the point?

First introduced in 1989 in Japan as Nectaris (and later in North America as Military Madness), the original game was most recently ported to the Wii’s Virtual Console. Military Madness: Nectaris is simply the same product with 3D graphics and competitive four-player support.

Military Madness: Nectaris is a return to a classic turn-based tactics game. Players take control of a set of units, each representing a small squad(ron) of either infantry, armor, artillery, or aircraft. The object is to either wipe out the enemy or capture his command base.

This deceivingly simple setup hides a deep tactical game. Terrain and positioning are of the utmost importance in Military Madness. By taking advantage of mountainous terrain, for example, players receive a high defensive boost. Additionally, positioning units around an enemy unit grants offensive bonuses to the attacker. Intelligent maneuvering can mean the difference between victory and defeat in many situations.

Taking advantage of these two game mechanics is extremely important due to the game’s focus on tactics rather than production or resources. Aside from stealing hidden units by capturing factories on the map, the only troops players will have are those given to them at the beginning of a level.

Because of this, keeping units alive and decisive positioning are much more important than in similar games like Advance Wars. Each mission is puzzle-like in design, encouraging players to use smart tactics. Military Madness is all about exploiting enemy mistakes and clever positioning to force the opposition into a disadvantageous situation.

In this sense, Military Madness is a lot like chess -- the game is focused and satisfying. Above all else, it’s a game first, which is why I found many of the complaints to be puzzling.

I’ve criticized video games before for focusing too much on narrative at the detriment of gameplay. Military Madness is a title in which story takes a backseat. The narrative is just dressing for the conflict, which works perfectly.

But so many critics focused on the lack of an engaging narrative. One reviewer even went so far as to discuss how the best strategy games “offer something to push the player forward through the ‘I’m bored with this’ period,” such as a story twist.

Are you fucking serious?

I’m sorry, but if the strategy game you’re playing needs story twists to keep you engaged, then your game has some bad design. Do you also need to know the king’s motivations in chess in order to muster up the willpower to finish a match?

Graphics were also a major concern for reviewers. Why? They get the job done, and that’s all that really matters in a game like this. Do you need to zoom in and relish minute graphical detail? GamePro Arcade seems to think so. What would strategic zoom add to Military Madness in terms of gameplay? GamePro Arcade never says.

Another unifying theme amongst reviews was one of “dated” or “archaic” gameplay. Few specifically named any innovations sorely lacking from Military Madness, but one reviewer did mention fog of war. How would fog of war make a better game? We’ll never know because the author doesn’t offer an explanation.

What I’m getting at here is the seemingly pervasive idea which runs through the video game press -- that newer games and concepts always do things better. I don’t believe this to always be true. I think reviewers need to understand classic games in order to have a better appreciation of video games as a whole. Anything less will only leave readers uninformed.

In other words: Is chess archaic or just damn good game design?

Comments (29)

Did you pick this up for PSN or XBLA?

Toby Davis , November 08, 2009

Toby -- PSN.

Rob Savillo , November 08, 2009

To answer your question, it is good game design. I agree with every thing you say in this post and personally I like to sit down to a good game of chess every now and again. I think that an unfortunately high percentage of kids and even some adults have never played chess nor will they ever play Risk or Stratego, each of these games are known for their difficulty and have a cult status for being "thinker's games". Another unfortunate reality is that most of the popular sites will rate this game less than a 7, or 2 stars or a C and because of this no one will play it.

I am not an old man. At the age of 24, I feel as though I am young enough to still know what is a good game and what is trash. Funny thing is, not only do gamers look at these scores, but because they don't sell, stores will lower the prices or put them on clearance and you better believe that I am quick to snatch them up.

Much like indie films people ignore what is not "in". Question is, will developers continue to make things they love despite the game not selling? That is the danger we are in.

Jacob Hinkle , November 08, 2009

Is Chess archaic or just damn good game design?

Well, Battle Chess did get a lot more people interested in chess a while back by adding a 3D board and animated battles between the pieces.

Jay Henningsen , November 08, 2009

I downloaded the demo to try the game out and was pleasantly surprised. I had never played the previous game, but I knew that this game was based off of that.

I haven't read anything about it, but I can imagine what reviewers must have written. Personally I really liked the game. It was easy to understand and yet, at the same time, I could tell the maps became more difficult the further you progress.

Anyway, I understand what you're saying. Good article!

J. Cosmo Cohen , November 09, 2009

Jay, that's a great example of a video game adapting a board game to its own medium by taking advantage of things unique to video games.

But Battle Chess doesn't make plain o' board game Chess any less of a great game. Shouldn't reviewers give high praise to great games, not just games that may have the most mass appeal?

Rob Savillo , November 09, 2009

I couldn't really tell you what the deal is with reviewers hating on that game because I haven't played it. I would speculate that reviewers just had expectations that didn't match what the game ended up being. As for comparing the game to chess. Is it a multiplayer game or a single player one. If it's single player how fun is the AI to play against? Chess is largely so enduring mostly for the same reasons so many card games and other things are so enduring. Playing against another human at anything is interesting and challenging.

Someone could make a pretty bad game out of chess by having it be against the computer and having the computer be too hard or too easy. A game's solid foundation of clever rules doesn't make the entire game good. I figure this game probably has valid reasons to like it and to hate it. It would end up being a matter of taste and personal expectations.

Jeffrey Sandlin , November 09, 2009

@Rob - Well, look at it like this: Assuming money was not a factor, would you rather purchase a physical game of chess that had cheap, plastic pieces and a folding cardboard board, or would you prefer the one with the inlaid hardwood board and the sculpted, hand-painted metal pieces?

The game play is the same, but which one would be more appealing? How would you rate one in comparison to the other? How valuable is the good game play when there is an alternative with the same game play that visually looks better? Once you had the high end set, would you want to go back and buy a plastic one?

Jay Henningsen , November 09, 2009

But that's really not the point of a critic, Jay. That's the job of a salesperson.

Do movie critics base a review on the type of film used?

Rob Savillo , November 09, 2009

Critics are consumers too. I was just curious about your opinions as a consumer. I'm not sure how salespeople apply when you're picking something off of the shelf, physical or virtual.

Are you really telling me that critics should completely ignore the physical or visual appeal and material quality of a product when they review it?

To answer your question literally, I would have to say no based on the fact that most critics have no actual knowledge of specific types of film. However, they are quick to judge the quality of the images, and that is impacted by the type of film used (prior to the advent of digital recording equipment.)

To use an extreme example, a movie with the best story of all time would not be rated as high if the image quality were so poor that you could not tell what was going on.

Jay Henningsen , November 09, 2009

Sure, but when critics are writing a review, they take the role of a critic. If a critic were reviewing the game of Chess, I'd hope the review discussed the game mechanics and not the physical makeup of the playing pieces. Sure, there's a place for that, but it's a very small one.

Quality of images, in relation to film, is quite different from the physical makeup of board game pieces. Quality of image takes the skill of a director and cinematographer, and judgment of their skill is fair game.

There are plenty of examples of films with low image quality (by today's standards) that are held in high regard.

To bring this back to Military Madness and video games, I found the criticisms of the graphics to be inconsequential. GamePro lamented the game for not allowing players to zoom in close.

Well, so what? Do all games need to have high graphical detail to be good games? Was Braid criticized for using 2D sprite graphics? I mean, the developer could have used 3D!

My gripe with these reviews is that few even touched gameplay, and when they did it was vague and unenumerated. Shouldn't video game reviewers focus on the game part first?

Rob Savillo , November 09, 2009

I am unfamiliar with the game in question (sounds great, though), but I completely agree with your point. I have wondered elsewhere whether it will be necessary for the graphics technology that powers videogames to reach a plateau (not for quite a long time, I'm sure) for people to stop fixating on aspects of presentation over game design, which is clearly the only element of a game which is paramount. Similarly, the presumption that innovation is necessary for every new release to be somehow justified is offensive and foolhardy.

This is why I only trust a very small handful of known websites and online communities for game reviews. The vast majority of "critics" have no idea what they are doing at even the most basic level.

Skye Nathaniel , November 09, 2009

Braid did have a high level of graphical detail, and there are plenty of other games that use sprite based graphics that get praise from critics (Muramasa: The Demon Blade comes to mind.)

Video games are inherently a visual medium. While I agree that game play should be important, most people can't really separate graphical fidelity from overall enjoyment. Graphics are a part of the game for most people. Now that we have the technology, it's much harder to forgive games that don't immediately look good. When it doesn't look polished and new, it's often interpreted as laziness on the part of the developer. Whether we like it or not, first impressions do matter, and they often bleed over into our impressions of the rest of the game.

When talking about movies or films, it's easy to forgive visuals that aren't up to modern standards for products that were developed in years past. The technology simply didn't exist back then to make them look like they do now.

That being said, I do think that a proper review should examine all aspects of the game. Graphics are a part of that, but they should only be a part. Graphics should not make a game a failure unless they are so bad that they inhibit game play. However, if you give me two games that have equivalent game play, and one looks better, I'm going to rate the good looking one higher in my own mental scale 100% of the time. I also don't think that even perfect game play should forgive sup-par graphics, any more than I believe perfect graphics should forgive sub-par game play. It's a balance, and ultimately, I think you need to consider all angles without getting hung up on one or the other.

Jay Henningsen , November 09, 2009

Video games are inherently a visual medium. While I agree that game play should be important, most people can't really separate graphical fidelity from overall enjoyment. Graphics are a part of the game for most people. Now that we have the technology, it's much harder to forgive games that don't immediately look good. When it doesn't look polished and new, it's often interpreted as laziness on the part of the developer. Whether we like it or not, first impressions do matter, and they often bleed over into our impressions of the rest of the game.

It would be difficult to argue with you there since you are talking about the majority of people, but I do take issue with the idea that "video games are inherently a visual medium." I believe that what defines videogames is not that they are played on a screen but that they are computer programs created to challenge the user in some way. Video simply happens to be the primary de facto means of communicating feedback from the game to the player. In fact, there are videogames composed entirely of sound and others that employ only text.

Admittedly, this view is debatable. The fact is that people making, playing, and reviewing videogames do not all agree on what a videogame is. This is a very deep problem that essentially can be attributed to the sheer youth of the medium. As theorists continue to explore videogames, I am confident that the prevailing paradigm will gradually shift towards the acceptance of wider modes of presentation in favor of the game, which is ultimately what matters.

At the same time, it is worth noting that higher-quality graphics are becoming more and more affordable and approachable for even solo and amateur developers. After all, the Unreal 3 engine was just made freely available! Just keep in mind that, while graphic power may be cheap, good art design properly applying that power is not.

Skye Nathaniel , November 09, 2009

Video games are inherently visual? Name one game you played just by looking at it with no interaction at all. It's improbable to find one. Video games are inherently interactive. It's all about the input from the player to create an output on screen. It's about the game design compelling the player to keep play.

It's one of the reasons I don't like many game 'critics' nor do I trust their reviews. These are the same kind of people who ask for variety in lineups yet criticize games that don't look or play the same.

Kenneth Wesley , November 09, 2009

To sum things up simply for my opinion on this topic, I believe many reviews, this generation especially, have becoming too technical and forget to simply answer the question "Is the game fun?"

Derek Lavigne , November 09, 2009

@Skye and Kenneth - Yes, video games are an inherently visual medium. Regardless of the input method, programming, challenge provided or graphical fidelity (or lack thereof) if you boil video games down to their core, everything you do has the effect of changing what you see on the screen. You really cannot play a video game without seeing what is happening. This is why people place so much weight on graphics, especially given the technology currently available.

Skye, I would have to say that a game composed entirely of audio cues would be an 'audio game' and not a 'video game.'

Jay Henningsen , November 09, 2009

@Derek - Excellent point. That's always been what has mattered to me most. I've dropped many popular games with excellent visuals simply because I did not enjoy them.

Jay Henningsen , November 09, 2009

I would have to say that a game composed entirely of audio cues would be an 'audio game' and not a 'video game.'

While that may seem to be the case on a semantic level, I believe that it does a disservice to what people intuitively understand a videogame to be.

Skye Nathaniel , November 09, 2009

@rob: Having never played this game, but recognizing that gameplay should be the primary consideration of a game (although others like narrative, graphics, soundtrack also add to the experience), I bring up what someone already asked about the AI of the game's single player.

Essentially, if all you're given is what you've got to work with, then without a strong AI, maps could have a tendency to boil down to the same handful of strategies for each one, and once a map is beaten, where's the reason to replay?

Now, you did say your main problem with the reviews were the focus on anything but the gameplay, but could it be that the gameplay is either so shallow that reviewers gloss it over for other tangible aspects, or is the gameplay so complex that reviewers have had trouble translating it to the reader?

All this doesn't ignore that there are games that may do even less with gameplay but have more glitz on the surface, or games that do even more with gameplay but have even less shine, but from how you've presented the gameplay, you seem to make the strongest parallel to chess, and if chess is already available for play by anyone with access to yahoo games, why not play chess for free online instead?

Then again even if the single player maps only have a handful of strategic solutions, there's still merit in puzzling them out, certainly there have been games that are only really playable once for the puzzling (like Braid, if you can remember your solutions, although that game oozed charm and presentation that probably invites multiple playthroughs).

Still, I wonder how many reviews actually compared this game's gameplay to Chess or Risk, and how many of those wished for a good Chess or Risk port to the consoles instead.

Jonathan Betonio , November 10, 2009

Jonathan, the AI felt challenging to me -- it knew how to take advantage of the game mechanics well for its own gain. This becomes readily apparent in the later levels, when more advanced unit types are introduced.

Rob Savillo , November 10, 2009

While that may seem to be the case on a semantic level, I believe that it does a disservice to what people intuitively understand a videogame to be.

It seems counter-intuitive to me to think that a video game would not have visuals. Text is still a visual indicator, so I don't think there is a cognitive disconnect there. Something consisting solely of audio and a control mechanism might be termed as a 'computer game,' or an 'electronic game,' but I find that it is contrary to the very definition of of the term 'video game.'

Jay Henningsen , November 10, 2009

I made sure to read all the reviews you linked too, and they do seem pretty ludicrous. MM is not something I had played, or had much interest in, so I am unbiased here.

They all focused on the story way too much. There is a precedent for strategy games to have compelling stories (FF Tactics, Starcraft, etc), but just as many can be ignored. When I pay 10 dollars for a game, I'm not expecting story.

Also for $10 they expect a lot from the graphics. From the screenshots they look clear and comprehensible. I think that is more important to a strategy game.

As far as their description of the gameplay goes, your note on the fog of war is spot on. What would be the point of fog of war? Why add it to a game that never had it, and is it really necessary? Making a leap like the reviewer did, I would expect him to say why he thinks fog of war is important. He might have a valid point he could get across in a sentence or two. Instead, he looks nit picky.

One review said to write down names of other strategy games and throw a dart at them. The result would likely be a game you'd rather play. I may agree with that statement, but when discussing the cost of the game does it matter? Say you hit C&C; 3. Are you going to get that for $10? Not likely. Its a silly exercise.

Thanks for posting this, its a really important article for all of us aspiring reviewers.

David Welsh , November 10, 2009

But that's really not the point of a critic, Jay. That's the job of a salesperson.

Do movie critics base a review on the type of film used?

That is sadly where the problem lies. In other industries, the critics have come to such a wide acclaim that looking to appease them has become a major aspect of the industry.

The game industry on the other had does only see them as salespeople, and if they say something bad about a AAA game, then the reviewer gets replaced with another one who won't say anything bad so the company can maintain peaceful relations with the publisher. It has happened on more situations than I care to count.

Which brings us to why the game was bashed the way it was. The reviewers have been, for lack of a better term, brainwashed into thinking that the AAA titles are the cream of the crop (despite a personal belief that they are nowhere near it, but that's a separate rant) and that ALL games, despite of their genre, should be just to be considered average. This usually means that it has to have "mind blowing graphics" (ie overbloomed brown tone) or a "immensely deep storyline" (ie something equivalent to a child's comic book) So when a game developer decides not to play by those rules, they get slammed for not being good enough to pass muster.

Main reason why I never trust game reviews.

Bobby Krell , November 10, 2009

To me the underlying issue at stake here is that game reviewers rarely disclose their bias; in some cases because even they don't have words for what they're really looking for. If you throw a group of students in a room and ask them to critique an artwork, it's often easier for them to say "this isn't painted well" than it is to say "the treatment of paint in this piece is at odds with the subject matter."

Sometimes it can be easier for me to refer to Metacritic simply to find out IF there are reviews out there for a game, rather than surf ten different sites. However, I think it's best to trust reviewers you have a long-standing relationship with, and an understanding of what they want out of a game versus what you want out of a game.

Steve Nyktas , November 10, 2009

@Steve - I agree with that assessment wholeheartedly. It's frequently easier to say you don't like something than to actually articulate why you don't like it. It's also often easier to bash something rather than recuse yourself from the review or disclose your bias.

Jay Henningsen , November 10, 2009

Welcome to the PSOne generation, dude. I get frustrated as well when I'm reading a review written by someone who I distinctly get the impression has never really played a system prior to the PSOne. They fully believe the hype that was campaigned then that all games should be in 3D and that 2D platformers are for "weaker" portable systems.

Rich M , November 10, 2009

good point Rob,

I think people today are too concernced with cosmetics. Some game designs need the visuals but with Strategy games, I think visuals can be a secondary (even tertiary) goal. The tactical element and balance is more important to me.

P.S. This game sounds great to me! I wonder if it's available on the EU PSN

Christopher Quach , November 10, 2009

This is great stuff Rob and great conversation!

I loved the game Mount & Blade: it came out last year from an indie studio and it received consistently average reviews from critics. It had no story and last-gen textures but the combat was unique and fun as hell! I felt like reviewers missed what made the game great because of a few issues that had no bearing on the quality of the game.

I really thought we had progressed past the N64 days when reviews would mention the polygon count in character models. I'm also saddened to see when sites have sub scores for graphics, sound, etc.

Alex Long , November 10, 2009