Quote:
Originally posted by Moskie
I usually enjoy Ebert's reviews too, and I have a similar movie-going philosophy as you do (bigger message, etc.). But I don't agree with following a review so strictly as to have such a rule as yours. Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you read one of Ebert's reviews just *after* seeing the movie? One thing I've noticed, is that if I read a review before seeing a movie, I make sure to notice the flaws that the review brought up. But other times, when I read a review afterwards, the flaws that were mentioned went by me unnoticed.
Also, about videogames: I think it's a slightly different situation. There's more of a universal good and universal bad with videogames, which most everyone can agree with. Also, describing the main elements of a game is easy to do, and from that, a reader can determine if they would like to play it. There's not much "interpretation" going on, as there is with movies.
|
Yeah, I actually never read Ebert's reviews until I see the movie. I check the star rating and if I was interested in seeing it and it got more than 3 stars then I usually see it. Ebert does enjoy screwing up plot details sometimes (I guess it comes from seeing 15 movies per week at the theater), but his reviews are always acurate on the rating aspect. So don't worry about me looking for the bad aspects of the movie; I never read his reviews until I've seen it. I always agree with Ebert after I've seen it, as well.
I know that videogames are a different spectrum than movies, but it's also easier for people to say that a game is good when it's not. Or better yet, whether a game is entertaining or if it's quality. You'd be surprised at how many people out there will play a game simply because they're fans of it despite it sucking horribly. I hate to use the Enter the Matrix example again, but a few of my friends played it right when it came out and would NOT admit that it was a bad game simply because they're Matrix fans. I read IGN and EGM's review on it, and am successfully not wasting my time on it. EGM gave it a 3 out of 10...how can someone say that it's a good game? Just because it has an Agent in it doesn't mean it's a good game.
I think it may actually be less divided than movies when it comes to bad/good videogames. Most gamers have a hard time of determining which games are good and which games they're playing just because they were looking forward to it, bought it, and now don't want to feel ripped off. Hell, I used to do that. I played a PSX game called Felony 11-79 for MONTHS before realizing that I didn't really like it. I was playing it because I spent $50 on it and didn't want to waste my money. I began noticing the flaws in it. Sure enough, I read the reviews, and it got a 5 out of 10 from most reviewers. This is where movie and vidoegame critics shine: they can see through the effect that a game or movie has and see it for what its worth.
If someone wants to see a movie based on entertainment only, that's fine. If you want to play a videogame simply because you're a big fan of a series, that's fine as well. But don't say that critics don't know what they're talking about, because they do. They don't rate them on the fact that YOU like the Matrix or YOU like Tom Green, they rate it on the quality and thoughtfulness of it. That's why Enter the Matrix got bad reviews and why Ebert gave Freddy Got Fingered 0 stars out of 4. Like I said earlier, there's a bunch of people that will argue that Freddy Got Fingered is one of the best movies of the year simply because it's funny. It may be funny, but that's not what critics are rating a movie on.
-Lasereth