Game discourse needs game history!

Shallow & surface level opinion, but somehow felt it needed to be said. Pretty ironic considering what I'm saying.

Will be making sweeping generalizations for the sake of argument.

Are all gamers equal, and their opinions of the same worth. Obviously not, a person who played the respective game holds more value when making a statement in relation to that. We make this distinction because the person who played it obviously holds more knowledge & understanding about the game in question.

If we are gonna look at games as art there are lines to be drawn. We already subconsciously draw these lines, we tend to trust some game reviewers over others on a particular genre we love, and disregard others. This may not always come to skill/knowledge the reviewer in question possess, we may disregard genres they do not like or have shallow engagement in, under the assumption we probably won't like it due to aligning interests. When games are looked at as consumer products these opinions and words are worth listening to. They inform purchasing decisions, some games are unfairly criticized and others needlessly praised. But these are acceptable margins due to the fact that they are meant primarily to inform from a very subjective perspective about the purchasing worth. But this is also ignoring the fact that most of these reviewers do not finish the game and are usually on a tight schedule for maximum engagement etc..

The issues tend to crop up when these reviews are taken to be the final dictator in a game's overall worth. Open critic and Metacritic are gonna average out these scores and it's gonna stay as it is for eternity. The game reviews at this point are taken as gospel and reviewers may also start on the analytical pieces on how the particular game in question is the second coming or a travesty to humanity, usually cementing their stance taken on their initial review. These addendums are generally more for their inner circle, giving very inoffensive gameplay criticisms (most often just praise) with maybe a political undertone for whatever gives them brownie points at the time.

The issue is many times the circle of journalists covering these games simply do not have the knowledge and skill to understand the game for what it is or what it is trying to be. Their lack of knowledge on gaming history and franchise history tend to further colour these pieces. If the critic in question lack the understanding on the front the game is pushing, we end up with shallow or misguided analysis. And lack of understanding on the history homogenizes the soul we associate to certain game franchises. Game design has gone backwards as much as it has gone further over the years. Instead of getting a wide variety of experiences, some are promoted while others are shunned. Heavily accessible experiences are further promoted while several difficult genres are ignored indifferently or criticized for their lack of accessibility. This homogenizes and leaves behind huge leaps of progress games have made.

To further add to this, modern games are mostly iterations of successful concepts in the past. The initial ideation part of converting a non-gamified action into a gamified mechanic is mostly lost.

Classic Tomb Raiders when viewed through a modern lens are games with clunky controls and blocky graphics, but they capture the essence and complexity of the tombs themselves which modern iterations of the franchise fails to do so. The modern iterations capture the geometric details but fails to capture the strenuous task that it should feel like.

Games like planescape told highly philosophical stories while integrating player role-playing to an extensive level, where tone and delivery of the lines were prioritized. While presentation has gone up, it's hard to say the same about the quality of stories.

Elden Ring is praised for it's lack of markers and discovery. It gets to be put on a pedestal and called revolutionary while games like Gothic & Morrowind had done better more than two decades ago. The reason games got to a state where lack of markers became a point praise is due to the promotion of the markers by the very reviewers themselves.

To elevate game design requires an understanding of the fundamentals, rather than just the understanding formed from the current version of it. This requires active understanding of games, competency to utilize it's mechanics and knowledge about the history of games to see the evolution. Game journalists are clearly not the ones for this, but.

Gamers rise up.

A large majority of gamers with knowledge and understanding took the cause in their own hands and are now doing great work through youtube and blogs. And unlike journalists, they are mostly driven by pure passion. There are no platform restrictions here. They are you and you are them.

But are you driven by pure passion alone, you the gamer? Do you think things through or do you just parrot opinions? Do you attach your ego to the game blinded by passion? Do you seek validation? Do you hold your opinions to the status of infallibility?

As gaming turned mainstream, and as their history grows larger by the day, it's tempting to dismiss any criticism that invalidates something new. And it's tempting to dismiss something new as well, living in the state of nostalgia. But to have a discussion of ideas and share perspectives, you have to learn to a respectable extent. Especially in a time where publishers are acting as nostalgia merchants, and remaking games of the past. To have an educated discourse, the parties discussing it must be educated. If you are dismissive about the remake you must have played the remake, if you are dismissive of the original it's the same. It does not matter which you played first, to discuss the aspects in relation to each other you should have the capability to relate both. And in discussing you may come to understand perspectives, and if you come to a conclusion it probably can be concisely communicated.

Next time you share that opinion online, maybe the people who chose never to think will see something different, maybe they will think about it, when developers or aspiring developers see your discussion maybe they will be inspired or weigh it on future games. This is important so that future games elevate the medium rather than circling around in itself.

Games are not defined by age. Putting modern controls/graphics in an old game does not make it better. They are a culmination of several things coming together to create a cohesive whole. When discussing franchises it's important to know the history, this is so that you can meet in the middle and have an educated discussion, instead of staying at your extreme ends and shouting at each other.

These apply on all aspects of gaming discussions. We must stop just having opinions and start having educated opinions. So that the discourses give rise to meaningful analysis and ideas. In order to be have educated opinions you must first be educated. This means to know more aspects of the games you are discussing and to know the franchise history, not just from the afar but experienced first hand. There is so much to learn from the past, do not dismiss it in your incredulity.