Mitch Gitelman Needs to STFU
I'm getting tired of hearing from Mitch Gitelman. This is partially my fault since I still have a pretty large appetite for gaming podcasts and lately, Mr. Gitelman has been volunteering his time to any media outlet that will listen to his whining.
Gitelman is the Studio Head of FASA, creators of Shadowrun, an apparently grossly misunderstood game that is receiving poor treatment from the mainstream games media. His most recent podcast appearances fresh in my memory are with PC Gamer and OXM where he does his best Denis Dyak impersonation and rails against reviewers and anyone else who just can't understand good value when they see it.
Since its release in late May, Shadowrun has received good, if unremarkable scores from critics, with an average of about 70%. The game has been universally panned for its paltry content (no single-player, only 3 play modes and 9 maps) and its sketchy production values given the game's 4-year development period. Based on reading many of these reviews and giving the demo a try myself, I really have to agree with many of these criticisms. On top of the fact that Shadowrun's gameplay is very finely tuned for a hardcore FPS audience, the aforementioned weaknesses also further limit the game's appeal to a wider consumer base. There really isn't any getting past that hard truth.
Of course Gitelman is not content to take these valid criticism of his game like a man. He's been more than happy to show up on my favourite podcasts, eat up insane amounts of airtime only to complain about review scoring systems and insist the Shadowrun game you see on the store shelves now is the only Shadowrun game that could possibly exist at this point in time. In these interviews he deftly sidesteps questions about FASA's solvency as a company and the reasoning behind his game's $60 price tag. As the head of a studio responsible for a flagship Windows/Xbox Live title, I find it incredibly hard to believe he had no say whatsoever on the game's pricing.
I'll give the man credit for having passion and moxy for his work. His arguments are mostly articulate, with some occasional breaks of head-shaking comic relief. In addressing Shadowrun's meager 3 play modes, he actually pulled the sports card and asked his interviewers how many modes football has.
Yes kids, when your game receives poor reviews scores, your best means of damage control is comparing apples to oranges.
Mr. Gitelman, the reviews are in and you've made your point. Now please disappear from the podcasts for a while, go back to the office and work on some ladder animations. Har!
posted by Clinton @ 11:51 a.m.
4 Comments:
I only heard him on Major Nelson Radio, and while I don't agree with all his points, his does have some interesting arguments. I don't agree with his, "you're not allowing to complain about not having singleplayer because we already told you it was a multiplayer only game".
His other argument though, comparing games to movies, was more interesting. He pointed out that movies don't get rated on their value...for instance Lord of the Rings doesn't get a better review for being so long, and shorter documentary types don't get worse ones.
And when you think about it, factoring time into the equation, Shadowrun won't always be $60, so wouldn't it be more valuable to rate it solely on its content, and not how much it costs? Granted, it is different with movies...big budget movies don't go into theaters costing 20% more.
Anywho, that's my three-cents. I guess I can't really get myself to believe that a reviewer should totally look past the price tag, but I think it would be fair to look past it in the scoring process, and instead mention it at the top of the review.
I heard that same MN podcast and I agree about the point he made about movies to an extent. However, a lot of other products are reviewed based on value. If movies cost $60 to watch I think you'd see a lot more people reviewing them based on the cost. If I'm going to spend $60 on something I want to be sure I'm getting my money's worth.
Value works in a similar manner with movie reviews, it's just not as obvious. Back in the days when tickets prices were less standardized, I've read many a review that would recommend a movie only if you watched a matinee screening or on a "cheap Tuesday" (remember those?). And surely we've all heard critics tell you to wait to rent instead of going to the cinemas. Those are value judgments, as some movies are OK but simply not worth full ticket price.
Likewise, I've read reviews that criticize a movie for being too drawn out or too short and in each case there can be valid criticisms made about filmmaking. Movies that overstay their welcome can be excruciatingly boring. Movies that are too short (under 90 min.) can feel incomplete and under-developed.
I generally feel that comparing games to movies is very flattering for games and the association only brings more credibility to the games industry. But here Gitelman gets it wrong again. Games are interactive by nature and movies are passive and that single distinction opens up a slew of different criteria for assessing quality and value.
Even just looking at games, value isn't always the be all, end all criterion. How does a 10 hour game like Crackdown or Gears of War get 9s and 10s just like a 100+ hour game like Oblivion?
As a developer I can say, a lot of his points were spot on. (I would have delivered them in a TOTALLY different manner) but I also know that developing a game is like having a kid, and sometimes you get emotional about that stuff.
Game reviews shouldn't really include price in thier ratings. It should be called out in writeups, but this is the digital age, I may reading a review of the game and have a "x% off" could be getting it from gamefly or anything. I'd a million to one rather see a game rated 9 and go "Wow this is more expensive than I thought it would be" than see a game rated 6-7 and just pick another title over that one. (Hey there's a million games out there and sometimes seeing a game reviewed 9-10 vs 6-8 is the difference between me getting one game vs the other.
Post a Comment
<< Home