I've been reviewing games for quite a while now and it's really changed the way I think and talk about games.
I look back at some of my old blog posts, mostly from my college years, and it I can't help but feel a bit embarrassed. It's not so much that my writing is bad, though I have certainly grown as the writer. It's more the language I use that just doesn't sit right with me. I did a top 100 games of all-time list, but is that really what I should have called it? It's not really "THE" top 100, it's "MY" top 100. I'm sure some people would agree with my opinions, though most wouldn't. There are a lot of games I wouldn't rank even close to my top 100 that many people consider to be classic and vice versa. The thing is, it's not just me. It seems like a lot of online discourse around gaming is filled with hyperbolic declarations and personal attacks against people that disagree with them. I have certainly been guilty of the former, though I still don't understand the latter. At any rate, two of the most frequently used phrases I see and hear while video games are discussed are "overrated" and "underrated." Not going to lie, I used to use these terms like they were going out of style. At least, I did until recently. I have come to realize over these past few years that I don't like these words, and I have tried to make it a point to stop using them. I guess I should probably explain why.
Of course, we all know what those two phrases mean. Something that is overrated is worse than the general consensus, while something underrated is better than said consensus. Simple enough. But I don't think these phrases take into account just how subjective reviewing media is, especially video games. Sure, there are objective markers of quality in video games. There's graphics and sound of course, but there are also more detailed aspects that need to be considered. Even these more detailed things can have subjectiveness to their objectivity. I have never been a framerate person and the obsession with it is one of my least favorite aspects of modern gaming discourse. I don't really care about it...until it drops so low it impacts gameplay. How low does it have to go to impact the gameplay? That depends on the gamer. At least it does to a point. There's a difference between dropping from 60 fps to 59 and dropping from 60 fps to 5. The latter is going to be an issue no matter what. But do you see where we are going here? There's just so much subjectivity in reviewing games that what's overrated and underrated is going vary greatly from person to person.
Overrated, in particular, has a negative connotation and I find its use leads to a lot of unnecessary negative discourse. There are a lot of games that I would have tagged with the term that I don't think are bad at all. I'm not going to get into which ones here, but suffice to say they are some major, major titles. But when you call something overrated, everyone instantly assumes that means you hate it. That's not true, it merely means you like it less than the general consensus. You could think a game the discourse would tell you is an all-time great is merely very good and that's still technically "overrated." But when you put it that way, it sounds more negative than it needs to be. That, in turn, leads to a complete breakdown in discussion, with insults and personal attacks lobbed at gamers (and their mothers) ranging from obnoxious to vile. All of this because of, what is essentially, a misunderstanding. Of course there are levels to overrated, so just throwing out the blanket term fails to really cover just what you mean. Are you trying to say that said game everyone thinks is great is merely good? Or are you trying to say it's terrible? Just saying overrated doesn't really make that distinction. I will say, I find the internet typically gets it right with games. There are only a handful of games considered classics that I think are just not good. Again, I'm not going to go into them here, I have reviewed one of them on the blog but I really try to avoid doing so. Most of the time, games I would have called overrated are really just titles I like a little bit less than the consensus.
It was actually Chrono Trigger, of all games, that got me thinking about this whole topic. Anyone that has been around online gaming communities for any length of time knows what the internet thinks about Chrono Trigger. But if you don't, it pretty much boils down to "Chrono Trigger is objectively the best RPG ever, there is no room for any deviation from this and anyone that disagrees has no taste, doesn't understand good anything, is stupid and is also a/an (insert slur of your choice here) and so is their sister." It's calmed down a little bit recently, I have seen more posts critical of CT that weren't immediately shouted down in recent months than ever before, but it's probably the most sacred of sacred cows in the online gaming community. So, do I think Chrono Trigger is overrated? I guess technically...because as opposed to it being in my personal top 5 games of all time, I merely consider it to be in the top 50. But I would never, ever in a million years call it overrated because, well, it's in my top 50, probably top 40 games of all time. Why would I paint a title in a negative light that I think is an outstanding, all-time great classic and a must play? I wouldn't ever want someone reading my stuff (not that many do) to see me say a game like this is overrated and then avoid it thinking it was bad. I think people get a little ridiculous with it, but there is no universe in which CT is a bad game, it's objectively amazing and also one I find subjectively amazing. Halo is another example of a game I have called overrated in the past and I just wouldn't do that now. I, personally, don't really love the Halo games. But they are objectively good and the original might very well be the most influential video game of all time. That's a topic for a different day, but the important thing for now is that even though it's not my personal favorite, I just can't call the title that pretty much defined the modern FPS overrated.
Underrated is a bit less loaded of a term, but it can still cause the same confusion as it's more edgy partner in word crime. We just used a famous game as an example, so now let's move on to an infamous one: Shaq-Fu. The internet loathes Shaq-Fu almost as much as it loves Chrono Trigger. I very much understand why. For one, it has to be one of the stupidest ideas for a video game in history. You have a fighting game about a basketball player, where said basketball player gets sucked into an alternate dimension to fight one on one battles with a variety of fantastical enemies. I don't know who was on what when they thought of this. "NBA All-Star Tournament Fighter starring Shaq" would have made more sense. Who wouldn't want to see the diesel throw down with Jordan, Malone, Olajuwon, A.I. and all the other 90's greats in a tournament fighter? Anyway, the general consensus is that Shaq-Fu is an absolute horrific title, one of the worst games of all time. The thing is though, it really isn't. Just as I would never say CT is a bad game, there is no universe in which Shaq-Fu would be considered a good game. It's slow, boring and absolutely nonsensical. But among the worst games ever? I would go a long, long way down the list before I even got near Shaq-Fu. I have played some truly, truly horrible video games in my time. A lot of those horrible games were fighting games, like Rise of the Robots. That game makes Shaq-Fu feel like Street Fighter II. So, does that make Shaq-Fu underrated? Again, it technically does. It's a game that has a horrible reputation that is better than said reputation. Yet I would never use that word to describe Shaq-Fu, because it kind of implies that it's worth playing and, while not as bad as some say, it's just not.
So, if I'm going to stop saying "overrated" and "underrated," what am I going to say instead? Again, replacing underrated is a little bit easier. I think calling a game that doesn't quite get the recognition it deserves a hidden gem does a pretty good job of establishing what players can expect. Even saying something is underappreciated is a little bit better in describing games I think people should play that don't get a lot of press. "Overrated" is a little bit harder to come to grips with, because it's a much more loaded term. Right now, the only thing I think I can say is something to the effect that I just didn't like something as much as most gamers. It's kind of long winded and it lacks a bit of the impact, but I guess that's kind of the point. I don't think I am going to completely retire these terms, but I am going to actively try to stop using them. Will I stick to that? Who knows? But I'm going to give it a shot.
Comments
Post a Comment