Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin, Ed Skrein, Stefan Kapičić, and Brianna Hildebrand
Deadpool has arrived at an interesting time in cinema; for
the past eight years, we’ve been getting superhero films left and right, most
of them being solidly produced action blockbusters that rake in millions year
after year. For the first time in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the company
has taken a step back with their most outrageous and downright wacky character.
The film follows the misadventures of Wade Wilson (Ryan
Reynolds), the “merc with the mouth” who lives a fairly simple life with his
girlfriend Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). After being diagnosed with cancer, Wade
runs afoul of Francis Freeman, also known as Ajax (Ed Skrein) who subjects him
to nasty procedures to trigger the onset of mutant abilities. The narrative is
told out of order, bouncing between past and present with Deadpool himself
often narrating the proceedings. Whichever perspective we get to see it’s
consistently crude and hilarious, filled with clever pop-cultural references, in-jokes, and parodies of established superhero traditions. The only times it deviates from this are when it needs to tell an
origins story and a romance; I’m happy to report that it does both of those
very well too. Deadpool’s backstory is pretty sinister when you get into it;
his body is warped and badly damaged by his transformation which fuels his push
for vengeance. It’s a dark tale which stands completely at odds with the humour
on display. The romance feels genuinely believable too; beneath all the comic
relief you can feel the closeness between Wade and Vanessa. On top of all that,
we have the ties to the X-Men Universe and their efforts to discipline Deadpool
a bit, which also leads to some great jokes. Multiple components in a single
plot can be tricky to manage, but Marvel’s latest effort pulls it off without a
hitch.
The film makes a point to set itself apart at every turn and
this is mostly down to the characters. At the film’s centre is Deadpool
himself, who is a thousand times better than his portrayal in the much maligned
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (heck there’s even a point where he whips out an
action figure of the infamously mouthless portrayal). He’s shameless in every
sense of the word, spouting jokes and toying with his foes with reckless
abandon, making him wickedly entertaining from start to finish. Ed Skrein is
highly detestable as the villain; he takes such pleasure in what he does while
fully embracing the common cliché touted in the film’s opening credits. The
side characters are just as strong with a feisty performance from Morena
Baccarin. Although Colossus (Stefan Kapičić) and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna
Hildebrand) are relatively serious (they are part of the X-Men after all!),
Deadpool still does a great job of playing off and giving them some comedy as
well as incorporating them into the action sequences towards the film’s final
act. There really isn’t a single weak link in the cast; they all have their
place in the story and all contribute to the film’s comedic aspects in their
own ways.
The way Deadpool looks and sounds is also very different to
any other superhero film. It all begins with the opening credits which use of
kinds of questionable phrases for the director, writer and cast, immediately
informing the audience that it isn’t meant to be taken seriously. The fourth
wall breaks give way to some additional camera angles, such as when the
anti-hero turns the camera away or when it concentrates on specific… body
assets in several scenes. It feeds into the more dramatic aspects fluidly and
the same holds true of the action. It’s well shot, widely varied and fun to
watch with ample use of slow motion to give a proper impact. The soundtrack is
equally laidback, tying in with the immature tone that hangs over the entire
film.
Deadpool gets the central character perfect, hits you with
brilliant comedy every moment it can and stamps itself as one of the freshest
superhero films in a long time. It’s right up there with the best Marvel has to offer
and under no circumstances should you pass on one of the funniest movies in
years.
Starring: Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Mark Ruffalo, Brain D'Arcy James, Liev Schrieber, John Slattery and Stanley Tucci
Excellence in journalism and the very best of relatable
acting collide in Spotlight, an extended yet engrossing examination of a news
team’s search for the truth.
Spotlight takes place in Boston, Massachusetts and recounts
the revelations surrounding the systematic child abuse of Catholic Church priests
in 2001. The titular branch of The Boston Globe handled the big news story over
many painstaking months, which was comprised of Walter Robinson (Michael
Keaton), Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams), Michael Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo) and Matt
Carrol (Brian d’Arcy James) along with the support of editors Martin Baron
(Live Schreiber) and Ben Bradlee Jr (John Slattery). Their combined efforts
uncovered a widespread and shameful level of paedophilia that went by seemingly
unnoticed by both the law and those who attended the church. Every last detail
from the original story has been packaged and composited into the film,
emphasising the amount of work and difficulty the team went through. The
narrative flashes between the different characters and their individual efforts
in the story; the events are relatively
complex, but as the investigation progresses onwards, you’ll find yourself
invested as more and more drastic measures and facts come to light.
With a realistic setting locked down, the characterisation has
been designed to slot into it seamlessly. The members of Spotlight may not be
especially varied, but they all share a common determination and camaraderie
which makes the audience root for them. Their reactions to the revelations are
all very natural, but of all the main characters, I think Mark Ruffalo has the
most emotion to convey and he gets it all across superbly, particularly the
sheer frustration of how such widespread corruption went by unchecked for
decades. The film is never overzealous with the way it presents the characters;
they’re all common everyday people who happen to be on the cusp of something
immense. The emotions conveyed here are all fully realised and feasible with no
additional side stories getting in the way of the plot. Even the side
characters, such as the members of law who support the investigation are well acted,
not to mention the victims of abuse who powerfully convey the trauma from their
childhoods. It’s all incredibly authentic, making the film’s portrayal of the investigation
even more detailed and memorable.
Spotlight is a truly mesmerising and often shocking account
on one of the biggest scandals ever to be uncovered by journalistic
investigation. The plot is intent and unwavering in the way it presents its
story and the characters are both well portrayed and relatable. If you happen
to be involved in the profession of journalism, it’s an absolute must see; for
everyone else it’s simply another fantastically well-made drama based on a true
story.
Released: 25 December 2015 (Limited release in the United States)
Length: 156 Minutes
Certificate: 15
Director: Alejandro G. Inarritu
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Domnhall Gleeson, Will Poulter, Forest Goodluck, and Grace Dove
The 1800s were a tough time for those living in the then
unsettled region of the Louisiana Purchase; dangerous animals, hostile
relations with native tribes, limited methods of defence and above all else, a
battle with the freezing cold. These are just some of the many obstacles that
Leonardo DiCaprio must face in The Revenant, an immensely harrowing and visceral
struggle for survival.
Based on the book by Michael Punke and beginning on the banks
of a frosty river and nearby forest, The Revenant follows a band of pelt
hunters forced to flee following a devastating attack by the native Arikara
tribe, cutting their numbers down by two thirds. After a frightful and deadly
encounter with a grizzly bear, scout and hunter Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio)
slows the expedition down in their efforts to reach safety. A disgruntled
member of the company, John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) manipulates the other
members into leaving him for dead and after fleeing the scene, Hugh is left
with nothing but his own wit and survival skills to find his way back and have
his vengeance upon the man who wronged him. From the offset, The Revenant is
very clear on what it wants to be; this is a rough, gritty and brutal foray
through a relentlessly unforgiving setting. As Hugh Glass traverses it, the
audience is subjected to an array of intensely realised moments; viscous fight
scenes and death-defying escapes that populate the film’s plot. Alongside this,
the pacing swaps between day and night with quick efficiency, putting across
the extended time Glass spent out in the wilds. As the central protagonist wills
himself to both survive and recover, The Revenant keeps a compelling narrative
that you won’t be able to tear yourself away from.
The fairly compact cast of The Revenant keeps the narrative
simple and easy to follow, with each member doing their part to make the characters
believable. Leonardo DiCaprio is fantastic as Hugh Glass; he isn’t given too
much to say throughout the film, so instead he relies on facial expression and
body language. Every pain-staking injury and movement is vividly captured,
which gets across the extreme predicament the character finds himself in. On
the opposite side of the coin is Tom Hardy, who brings a suitably unlikeable opponent;
Fitzgerald is especially devious, despite his rugged exterior. The other actors
including Domnhall Gleeson and Will Poulter bring very clear and recognisable
traits to their characters; with a dutiful Captain Andrew Henry and the young,
inexperienced Jim Bridger being engaging in their own ways. One thing which I
thought worked to the film’s benefit was its sense of ambiguity; Glass may be
aiming to chase down Fitzgerald throughout the film, but all the characters
have their own motivations and ways of life that often conflict. It is the
frozen wasteland that really hampers the humans at every turn, and thanks to an
innumerable amount of shots and angles that show off the sheer scale of the
environment, it practically becomes a character itself. Even the Arikara tribe
that attacks at the opening of the movie have their motivations and reasons for
what they do.
What The Revenant accomplishes in terms of filmmaking
technique is nothing short of astonishing; this really is one of the most
absorbing films ever to be put on display. Every single element works to pull
the audience in, making them feel as if they are in the frigid wastes with the
characters. Following on from the director’s single-take technique in Birdman,
every single shot in the film has been accomplished using natural lighting,
with CGI being reserved to the creatures in the film. Whether it’s deer, bison
or everything in between, the wildlife has been carefully composited into the
film without disrupting the immersion on display. The film is also very
creative with other shots as well; tracking shots for actions between characters
pan around the environment, as well as several far and wide angles that show
how nature towers over man. The make-up effects, particularly the often nasty
and grievous injuries the characters receive are shown in excruciating detail,
highlighting the disadvantages man once had in this untamed wilderness. Musically,
the film is very sweeping, with simplistic tones that match the long ranged
shots of the environments overhead. The level of quality from a production
standpoint achieved here is unbelievable, one of the best looking and sounding
cinematic visions I’ve ever seen.
By every definition of filmmaking, The Revenant succeeds
marvellously; rarely do we receive a historical epic to this degree of
excellence. Go see it, and get sucked into one of the most nail-biting movie
experiences you’ll have this year.
Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russel, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins, Demian Bichir, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, James Parks, and Channing Tatum
Quentin Tarantino’s eighth film is an engrossing flick filled
with mystery and an ever rising tension made more palpable by the enclosed
environment the characters find themselves stuck in.
The Hateful Eight takes place in the frozen wilderness near
Wyoming where bounty hunter Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) hitches a
ride with the wary John Ruth (Kurt Russel) who is transporting a most valuable
prisoner (Played by Jennifer Jason Leigh). After stumbling across another
stranger in need named Chris (Walton Goggins) who is apparently the new sheriff
of Ruth’s destination, the three soon arrive at an out-of-the-way lodge and are
introduced to five other faces. Finding themselves snowed in for at least a day
or two, these eight unsavoury characters all dislike each other in some way or
another and at first they try to keep their distances; but as the hours roll
on, the Wild West’s version of Cluedo ensues. Suspicion and apprehension runs
rampant with new twists and revelations coming and going at a brisk pace. This
is what makes the film so engaging and you’ll be keeping an eye on all the
characters wondering what their next move will be. By making use of a
non-linear and chapter driven narrative to tell its story, the way past and
present are placed encourages the audience to even grow more intrigued; the
burning question is, what if anything, happened at this lodge before Warren,
Ruth and Chris arrived? The Hateful Eight posts this question to us and always
keeps us absorbed as a result.
With a premise that lives and dies based on characterisation,
The Hateful Eight carries on the director’s tradition of characters with
magnetic personalities. The ensemble cast in a western film is nothing new; in
fact, the idea of a group of individuals who find they crossing paths is very
much in the vein of spaghetti westerns such as The Magnificent Seven and The
Wild Bunch. Like previous classics of the genre, each one of them is very
memorable; Warren is the de-facto leader, Ruth’s no-nonsense attitude isn’t
going to put up with anyone’s rubbish and Chris is awkwardly humorous. The
other characters are also a real treat to watch; there’s a suave hangman, a
bitter veteran and a quiet rogue who tends to keep to himself. Having all these
characters play off one another leads to some great humour and more cracking
dialogue that the director always works into his films. There is but one weak
link in the cast; Channing Tatum’s character reminded me quite a bit of
Chrisoph Waltz in Spectre in that his character doesn’t live up to the way the
film builds things up. Once again, we have another character that is simply too
basic and ho-hum; not really taking advantage of the actor’s untapped
potential. All the other characters have so much depth and variation to them
that Tatum ends up sticking out.
The aesthetical style in The Hateful Eight is very reminiscent
of films from the seventies from its opening titles to the chapter based
presentation. It’s a niche that Tarantino previously filled with Grindhouse
double feature Planet Terror and Deathproof and it really works to set the film
apart. The soundtrack is just as good as any of the director’s films with
legendary composer Ennio Morricone once again returning to write some tracks
which brilliantly compliment the film’s more deliberate pacing. In terms of
bloodshed, The Hateful Eight could be the most graphic Quentin has ever made;
it holds nothing back, heightening the impact of the action once it finally
heats up. The one area which didn’t work too well for me was the slow motion;
in Django Unchained it raised the tension of the action scenes, but here it felt
really jarring and unneeded considering how it is used with such irregular
abandon. Despite this misplaced technique, the camerawork still makes the most
of the film’s environment, with some plot components wisely left off screen to
build the suspense further. Despite having less direct action than Tarantino’s
other flicks, Hateful Eight still has its fair share of visual flair, something
which isn’t usually present in a typical “Who-done-it?” storyline.
The Hateful Eight is ultimately a very successful outing with
just a few stumbles, a film which sets itself apart from Tarantino’s previous
western while keeping the patented style that we’ve all come to recognise from
the director on top form.
On January 14th 2016, Alan Rickman passed away
from cancer, surrounded by his family and friends. Despite getting into acting
fairly late at age 41, the roles he played would go down as some of the most
deeply developed I have ever seen in film. In addition, he also contributed enormously
to the theatre scene including the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal
Court Theatre. The actor was once quoted as saying: "If people want to
know who I am, it is all in the work." That most definitely applies to the
roles I saw him play over the years. Be warned as there are some spoilers abound!
1. Harry Potter (As Severus Snape)
From the moment we first saw him in 2001’s Harry Potter and
the Philosopher’s Stone, Professor Severus Snape oozed mystery; he stood out as
the one who picked on his students at Hogwarts the most and yet beneath his
cynical exterior, he had arguably the most detailed backstory of any character
in JK Rowling’s popular series, something which Rickman kept a secret for a
whole decade. Little did cinema-goers, and readers of the books known back then
just how deep his character arc would go.
I can say without a doubt that Severus Snape is my favourite
character of the entire series; quite unexpected considering we had so many
great and memorable characters to latch onto. Alan Rickman’s performance was
superb all the way through, but it was Deathly Hallows Part 2 where the final
revelations surrounding his character were revealed and one of my favourite
film scenes of all time came to life in an immensely poignant and
heart-wrenching way.
2. Die Hard (As Hans Gruber)
The original Die Hard and indeed the series as a whole (At
least up until 5) was a tremendously entertaining action series, and one of the
things that set it apart was a series of solid and well thought out
antagonists. Each one had their strengths, but none could top Alan Rickman’s
unforgettable performance as Hans Gruber from the first film. The man was a
professional and devious kind of criminal, and at the start of the film this is
always on display.
Later on in the film, Gruber meets our protagonist John
Mclaine and while he poses as an escaped hostage, we get a scene filled with
dramatic tension. It’s here that the cracks in Gruber’s professionalism start
to show. This is what made Hans such a multi-dimensional villain and Rickman’s
performance made it all the more intriguing.
What I’ll remember him for
If you asked me to choose something specific which made Alan
Rickman so memorable, I would go for the manner in which he spoke. His simple,
monotone voice told us everything we needed to know about the authority and
often ruthless nature his characters possessed. The interesting thing about
this is that as Rickman’s films went on, this layer of gruffness eventually
peeled back and we saw the more emotive aspects that rested underneath. Whether
it was Gruber’s descent into petty thief territory or Snape’s broken past finally
coming to the forefront, I always enjoyed how beautifully the actor captured
this change.
Ezio Auditore remains the most popular protagonist in the
entire Assassin’s Creed series; since his introduction in 2009 he drew such a
strong reception from the gaming community that Ubisoft saw fit to make not
one, but three games based on his exploits before moving on to the next main
numbered entry in the franchise. The Ezio trilogy comes to an end in Assassin’s
Creed: Revelations and although it’s one of the weaker entries in the series,
the journey is still worth concluding, especially if you’re a big fan of the
series.
Following the ending of Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood, modern
day assassin Desmond Miles has entered a coma and in order to revive himself,
he must relive the remaining memories of his ancestors. From here we once again
enter the Animus which picks up four years after the death of Cesare Borgia.
Assassin’s Creed Revelations features an old and weary Ezio Auditore as he
ventures to Constantinople to unravel the long lost mysteries of the assassins,
most notably Altair from the original game. During this last quest to discover
the truth of centuries past, Ezio tangles with the rise of the Ottoman Empire,
aiding historical figures such as Prince Suleiman who is in line for the throne.
Flashing between Ezio, Altair and Desmond if the player wishes, the game
proceeds much like any other Assassin’s Creed game in chapters. But this time,
far more emotional moments have been worked into the narrative. The story in
Assassin’s Creed Revelations is ultimately one of two halves depending how you
look at it. On the one hand, the end of Ezio and Altair’s story is a really
sombre and absorbing ride that continuously strikes home throughout the game,
but the conflict contained within Constantinople pales in comparison to other
games in the series as the characters contained within just aren’t as developed
or interesting as they were in 2 and Brotherhood.
The overall design of Revelations is very familiar to anyone
who has gotten into the series. Once again you’re given a map dotted with
objectives, treasures and other points of interest and must explore and
complete these to advance the fairly long story. Revelations mostly stays the course with
the typical stealth, eavesdropping and assassination missions, but it also sees
fit to refine and polish some elements that were introduced in previous games.
The assassin recruitment system has been given a worthwhile context in that you
go on specific missions with them to teach them the lessons of an assassin,
which links with Ezio’s reputation as “The Mentor”. The city economy system is
back again, along with the need to seize territory from the Templars and
convert them into assassin dens. But this time the enemy faction will attempt
to retake these dens with legions of soldiers, battering rams and other
military might, which brings up a tower defence mini-game. Rounding off the map
is a series of animus data fragments which unlock “Desmond’s journey” which
takes place outside of Ezio’s viewpoint. Desmond’s journey involves first
person platforming through strangely serene silver corridors by creating
platforms. It’s an interesting diversion and can lead to some additional titbits
about the character’s life before he was originally captured by Abstergo.
Revelations plays and controls much like its predecessors
did, only with a few minor changes and as a result, the gameplay in general
does seem just as tired as the design. Despite his age, Ezio can still race across
rooftops and traverse like nobody’s business, but this time he can also extend
his jumps and slide down rails with the hook-blade. The new tower defence
gameplay facet is quite unexpected and at first it will intrigue you; the issue
with it is that it’s too limited to make a good impression. Forcing the
viewpoint onto Ezio at all times and relying on ranged and melee units, which
have been a common fixture of the genre for years, makes the gameplay come off
as very one note and uninteresting. Thankfully once you train up your assassins
to guard the dens, the defending becomes much less prevalent and doesn’t get in
the way nearly as much. The other main innovation fares a bit better; bomb crafting.
Using ingredients scattered around the environments, Ezio can make and use bombs
from standard explosives to poison gas. It adds an interesting layer to stealth
in that you can eliminate a group of targets at once. Unfortunately the game
doesn’t really make good use of them; it gives you a tutorial in the game’s
opening act then relegates them to 100% synchronisation targets rather than
working them into the game’s main missions. Despite it being fairly similar to
the other games in the trilogy, Revelations still plays well but the new ideas
it attempts to add aren’t all that successful.
Assassin’s Creed Revelations doesn’t make too many strides
forward from presentation, looking mostly the same as II and Brotherhood but
with new environments. The animations, attention to detail in the world and
voice are all just as well done as ever. Ironically it’s the smaller details
that add to the sombre tone which hangs over the game. What I found interesting
was that the environments, such as the Masyaf stronghold and overall tone they project
feel dimmer and less inviting than before; this highlights that the embers of the
two assassins are slowly fading away. The soundtrack is hauntingly beautiful,
perfectly tying in with the conclusion of Ezio and Altair’s individual journeys
and creating a genuine sense of pathos; you will end up caring for both of
these characters and the game does a brilliant job of drawing the player into
their heartfelt moments. The game has very few glitches and technical issues,
which keeps the player’s investment in the setting on point. Revelations
ultimately possesses a well put together presentation that doesn’t take any
risks or chances with the established formula and for most, that won’t be too
much of an issue.
Revelations offers an emotional sense of finality that,
despite its missteps and overly-familiar nature, remains enjoyable and
absorbing, not to mention being a worthy stepping stone to Assassin’s Creed 3.
Some aspects of the gameplay don’t work out too well, but the story (at least
one half of it) is most definitely worth sticking around for.
The subject of reviewing in gaming is a fairly tricky one to
decipher and has become a more widely discussed topic in modern gaming. Video
game reviewers themselves have had all kinds of abuse and attacks hurled at
them over the past few years, and it seems that as the internet age has
enveloped more aspects of our discussions, these incidents have only grown more
toxic and accusing.
It's probable that the review that really kicked off the cycle of
suspicious review commenting and discussion was Kane and Lynch: Dead Men by Gamespot in 2008. The then senior editor of the site, Jeff Gerstmann, gave the
game a six out a ten while the website was dedicating a substantial amount of
its advertising space to promote the game. Apparently several confrontations
between Gamespot and the game’s publisher Eidos Interactive occurred, resulting
in Jeff being dismissed from the site soon afterwards. It was eventually hinted
by Gerstman in an interview four years later that Eidos had threatened to pull
their advertising revenue over the bad score and Gamespot let Jeff go to
appease them, as it were. The Giant Bomb journalist was most recently called
out for his criticism of Fallout 4, with people getting up in arms over him
being too critical of the game.
Kane and Lynch was only the first of many reviews which
sparked controversy on Gamespot; in the years that followed, people became more
and more fixated on the review number itself. Tom Mcshea was a big target for
this; his 8 out of 10 for Fable: The Journey and 7.5 score for Legend of Zelda:
Skyward Sword in 2011, as well as the 8 out of 10 for The Last of Us in 2013
were all met with pointless anger by commenters. But what really enraged the
masses on the site was Carolyn Petit and her review of Grand Theft Auto V; I
checked in early on the review when it came out, saw how she was disappointed
over the game’s use of women and thought to myself: “Fair enough, it’s her
opinion, but that 9/10… people will be mad”. Mad didn’t even begin to describe
the amount of hatred and borderline persecution that was about to erupt. I’d
never seen anything like it; it was probably the most disgusting thing I had
ever seen in all of my time with gaming. Over 20,000 comments the majority of
which harassing, belittling, bullying and calling for Petit to be fired from
Gamespot. The site did hit back at these heartless comments but it did little
to ease the fires; when things finally did calm down, a new discussion existed
in the gaming community. Should political discussion and societal viewpoints be
injected into game reviews? It could be argued that the whole debacle on Gamespot
may have been a strong contributor to the launch of the GamerGate scandal a
year later.
Other websites have also been subjected to scrutiny as well;
IGN has received a pretty negative reputation from the gaming community for
constantly giving Call of Duty games at least at 8 or 9 every year despite
their lack of innovation as well as their overrating of other modern games.
Their review of Mass Effect 3 was also called out for being biased because one
of their own staff members (Jessica Chobot) was a character in the game. On
other occasions, many of the big reviewers are also criticised for ignoring
glitches and issues, thus misleading the consumer into paying for a broken
product; for example GameTrailers gave 9.5 out of ten to EA’s Battlefield 4 in
2013 and did not mention anything about the game being unplayable at launch. In
some cases this may be down to the game developer purposefully giving out an unrepresentative
review copy to the mainstream press to avoid any kind of point docking for an
unfinished game. Story isn’t really a big factor in mainstream review scores
either for fear of spoilers; truth be told, there really isn’t any way to
satisfy everyone and that’s what the common gamer has been raising concerns
about, that reviews are supposed to be objective. The problem comes when the
mainstream gaming press can’t afford to keep this focus consistently anymore.
Between not wanting to upset fans of a series or console, not
wanting to repel potential benefits with publishers, and not wanting to direct
traffic away from their website, video game reviews now have more influencing
factors than any other piece of entertainment. It could be argued that they
have become something which could potentially make or break the success of a
website and the wages and livelihood of bona-fide game journalists. Anger a fan
base over a low score of their favourite game for example and they won’t come
to the website again and because of this, the revenue taken in by click and
visit numbers goes down. Bash a game from a particular company who invited you
to an event or break the review embargo and you risk being placed onto the
blacklist, meaning you won’t have access to the resources and releases that
your journalistic competitors have. Developers and publishers want their game
to sell well and game reviews can play a much stronger role in informing
consumer purchases than films and music; if a game gets bad reviews that is
sure to impact sales and so with games becoming so expensive to make, the
makers may take more decisive measures to ensure this impact does not occur
when the game is ready for general consumption.
Based on what I’ve seen through reading and watching several
reviews on Gamespot, IGN and other websites over the years, the common
accusations cried out at reviews from both internet commenters and other press
members usually go as follows…
·“They were paid/bribed/endorsed to give a good score!”
This usually springs up whenever advertisements for a
particular game pop up on a website, a reviewer attends a developer or
publisher sponsored event or if they were given earlier access to a review copy
than other outlets. Commenters believe that undisclosed deals were made between
the game makers and the reviewer; they score the game highly and in return the
publisher places advertisements, both of which work to sell the game upon
release.
·“Their agenda got in the way and shouldn’t have been
part of the review!”
Political correctness is a pretty sore subject in game
reviews with many crying foul whenever someone utters a word about games
relating to current political climates, gender roles and other external
debates. Those who argue against the mention of these usually state that games
are simple entertainment and shouldn’t be judged on the same level as films or
other artistic entertainment.
·“The score is too high/low for this game! You should
have praised it/criticised it some more!”
This criticism is almost always borne from comments that look
at the score first and mostly comes from fanboyism. There’s a nasty habit where
people demand that their favourite game or franchise gets at least a nine or
higher and if it doesn’t, then they automatically call out the reviewer for
being biased towards a one system or company over another. The word "sell-out" is especially popular when this accusation is mentioned.
·“They only gave it that score to be different from
everyone else and direct traffic to themselves and their website!”
There’s a rather pointless element of conformity that exists
in review comments nowadays, one that may have sprung up as a result of
aggregate websites such as Metacritic. It’s a fairly simple system; green is
good, yellow is mixed and red is bad, but it’s possible that some take this too
far and uses it to fuel a demand that all mainstream reviews conform to the overall Metacritic score.
With all the endless accusations going around in the
mainstream gaming press, it’s easy to see why popular YouTubers are now the preferred
place to go when it comes to criticism of video games. By that I mean the
hardcore reviewers; AngryJoe, TotalBiscuit, Super Bunnyhop, Tarmack, MatthewMatosis,
SomeCallMeJohnny and Jim Sterling (All of which I highly recommend). They have
all made their presence felt on the site in varying ways, but they all have
something which the big websites don’t really possess anymore. A dedicated
following and fan bases that always return to their channels time and time
again because they have created a brand and identity which feels more genuine
and credible. They don’t deal with game publishers nearly as often and aren’t
restrained by those pressures, meaning they can give a more whole-hearted,
long-winded and deeper critique.
Are mainstream reviewers corrupt? There is no easy answer to
that question and it greatly varies depending on which website or outlet of
games journalism you read into. The companies won’t tell a soul about these
kinds of review practices and for internet commenters, simply disagreeing with
a score is never enough nowadays. The two sides (along with publisher influence
in the middle) are constantly clashing and this I believe is why reviews on
long-running websites carry so much scepticism.
