Gamer vs Critic, the Battle for our Souls

This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff.



It's been a few days since I've reviewed Crackdown somewhat harshly, deeming it a clone of its predecessor with an incomplete story and shittier art direction. And while my hard, chiseled and blackened critic exterior consistently tells me that Crackdown 2 is a waste of $60.00 when I could play Crackdown 1 while high and wearing sunglasses, a little part of me said otherwise.

"It was fun though, wasn't it?"

I was jolted by a small, shriveled part of me that I once thought dead: my inner gamer. And as I ignored the insidious whispering of the critic that attempted to contain me, I acknowledged a simple fact: I had fun playing Crackdown 2. Yes it was a clone and kind of repetitive but I didn't notice that while playing the game at all. 

All I did was drive a Lexus look alike through a crowd of mutants and then finish them off by stepping out of my luxury transport and heaving it at them akin to Donkey Kong chucking a barrel.

With the curse of the critic quickly fading, I can boldly make the following statements that I wouldn't dare have made a few days ago. Heck, I was about to write scathing reviews about some of these games.

Yes, Nintendo has basically been remaking Ocarina of Time but it's hard to give a damn when you're sailing through a vast ocean killing gigantic octopi with a boomerang.

Yes, I know Force Unleashed was an unpolished hack-n-slash game that critics bashed but I've played through it twice on different difficulties and I have yet to regret dropping full price on it.

Yes, Modern Warfare 2's story may be hackneyed and overall kind of ludicrous but when I was actually playing it I didn't give a DAMN; I just wanted to know why Shepard shot my ass in the first place!

And yes, I know Grand Theft Auto IV got a perfect 10/10 on like every site, but am I the only one that didn't have fun with the finicky vehicle controls, tank like movement and tap "A" to sprint that haven't been improved after almost a decade?

I feel like critics, instead of determining how much fun can be had with a game, must instead judge it against other games in the same genre or the same gameplay elements. This is by no means a bad thing; measuring games up to the standards already set by the industry ensures that gaming slowly evolves instead of stagnating. But translating that analysis into a score out of 10 doesn't necessarily correlate with how much fun the consumer will have.

Taking off points for a game being repetitive? If a game is fun, I don't mind repeating the same gameplay over and over again. If you think about it, sports games are incredibly repetitive and we still play them.

Saying a game doesn't have the best graphics? Every game can't be Gears of War you know . . . and it's not as much of a deal breaker as people may think.

Penalizing a game for having a "bad" story? Look at how different people like different books. Gamers prefer different stories and prefer having them told in different ways. There is no set medium!

The sad part is, I still want to be a critic, and typing scathing reviews for games that I still loved playing does hurt the gamer inside me. So I'm still standing by my review that Crackdown 2 looks ugly, it's a clone, and the developer really didn't put in as much time as it should have.

But despite that statement, I'm going to my friend's house again and I intend to enjoy Crackdown 2 and all of its cloned glory. 

Long live the gamer.