ID:An IGN editor claims that opinions are facts and that his coworkers are hypocrites

[Farid]

ID stands for internet drama, of course.
Somebody just sent me this link to the latest mailbag feature from IGN Wii, an usual, for gaming magazines, feature where the editors answer the questions from their readers. What's unusual, this time, is the nature of the answer given by Matt Casamassina, an IGN editor, to what was a classic fan person complaint about his favorite game not being nominated game of the year by the site:

http://wii.ign.com/mail/index.html

Zelda Conspiracy

Matt,

I just got finished watching the IGN Roundtable for Game of the Year, and I have to say that I am completely shocked. You and Peer, as always, had the only opinions that I respected. The comments made by the other editors beg the question, "Did anyone else at IGN play Zelda?" I spent my entire winter break absorbed, spending at least eight hours a day in the most beautiful and entertaining video game to date. Okami's stylization and Gears of War's realism are nothing in comparison to the beautifully crafted world of Twilight Princess.

Everything about the newest Zelda game is amazing. The characters and environments are, simply put, inspiring to someone, such as myself, that is currently going to school for computer animation. I could only hope to ever reach such artistic heights. Good design is more than just flashiness. It is about leaving an impression that affects the audience, provokes a reaction, and entertains. Twilight Princess was the only video game this year that accomplished those goals and yet it failed to be recognized by the majority of IGN's editors.

Game of the Year should be a video game that is epic, one that you can imagine replaying ten or twenty years from now and still enjoying. Of all the nominees, I can only imagine Twilight Princess holding up to the tests of time. Gears of War will be replaced by the next graphical powerhouse of a game. Okami will be replaced by next overly stylized game. Twilight Princess, on the other hand, is a game that won't age, that won't be replaced by the next good RPG, or even the next Zelda. I think I should add that Dave's comment about Twilight Princess being more of the same is like saying Lord of the Rings was just more of The Hobbit. I would also like to applaud his commitment to journalistic integrity by so loudly spouting his opinion of a game he obviously hasn't played. What a sad, strange little man.

...

Now excuse me while I hulk around with the ball and chain, wearing my iron boots, and magic armor, looking like a complete bad ass to intimidate any baddies that may still be lurking around Hyrule.

Pierce

Matt responds: Thanks for the comments, Pierce. I agree completely and hope I made my position clear in the video and written roundtables. It is an unfortunate possibility that the Game of the Year may not always be the best game, but rather the best game played by the majority of editors. I was expecting Zelda to lose for exactly that reason and I was quite confident that Gears of War would win. The Okami win surprised me and, the more I thought about it, pissed me off.

...

As you pointed out, though, what is far worse is the level of displayed arrogance and ignorance by some of the editors. If you watch the video, you will hear some of these people rip into Zelda as though it was a major disappointment and unworthy of even making the nominations list. The kicker is that these very same commentators clearly never played so much as 10 minutes of the game.

...

Normally, I would say to you that the best game is a matter of opinion and that is usually true. Do you like Metroid Prime or Halo? Both are worthy Game of the Year contenders in my mind and I would not slight anyone for picking one or the other. But Twilight Princess being better than Okami is a fact. If you're an intelligent human being and can accurately judge the strengths and weaknesses of each game, there is only one clear winner and it's Zelda. Because - visuals aside - the games are so similar, the outcome is only made easier to determine. I like Okami, but to pick it over Nintendo's four-years-in-the-making epic adventure is ludicrous.

You know, I freely admit to overlooking one Game of the Year contender. My Xbox 360 broke, preventing me from ever playing Rainbow Six Vegas, which a lot of people loved and nominated. The difference between me and many of IGN's other editors, though, is that I had nothing negative to say about a game I never played.

Althought I'm not pleased in the idea of linking to IGN, and thus giving them more hits (With having said that, you don't have to to clik the link, seeing that I posted all the important for debate parts), but this rant is so ludicrous, on so many level, that I had to post about it.

 

[AlNom]

um...wow. Should I be more shocked about the other editors not even playing the game (10 minutes is paltry) or that he passes opinion as fact? :|

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

haha that was so funny to read. But he does have a point. Now I wont debate wheter or not zelda should have won but its obvious that you cant judge a game like zelda if you only played it for 10 freaking minutes. You need to spend atleat 5 or 6 hours to see what the game is about. I played the game for 50 hours now, and zelda is the only SP game I ever played for such a long time. Normally I cant put my mind on playing the same SP game for more than 25 hours.

 

[davepermen]

Espencially as the first minutes (to one hour, or what ever) are the worst in the game, compared to the rest...

Everyone just starting it has no clue about how it is. And everyone bashing it hasn't played it. It may not be the best game for everyone, but it does definitive have great value.

Well well, I just wanted to state that. I don't comment on IGN editor wars or what ever

 

[blakjedi]

This argument occurs every year. Zelda is nothing special in that regard. I thought Windwaker was the cats pajamas on GCN... but people dismissed it because of its look. In fact I still prefer WW art style to TP... I probably would not have voted for Gears as Game of the year either... hype helps alot even with "dispassionate, unbiased" editors.

Also PEOPLE have certain PREFERENCES in terms of games... even with Gears' third person view sometimes it made me sick to play (motion sickness) . Whereas Tomb Raider I can play for hours with no problem... Maybe I like racing versus FPS, or prefer shorter games to longer games or western rpgs versus japanese rpgs... so being unanimous in praise can never and should never happen if you have and adequately broad swatch of people voting.

 

[Rainbow Man]

I've not played Okami so I don't know how deserving or not it may be of a game of the year award.

What I'm pretty sure of though is that Gears is not. In order to grab the game fo the year I think a game needs to offer something more than a relatively short run throguh linear levels killing alien monsters with guns and with cut scenes interspaced here and there.

All this has been done to death before there's nothing original in Gears. Regardless of how good it looks (and I seriously don't feel it looks all that super great in any case).

I can only conclude that hype is what's brought GoW to be amongst the top choices - if not THE top choice - amongst many gaming sites.

Matt's rant though is as weird and misguided as many other articles you find at IGN.

It's of course not some kind of indisputable "fact" that a game (twilight princess in this case) is better than some other game(s). Personal taste always has the final say.

Peace.

 

[Bobbler]

I thought Okami was so good simply because it followed the Zelda feel, yet didn't have the Zelda characters and looked more interesting graphically. It was everything Zelda without being Zelda.

It's arguable which is the better game, obviously both are good games, but even if Zelda is patently better than Okami, I'd say Okami still deserves the award, because it deserves to sell like a Zelda game but won't -- an original title like Okami should be rewarded. Let Zelda sit in the crowd for a change and give the spotlight to a game that deserves more than it got as far as sales -- it isn't like it'll hurt Zelda's sales, everyone already knows about it, but it might get some more people to try out Okami.

Matt is just being a whiny prick.

 

[fearsomepirate]

"It's an undeniable fact. Whitesnake rocks." "The fact is that this restaurant sucks more than any other place in town." It's a common sort of way of speaking. Words are not always used according to their most technical sense, and "It's a fact" is a common colloquialism used to indicate very strong opinion. If Matt was writing a technical philosophy paper or a research paper instead of video game editorial, I'd give him an F. But...it's an editorial.

I do think it's valid to express frustration at people who criticize a game that they haven't played. "More of the same" is a stupid criticism. It simply isn't true. I also think choosing Game of the Year vs the ratio of actual sales to deserved sales is kind of silly.

 

[Duke]

"It's an undeniable fact. Whitesnake rocks." "The fact is that this restaurant sucks more than any other place in town." It's a common sort of way of speaking. Words are not always used according to their most technical sense, and "It's a fact" is a common colloquialism used to indicate very strong opinion. If Matt was writing a technical philosophy paper or a research paper instead of video game editorial, I'd give him an F. But...it's an editorial.

I would've agreed with you if Matt didnt add this:

"If you're an intelligent human being and can accurately judge the strengths and weaknesses of each game, there is only one clear winner and it's Zelda"

He is stating it's a fact. He's not just "speaking", he's making a clear statement.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I personally think that GOTY awards are silly, but i will say this about Zelda TP:

While its a very good game, its just a polished version of what we have allready played on our gamecube's in different variations the last couple years.

If Zelda is GOTY, then so should Oblivion, because that game is just the same, its a polished version of the same old thing, they are both great games, but its hardly anything groundbreaking in either title.

Neither is Gears, (except for graphics), Okami to me stands out because its so different than anything else i have played, and i feel that should be rewarded.

 

[NERO]

Ouch Matt does not come off as very bright throughout his rant, and we should only take it as that - a rant. I enjoy the debates that branch off of game enjoyment comparisons because it proves what should be obvious, that games are interactive art and therefore the enjoyment of them is totally subjective. The bolded, "I would say to you....matter of opinion." is where Matt should have stopped, the rest is probably just flame bait. He seems extremely - to the point of irrationality - defensive about what is universally acclaimed as a fine game. Who cares that it didn't win some stupid game of the year award

 

[SugarCoat]

I personally think that GOTY awards are silly, but i will say this about Zelda TP:

While its a very good game, its just a polished version of what we have allready played on our gamecube's in different variations the last couple years.

If Zelda is GOTY, then so should Oblivion, because that game is just the same, its a polished version of the same old thing, they are both great games, but its hardly anything groundbreaking in either title.

Neither is Gears, (except for graphics), Okami to me stands out because its so different than anything else i have played, and i feel that should be rewarded.

Actually Twilight Princess is easily the most innovative and fresh Zelda game to date. I'm not done yet, so i dont know if its worthy of Game Of The Year since i'm about mid-way through the story (i think? longgg game). The problem with any type of game awards is a few things, the games that win always powerhouse sellers, which Gears was, they look gorgeous, which gears was, and it caused something of a cliche amongst reviewers.

1. "You play gears yet?"

2. "yeah...its not too ba..."

1. "Isnt it the most friggan awsome game ever!!!!!"

2. "erm... YEAH IT KICKED ASS!"

1. "haha! lets go infect Dave and Jane down the hall, Gears ROCKS"


The obvious problem with Gears of War, and why it should never of been considered for a Game of the Year of the award is because its the type of game that always gets reproduced by another team as time progresses, looks better, and delivers more of the same. We see multiple games like Gears Of War every console launch, very comparable in many ways, and the fact that GoW is honored like they have some huge advantage above the rest is pathetic. Graphics are only skin deep, or should be anyway.

Cant speak on Okami.

 

[Bobbler]

I also think choosing Game of the Year vs the ratio of actual sales to deserved sales is kind of silly.

I should clarify... I don't think game of the year should necessarily be used to advertise games that didn't sell as well as they deserved to, but in this case, since Zelda and Okami are arguably comparably good (close enough to each other and same genre, pretty much) that giving the underdog who deserves a bit more of the limelight isn't necessarily a bad thing. I wouldn't feel bad if Zelda won GOTY (and it probably will from other sites), but I don't think Okami being GOTY is the travesty that Matt claims with such zealous resolve.

 

[SedentaryJourney]

The obvious problem with Gears of War, and why it should never of been considered for a Game of the Year of the award is because its the type of game that always gets reproduced by another team as time progresses, looks better, and delivers more of the same. We see multiple games like Gears Of War every console launch, very comparable in many ways, and the fact that GoW is honored like they have some huge advantage above the rest is pathetic. Graphics are only skin deep, or should be anyway.

Whaaaa!? You know the exact same thing can be said for Zelda and games of it's type.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how long you've spent with GeOW but it's not just another pretty looking shooter; Resistance may fall into that category, but definitely not Gears. What makes Gears "Game of the Year" worthy is that it PLAYS differently from almost every other shooter out there. This is a game that focuses on tactical maneuvering and close quarters combat. I haven't played Zelda:TP, but I definitely would have given Gears the nod over Okami.

 

[habbe]

The one thing i really liked with gears was the coop online play, It's been a long time since i enjoyed a game as much as gears coop. If it deserves some kind of an award it is for the online coop with the good gameplay IMO.

But is has some glitches such as texture popping, and some issues with the control. doesn't feel very polished.

 

[jandar]

Whaaaa!? You know the exact same thing can be said for Zelda and games of it's type.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how long you've spent with GeOW but it's not just another pretty looking shooter; Resistance may fall into that category, but definitely not Gears. What makes Gears "Game of the Year" worthy is that it PLAYS differently from almost every other shooter out there. This is a game that focuses on tactical maneuvering and close quarters combat. I haven't played Zelda:TP, but I definitely would have given Gears the nod over Okami.

I haven't played single player above hardcore, but I can still pump enough rounds long distance and keep myself and teammates alive without resorting to the stupid (yes in my opinion, stupid) "lets bang against a wall and peel around while covering for my dumb AI cohorts".

It was a dressed up Unreal Tournament to me.

To each his own, Ive been playing LANs with FPS since the days of BNC cables in a 10 PC setup. GOW is just a prettier version of everything I have played since then.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Who here's actually played Twilight Princess for more than the opening scenario and said "Bah. This is more of the same?" I've noticed a lot of criticism on console message boards for games one hasn't played.

"It's an undeniable fact. Whitesnake rocks. Honestly, if you're an intelligent human being, then the first time you hear David Coverdale's voice, and you compare them to lame grunge bands like Nirvana, you'll realize they rock your nuts clean off."

Even with the added clause, when pressed to the wall, I would deny that I was making a scientific statement. However, this is an opinion of such a sort that I do in fact believe in the inferior judgment of those holding the contrary position.

Matters of taste do not exclude value judgment and never have throughout human history. It is only in the modern era that the demand to scientize all of life so that nothing can have a value judgment except be it proven true or false according to a scientific paradigm that such ludicrous denigration of aesthetic, taste, and opinion emerge.

 

[SedentaryJourney]

I haven't played single player above hardcore, but I can still pump enough rounds long distance and keep myself and teammates alive without resorting to the stupid (yes in my opinion, stupid) "lets bang against a wall and peel around while covering for my dumb AI cohorts".

It was a dressed up Unreal Tournament to me.

To each his own, Ive been playing LANs with FPS since the days of BNC cables in a 10 PC setup. GOW is just a prettier version of everything I have played since then.

Yes, to each his own...but you are WAAAAAAY off.

For what it's worth, you can play through hardcore as you described and pretty much get away with it, but there's almost no chance of picking off an opponent from a distance in multiplayer unless you've got a sniper rifle or hammer of dawn.

 

[Rangers]

I just dont think Okami was a good choice. Nobody's going to care about that game in five years. When you look back at IGN's game of the year choices in the future, you'll be like "Okami? That doesn't belong".

They just wanted to buck the Gears of War GOY trend, I suspect.

 

[inefficient]

CliffyB said that when Halo1 came out it kind of frustrated him. He did not understand what the big deal was because overall it did not do things all that different from what PC FPS games were already offering. Gears is sort of Epic's revenge for that.

Similarly now, from a PC FPS gamers perspective Gears is not as fresh as it is for everyone else. I've heard the same feedback from many PC gamers - they don't see what the big deal is. And especially for fans of Epic's FPS games. If the game was released as a PC only game it probably would have been received differently.

It's still a good game. But I don't think it can be compared with a Zelda. The scope and amout of design work that went into it is just not the same. It's like comparing the Great Wall of China to the Sydney Opera House.