From the Archives: Seeing the Good Within

It’s often fun to think about your favourite “bad games” — games which were received poorly either critically or commercially — and exactly why you like them.

Today, I wanted to talk a little about an interesting related consideration: why would you ever want to play a “bad” game, and how should you handle the experience?

MoeGamer was, right from the beginning, built around the idea that those games commonly considered to be “bad” by press and/or public usually have some redeeming features to someone out there — and there’s actually some solid critical theory to back it up. So let’s explore the matter further!

Time and Eternity: a lot more interesting — and a lot better — than mainstream reviews might suggest.

The temptation when looking at something widely regarded to be “bad” is to maintain the status quo, looking for all the things that everyone else has already declared to be bad and confirming them for yourself.

An alternative approach is to go in with a completely open mind and draw your own conclusions which may or may not match up with the “norm.”

A third approach is to take into account the most widespread criticisms, then decide whether or not they bother you to the same degree as other critics. I say “critics” here not to delineate between those who write in the professional games press and those who are simply enthusiasts; we’re all critics, really, since we all have the capacity to make our own judgements on things we’ve engaged with, we’re all able to express our opinions freely thanks to the magic of open Internet communication. And, of course, we don’t always agree on things.

John Updike.

In 1977, novelist John Updike outlined a series of “rules” that he always attempted to follow when reviewing something — rules that allowed him to criticise graciously and fairly.

Updike’s original rules were intended to apply to those reviewing books, but many of them are just as valid when it comes to judging, reviewing and criticizing games, whether you’re doing so in a professional capacity or simply enthusing to a friend. Let’s look at some highlights.


Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.

Games are seldom the work of a single creative mind, though there are odd exceptions where a single “auteur” leaves a very distinctive stamp on the experience — good examples include Swery (Deadly Premonition), Suda 51 (Shadows of the Damned, Lollipop Chainsaw, Killer is Dead) and even Nintendo’s Shigeru Miyamoto. In these cases, the creator’s vision is often very clear, so it’s easy to see what they were going for and whether or not they achieved it.

Swery’s Deadly Premonition is a great example of an “auteur” game; obviously the product of a single creative vision.

In a game designed by a larger group of people, though, this isn’t always so easy. But the main takeaway from Updike’s first rule should be that if you personally disagree with the way a game has done something, that doesn’t necessarily make it “bad” — the creators may simply have deliberately chosen to go in another direction for their own reasons. If, say, you disliked Final Fantasy XIII for not having a conventional turn-based battle system, this isn’t particularly fair, since that was never the intent; instead, you should be looking at what it was trying to do with its combat and whether or not you believe it was successful.


Give [the author] enough direct quotation so the review’s reader can form his own impression.

This is not particularly practical to do with games, since you can’t really “quote” a game. You can quote a game’s story, sure — assuming it has one — but that doesn’t really reflect what the experience of actually playing the thing is like.

Gunpoint.

What you can do, though, is share the experiences you’ve had with a game. Tom “Pentadact” Francis, developer of indie puzzle platformer Gunpoint and former writer for PC Gamer magazine, stressed the importance of this in his article Five Things I Learned About Games Criticism in Nine Years at PC Gamer.

“Giving specific examples is dramatically better in every way,” said Francis. “They give a much more colourful picture of what the game’s like to play than any overall description could; they illustrate more about your point than you could ever articulate in the abstract; and as a bonus, they also make me believe you.”

These days, there are lots of ways of sharing your experience. You can write about it. You can record a video and upload it to YouTube, perhaps adding commentary. You can podcast. You can stream via services like Twitch. Any and all of these facilities are open to everyone — professional or enthusiast — and they’re all powerful means of “quoting” a game to give people a much better idea of what it’s like.

It might be hard to imagine a time when Nier wasn’t rightly acknowledged as an artistic masterpiece, but that time most certainly existed.

Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending.

This one goes without saying, surely — although there’s a certain amount of wiggle room on it depending on if you’re writing a “review” or a more in-depth analysis of the narrative. I tend to err towards the latter here on MoeGamer, but that doesn’t stop people referring to everything I write here as “reviews” sometimes!

Anyway… while spoilers don’t bother some people, others get really, really angry about them. If talking about the ending is an important part of talking about why the game is good, try not to diminish the impact for others. Perhaps talk in more general terms about the themes and concepts seen in the game rather than the specifics of what happened. Talk about how it made you feel; talk about how you felt when it was all over. Do not tell everyone that it turns out that Ellen Page was dead all along because she was killed by Sephiroth at the end of the first disc. Or something.

There are, of course, instances where it’s impossible to talk about a work without discussing the core “surprise” at the heart of it all.

If the [game] is judged deficient, cite a specific example along the same lines. Try to understand the failure. Sure it’s [the author’s] and not yours?

This is a bitter pill to swallow sometimes, but occasionally you’ll experience something that is not “for” you. You may end up disliking it — intensely in many cases. But does this really mean it’s “bad?” Absolutely not; it simply means that it wasn’t to your taste, and perhaps that you weren’t the target audience — not every game is designed to be universally appealing.

In this case, try not to put down those who do like something; “I don’t like this” is not the same as “this is bad,” after all. Likewise, remember that this goes both ways; not everyone else will be into what you like, as we often see in comment threads on large sites, particularly on high-profile games.

The Last of Us Part II: divisive.

Of course, sometimes something is so objectively broken that even enthusiasts of what it’s trying to achieve are turned off by it, at which point it can be safely consigned to the garbage can of history. But before declaring something incontrovertibly bad, be sure that you’re not the one at fault. And see if you can find an example of something aiming for the same goal and reaching it. What’s different between the two? Why does one work and the other doesn’t? Is there anything redeeming in the less successful work?


Review the [game], not the reputation. Submit to whatever spell, weak or strong, is being cast. Better to praise and share than blame and ban.

Here lies the crux of the matter, so far as I’m concerned. I would much rather actively seek out the good within something than immediately assume it is bad based on reputation.

I’ve done this a number of times both personally and professionally over the years, and it’s pretty much always led to very pleasant surprises, whether it’s the emotional sway that Nier held over me, the amount of immersion I found in Ar Tonelico’s incredibly well-realized world, or the discovery that the Hyperdimension Neptunia series — renowned for its technical shoddiness in its early days — is filled with characters that appeal very much to my own personal tastes and make me smile.

By all means acknowledge that something has flaws — be these technical, aesthetic, mechanical or thematic — but consider whether those things affect the experience as a whole.

The original Hyperdimension Neptunia was widely panned, according to Metacritic, yet it’s something I personally found great enjoyment in by seeking out the good within rather than focusing on the bad.

“I want to rant for three paragraphs every time a multiplatform game has glitchy mouse behaviour in its menus,” continued Francis. “But if they fixed it, it wouldn’t change my score.” Is that flaw really that important to you?

Approaching criticism from a “praise and share” rather than “blame and ban” perspective is also a way of thinking that leads to being a more positive person on the whole. By approaching things in this way, you’ll be able to enjoy a much broader spectrum of experiences. Having a willingness to open your mind to new, sometimes flawed, sometimes ambitious experiences can lead you to discover things that you never knew existed.

And you might not want to look back after you’ve jumped down that particular rabbit hole.


I originally wrote this article for USgamer in July 2013. With that site’s future uncertain at the time of writing, I’ve republished it here.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider supporting the site via any of the services below or the Donate page here on the site! Your contributions help keep the lights on, the ads to a minimum and my shelves stocked up with things to write about!

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com PayPal

3 thoughts on “From the Archives: Seeing the Good Within”

  1. Good rules. It probably helps that Updike was a novelist himself; if you have to deal with a lot of criticism yourself, you have to really think about how you give it out when you’re on the critic side. I try to follow these now when I’m reviewing anything — being fair to the creator(s) is vital to getting the best understanding of a work, which I think is the point of writing a review. There are certainly games and other works I don’t like, and I can express that dislike, but I’d never think of telling other people they shouldn’t like them just because I don’t. I guess that’s where most of the mainstream sites’ views of games like Hyperdimension Neptunia come in — they still hold such games at arms’ length as if nobody with taste could enjoy such a thing. It’s different.

    I have run into a recurring issue with spoilers, though. It’s not such a problem with most games I review, but more with really story-heavy works like visual novels and certainly with anime. I put spoiler warnings at the tops of my posts if I just decide there’s no way to talk about the work without spoiling, but then I feel bad for people who have to pass on the post for that reason. It’s definitely hard to talk about something like Saya without addressing those spoiler elements, as you brought up.

    I think it’s part of why I’ve been leaning more towards the long analysis posts, where I’m diving deep into story and character and all that stuff anyway and there’s no expectation that I’ll need to hold anything back.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.