Why is it so hard to find in-depth analysis of games?

Why is it so hard to find in-depth analysis of games?

You'd think that an industry worth 80 billion would generate some close readings

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/cUeoHdpTNPc?t=43
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Lazy people, not profitable... etc.
Not to mention Xbot genners tend to call anything in-depth ''autistic''.

>Why is it so hard to find in-depth analysis of games?
Its not, its as easy as writing an in-depth analysis about a film or a book.

Retards on Sup Forums seem to lack a simple 12th grade ability to write and elaborate their thoughts

because the subject matter doesn't merit it

Check Joseph Anderson
Pretty lengthy and in depth analyses, he spoils everything though so don't bother watching unless you've already played the game or didn't plan to.

All the real media analysts are working on better things, like literature, cinema, visual arts. Nobody wants to analyze a child's toy.

Youtube game criticism pretty much peaked with Instig8iveJournalism

Isnt that the same pose and shit as meryl's foxhound tattoo?

Pic unrelated right?

That's partly true, but it's also the media lockdown the vidja PR industry has on media outlets. Even if someone wanted to do quality wiring and bring up the pros and cons of a game, that would be totally unacceptable to the people who paid for good reviews.

Because nobody's going to fund or sponsor something like that. An "in-depth analysis" is undoubtedly going to reveal everything wrong with the game, and the big publishers sure aren't going to like someone entertaining the thought that their yearly rushed AAA crap is anything less than a 10/10.

I just watched this guys Fallout 4 video and there was nothing insightful or indepth, just a bunch of minor nitpicks

There's no good analysis because games aren't really that well understood outside the people who actually make them, cinema and literature have been around for centuries

slowpoke as fuck

games are made by hundreds of people now

don't expect a good analysis of the game unless you have just as many people looking at it

breaty much every "good" commentater of the field usually stick to only one or two core things they know about

its dat simple

this is the dumbest thing i've ever read
do you need a thousand people to analyze a movie then?

check out matthewmatosis

I like his stuff but he mostly talks about the stories wich isn't a surprise since he is a writer.

Because gamers are trash

>In-depth analysis
No. None of these "objective analysis" channels have any more than a puerile understanding of video games.

They're not programmers, or designers, or artists. They probably don't even play board games, let alone chess, go, etc.

Because most people that can actually make intresting reviews don't have enough communication skills to make a youtube video.

>An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.

Isn't Matthewmatosis a programer?
He does talk about technical stuff from time to time too.

Unfortunately, SuperBunnyhop can no longer be /ourguy/.

youtu.be/cUeoHdpTNPc?t=43

We need to find a replacement.

AngryJohnShow is pretty hilarios and insightful

No, he just throws out journalist jargon like "engine" without understanding what it means.

>liking a glorified Angry Joe
reminder that he started playing games during Wii-tard era(Just like Angry Joe) and thinks modern shooters are exactly the same as arena shooters.

it takes a month for a movie to be made? While it takes years for video games? on top of movie critics fall into the same pitfalls of not really covering the whole movie?

wow, you could'a fooled me! its almost like you don't have any idea what you are talking about!

You don't need to be writer of Literature to analyse Literature
How many films did Roger Ebert make again?

Why not actually play video games and form your own opinions on them instead of listening to pseudointellectual "game critics"

>it takes a month for a movie to be made?
no it doesnt

sorry add a s on the end of month

if it takes longer, you are fucking up and everyone from the 60's onword ill tell you that

How often did he make reference to cinematography, framing, basic writing. He ran a few opinion pieces, in the vein of "I rate this game 9/10". You don't know what you're talking about.

A fair reference is literary essayists, or essayists for games, postmortems by the actual team, etc. Besides, I'm not saying you have to make a game to understand one, but the benchmark isn't some schmuck comedy youtuber whose analysis extends to "the ladder scene in MGS3 was an intentional change in tone. It's genius!"

Considering how far both videogames are from being art and from being accepted by the world as a serious medium (be at as art or something else), you shouldn't expect much from any reviewer.

What if I do that and listen to other talking heads to have conflicting interpretations to bounce my own off of

Looks like some guys from Sup Forums are fucking triggered.

Can I both play the games and then watch some critics video on them?

Same reason why we visit Sup Forums: feedback. Humans need validation.

he states objective, unopinionated facts, what exactly is the problem?

Hi Bunnyfag, hows the ad revenue treating ya?

what part of your post addresses my point?

>all the trumpfags pissy on the comments and disliking the video because of something he said for 10 seconds
Hilarious.

I super recommend Game Maker's Toolkit. Slickly edited, usually talks about one games aspect and explores what it does right and wrong, and it's just really informative overall.

because Sup Forumstards are fucking obnoxious and have to derail absolutely everything if a single person doesn't agree with them. They are just like SJW now who never just shut the fuck up

and before you say it, I voted for Trump

Why? Nothing he said there was objectionable. Glad he still likes Siege, great game.

You're a fucking idiot. Games don't have nearly the critical depth of films or books, and it has nothing to do with the amount of time spent making them or the number of people involved.

Matthewmatosis
Smudboy
Instig8iveJournalism
Shamus Young
Joseph Anderson
Ross' Game Dungeon
Ahoy (formerly xboxahoy)
Antisocialfatman
Sequelitis
Ludo lense
Ggmanlives
Joshua Sawyer
mrBtongue
Noah Antwiler (or his ultima videos at least)

But I'm sure there's more out there. I also think Zero Punctuation gets an undeservedly bad rep, especially here, as some mistakenly believe it's just a character, or just because it's popular.

Games don't deserve "in-depth analysis." Most games barely touch on themes and they barely try to make a point about anything which artistic criticism and analysis is focused on. Games, beyond a few indie works, are focused on escapism and little else. All analysis, then, falls into how well individual games achieve their goals of escapism, and this doesn't take much clever work to decipher.

It's not that games aren't well-understood by critics, it's that there isn't much for critics to understand beyond the basics. Beyond a couple of random titles, games haven't made the leap towards artistic expression. Critics can't even begin to develop a system of critical thought around vidya because vidya is only beginning to reach for things which require serious interpretation.

>don't expect a good analysis of the game unless you have just as many people looking at it
This is the dumbest thing i've read on here in a while.

But what about gameplay mechanics and design? That should be worth discussing and analyzing.

For that refer to the 400 page e-book analyzing Warioland 4's design.

>Games don't deserve "in-depth analysis." Most games barely touch on themes and they barely try to make a point about anything which artistic criticism and analysis is focused on. Games, beyond a few indie works, are focused on escapism and little else. All analysis, then, falls into how well individual games achieve their goals of escapism, and this doesn't take much clever work to decipher.

First of all games don't all serve purely as escapism, and secondly even if they do, I mean especially if they do, don't they need analysis to rise above what they are to become what they can be? I mean, it's not as if the entire industry will watch them with great attention but the more there is out there the better, right?

>Why is it so hard to find in-depth analysis of games?
Because it takes time and effort.
Producing let's plays or just quickly giving your opinion about a game is both easier and more profitable.

572, 582 if you include the citation/credits
source: I own it

An analysis of those elements inevitably just turns into "how well did these elements contribute to the fun or escapism value." This isn't exactly interesting or thought-provoking.

>don't they need analysis to rise above what they are to become what they can be?
Pretty much what I said ^. It's just not interesting. I guess there could be a critic who goes through the 99% of vidya that is just escapism and says "here are all of these elements and they just amount to escapism and that's why vidya still isn't taken seriously," but it wouldn't exactly be interesting. Anyway, games are getting better, so soon there'll be room for a channel that does stuff that's actually thought-provoking.

>Joshua Sawyer
Is that name just a coincidence?