New Review Posted: Shellshock '67

Daniel Weissenberger · 10-20-2004, 01:17 AM

I review Shellshock: Nam '67, and loathe nearly every minute of it:

"There was some debate around GameCritics.com recently (generated by Scott's score for Manhunt) about whether numeric scores should address the game as a whole, or whether they should just cover how good a game it is. In the case of Manhunt, Scott felt that despite the fact that the game was a perfectly acceptable stealth game, its material was so objectionable that it deserved to be factored into the review. I didn't really have a stance on that issue until recently. A few months back I gave Roadkill (a game whose content I found loathsome) a five, explaining that was the score I would have given it had it been a series of untextured blocks driving around a wireframe world. At the time, I didn't think content existed that was so bad it couldn't be overlooked. Everyone has a line, I suppose, that must be crossed before they're willing to stand up and scream "Abomination!"

Shellshock is the game that vaulted across that line."

The rest of the review is here , if you're interseted.

legendarypegasu · 10-20-2004, 01:55 AM

Amazing review Danny. I appreciate your choice to factor in the game's objectionable content into your final score. Videogame journalists and reviewers have a tendency never to judge a game as a whole, but rather only on the quality of the game. I personally find this to be a flawed and disturbing apsect of videogame journalism. It is one of the reasons why videogame journalism recieves very little respect, since critics of other forms of entertainment do factor in the content of the medium.

The real question is why do they ignore it? I would argue that videogame journalists and gamers in general want to believe that a game's content has absolutely no effect on the people who play it, despite overwhelming psycholgical data which proves otherwise. But that besides the point.

Also I would like to thank you for writing so many high-quality reviews in the last few months. According to the review directory, you have reviewed 7 games in the last 3 months, which is going above and beyond the line of duty. I'm sure everyone else here also appreciated your hard work.

Hypatia93 · 10-20-2004, 09:40 AM

Phenomenal review Danny.

Without parroting peg's commendation of your work (which I agree with in all respects), I must also say it's valorous of you to "go out on a limb," as it were, and review these games with a conscience. You choose to be true to your own ideals rather than kow-tow to the hysteria of the masses.

Keep up the excellent work!

P.S. However, much as Scott's (and Mike's) reviews of Manhunt made me want to play that game (which I have, and find it difficult to go back to b/c it truly makes me feel "dirty" and wretched inside), I find myself oddly drawn to this one as well. Do you find that bizarre, or am I just a sick mf'er?

(Which also reminds me, b/c of your Nietszchean take on Psi-Ops, I recently bought, but have not yet received, a copy of it on eBay. Hmm..)

(Btw, I must say I appreciate the work of every single reviewer on this site, so the praises given to Danny do not diminish, in my mind, the work all of you do here.)

Chi Kong Lui · 10-21-2004, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by legendarypegasu

The real question is why do they ignore it? I would argue that videogame journalists and gamers in general want to believe that a game's content has absolutely no effect on the people who play it, despite overwhelming psycholgical data which proves otherwise.

1. Taking games seriously and analytically is not commerically viable at this time. The Holy Grail of modern gaming journalism, Next Generation, is now defunct. That's a telling sign when the most praised and high-profile magazine goes under. Until people see cultural videogame critics as something of value and are willing to demand and pay for it, we'll continue to see only consumer friendly advice rather than actual criticism.

2. Most of the writers writing about videogames are young fanboys with little life experience to bring to their reviews and have little or no formal training in journalism or art theory to expand on their vocabulary. Most of their critiquing skills are derived from a life-time of reading EGM and GamePro.

Chi

LordFarid · 10-21-2004, 04:52 PM

Wasn't Next Generation just the American version of Edge? I remember both magazines actually had the same content at the time. Anyways, don't forget Edge.

Chi Kong Lui · 10-26-2004, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordFarid

Wasn't Next Generation just the American version of Edge? I remember both magazines actually had the same content at the time. Anyways, don't forget Edge.

No slight intended. What is actually the history and connection between the two magazines? Can anyone elborate in detail?

Chi

Widowmaker · 10-27-2004, 09:29 AM

I'm a bit puzzled regarding the reviewer taking offense to the content of Shellshock 'Nam. Perhaps he has a selective standard about which games offend him because last time I checked, just like Shellshock, Grand Theft Auto keeps track of how many kills the player has made (innocent or not), encourages the player to kill indiscriminately with very little consequence, and on and on. Also, much like Shellshock, Grand Theft Auto contains offensive racial stereotyping as well but I don't hear the same hue and cry over GTA from game reviewers as there is for other games (we certainly have heard it from politicians and social groups).

While I agree that Shellshock does contain offensive material, what's even more offensive is the narrow and selective outrage that game reviewers save for a few games but except an equally offensive game such as GTA from that same standard.

Daniel Weissenberger · 10-27-2004, 03:29 PM

Grand Theft Auto makes no pretense of realism or attempt to depict actual events. Shellshock represents itself as a 'brutally realistic' war game and opens with documentary footage of the actual war.

And there's your difference.

Widowmaker · 10-27-2004, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GC_Danny

Grand Theft Auto makes no pretense of realism or attempt to depict actual events. Shellshock represents itself as a 'brutally realistic' war game and opens with documentary footage of the actual war.

And there's your difference.

So, in other words, if Shellshock took place in a totally unrealistic setting, it would not be offensive? For instance, instead of 1967, let's say it took place in the 25th century in outer space but the player can still shoot racially stereotypical civilians and the game would keep track of these kills for you. Would it be okay then?

Again, while I agree that Shellshock is offensive, what I am arguing for is an even application of that "offense" standard across the board.

Daniel Weissenberger · 10-27-2004, 04:23 PM

It's offensive not because it's excessively violent and racist, but because it purports to be an (at least partially) realisitic viewing of the war, but is in fact a gruesomely violent cartoon version - my offense was not at the content, but of the game's treating the actual war so lightly and with such disrespect.

So yes, if the game had been about Alien Vietnam in the year 2672, I wouldn't have been offended.