Monday Tip-Off: Lacklustre Video Game Retrospectives

We’re at midcourt, and the ball is about to go up…it’s Monday Tip-Off! Join me as I begin the week here at the NLSC with my opinions and commentary on basketball gaming topics, as well as tales of the fun I’ve been having on the virtual hardwood. This week, I’m tipping things off with some thoughts on video game retrospectives that are rather lacklustre.

Presently, I’m covering at least one game per month with an in-depth retrospective for Wayback Wednesday. I’d like to increase that number while also covering other retro-themed topics, but time is a factor when it comes to producing those features. I want to spend ample time with a game that I’m revisiting before I talk about it, especially if it’s one that I didn’t grow up playing and thus have less familiarity with. I also want to be as detailed as possible, not only covering all aspects of the gameplay, modes, and features, but also any relevant history and interesting trivia.

To that end, beyond getting my hands on the sticks, I’ll also do some research. That often leads me to contemporary reviews, and of course, some other retrospectives. I try to avoid reading other people’s opinions before I’ve formed my own, but it’s still fascinating to see what’s been said about a game. It allows me to discuss how it was originally received, and whether my views match the consensus. Sometimes my take is very different, and that’s completely fine! Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, though opinions carry more weight if they’re well-reasoned. With that in mind though, I’ve encountered some incredibly lacklustre basketball video game retrospectives.

That might sound like a knee-jerk reaction to opinions that disagree with my own, or as though I’m arrogantly presenting my views as intellectually superior; as if I’m the arbiter of what’s good and bad on the virtual hardwood, past and present. I promise you that this isn’t the case! There are plenty of video game reviews and retrospectives that I’ve disagreed or at least not entirely agreed with, but I can’t deny that they have a valid point. It’s a well-argued take leading to a conclusion that I may not share, but do recognise as logical and reasonable. That’s what I strive for in my basketball video game retrospectives, and hopefully I make good points even if you disagree with me.

One of the ways that I try to achieve that is through being thorough, even when that means a longer article or video. Obviously, length alone doesn’t equate to quality or accuracy. There are plenty of weighty articles and videos that are little more than long-winded nonsense (again, hopefully mine are not!). There’s also value in shorter articles and videos that are intended to be a quick look back rather than an in-depth retrospective, and they can be both enjoyable and informative. However, whenever retrospectives are light on details and explanations, yet heavy on opinions and bold declarations, I find them to be a lacklustre look back at the video game in question.

Simply put, the “why” is important when you share an opinion; at least if you want it to be credible. Granted, you don’t have to offer up any detailed reasons as to why you think something is good, bad, or mediocre, but you make a stronger argument when you do. It demonstrates thoughtfulness, and an understanding of the subject matter. Even if someone disagrees with your overall view, they can see your point, and also potentially learn something. You don’t leave people wondering if you actually played the game, or watched the film or TV show, or listened to the song or album, or if you’re even familiar with the genre! It doesn’t suggest unreasonable bias or standards.

Many of the lacklustre basketball video game retrospectives that I’ve happened across while researching a title are flawed in this way. Whether they’re praising or criticising an old game, they don’t explain the why. They don’t talk about the mechanics and the design choices that they like and dislike – or they touch on them very superficially – thereby failing to explain how they’re good or bad. There are no comparisons to other games that illustrate their expectations and views on quality. Sometimes, old games are held to modern standards, or judged by other unreasonable criteria. Whatever the case, these retrospectives don’t provide an accurate or nuanced view of a video game.

Needless to say, there can be biases and agendas at play here. Nostalgia is an obvious factor, but not always in the way you might think. It’s easy enough to overlook flaws in a video game that we’re nostalgic for, and that’s important to keep in mind when producing retrospectives. However, awareness of “nostalgia goggles” can easily lead to overcorrection where we’re too harsh on old favourites so as not to appear biased or stuck in the past. This has led to content dedicated to nostalgic video games where the approach seems to be about “dispelling the myth” rather than discussing their qualities and history, and fairly evaluating them based on both modern and historical standards.

Of course, there is value in “myth-busting”, especially when it isn’t too sensationalist and remains fair and well-argued. Therein lays the problem with so many lacklustre basketball video game retrospectives: they’re so determined to “see through nostalgia” that they intentionally skew negative, nitpicking with unfair criticisms and refusing to give credit where it’s due. The irony here of course is that these retrospectives end up being just as biased and inaccurate as content that succumbs to nostalgia goggles! It’s fine and arguably important to provide a counterpoint to nostalgic content that refuses to acknowledge any flaws, but when it comes to biases, you don’t fight fire with fire.

Mind you, while some lacklustre video game retrospectives are smug hit pieces, not all of them are malicious or agenda-driven. Sometimes you dust off an old favourite and realise that it isn’t as good as you remembered, or perhaps it doesn’t hold up as well because technology and design principles have come a long way. This raises an important question when it comes to reviewing old games: how do you balance the historical context with how well a title has aged? “Good for its time” can feel like a backhanded compliment, yet it’s also important to acknowledge when outdated games were once among the best in the genre, but have since been surpassed as the yardstick.

Personally, I prefer to compare games to their contemporaries – in particular any titles that were the gold standard for their era – while also noting aspects that have aged or have been done better since. I believe it’s vital to try and get the most fun out of an old game when revisiting it, while keeping reasonable expectations in mind as far as its mechanics, graphics, modes, and so forth. Retro gaming appeal is also a factor, so I’ll note whether a title holds up well enough for me to consider still playing it regularly. Some games are as fun as ever while others are tough to go back to, or are very much an acquired taste. Some are fun in small doses, and others should be left in the past.

In other words, my goal with basketball video game retrospectives is to give my view on where a title ranks compared to its contemporaries, acknowledge whenever a game was a milestone release with features that were ahead of their time, and evaluate its replay value today, while being informative in describing all the ins and outs as well as any interesting history and trivia. Positive or negative, it’s my honest view, and I’ll explain why. None of us are unbiased as far as our preferences, but we can be fair and reasonable in our takes. Good retrospectives will celebrate and criticise as necessary.

Conversely, lacklustre video game retrospectives don’t do that. They’re almost always negative, even towards popular classics. They tend to bash and be snarky, with vague explanations of what they’re criticising and no consideration of the historical context. It can go the other way of course, with a retrospective being little more than gushing praise without any critical thought or exploration of the finer details. Those features do tend to be more about nostalgically reminiscing than being informative or critical, though. Unless they’re intentionally exaggerated for comedic effect, overly negative retrospectives are most likely genuine in their critique of a game and nostalgia for it.

As far as tongue-in-cheek retrospectives are concerned, there is an audience for that. Riffing on nostalgic content and pointing out its foibles – while sometimes celebrating it at the same time as roasting it – is an entire genre. Creators such as James Rolfe and Doug Walker popularised that approach to discussing old media through the personas of the Angry Video Game Nerd and the Nostalgia Critic respectively. There’ll always be a place for that kind of content, but we’ve also come to appreciate more nuanced and informative online critique. In the age of well-researched and thoughtful video essays, the “angry reviewer” style of commentary has become something of a relic.

It can work if the person has good comedic chops and it’s very clearly a “bit”, but to me, snarky riffing feels out of place in any retrospective or review that’s attempting to be earnest. Even if I actually agree with the opinions that are being expressed, if the ratio of snark to detailed critique favours the former, it’s kind of like oversalting a dish. Also, because they can be very entertaining, comedic retrospectives of nostalgic media tend to create enduring narratives despite any exaggeration and indeed lack of accuracy and research. Once again, length doesn’t always indicate quality, but short articles and videos that are more of a roast than a review are tough to take seriously.

Brief, superficial retrospectives leave me with the impression that the person didn’t try to play the game with any enthusiasm or curiosity. They might still be critical even if they did, but they’d at least talk about interesting ideas and early examples of what would become staples of the genre. It’d be clear that they tried to have fun and make the mechanics work, even if they were ultimately unsuccessful. Apt comparisons to a title’s predecessors, contemporaries, and successors would suggest they’re a subject matter expert who can evaluate games based on historical standards and expectations. You won’t find any such insights in lacklustre basketball video game retrospectives.

Indeed, I can’t help picturing them throwing the game on and making a half-hearted attempt at playing it for twenty minutes before derisively saying “bleh, this sucks, how did anyone ever enjoy it?” and then churning out a brief retrospective that barely scratches the surface of what’s good, bad, interesting, and bewildering. Again, there’s no curiosity; no interest in the developers’ thought process, or any consideration that a concept might’ve been the only viable solution during gaming’s infancy. There’s no acknowledgement that a primitive mechanic was still an improvement on what came before it, and that it was a stepping stone to even better ideas as technology improved.

Perhaps that isn’t entirely fair. There are long-time gamers who played certain games when they were new and have always held those opinions of them, and they may well have a very good point! At the same time, I can attest to fresh eyes leading me to see games in a new light, proving that first impressions don’t always last. I’ve also tried to play games – basketball or otherwise – in ways that weren’t conducive to their design and intended strategies. Whenever I’ve given them another shot and worked with their mechanics instead of fighting them because I think they should’ve been different, I’ve enjoyed them a lot more. I’ve still had my criticisms, but I’ve come to appreciate them.

Look, I understand that it may seem like I’m taking this too seriously. It’s just people sharing their opinions about old basketball video games at the end of the day. Still, as a creator and a consumer, I strive for and value content that has some degree of effort and expertise behind it. I’ll admit that it bugs me when I see brief and underwhelming retrospectives cited in the “Reception” sections of Wikipedia articles! Five paragraphs (or even less) of superficial and snarky commentary shouldn’t define a game’s legacy. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but I believe basketball video game history is too fun and interesting for lacklustre retrospectives, devoid of any research and insight.

The post Monday Tip-Off: Lacklustre Video Game Retrospectives appeared first on NLSC.