So I’m reading a lot of negative comments and reviews on the PS3 game Afrika (Hakuna Matata in Asia) and I’m starting to get pretty pissed.
Normally I don’t get care what reviewers say because I’m used to a lot of unprofessional and biased journalism on gaming sites and I try not to make a big deal out of it because, 1.everyone has their own opinion and 2.as long as I am enjoying the game that’s all that matters.
However when something creative and artistic comes along that is as daring as it is unique and then gets hammered because of it, it worries me. Criticising such projects not only puts doubt in the mind of the developers and scares them to ever go down that path again but also forces them onto the bandwagon of generic and safe games.
In a time where 90% of the top rated games are either sequels or clones, a game or rather ‘experience’ like Afrika should never get blasted for being ‘boring’. Sure, mention the flaws and areas where it could use some polish but calling it slow and boring is a f’ing cop out.
I’m not defending the game because I personally own and enjoy it, I’m defending it because the fools bagging it would prefer to sneak up on the animals and snap their necks, then get rushed by another group and machine gun them to death.
It is a game, yes. But in cases like this, reviews have to be written with the fact in mind that it is actually a photography experience/adventure rather than the typical game.
What makes a fast, shoot-em-up more interesting than slow photography gameplay?
As seen in a previous post here, I did a mini review on this game. I also mentioned that it wasn’t the most polished game out there. Overall, I’d probably still only give it a 7/10 if I was to elaborate into a full review, but any intelligent reviewer would not be so ‘ugh I’m a hardcore gamer’ type biased and actually mention how this is a much different experience than most games and advise their readers that it is not for everyone.
But not being for everyone does not mean it sucks!