An Ugly Dress and Why it Doesn't Matter What Color You See

Social media has been abuzz about the picture of a rather hideous dress. When shown this picture and asked, "What do you see?" I reply, "An ugly dress."

But the raging debate about the color of the dress made me realize something very fundamental. Some people see a black and blue dress. Some people see a gold and white dress. And some people can see both. But it doesn't matter what colors you see, because it is all about perspective.

And it is perspective that makes me wonder if reviews of any media should be done at all because we don't all see things from the same perspective.

There is a great study about the Himba in Africa and how their language affects how they see color ( http://www1.icsi.berkeley.e... It is worth looking into in order to understand what I am proposing.

It has occurred to me that the reviews that bashed the Order 1886, Ryse, and others are, in actuality, based on a perception that is hindered because of language. Game journalists exists in a world that is insular. They talk video games, they eat video games, and they breathe video games. Wherever they go, video games are part of their daily life.

When they talk about what they want out of a game, their wants and reactions are reified by feedback from their fellow journalists. This tends to further isolate and insulate them from the mainstream gaming community. And that insulation only continues to validate their perceptions of gaming as a culture. They are immersed in a negative feedback loop* that repeats their own beliefs back at them and bolsters their assertions. As a result, they don't understand the vehemence and vitriol that is aimed at them when they give, what they think, is a valid review. (*negative because the results of such isolation rarely result in positive outcomes. Though, arguably, there are places that produce a positive feedback loop and I am not arguing that some journalists are only stuck in the negative. On the contrary, sometimes they are stuck in a positive feedback loop also. Neither really addresses the major concern: that either negative or positive, the journalist is consistently reinforcing his/her views based on an insular experience. Ergo, they are not privy to a more mainstream viewpoint when looking at games. i.e. They see games through a journalist's lens, not through a gamer's lens.) E.G. Anti vaccination mothers in America belong to the same social groups, both online and in public and they reinforce their own misguided viewpoints. These viewpoints have led to death and the spread of preventable diseases. (Yes, I think that is apropos as it shows how an insular community functions.)

The gamer (the person that enjoys this hobby, has his/her own wants and needs, but lives outside of this "gamer journalist society") is not stuck in one of these communities. The gamer is not stuck in these negative feedback loops, and when negative reviews or press are printed about a game, their reaction is one of rejection ("I don't see the dress as THAT color!!! I see it as the other color!!!")
Or one of dismissal ("Boy that is an ugly dress.") or the ability to see the journalists concerns (I see it as THAT color at first, now I see it as the OTHER color).

Now, hopefully, you are following me through the dress analogy and my analysis of journalist culture. The fact is, games like Ryse, Watch Dogs, The Order, Destiny, are enjoyable to the gamer (as is evidenced by sales, online presence, and their responses to the game) these games seem unsuitable, uninspired, (and if I may) underwhelming to those who live solely in a world where video games and the rhetoric about video games is all these journalists know.

The gamer appears to ignore review scores as sales of these games have skyrocketed. Why? Because gamers want to play games that they are passionate about. They play games that are fun to them. I reviewed the Order: 1886 and gave it a great score because I loved the game and I knew exactly what I was getting. But then, I have a life outside of video games. I do other things, take vacations, have a career that doesn't involve gaming in any way. Since I am not isolated in the gaming culture, playing a game is a pastime to me, a mini 2 hour vacation.

This explains why some reviews trash what is considered a good game. It also explains why reviews shouldn't be trusted. I have written before that journalists that write reviews should only do so for their favorite genres, thus they can garner a following and become an expert on the genre, but it appears that I was wrong.

You see, it doesn't matter how the reviewer sees the game. It is a matter of perception. They may see a 4/10, but I see a wonderful game that is fully worth the price of admission. And, as I have read the comments here on N4G, I believe many gamers would agree with my assessment of the game (maybe not to the high score).

What it really comes down to, is that, our language, our immersion (or lack thereof), our insulation into gaming culture, affects our perceptions and we are only seeing "the dress" (if you'll pardon the analogy) in one way. Some of us will see it as the exact opposite because we have a different perspective and some of us will be able to see it both ways.

This perceptive study renders the very idea of reviews moot, not because we can't agree on them, not because some reviews make us angry, but because we are looking at the exact same thing and our eyes and brains are not perceiving it the exact same way.