If he needs an example of what journalists are talking about, perhaps Bioshock would be a good place to start? That doesn't mean I don't agree with what he's saying, but that's a great game to draw inspiration from for anyone that wants to make a deeper game. But please, don't stop making "shallow action games" Jaffe! They sell well for a reason: they're fun!

Oh give me a break. First of all, if Jaffe wants to put his work in the public arena and charge admission, people can criticize it any *** way they want. If he wants someone to hang his macaroni art on the fridge, then he can whine to his mommy.

Secondly, it's not necessarily the responsibility of the critic (or even the general populace) to design a better game for the designer. These are two different roles. The designer designs and the critic critiques. Back to frakking drawing board if people don't like your stuff you charged them $60 for.

Jaffe is off-base here.

Uncharted doesn't deal with any deep issues or push any envelopes. Not at all in any way. It just does action/adventure unbelievably well. It got 10s all over the place and won GotY all over the place.

Maybe he's a big fan of Kane & Lynch and doesn't like the new reviews on the sequel. Or he's preempting the fact that TM is going to suck . . . ?

Go ahead and make what you want. just make sure it is also what other people want because people make their opinions known with their money and if you don't cater to the people with the money you fail. and sales numbers don't lie.

The way games are reviewed is broken, they have always been broken. It is because ONE persons subjective opinion on a game does not represent the community of gamers that will play said game.

So...don't take reviews that seriously! Who cares if they like/dislike a game. I have been a loyal subscriber to GI for well over a decade and I read it for the previews, the letters, and the inside take on whats happening with developers.

GI gives Other M a 6 and I love it, they give halo a 9+ everytime and I can't stand the game. Their reviews will never affect my opinion on a game, it shouldn't rile Jaffe up so much either.

From David Jaffe's blog -

"Maybe some of us LIKE games that don't want to be art.

Maybe some of us would rather be the Jerry Bruckheimer of games than gaming's Orson Wells.

Maybe some of us LIKE portraying women in a more comic booky way (the same way- by the way- that the vast majority of male game characters are portrayed).

Maybe some of us don't want to load our games down with political and philosophical discourse."

I found the first sentence to contradict the next three sentences. First, even Jerry Bruckheimer pictures are art. Second, comic books with shallow male and female characters are still art. Third, any game with some sort of narrative will have a political and philosophical discourse. The difference is in how obvious this discourse is to the player.

Just make a good game. Whether it's deep and sophisticated or puts hot women and explosions in the spotlight doesn't bother me, so long as by the end of the day that game justifies it's $60 price tag.

Besides, I love Mass Effect, but sometimes I want to play Gears of War.

I see both sides here. But I said more on jaffe's... Like the apb thing, just because the game isn't like people wanted it, doesn't mean the Developers are lazy.

I agree with him on that, its okay to try something new, no one wants to play the same thing over and over again. Yes, making a new game base of a favorite series is cool..., but its even better to see a little change to them every now and then.

Who gives a f!@# what he thinks just make the game and shut up!!!

If this is regarding reviews, it should just be dropped. One single critic can review a topic for his/herself. There is no legit way to review for the community, with whatever set of guidelines they might think will work. One dude writes a review, but since that one dude represents whatever gaming publication, suddenly an entire consumer base is saying said publication favors or dislikes whatever game. Opinions vary, sometimes drastically. Just check out the aggregate review sites, like Gamerankings and Metacritic. There's always those couple critics who have to give a popular game a 30%. Just. The. Way. It. Is.

I agree with him as well and the absolute BIGGEST sinner in this end is Xplay and their reviews. If I had a nickle for everytime they gave a great game a mediocre score because it didn't reinvent the wheel, or do something revolutionary, or have a smart story with fresh actors and characters. Ugh, I hate it.

Sometimes, I just want to shoot things in the face. Sometimes, I just want a stupid action game. I don't want developers to think they have to revolutionize things every time they release a game. We already have developers doing that and it is great. But not every game has to make leaps.

Please bash the new Twisted Metal for its unrealistic portrayal of women, GI.

I think Jaffe is way off. There are far more people writing about games willing to accept getting the same dumb action games over and over again than there are people asking for deeper experiences.

And for the record, I totally agree/believe that there's lots of room for those dumb action games, and I love plenty of them. I'm just glad to see the medium starting to get more than that.

"Shallow" is in the eye of the beholder.  A game is supposed to be fun to play, first and foremost.  If developers start to concern themselves too much with trying to create movie-like experiences, gameplay is going to fall by the wayside.  I don't need to get emotionally connected to video game characters.  I want to have fun and kick ass.  Gameplay first, always.

You can still make action games, it's just that nowadays people want a good story with it. Story is what separates great action movies (The Departed, District 9) from the mediocre ones (Transformers, Resident Evil). Deal with it and move on, Jaffe.

However, I do agree with him a little bit about the way women are portrayed in video games. Almost every male in a video game is a ripped, good-looking guy (which is not what most male gamers look like), but you don't see guys complaining about it. We just deal with it and enjoy the game anyway.

Jaffe has a right to be defensive. Games are being driven to be like movies, but that is only ensuring that games lose their identities. Games have something movies do not-Immersion. Instead of embracing this, it seems many journalists want hollywood instead, but what is that going to get us? More camera angles, and stylized cuts and things that only make sense in a film? NO thanks.

The problem is that game journalists, like a lot of consumers, hold films as the holy grail to which games should live up to. Why, because a movie can make you cry? Maybe, but how many movies can give you the feeling that you are taking on a giant colossus. None. Can any of the zombie films evoke the feeling that YOU-the audience, is taking on a horde of killer zombies? Nope. In films you are only the audience, not the protagonist. Both mediums can make us laugh, frighten us and more, but they are ultimately different forms of entertainment.

I enjoy both, but prefer games. I think that both mediums have some titles that are artistic but are rare across the board. What matters most either way is this: Entertainment value.

I prefer games over movies because of the immersion. I love when a game has a movie-quality budget with a great story, great characters and amazing graphics. But if you focus too much on the presentation and not on the gameplay, you get an extremely shallow game that should have just been a movie. Take Heavy Rain for example. I loved the game, but traded it in as soon as I finished it because I couldn't see myself playing it again. It's just one big interactive cutscene. The only true control you have over your character is walking. Everything else is pre-defined actions during cutscenes. If it weren't for the amazing graphics and the hype, it probably wouldn't have made much of an impact. Now that it's got Move controls, it may do better, but  I still say it was a shallow game (one that if it gets a sequel I'll just borrow my friend's copy). If all games turn into that, gaming will stagnate and devs won't try anymore. Then Gamestop will close down and you'll have to get your videogame fix at Macy's electronics section where it's all shovelware becuase that's all that's left.

Yep, I agree with Jaffe. Games should do their own thing and it is important to be specific when being critical.

Can't wait for Twisted Metal.

     He has his opinion and I somewhat agree with him. With Halo Reach a lot of reviewers bashed it because the game didnt have "deep" charecters. Some reviewers said they did not like the "teabagging, cursing, childish." nature of the titles multiplayer. You know what though, I consider the game to be the most fun I have ever had at a games launch and I would easily give it a ten out of ten. Bungie gave everybody who loved the series the ultimate fan service and you know what? I love it.

     On the other hand I trust reviews for different titles i'm not sure of. GI I think gives the best opinions (youre doing a great job guys!) and theyre opinions got me hooked on some of my favorite titles such as Assassins creed and Mass Effect. So you can argue either way but lets just agree right now that both sides are right. Alrght?