Reviews, Journalism and Criticism. Or how I fell down a rabbithole. October 22, 2011 by

*Just a quick not before you embark. This post started out as a rant against shoddy reviews and quickly became something else entirely. Really it's two posts with two entirely different points but I left it as I typed it for a few reasons. As I was typing I just had a sudden rush of ideas and it all came flooding out. Although it's odd to read, I'm fond of it because you can see how my head was working as I went through it. Hopefully the excitement I felt while typing come through in writing (it all kick off around the mention of Will Wright). Hopefully  it doesn't come across as completely up itself, but if it does, let me have it in the comments. Now, on with the post: *

First, read this crap.

Now first of all I apologise, that review was truly a waste of your time. However, it illustrates so much of how NOT to write a review and breaks one of the cardinal rules a reviewer must not break, regardless of medium.

So why am I so angry about this review? Well I don't like the text, I think it's childish and poorly written, pandering to the game without addressing any core issues. That however, is a style choice. I have a particular style of review I enjoy and this isn't it- move on. So if the text, while immature and flaccid, isn't the real issue, what is? I'll give you a hint; look at the score.

Lot's of people on IGN get frustrated or annoyed at review scores, saying it should be this or it should be that... and that's fine. Reviews scores, like the review itself are subjective and it's OK to disagree. If this review gave Batman a 10, I might not be happy, but I would respect the reviewers right to their own opinion and carry on doing whatever it was I was doing at the time. After all, this is the internet; it's not like it really matters in my life outside this keyboard. The problem here however, is that the reviewer breaks their own review scale in giving this game a 6. This game is the second coming of dinosaurs? Great, give it a perfect 5 and an editor's choice medal, but don't break the scale. Say Uncharted 3 comes out next week and literally massages your feet while you play; should it too get a 6? Surely to give it a 5 is to mark it down after seeing that a 6 is now possible. What about a 7? Or an 8? Why not just rate it purple out of orange? Eventually it would make about as much sense.

Review scales exist for a reason. Their job is to give meaning to the number at the bottom of the page and provide the reader with some quantifiable metric of quality. It seems to me that over the last few years, game reviews on IGN and other places have gotten better at using the full scale, instead of sticking to the 7-10 end of the spectrum.  Abandoning it on a whim erases any meaning to the structure as a whole.

Now you may disagree, you may feel it perfectly highlights the writer's enthusiasm for the game. If so, please say so and let me know  why. I know I must come across as quite stuffy in a lot of these posts, but that's only because I aspire to see games writing grow and evolve. I look forward to a time when we have games criticism, much like we have of film and literature today. Right now we have games press. Journalism moves beyond the marketing and hype of the industry and examines the issues surrounding it. It involves reflection and analysis on trends and current affairs of whatever the focus is. Games journalism, if it exists at all, is the preserve of the few and in this field I think EDGE magasine holds court (though GamesTM is another quality publication).

Games criticism has yet to fully emerge. I'm sure it exists. This site has some quality work dedicated to moving toward that space and I'm sure there are others out there that I have yet to stumble upon. Games criticism is where my passion lies; examining themes and issues raised by each work, the intentions of the designers, the imagery and use of colour or sound. The effectiveness in execution or the balancing of the all of the various elements together. With games it's especially difficult as the game also has a technical end to it- it has to work. Figuring out how to engage critically with games is a huge challenge and quite frankly, it is one I'm not yet ready, nor capable for. God knows if you read any of my reviews it's clear to see that they accomplish none of the goals laid out above. I like to think they are well written and clear, but they are certainly enthusiast reviews. And that's OK.

I'm not saying we all need to push the boundaries of how games are examined. I think we need all forms of evaluation and discussion and certainly I want reviews that are going to tell me if a game is fun or worth my time. But some games beg for more. Some games cry out to be examined beyond that. Think of Bioshock. Or Braid. Deus Ex and it's use of colour or narrative themes- how do they tie themselves to the mechanics or affect the player's relationship with the world they, as Jenson, inhabits? Pick any of Will Wright's games and examine their abandonment of a traditional personal narrative in favour of broader approach focusing on the social or even biological narratives that the player forms around their own experiences. Wright's games provided the mechanics for narrative, not the narrative itself and this is fascinating because no other medium allows the subject to engage or influence the work in such a direct manner. There are exceptions, of course; a painting, especially abstract painting, allows the subject to superimpose their own reality onto it, crafting a personal experience or narrative through interpretation.LeCambrioleur 's most recent post is a perfect example of how film can offer similar interpretive interaction. The key difference here is that the work is static, the subject's input is implicit, not direct.

This piece has spiralled off into something I wasn't entirely ready to discuss so I'll leave it at that. I'll come back to it soon though, if you'll let me ;)

Submit Blog