Why are there no famous video game critics?

by Blake Snow { Jul 3rd 2006 at 6:55PM }

Wired's Clive Thompson deals with Chuck Klosterman's Esquire piece exploring the possible reasons why there are no prominent video game critics. From the article: "Brilliant critics... [are] nurtured and hired by editors who care about the medium. Today's mainstream editors mostly neither play games nor think about them much. When they do, they regard games either as juvenile fluff, or dangerous mind-control technology that is programming a kill-crazed generation of moral zombies."

Mr. Thompson continues by saying he "can't wait to read" the first respected game critic when he comes. Let's see; a self-proclaimed game expert subjectively telling me what games are good or not? No thanks.

See also:
Ebert: video games inherently inferior to film and literature

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Franky Digital @ Jul 3rd 2006 7:04PM

There are no great video game critics, because everyone is a video game critic, and nearly everyone disputes a review that they don't agree with, dismissing it as trash.

There will never be a great critic, because he will instantly be labelled as a fanboy by the juvenile general populace of the gaming culture.

Jonathan @ Jul 3rd 2006 7:05PM

There are famous websites, and many people know particular reviewers from those websites or publications and might even become a fan of their's, but yeah...no major reviewers for the industry.

I think reviewers as a whole are pretty dumb because everyone has different tastes. The perfect review, for me, tells me if the game has technical glitches, the premise of the game, and the gameplay elements. I can judge graphics on my own, and I'm not as annoyed by graphics as the top editor of so and so.com. I hate when reviews start forcing their opinions on me. It becomes worthless.

And then there's the times where the reviews don't really say anything other than jokes from the editor about how bad they think a game is. I didn't buy or click on a review to read you trying to be funny. Do your job.

I personally liked Tomb Raider: Angel Of Darkness. And yet the media would rather I believe it's a disaster. So I think there's no famous critic because it's a dumb premise.

The Little Wii-Person @ Jul 3rd 2006 7:09PM

You say this was by Clive Thompson? Jack Thompson with a fake mustache?

Indepth @ Jul 3rd 2006 7:22PM

I can't think of a single person at a game magazine that has been there for any length of time to even follow.

However, on websites, it's a totally different story. There are those that I enjoy reading, but even there, I can't think of a single person who reviews everything. It's more of a collaborative effort. But if I have to choose someone it'd either be Jeff or Alex from Gamespot.

Enycma @ Jul 3rd 2006 7:23PM

I think critics are famous, because people relate to them and they know who they are dealing with. The only site that comes with an approach like that is IGN. Take Cassamasina for example, he has a large following... of Nintendo Fans... But they trust what he says, because he has shown the public that he also is a Nintendo Fan so People relate to him! And he is even one of the most outspoken reviewers out there. I mean, he even appears on Wikipedia! I'm not a Matt fan, but I do take in consideration his points of view when he reviews or anything, same goes for some movie critics like Quint from Ain't it Cool.
What I think is, going for crazy nicknames is not cool (I'm looking at you GamePro) or reviewing games Anonimously is no the right way to do things if you want to be taken serious as a reviewer. Reviews should have the names of the reviewers at the beggining like IGN, or at least at the end like EGM to see who was reviewing the game. So people will recognize the name and follow the reviews that guy does!... Or maybe I'm just wrong and wasted your time! =0S

Josh @ Jul 3rd 2006 7:25PM

Two words: Matt Casamassina

fatcat @ Jul 3rd 2006 7:31PM

"I hate when reviews start forcing their opinions on me. It becomes worthless."

Excuse me, but i was under the impression that the whole point of a review was for a person with substanstial knowledge of the medium to share their opinions of the game with those who choose to read them. I don't think many people attempt to 'force' their opinions, and I think well written reviews can be very helpful in advising people on which games they are more likely to enjoy and stops a lot of people from wasting their hard earned cash.

Although some people may disagree with certain reviews, I think most people will agree that Half Life 2 is better than Killzone and that Max Payne is better than Enter the Matrix. Since we can all (usually) reach a consensus on the relative quality of a lot of games - one that usually echoes the opinions of mainstream reviews - you could say that reviews and their writers have a valuble place in the world of gaming by sharing these views with those who choose to read them.

Jonathan @ Jul 3rd 2006 7:41PM

"Excuse me, but i was under the impression that the whole point of a review was for a person with substanstial knowledge of the medium to share their opinions of the game with those who choose to read them. I don't think many people attempt to 'force' their opinions, and I think well written reviews can be very helpful in advising people on which games they are more likely to enjoy and stops a lot of people from wasting their hard earned cash."

The point of a review to me is to tell me what to expect from a game and if they game is technologically broken. When reviews can remain neutral, informative and unbias, they're good.

Once they become a bashfest of "this game is so horrible that you shouldn't even waiste your time playing it. It rips all of it's gameplay from so-and-so game, and it brings nothing new to the table. Don't even bother."

Well, maybe I liked so-and-so game and want more of that type of game. Or, even better, maybe I don't CARE if it's not 100% new or innovative. Many reviewers do. If a game doesn't bring something amazingly new to the table, it doesn't score very well. And that makes sense in a way, because unique games deserve a higher score. But what exactly does a game that has similar gameplay elements to another game with a score of a 6 mean to me?

What's the difference between a 7.3 and a 6.7? Why do .3 points determine if I should "rent it" or "buy it" or avoid it all together? Why is a fun, solid game that isn't innovative enough given a 6.5 and receives a "avoid it, because it's nothing really new. There are games already like this" review summary? I don't care if games are already like that out, maybe I don't like the particular developer of the other game(like Konami, who inverts the X and O buttons which is irritating).

Many reviewers have become to bias and pushy, in my opinion.

Oh, and don't get me started on how reviewers don't pay for their games and just get them for free, and thus lose the value of the game. Plus, they only have to play it for a certain amount of hours. Some games really kick in at a certain hour, the story will take a turn, the gameplay will suddenly come together. But some reviewers will never know that because they secretly didn't complete the game - but no one knows!

jesus torres @ Jul 3rd 2006 7:49PM

i think this sort of reflects on the whole "video games: art or not?" debate. i mean, it takes a while for an artform to establish itself, much less there be intelligent discussion and debate concerning that artform. i myself think we're just scratching the surface of the form, and it's way too early to think of games as art just yet. there have been some incredible experiences that will be remembered as early moments of brilliance (final fantasy VII comes to mind), but once the form is ready, the rest will follow.

Brandon @ Jul 3rd 2006 7:51PM

Brad Gallaway.
Gamecritics.com.

That guy is the real deal.

Ubernym @ Jul 3rd 2006 8:01PM

Fatcat eloquently describes the the primary reason there are no serious or important game critics: consumerism. As has been mentioned before, nearly all video game review have only one goal in mind, which is to tell the reader if his money will be well spent on the title in question.

For literature, music and film this is not generally the case. While an occasional comment about whether or not the piece is worth your time or money, the greater focus of these reviews hinges on the art, execution, and overall aspect of the work. Film critics focus on the pacing, writing, acting and overall look and feel of the film. Music critics discuss the validity of each song as a musical statement, for its ability to please the ear or titillate the mind.

Game reviewers may also touch on these aspects to a point, but they are almost always secondary to the greater concern about a piece's validity as interactive content: gameplay, multiplayer features, control, learning curve, replayability. There is no inherent art in that kind of criticism, hence the lack of artful conversation about it. It's the same reason there aren't any great automobile critics, or (to make a more direct comparison) board game critics. Yes they love cars, but they're pretty much in love with the FUNCTIONALITY of cars (yeah yeah, there's art in design and that's important too, but have you ever heard someone refer to the Shelby Mustang as a heartbreaking work of staggering truth and passion?)

Video games necessarily straddle the gap between art and function. The primary role of the video game is to divert and entertain; only recently have we begun to consider that a video game might become a vehicle of artistic expression. Is monopoly a withering commentary against free market economies? Do we think of Dungeons and Dragons sessions as great forums for political and philosophical edifiation? Of course not. We just want to play the game.

What about sports critics? Yes, there are some great sports critics out there. The difference? For all intents and purposes its on the same field as film and literature and music: no interactivity. We watch sports, we don't play them. We are in love with the beauty of the game when it is played be professional athletes dedicated to their craft. In video games, we are the athletes; there's nobody to admire but ourselves and the worlds we interact with.

How many times do we discuss the writing of a game's story? Who wrote it? We don't even know. We don't care, because we're trying to score points, level grind, find items, or complete side quests. Why aren't there nationally recognized critics of beach volleyball, or picnics by the side of the creek?

Fact is that people who want megacritics want a very different kind of video game. Video games have been following the same tired formulas since Space War (as evidenced by Joystiqs article about Superman and life meters), and these formulas do not care about art, or truth, or beauty or questions.

One of the most artistic and poignant games in recent memory is Shadow of the Colossus, and many people have commented on its ambiguous and morally intriguing premise...but only for about a paragraph. We just don't CARE that much about those kinds of things! Tell us if it's fun or not!

fatcat @ Jul 3rd 2006 8:06PM

@Jonathan

Clearly you want something other than traditional games reviews and more a dispassionate list of features and bugs. However, many more people prefer to have a commentator who freely expresses their opinions surrounding a new gameplay element or the re-use of an existing one. I read reviews to find out about what a game is made up of, but also to see whether the person who played the game liked it or not and -most importantly - why.

I agree that a review that simply verbally abuses a games is not very useful, but one that explains what the reviewer found enjoyable or not and why, can be very helpful indeed when it comes to deciding whether or not a game is worth your money.

Whats more, I think that most publications and many websites will give a solid yet unoriginal game a reasonable mark, and a good review will explain that fans of the genre will find some enjoyment there.

Tom @ Jul 3rd 2006 8:08PM

Yup i would say Matt from Ign is a famous video game critic. There was that whole joke (probably true though) the other people at ign had where they said mentioning you knew Matt would get you better treatment.
I think Matt is deservedly famous as well. I remember reading the ps3 channel at ign after the ps3 final controller was announced and it was like a fanboy had got it lose. It was insulting nintendos and saying how their controller was rubbish but ps3's was great. Whereas with Matt hes honest, hes admitted that some of his most anticipated games are for the 360. He doesn't act like all the other systems are rubbish and his reviews are often very fair.

Staticneuron @ Jul 3rd 2006 8:23PM

@fatcat

I think you are missing the point that Jonathan is trying to get across. He is trying to say that there are many elements to a game that is very subjective. It is a reflection of how people view movie reviewers. Maybe you care about the plot of the movie. Or maybe you just want to see people die. That level of personal enjoyment is even further enhanced by the subtle nuances that a video game can offer.

You can say game "A" recycled from game "B" but while game "A" sucked game "B" improved by adding a freeze time button! I am just using that as an example but the reviewer might bash it and because of that you do not purchace the game based on his POV. Then you are able to play the game later and get a different impression than what the Reviewer conveyed.

Lesson: If a game appeals to you rent it or ask a friend that you can trust.

Brandon @ Jul 3rd 2006 8:26PM

Chuck Klosterman is incredibly out of touch. I've been reading Esquire for several years and his articles are always the low point. A couple of months ago he had another article about how teenagers have a secret subculture using T-shirt designs as codes for social issues. Teenagers are lucky to make it to school in the morning with clothes on, let alone having secret messages in abstract designs. When I saw the article about video game reviews I wrote a letter to the editor asking them to get someone who is in touch.

mercatfat @ Jul 3rd 2006 9:17PM

Chuck Klosterman is a fantastic fellow, but I'll admit I thought this article was a little silly. Perhaps out of touch, but it does raise an interesting point. His books are much better than his articles, but that's a bit of a strawman considering his style.

Brandon, what are you on about with this "teenagers are lucky to make it to school with clothes on" garbage? I think the point of that article may have went right over your head.

Probot @ Jul 3rd 2006 9:39PM

I think Jane Pinckard's response deserves mention:
http://www.gamegirladvance.com/archives/2006/06/19/looking_for_lester_bangs.html

"Hate to break it to you, but Lester Bangs is dead. He died in 1982. When he was alive, Rolling Stone hadn't become the boob-laden commercialized sad rag it is now with an endless parade of one-hit wonders and Britney Spears clones on the covers. The Ramones were still playing. And alive.

Maybe there is no Lester Bangs of videogames because there's no Lester Bangs of ANY medium. Not anymore."

Like Thompson pointed out, Esquire is not looking for game critics; Esquire is looking for music and movie critics that talk about games the same way.

And I'm glad he mentioned 1up and Penny Arcade, because those are almost exactly what Esquire wants from a game critic. Huge following and extensive knowledge of game culture.

Artimus @ Jul 3rd 2006 9:48PM

As long as video game reviews are void of theory there will be no great critic. Film and music critics are made famous because of their contribution to the way people approach and think about the medium. Games remain void of any theory and therefore theory cannot be radified.

I would say, though, that someone like Cassamassina is pretty well known, though less for his reviewing than his editing. Which is, I think, another part of it. No one just reviews games, they report news and follow them. You don't see Ebert sitting on the Sundance floor chatting with the Paramount head.

Monkey3 @ Jul 3rd 2006 10:13PM

what about Adam Sessler and Morgan Web? they critique games of all kinds and are on TV... which is about as famous as you can get :p

Mr. Clark @ Jul 3rd 2006 10:17PM

The oversaturation of the game reviews industry is probably one of the reasons.

Though personally I find Tim Rogers from instantcredit to be one of the few guys that takes a more artistic and original effort towards game reviews. Now if only the guy had a broader audience....

msdarnell @ Jul 3rd 2006 10:48PM

Why?

Because sites and magazines won't hire new people, or people who don't write like the people already in place.

32_footsteps @ Jul 3rd 2006 11:02PM

Let's not open the Tim Rogers can of worms. The reason he doesn't have more of an audience is the utter revulsion most gamers have when reading his reviews (I've had a lively debate over which is worse: Rogers' We Love Katamari review or his Earthbound review).

I always find it funny, myself, to hear people say that they don't want bias in their reviews. I honestly find that utter nonsense. A review without any sort of opinion is, as fatcat has said, just a launcry list of features and bugs. And to be honest, nobody would regularly read reviews like that.

The simple truth is, when people say they don't want any bias in a review, they really mean to say that they don't want any bias that disagrees with their bias. People don't want to hear opinions that differ from their own. It doesn't matter how insightful or clever those opinions are. People automatically find them anathema and consequently those espousing those opinions are instantly denigrated and/or ignored.

As for why none of us are famous, well, because it takes time to build an audience. As is, video game writers still tend to hide behind aliases - an old holdover from when we started with BBS handles. We need to be better about owning up to our own work.

However, part of it is merely how large of a soapbox we use. As much as we trumpet the capabilities of the Internet, we all know that we aren't going to get all dozens of millions of Internet readers to read a particular writer. We need a prominent critic to get face time on something like the New York Times.

For example, let's take the Boston Globe. How many people here could name their video game critic off the top of their head? Heck, how many people even knew the Boston Globe had a video game critic on staff at all?

Well, the truth is that Hiawatha Bray reviews video games on a very sporadic basis for the Globe. His "Game On" piece only comes once a week at best, it is woefully behind the times (for example, he just discovered Guitar Hero in the past month or so), and he doesn't have a clue about anything in the industry - we're talking about the guy who once said that the Leappad Leapster was a credible threat to the Game Boy Advance's dominance of the portable gaming market.

This is probably due to the fact that Bray is, by training, a business technology specialist. He probably got the video game beat, such as it were, because he was the closest to writing about it when the Globe decided to start having a writer on games.

So the soapbox is there, but it's currently being occupied by someone who clearly has no idea on what to do with it. When we start getting serious critics in a position to be heard, and people learn to start accepting a well-thought opinion whether or not it's in agreement with their own, then we can start having famous video game critics.

Until then, I won't be holding my breath for my Pulitzer.

Mike H @ Jul 4th 2006 12:27AM

I've heard Jeff Green on NPR... that's close to famous, right?

I would nominate Erik Wolpaw to be the first famous reviewer. His stuff on OldManMurray and Gamespot (and sometimes Gamespot TV, oops I mean Extended Play, oops I mean XPlay) were fantastic. Seriously, why oh why did OldManMurray have to go away.

Hellfish @ Jul 4th 2006 12:40AM

There are, actually - Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb, hosts of the cable television show X-Play on G4. You guys at joystiq.com ask the silliest questions.....

BTW, Morgan Webb was recently ranked among the top 100 most desireable women in the world by (i forgot who, if you want to find out, go loon on google.com for it)

Also, Alan from Nintendo Power, anyone? hehehe.

JRM @ Jul 4th 2006 12:44AM

I don't know about famous (or all that critical for that matter), but certainly *HOT* I say is Morgan Webb of G4

siirsp @ Jul 4th 2006 12:46AM

SEANBABY!!!

Jawbreaker @ Jul 4th 2006 1:26AM

@ Blake Snow:

"Let's see; a self-proclaimed game expert subjectively telling me what games are good or not? No thanks."

Try not to be such a fool. The great critics don't simply tell people what items are good and what aren't. They help expand the medium by providing a high-profile discussion of the artistic elements that have a nasty habit of getting lost in commerce.

Without the best film critics (for example) there would be less language to discuss the things we all take for granted about film, and the filmmaking landscape would be very different. Say what you like about the auteur theory (it's at least half crap) or the ideas of Laura Mulvey and even Pauline Kael -- their writings aren't remembered as much for the films they liked or didn't (Mulvey wasn't even a reviewer) but for the way they talked about movies, and what movies represented. These people discussed film in a way that affected how the medium was appreciated on, eventually, a much larger scale.

Does gaming need someone like that? How could we lose? Is something like that even suitable in a medium that is based around variable experience, rather than variable interpretation? That's a totally different question.

dartt @ Jul 4th 2006 2:42AM

Has noone ever heard of Kieron Gillen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kieron_Gillen

He is a very well known and respected games journalist and critic here in the UK, he writes freelance for several magazines and a broadsheet newspaper as well as www.eurogamer.net and the escapist.

Kasumi-Astra @ Jul 4th 2006 4:11AM

Mr Biffo.

Do you see?

PearOfAnguish @ Jul 4th 2006 5:33AM

@24: just stay away from his bins

Miktar @ Jul 4th 2006 5:52AM

And this is where living in a third world country helps - over here, we have -very- famous game critics.

CheekyLee @ Jul 4th 2006 7:21AM

*High-fives Kasumi-Astra*

That is all.

Merus @ Jul 4th 2006 7:57AM

"Let's see; a self-proclaimed game expert subjectively telling me what games are good or not? No thanks."

I just got this book of major gaffes by famous people. A full third of the book are filled with statements just like this one, where people credulously scoff that simply because they cannot imagine such a thing, other men certainly won't.

Someone will sit down and try and make a living out of being an insightful game critic, so long as interest in the medium remains. They'll be a lot more readable than Joystiq thinks they will be, too.

Lingmonster @ Jul 4th 2006 8:03AM

What ever happened to Stuart Cambell (UK)?
Now there was a guy who's reviews you looked for by name.

p-diddy @ Jul 4th 2006 8:59AM

Sorry, but maybe I'm just old. Cassamassina, Doug Perry, Craig Harris all come to mind. They are who I "grew up with." Sushi X too. Sessler and Webb more recently, but mainly because they are on TV.

True these people are not main stream enough to known outside gaming circles, but they're "famous" to me (especially Webb who's been on Maxim's top 100 for the last two years).

-p-

Dennis @ Jul 4th 2006 9:02AM

I instantly thought of Stuart Campbell. I think of him of a sort of Mark Kermode for games, only more abrasive.

Judd @ Jul 4th 2006 9:34AM

What about video game magazine critics? I think considering every issue has a little blurb about its editors a lot of the gaming public recognize their names.

How about Dan Hsu, Editor of EGM and how he showed a famous act of journalistic gravitas rarely seen by video game journalists by asking Peter Moore tough questions.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/01/20

How about Andrew Reiner from Game Informer? That guy was in Perfect Dark!

Kasumi-Astra @ Jul 4th 2006 11:52AM

Indeed, Stuart Campbell and Violet Berlin deserve to be mentioned on their own merits, regardless of their affiliation with Digitiser.

Jesse @ Jul 4th 2006 11:56AM

Cindy Yans from Computer Games Magazine. I've always enjoyed her reviews.

[.sm0ke.] @ Jul 4th 2006 12:01PM

Waitwaitwait... nobody's mentioned Geoff Keighley yet?

arrakisman @ Jul 4th 2006 12:42PM

Maybe its becuase he dealt with the hardware side so long but Greg Vederman come to mind on the PC side of thing. Also Deslock has been around for while as well. Many poeple would also consider the game comic creators critics as well.

tom @ Jul 4th 2006 1:41PM

Dan Hsu, are you serious? Yeah all the courage to only put at MS doorstep. Where are those hard hitting couragious interviews we were promised for Nintendo and Sony, especially after the bs that was/is Sony at E3?...

Yeah, real stand up guy...

The reason that there is no universally celebrated critics for gaming is the same reason people are canceling there subscriptions to the New York Times by the thousands or why NPR and Air Americas suck and can't compete in the private sector of radio (well Air America does but fails miserably, there financed almost completely by rich socialists) it's also why no one watches CNN, NBC, MSNBC and the rest of the alphabet channels....

They don't report the news.

Editorials should be for editorials. When it comes to the news, let me decide. You can right with flare and not be and ass, and remain neutral. I don't like the afformentioned media because I know that I don't/won't get the news, i'll get a liberall editorial. Same reason I don't like Dan Hsu he's a Sony fanboy that I don't trust, like the rest of 1up, but that's neiter here nor there.

I to like previously mentioned like Sushi X and all those oldschool guys. Until I get that back, neutral honest reporting of the facts, and the facts only, i'll rely on my own tastes which seems to do much better than some paid tool for some game company.

p.s. Morgan Webb and Adam Sessler are a joke, and besides she looks like more of a man than he does, you only think shes hot because she plays games.

Ge0Flame@hotmail.com @ Jul 4th 2006 2:19PM

Damn Rights #25
SEANBABY all the way
Reviews on the Run is somewhat big here in canada not sure about the rest of the world lol...

GSI @ Jul 4th 2006 3:07PM

@ 40 (tom):

^5!

I agree with everything you said EXCEPT the part about Morgan Webb. I think he looks just fine and is hot as hell...shame that the show has gone to crap now. It was more watchable before they changed the whole format and set for the show.

epobirs @ Jul 4th 2006 6:26PM

The biggest problem is the medium doesn't lend itself critique. We have a great deal of reviews in the buyer's guide sense but little in the way of serious criticism, nor the means to promote it.

Some video game designs are immortal but still subject to copyright. You cannot make your own Space Invaders and put it out there as "A Bob Jones Production of Space Invaders" the same way you could slap your name on a cinematic interpretation of a Shakespeare play. Sometimes, as in 'Forbidden Planet' and 'West Side Story' you don't even have to be entirely upfront about your source material.

Of course, 'Bud' Shakespeare is a few centuries in the grave. Perhaps by 2080 you'll be able to call your game 'Space Invaders' without Taito or its heirs siccing lawyers on you but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the first non-Namco and unlicensed Pac-man game to slip by without challenge. And although it is now safe to produce a Pac-man clone compared to the lawsuit frenzy of the early 80s, by and large game design do not yet transcend their copyrighted origins. A cheap knockoff is less a subject for critique than something that openly demands comparison to its predecessor.

That isn't to say a critic cannot produce an interesting comparison of the French original 'La Femme Nikita,' it's official US remake, 'Point of No Return,' and the Hong Kong knockoff, 'Black Cat.' It just isn't going to pull down the same audience that looks for intellectual dissection of films and literature with highbrow appeal.

Which points to another problem. Can anyone really point to games that can be described as possessing 'highbrow appeal?' How sophisticated can a game's content be before the GTA audience tunes out and serious RPG audience is rendered comatose? Who could afford to make and market games on that basis? If a new publisher proclaimed they intended to be the Merchant-Ivory of video games, their corporate obituary would practically write itself. Can you imagine the suicide rate among game reviewers assigned to the console equivalent of 'Remains of the Day?'

The mature audience for games is growing but does that coincide with an interest in such games or does it more often mean Grandpa is capping hookers in GTA?

Burnout is another problem. Critics need long experience in the trenches before they can build a name for themselves. If they're lucky their old reviews get collected into books and make some desparately needed additional income. Can you imagine buying a book of ten year old game reviews? A collection of writings on the major films of the 70s can still find a place in book stores and the movies are readily available for purchase on DVD in most cases. Consider how many games would be discussed about in a similar book would have no versions legally obtainable? How interesting is it to read about games you cannot even find in a nostalgia collection or remake?

How long does the average game reviewer stay in the job before moving on to something more lucrative or just give in to the needs of adulthood? Just about all of the big name movie reveiwers writing in various publications in 1990 are still at it. Rather than burnout, the main cause of loss has been retirement or death. Hardly anyone worth reading on the subject of games back in 1990 is still at it. All too often they were kids fresh out of school or should still be in school. Eventually the needs for being able to support a wife and kids in a decent home overruled the desire to stay with game journalism as a career. They either moved up the ladder to editorial or got into better paying forms of journalism. I know of one guy who started one of the major Atari 8-bit magazines. By the early 90's he'd had enough of the magazine business and partnered with a guy whose BASIC games had appeared in the magazine but was now pioneering 3D design software on affordable hardware. This venture was the direct ancestor of 3D Studio, a tool that has done far more to shape the direction of video game design than any amount of journalism.

Nowadays, guys with fulltime jobs can run a web site on the side and try to bring some depth to the field of game journalism without living like an overaged college student. But the question remains whether there is really much to say about the subject. What is happening that is unique to interactive works and not already long since done in the non-interactive forms. Where do we define the line where something is of the realm of gaming and not cinema or print? Is pre-rendered or realtime a factor? Is it a matter of how long a game might go without player input? Is gaming as a serious subject for study not even in infancy but still in gestation? We may have to wait until gaming abandons rigidly defined narrative in favor of AI in setting where emergent behavior makes every game a unique experience and genuine distinct from earlier forms of narrative. Something more like heavily improvised shows, such as 'Reno 911' or 'The Office' where a the setting and the characters are defined but the dialogue and much of their actions invented on the spot.

It will take an immense leap in technology and tools before game characters can be given enough of an internal life to let them affect the game in a way that feels right and not arbitrary. Some games feature a few random elements but it needs to feel like more than a role of the dice. There needs to be emergent behavior beyond what could be done in a pen and paper D&D game. That would be a major step toward defining a new art form rather than just a computerized presentation of established forms.

A lot of names have been invoked here but is there a one that would score recognition among non-gamers, excepting friends and family? You don't have to be a film geek to know who Pauline Kael was or Roger Ebert is. Many critics also work in the field they critique, particularly novelists. Being able to play both sides of the street can create a measure of combined fame that goes beyond either undertaking. In some cases a writer can have separate fan bases for fiction and non-fiction. In the process he can become well known to people who never actually read his work. Plenty of people can identify the name John Grisham with courtroom dramas without having read any of the books or seen any of the movies derived from them.

There are some developers who do great work writing but generally for the same audience as their games. Some Lucasfilm folks wrote the single best introduction to the subject of animation and computer graphics I've ever read. It had much to convey to anyone interested in the subject without expecting them to become programmers. But this was tutorial, not critique.

The closest it seems we have to an insider getting attention for criticism of game design is Chris Crawford, who hasn't produced anything worth mentioning in the better part of two decades and comes off as a grumpy crank. Like an arthouse director who devotes far too much time to bemoaning the lucrative existence of slasher movies. The single best piece of work and biggest contribution to the industry Crawford ever did was not a game but another exercise in tutorial. 'De Re Atari' was the guide to understanding the inner workings of the Atari 8-bit systems after the company got wise and started actively soliciting third party support rather than viewing it as competition. If you had an Atari 8-bit computer it was required reading. Even if you were never going to take up programming it was the best to appreciate the design work that went into the machine.

David @ Jul 5th 2006 1:17AM

Damn it, you people sound like insecure geeks when you complain about other people forcing their opinions on you. Who the hell is forcing anything? If you don't see the point of good criticism, you probably have never read any. Yes, there are people and institutions who take it upon themselves to dictate good taste to the unwashed masses, but if you're as independent-thinking as you claim, they shouldn't be particularly threatening. The reason to applaud calls for more critical attention to games is that criticism helps us see media from new perspectives. Criticism can open up a film or a book or a game, allow us to frame our experiences in ways we wouldn't have thought of ourselves. Hearing another person's description of his subjective experience should not THREATEN yours; do with it as you will.

andyr @ Jul 5th 2006 8:52AM

I expect new emerging critics to emerge who are able to focus on the play experience itself rather than the mechanics that create them.

Whereas graphics and sound and playability are endlessly debateable, an individuals experience of the ensemble has to be accepted on its own terms.

We will see gamers gravitating to those critics who have similar life experiences to themselves, and therefore find similar experiences in their games.