Call for fewer game reviews, more game critiques
by Vladimir Cole 
{ Sep 15th 2006 at 2:00PM }
What's the difference between a review of a book, movie or game and a critique of one? Ryan Stancl explains and advocates more of the latter because he believes that games deserve more serious criticism in order to move forward as a respected form of art.
To demonstrate the difference between reviews and critiques, Stancl will critique Katamari Damacy from the perspective of eight different schools of critical theory: Biographical, New Critical, Marxist, Structural, Jungian, Psychoanalytical, Feminist, and Post-Colonial.
He's posted the first two critiques already. They're a touch dry, but we're hoping the Feminist and Marxist interpretations spice things up.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
OOOOPs @ Sep 15th 2006 2:06PM
I just need to know if a game sucks or not. Bomberman AZ sucks? OK, good enough for me...i dont have time for this critique crap.
32_Footsteps @ Sep 15th 2006 2:12PM
Oh, please, not the Marxist critique. I'd rather deal with another thread of fanboys whining about Joystiq than read a Marxist critique. Could we swap in a hilarious sendup of Deconstructionism instead? Though I'd personally prefer a Surrealist critique, I'd settle for Decon.
The problem is, people don't come to video game sites for critiques, they come for reviews. I try to throw in a critique here or there, but I've discovered it usually flies way over the heads of the readership (I could name a couple reviews, but I'd like to see if anyone could point some out).
I'm not saying there isn't a place for such critiques. But don't such things belong in their own place? Movies and books have seperate forums for critiques and reviews - video games should have them too. But they should be seperate, and we don't need to cut back on one to bring the other.
Zero @ Sep 15th 2006 2:14PM
I will be disappointed if the Feminist review doesn't insist that the act of rolling balls all throughout the game glorifies a male-dominant society.
J.Goodwin @ Sep 15th 2006 2:15PM
As if there could be one feminist critique. There are several major camps of feminist thought, and dozens of lesser camps.
Sander Scamper @ Sep 16th 2006 10:30AM
Katamari Damacy is not the kind of game you "critique" it's a game you enjoy for a few minutes, not look to as an art form. One does not construct a feminist reading of R-Type or something, however, one could possibly make a marxist reading of something like the Caesar games, where the power of the state is dependant upon the happiness and security of the populace, the working class.
Hell, I'd read and appreciate a Post-Colonial reading of Age Of Empires 3, but I'm not going to use that reading to determine if I'm gonna buy the game. I think that this sort of critique has it's place but when all people are looking for is "Game X meets criteria Y and Z and thus we are assigning it an arbitrary score so you can decide to purchase it or not". That reduces the game to a mere product, it's not art. You "Review" chairs and gadgets, but you don't consider them as art, which is what Games should really be seen as because it's the developers vision, just like movies.
I'm not asking for a game thats 5 minutes long and black and white and artsy, but I'd love it when a game is ascribing something to a Jungian view, the critiquer would aknowledge it. The obvious case is Psychonauts.
Seth @ Sep 15th 2006 2:18PM
Okay, that was a pointless waste of time. Those "critiques" were nothing of the sort. Isn't there supposed to be some kind of in-depth analysis of the game? All we got was some blather about the tutorial mode, and how the king represents the game designer. That's not much of an insight. Although the extremely brief history of the designer was a bit interesting.
You'd think that, having a BA in English, he'd write a bit better. You know, not so choppy. Proofreading, that's what he needs. His writing sounds more like a school assignment than an actual professional piece.
Ultimately? Not gonna bother reading future "critiques" from this guy.
matrixfusion @ Sep 16th 2006 12:37PM
I kinda think it's interesting that someone is, for once, looking at games as art and not just as throw-away entertainment. And I'd like you see you write something better, Mr. Seth. At least he put forth the effort.
LaughingTarget @ Sep 15th 2006 2:23PM
Well, if we all want gaming to become a tiny, niche market where only a few willing to pretend to know what is going on, then we can have critiques. I don't want to play games that need a critique, I want one that is fun. If you gotta critique it, like those lame art-house films that show up at the indie festivals, then it won't be any fun to play.
Gaming isn't art, it is entertainment. When art tries to entertain, it simply becomes boring for the mass audience.
phillosmaster @ Sep 15th 2006 2:27PM
Reviews and Critiques serve two different purposes. Try to keep that in mind when you comment. He's not trying to influence your purchase of the game. He's saying we need find ways to validate the artistic merit of these games if we are going to continue to make the assertion that games are art, or that games have the potential to be art.
I think he's on the right track, but his posted critiques need work. I do believe there is artistic meaning in some games. Certainly it would be easier to do a plot analysis of an RPG like Xenogears to illustrate this concept. More meat to work with. I believe Katamari has artistic merit, but it's much harder to express in the article he's trying to write.
Derbeste @ Sep 15th 2006 2:28PM
I think the difference between a review and critique is very distinct.
A review is a functional opinion stating whether the game is worth your money to play whereas a critique is designed to examine the subject as a piece of art.
I doubt most gamers care for the latter. Most of us just need to know if it's fun enough to warrant a $50+ expenditure.
That's why I like Ebert's review of movies. Thumbs up or thumbs down. I personally recommend it or I don't. Seriously...what else do you really need to know?
Hunt @ Sep 15th 2006 2:29PM
You know what?
This actually might be good. Think about it... If people think of games as potential works of art, then they might hold more value (to the rest of the non-gaming world). Granted I think labelling something as a critique vs reviewing is an exercise in sematics as they are relatively the same thing. I don't think this will change the industry but as for CMP, I'd actually read their 'critiques' just because I think it'd be rather interesting to read. They have their own niche on reviewing style. Nice :)
And for the record, Vladmir, thank you for not adding any personal statements to this. Your last Wii posts were horrendous. Keep it going on this level with minimal rant... and I still stand by my comments I left too.
OtakuCODE @ Sep 15th 2006 2:42PM
Critiques are great for writers. They're interesting thought experiments. They're completely unrelated to anything they attempt to critque. I'd love to read them though, it would be entertaining.
What I'd REALLY like more than reviews OR critiques is CONTENT DESCRIPTIONS. I don't give a damn if person X likes the game or not. Tell me what's in it. Does the game have randomly generated dungeons? I LOVE randomly generated dungeons, but I can't count how many reviews that point this out as a drawback. Aww, poor baby, your strategy guide can't save you now. You taking points off for something that is a matter of taste is about as useless to as many people as possible at once that I can imagine.
But people like to write and describe and speak of their feelings. Fine. But put it in a USEFUL format. Rather than having a stable of reviewers, toss the games to the public. Let anyone write a review of it. Let anyone give each game a score. As you write your own reviews, your scoring can be compared to the scoring assigned by other reviewers, and you can see the opinions of people whose taste matches yours more easily.
And if you're running this hypothetical site, instead of swimming around in money from the AdWords revenue, if you were to make that money available to the most popular reviewers on the site each month, and I'm talking a significant amount of money here, you would have a titanic phenomena on your hands.
Derbeste @ Sep 15th 2006 2:30PM
"Bomberman AZ sucks? OK, good enough for me...i dont have time for this critique crap."
But you have time to play games......
Anyone else see the irony here?
WizarDru @ Sep 15th 2006 2:31PM
Okay, can I point something out here?
Somewhere, someone is trying very VERY HARD to try and pretend that games are not, well....GAMES. All this intellectual self-indulgence and sophistry will not change the fact that critiqueing a game using ridiculous philosophic approaches is virtually pointless. Did Ebert's comments sting the industry pundits SO badly that they have to keep flailing like this?
I think the stories of games like Silent Hill can be critiqued...as STORIES. Not as games. Anyone who spends time trying to critique the Jungian aspects of a game like Tetris or Stratego is either a college student working on a ludicrous paper or someone who's fooling themselves into thinking they've proven how smart they are and how grown-up games are.
To paraphrase Freud; sometimes a game is just a game, dewd.
Robin @ Sep 15th 2006 2:32PM
What is up with this string of pretentious posts by Cole? And why did you single out that IGN minion - surely he wasn't spearheading some management-led subversion movement. Who cares? Why do you even blog?
protofunk @ Sep 15th 2006 2:34PM
Just...tell me about the game. What it does right, what it does wrong, and if it's fun to play. That's all I want.
paully @ Sep 15th 2006 5:43PM
Vlad- Maybe you should just post things that are actually news stories... or do we need more shit articles from you today?
Tom @ Sep 15th 2006 2:51PM
I agree with WizarDru. I think that elements of a game such as story or artistic style could be critiqued, but gameplay doesn't really lend itself to that kind of thinking. A control scheme is JUST a control scheme. It's not a social commentary on the downfall of mankind. They most likely chose that scheme because playtesters liked it better or because it made the most sense. Some people just read way too deeply into the simplest things.
OtakuCODE @ Sep 15th 2006 2:53PM
protofunk: If a game plunges you into a heady dialog about the human will to power, fear of death, and other philosophical concepts that most people do not think about, would you trust a reviewer to tell you that it was "done right"? I'm thinking of Xenosaga 3 when I ask that. I've read a few reviews of XS3. They talk about its battle system, the flow of play, etc. So far I haven't seen anyone discuss the concepts presented within it.
It is true that many games are simply toys, and do not use the medium to deliver a message. The same can be said of EVERY medium. And to argue that you don't want a black-and-white game laden with symbolism and such like independent films so they shouldn't be made is a bit selfish isn't it? Myself, I love obscure and bizarre movies and things like that. Most all of the time I think the people critiquing the thing assign FAR too much meaning to things, but I like a movie you walk away from and think about for a day and you discover other things the director/writer was trying to do. (example: "Hard Candy", a movie in which a 14 year old girl goes home with a pedophile and proceeds to torture him expertly... if she's no innocent, why is she so good at being manipulative and vicious? Just one of the points the filmmaker was obviously trying to make)
Bring on the games worth critiquing and sensible writers behind the critiques and I will read. But try to critique Katamari Damacy and I believe you are in very great danger of slipping up royally.
Evan @ Sep 15th 2006 2:59PM
Industry sites, like Gamasutra, should critique games. Consumer sites, like IGN, should review games.
Jeff @ Sep 15th 2006 3:06PM
Great, because I've always wanted to know how Katamari Damacy fits into our current Post-Colonial world. It's one of the seminal questions of our time.
"Somewhere, someone is trying very VERY HARD to try and pretend that games are not, well....GAMES."
I agree. These people need to take a freakin' chill pill.
What it all boils down to is an inferiority complex. You play games. You worry that other people don't take you seriously because of it. So if you're college-educated, you write critiques of those games to look more academic. If you're not college-educated, you write rambling essays trying to prove that games are "art" in an attempt to look cultured.
The reality is, games are meant to be fun, and while *anything* can be analyzed and creator "intent" is honestly immaterial, there are some things that just aren't worth getting worked up over.
Similarly, there are some critiques that say more about you as a writer than the subject you're writing on.
btw, I say all this as someone with a degree in cinema studies. Half of my entire college experience was learning to write critiques. (The other half was spent on my second major.) The real wisdom of critiquing is learning what subjects are not worth intellectual analysis. That's when you learn to stop obssessing and start enjoying life again.
someone @ Sep 15th 2006 3:13PM
@16.
"What I'd REALLY like more than reviews OR critiques is CONTENT DESCRIPTIONS. I don't give a damn if person X likes the game or not. Tell me what's in it. Does the game have randomly generated dungeons? I LOVE randomly generated dungeons, but I can't count how many reviews that point this out as a drawback. Aww, poor baby, your strategy guide can't save you now. You taking points off for something that is a matter of taste is about as useless to as many people as possible at once that I can imagine"
Well said. I'm sick of "reviews" were I'll learn ten puns involing the name of the game, but have no idea if the game even has splitscreen co-op.
Savok @ Sep 15th 2006 3:47PM
I believe the term is "massive wanker".
Brian @ Sep 15th 2006 4:04PM
Finally, games are starting to emerge as a serious art form. Granted this is pretty far from "Cahiers du Cinema" but it is a step in the right direction. Video games have all sorts of potential as the next great artistic medium, there is just a lack of people who care about such things (like the mouthbreathers who have commented here already). Games should have some over-arching concept, something to exxpress, an emotion, an experience, an idea. Now gaming needs a true auteur. A Griffith (only less racist), a Trauffaut, a Godard, a Kubrick, a Fellini, an Antonioni, a De Sica, a Scorcese.
We could be on the verge of something big - a huge shift in the artistic world, a new medium that adds interactivity. And people are annoyed because they ust want to know whether its fun or not. Fucking Philistines.
protofunk @ Sep 15th 2006 4:10PM
@17
It's just a game.
When reviewers start doing this, it amounts to obsessive fanboy masturbatory behavior worthy of star wars or star trek fandom.
I'm sure that Xenosaga has a deep, overarching story arc that presumes to pay more than lip service to one of the established philosophical tenents, but when it comes down to it, it's not an academic work, it's a piece of entertainment. If you're seeking deep philosophical truths from a game and stopping there, then you're doing it wrong. Conversely, if you're so enamored with Philosophy that nothing escapes your deconstructive pen, then you have become entirely mired in the study and need to step back.
And that's pretty much the long and short of my point. I don't care to debate this any longer as it's really not worth the time I've already spent on it.
Too long, didn't read version: If I wanted to read a philosophic treatise, I'd go to the library. I don't need analysis of the complex and multilayered relationship between Vent and Prairie to know if MegamanZX is worth my 35 bucks or not.
Zo K. @ Sep 15th 2006 4:28PM
I will say, personally, I don't care much for critiques. I'm not interested in partaking in them.
However, I think they have their place, even in video gaming. I don't see how having them could be a bad thing.
phillosmaster @ Sep 15th 2006 4:32PM
what are you saying protofunk? Videogames are a medium. Just like books are a medium. A message can be portrayed through a work of fiction with the intent of educating the reader, viewer, player. What are parables if not an attempt to trick the audience into learning something through an entertaining tale? Fiction is fiction regardless of whether it's presented as a game, movie, comic, book, painting, play, spoken word. Fiction is just as meaningful as any acedemic work. Not all fiction trys to teach, but in the very least it tries to move the audience. It tries to elicit emotions. Is that not the aim of art? Why do we bother holding onto the great works of fiction if they are just garbage to entertain us. You come off as pretentious? What are you arguing?
doubtful @ Sep 15th 2006 5:16PM
Art is expensive. Even more so than a PS3 or a Wii with four controllers. Because of that I hope games stay games and art stays art and that they stay very far apart. Ooo, that rhymed.
Seriously, though, no. I don't need some lit student telling me the existential philosophy that ultimately delivered a shitty game. I want to have fun. When I want to think or ponder life I'll read Nietzsche.
Of course, I'll likely be immediately bored and confused and return to playing games.
otakucode @ Sep 15th 2006 5:44PM
phillosmaster: I believe his argument is that games, up to this point, have been seen as diversions rather than a medium to convey serious messages. He is apparently opposed to the idea of games developing in this respect. It appears his concern is purely a knee-jerk defense of the status quo, as he presents no good reason why this development should be prevented.
doubtful: There are art vending machines that sell works of art for $5/pop. I've bought prints of Kozyndan's work for about $20/apiece. Art is not necessarily expensive.
Oh, and you might want to stay away from the Xenosaga series, doubtful, it would hurt your mediocratist (opposite of elitist, invented just now) sensibilities. The subtitle of the second game is 'Der Wille Zur Macht' and the subtitle of the third game is 'Thus Sprecht Zarathustra'... in a word... Nietzsche.
Ryan de michigan @ Sep 15th 2006 5:51PM
Wheres the katamari painting from? I want one!
phillosmaster @ Sep 15th 2006 6:02PM
"When I want to think or ponder life I'll read Nietzsche."
I'm sad that so many people here regard gaming as a mindless past time. Entertainment can be both a form of escape, a tool for introspection and a form of education. You seem to regard entertainment as only a form of escape, and learning and introspection need to be completely segregated. Why? I hope you realize not everybody shares your opinion. I've read Nietzsche for fun. Does that make me a strange person?
I'm surprised there are so many negative comments here. A videogame is the product of many artists. If we take their work seriously I believe you will get a boost in the quality of their work.
How many time have I heard someone say that a game's story was terrible, or that a game lacks any visual style. I believe the writers and artists working on games would work harder if they knew their work was apreciated in this manner. They would take more pride in their work. Why bother spending all your time assembling the greatest epic story ever told by man for a game if people are going to regard the game's storyline as meaningless and without value just because it appeared in a game and not on a screen or in a book.
This doesn't only go for story. Certainly game art can have layers of meaning inserted within, and for those who believe that gameplay cannot have a deeper meaning I have two words: Broken Squares. A game that is both fun and deliberately design to show the player something about themselves that they might not have noticed otherwise. Games can be powerful tools of introspection. I think it's dangerous not to acknowledge that. SOMETIMES a game is just a game, but SOMETIMES the opposite is true.
I'm not saying critiques should replace reviews BTW. I'm saying that critiques for videogames have merit, and should be used in VG journalism more. Like I said before, reviews and critiques fill two different funtions.
otakucode @ Sep 15th 2006 6:26PM
phillosmaster: I don't think it is as much that so many people regard gaming as a mindless pasttime as it is they view life as a mindless pursuit. They oppose thinking too much, learning too much, or being given opportunities to figure things out.
No, reading Nietzsche for fun doesn't make you strange, but it certainly puts you in a minority. I've done the exact same, and think Nietzsche really should only be read for entertainment as most of his arguments and ideas are laughable. I mean that literally, by the way. I read Ecce Homo and was laughing out loud many times... I mean, come on, he was insane with syphillis when he wrote it and he put forth arguments like the existence of grammar disproving the existence of God. That's just classic.
The main impediment to games with a real message is the exclusivity of the platforms as much as it is the disinterest of the audience. If there were allowed to be a greater variety of games released, the signal to noise ratio may get worse, but we'll inevitably end up with people using the forum of the videogame as a place to tell a real story and send a message. The games won't need to make $10 million just to recoup development costs. And yes, there will be large swaths of people who simply have no desire to play those games, but for those who desire them, they will be there. Gaming as a medium is still quite young, and if we manage to survive all this crap with censorship and the exclusivity of the development environment, we should see some great things.
The fact that such a huge percentage of gamers accept game ratings does not bode well, however. How far would Henry Miller have gotten if Tropic of Cancer was rated AO and no store in the world would sell it?
Michelle @ Sep 15th 2006 7:35PM
The idea of the need for video game criticism sounded familiar, then I remembered why - Chuck Klosterman already wrote about it in Esquire magazine months ago.
quote:
"And that, ultimately, is why the absence of video-game criticism is a problem. If nobody ever thinks about these games in a manner that's human and metaphorical and contextual, they'll all become strictly commodities, and then they'll all become boring. They'll only be games. And since we've already agreed that video games are the new rock music, we'd be facing a rather depressing scenario: This generation's single most meaningful artistic idiom will be—ultimately—meaningless.
There is a void, but there is still time to fill it. Somebody needs to become the first significant Xbox critic, stat. If nothing else, I'm sure he'll get rich. "
from:
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2006/060610_mfe_July_06_Klosterman.html
foobob @ Sep 16th 2006 12:30AM
There are games and games. Just as much as there are movies and movies. For every The Legend of Zelda/Citizen Kane there are tons of Madden/Snakes on a Plane...
Good thing even highly artistic videogames can be thoroughly entertaining so that both people just wanting some fun and people demanding more depth are satisfied...
personally, i find even great chess matches to be admirable works of art...
Ar-18 @ Sep 16th 2006 1:34AM
As Seth, #6, said, those aren't real critiques. The biographical criticism is a brief overview of his beliefs and how they influenced elements in the game, such as a desire to create a positive as opposed to a negative impact in people's lives, but it doesn't cite or proffer any events or experiences in his life explaining why this would be the case.
The New Critical criticism isn't an actual criticism. It goes nowhere. The article describes two lines of thought but then doesn't take them anywhere. In effect, it is not a critique at all. Stancl says a compilation of all insights of a videogame would be too tedious. True, but couldn't he follow one of his ideas to a conclusion?
"The player knows that the King/the designer is watching the whole time he’s playing because the King will make comments like “It was boring to watch this whole time,” perhaps making another comment on how much a designer hates their game by the time they’re done with it."
That statement isn't even valid in the school of New Criticism because it assumes the designer is making a statement through their game. A New Critic ignores discussion of a designer's intention.
Games consist of a number of "critique-able" elements, as WizarDru (12) and Tom (16) have said, but the gameplay, the basis of the game, is designed for efficiency and ease of use. Nothing too deep to read into there, unless you study ergonomics.
I have no problem with critiques so long as their authors take them as seriously as they'd like their readers to do.
Kerina @ Sep 16th 2006 10:04PM
http://gamasutra.com/features/20060807/adams_01.shtml
Earnest Adams is a better criticist.
Gamemonger @ Sep 17th 2006 4:36PM
Different strokes for different folks. If some people enjoy a good critique of Katamari Damacy, then go right ahead and absorb each intellectual discussion that the critique brings up.
As for the rest of us mere mortals, we'd like to stick with reviews, thank you.
We are all consumers (yes, that includes all you game critique advocates), so we really do need to know the real score, if the game stinks, or if it's the next best thing to sliced bread.
Why?
Because we spend our hard-earned money on it, and we have a right to know if the game is good or not. Last time I checked, games cost as much as $50-$60. We don't want to let this much money go to waste. This is what the game review is for.
Let's see a critique tell you that.
There is a smaller niche for game critique. Frankly, I find them self-indulgent. We don't need to know you're smart, and that you know the principles behind existentialism. All we need to find out if a game is worth the purchase.