Critiquing video games: Let's not get ahead of ourselves

by Blake Snow { Mar 2nd 2007 at 7:15PM }

GameDaily has posted another excerpt from the forthcoming Videogame Style Guide examining the difference between reviewing games versus critiquing them and how the latter will ultimately help advance the medium. Author David Thomas explains that reviews merely define what something is, while critique aims to answer what it means. For instance, basic critique aims to share if what's being reviewed would be liked by others. Do you, would you, or would we collectively like this game?

The gist of Thomas's argument is that even though game reviews have advanced past mere explanation, our industry will never garner the respect it deserves until game journalists first embrace developed criticism; criticism which attempts to address what a game means beyond that of feelings. "Many writers shy away from these big questions because they feel that bringing up these kinds of issues is pretentious or making a big deal out of a little thing -- a videogame," says Thomas. It is pretentious. Saying video games need developed critique at this stage is like saying b-movies are worthy of profound analysis. Intellectual questions should only be addressed when the medium itself has completely developed.

Until game storylines and their execution fully mature (think of the many embarrassing game dialogs), there's no need in trying to figure out "what it means" if the authors can't even share a believable story. Note: I'm not suggesting the interactive experience of games as a whole are b-movie quality, but their storylines and ability to galvanize emotion generally are. On a double note: Current game writers need not be blamed nor ostracized as a majority if not all started out as designers or developers. But they do need assistance in the form of training and/or contributions by professional screenwriters if that's were we want to take this thing. Our medium's stories are still underdeveloped. Let's not jump the gun on their critique.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

steve17 @ Mar 2nd 2007 7:27PM

i will agree in saying i would like maturity in the games as far as plot, story, and believability goes. i would very much like a story telling experience equal to that of a movie. video games actually have greater potential for telling a story than a movie does. granted this wont happen for probably a few more generations of gaming, but when u are controlling the player its more immersive.

good companies nowadays can get gameplay and visuals done really well. i just want to see some better story development and voice acting. get a little hollywood in the games and it would benifit.

Jack the Ripper @ Mar 2nd 2007 7:27PM

While there are a great number of casual games that still mean nothing, there are also a number of games with fantastic narratives that absolutely don't get the respect they reserve. Knights of the Old Republic II had a number of commentaries on very deep issues - like how soldiers feel about fighting a war that is unpopular with civilians. But all you'll read about is how l33t the new force powers are. The Indigo Prophecy was more interesting than most adult television, but the reviews focused on how it suffered from 1st gen PS2 graphics. The climax of Max Payne 2 nearly made me cry, but the reviews all whine about the spinny reload animation during bullet time.

In the coming year, we're looking at a number of games that will no doubt have spiritual, political and social messages to convey, as well as deep stories that can touch their audience in ways that movies and books can't. Metal Gear Solid 3, Alan Wake, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc. All of those games have the potential to connect to the player on a deep emotional level, as we get to shape how the story progresses and ends with how we interact with the game world. And reviewers who are focusing less on that, and more on their dislike of a voice over actress, or how many frames per second the game is able to crank out over Live, or how intuitive the control scheme is - they're not treating their readers like mature adults, and they're treating game developers as mere programmers, not story tellers and artists.

W. Brent Latta @ Mar 2nd 2007 7:37PM

"Until game storylines and their execution fully mature (think of the many embarrassing game dialogs), there's no need in trying to figure out "what it means" if the authors can't even share a believable story."

That's a fairly narrow view of games, I think. You're assuming that the goal of all games is to tell a story, which is simply untrue. Imagine if all music was critiqued based on similar principles - perhaps only lyrical music could actually be 'critiqued'...or only Classical music. Fortunately, that is not the case, and composers old and new (e.g. John Cage) have taught us that all music can be critiqued, whether it falls within the popular paradigm or not.

Mr Khan @ Mar 2nd 2007 7:40PM

I'm sorry, but gameplay trumps everything,

Graphics HELP gameplay, Sound HELPS Gameplay, and good story HELPS gameplay, but there's a reason they're called video GAMES

I'm not saying there shouldn't be better storytelling in games, but i'd rather have a great game with a throwaway story (like Sonic and the Secret Rings, ugh, bad story) than a great story with a shitty game (like Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles)

I'm a gameplay whore, i'll admit it

Developers should focus first and foremost on getting the gameplay mechanics down, 2nd in importance are graphics, then story, then sound

wait in the car @ Mar 2nd 2007 7:41PM

I think you're missing the point a bit. Critiques don't necessarily need to be reserved for art forms that have deep stories or complex subject matters. There are plenty of critiques for media such as B-movies and trashy novels and such. These focus more on what the product or products as a whole say about society, etc. One example would be a critical analysis of why slasher flicks are so popular. What is this inherent human sadistic desire that so many people have? Why do we like seeing people hacked to pieces? I think there's plenty of meaningful analysis to be done even on the most simplistic of today's video games.

Fatass of Kickassness @ Mar 2nd 2007 7:44PM

Mr Khan, Gameplay may be the core of games, but in this day and age we've come to expect more than just good gameplay from out systems. Systems these days are powerful, and all three systems (yes, even the Wii, even if its not as powerful) are capable of putting out games that not only have good gameplay, but good graphics and a good story too. I mean, if thats what the systems can do, shouldn't that be what we expect?

Mr Khan @ Mar 2nd 2007 7:47PM

Yes, having them all would be good, and there are examples where all 4 work in tandem (Halo, Metroid Prime, Zelda, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy)

But its the desert island thing, IF i could only choose 1 it would be gameplay

Blake Snow @ Mar 2nd 2007 7:48PM

I weighted "story" a bit heavy in my article, and I'm not suggesting storylines should trump gameplay. I'm just not sure how you can ask "what does it mean" without telling a compelling story first. If we want to be able to critique games in that regard, we need better storytelling. If we like games how they are (focus on gameplay) as I do, then there is no need to worry about how serious our critiques are.

j.lee @ Mar 2nd 2007 7:56PM

The fact that you don't find B-movies worthy of valid critique calls into question your opinion stated toward the end of this post. All media is worthy of some form of criticism or critique, whether it be academic or satirical. Implying that a whole subgenre of movies isn't worthy of analysis or critique ignores some of the more brilliant camp offerings from studios such as Troma. I think there's a valid point to be made...expecting the genre to advance itself without an advanced discourse will only promote stagnancy in the industry.

obo @ Mar 2nd 2007 8:15PM

Blake, you're saying that because not all games are worthy of critique, then no games are worthy of critique?

You say, "I'm not suggesting the interactive experience of games as a whole are b-movie quality, but their storylines and ability to galvanize emotion generally are."

_Generally_ is a key word there. You can replace "games" in that statement with movies, books, art or music and still have a supportable argument - and yet, all those media have a history of critique, because the _exceptional_ compositions deserved it. To call on people to refrain from critiquing _all_ games because "generally" they haven't developed compelling storytelling techniques, also means you want to ignore the handful of games, the exceptional games, that have.

In other words, just because the dozens of empty, stupid action movies that come out every year don't deserve critique because they're just simple, goofy violence doesn't mean that "The Departed" doesn't. Just because "Crackdown" doesn't deserve critique because it's just simple, goofy violence doesn't mean that "San Andreas" doesn't.

Games are a young medium, I agree, and there's a long way to go before they're capable of the emotional reach as the best films of today. But that didn't stop people from critiquing the stories in simple, non-interactive "moving pictures" when they were no more than a 30-year-old industry. Does Burnout need a critique? No. Hell, Zelda probably doesn't either. But for games where the story and characterization is dead even in execution and development as gameplay - KOTOR was a good example, as are Half-Life 2 and Darwinia (overrated as it is) - or in games where the visual delivery is an interactive, moving work of art, and can clearly be interpreted as art, how can you say that they're less worthy of critique than a movie because a professional screenwriter's involved?

Also, why _do_ you say a professional screenwriter's help and training is necessary - and why screenwriters in particular? You state this but say nothing to support it. I can find far more examples of poor storytelling by professional screenwriters than good examples - how would, or could, they help? Could they do harm? Is there still a backlash in the industry after the miles of FMV crap delivered in the '90s by professional screenwriters?

And most importantly, would _you_ trust Sam & Max to professional screenwriters? (shiver)

Pal @ Mar 2nd 2007 8:23PM

This is true for any medium, so it's just wasted effort. For every "good" movie that deserves critique, there are 10 more sequels that go straight to video. There are also puzzle games out there, so extracting the "meaning" from Tetris will be like squeezing blood from a stone.

It's hard to think of games as a serious medium because it's strongly associated with the word "play". We don't just observe and nod, we have to jump in and have a blast.

W. Brent Latta @ Mar 2nd 2007 8:31PM

"Developers should focus first and foremost on getting the gameplay mechanics down, 2nd in importance are graphics, then story, then sound."

If all developers held to that standard, we'd have even more bad games than we do now. Developers should focus on what advances the game design first and foremost. If the game is about a game mechanic (gameplay) - such as Tetris - then that mechanic should be priority one. If the game is about telling a story, then it should focus on the aspects of the game that advance the story - likely writing and dialog. Adhering to some rigid guidelines that assign arbitrary importance to game elements is what has made companies like EA take heat for their predictability (and sequelitis). On the flip side, NOT adhering to arbitrary standards has garnered critical acclaim for companies like Nintendo who know how to prioritize game elements based on the actual game they're making.

mtvernon @ Mar 2nd 2007 8:54PM

"Saying video games need developed critique at this stage is like saying b-movies are worthy of profound analysis. Intellectual questions should only be addressed when the medium itself has completely developed."

I dunno. It's kind of a chicken/egg thing, isn't it? You say gaming isn't ready to be taken seriously, but it seems to me that the medium may never mature without serious critique.

PS - B movies _are_ worthy of profound analysis. It's amazing what you can learn about a culture by examining its trash.

mtvernon @ Mar 2nd 2007 9:15PM

"There are also puzzle games out there, so extracting the 'meaning' from Tetris will be like squeezing blood from a stone."

Sure, I'd be hard pressed to throw out a quick "analysis" of any individual puzzler right now. But look back at that period where Tetsuya Mizuguchi produced Lumines and Meteos within a short period. This was close to the same time Brain Age was released, right?

Were gamers particularly eager for a mental challenge back then, or was this just a trend? I don't have an answer, but the question's worth exploring, and could certainly illuminate some sense of "meaning" as related to games.

chris @ Mar 2nd 2007 9:33PM

Interesting. I for one don't mind critiquing games that have material worth critiquing, but this is only for video games that were designed with more entertainment value than just the "fun factor". What I mean is that games up until a certain time did not tell stories. They weren't filled with large environments or life-like characters, either. All they had at that time was point and shoot gameplay, and minimal critical analysis could be made on the material.

Games these days have more material to analyze. There is a wider range of possibilities for video game to player interaction, and current material should be analyzed and critiqued so the discipline of game design can evolve.

Man, I'm too tired to write up this stuff. What a drag. But I'll mention something I think might be related: I talked with a friend of mine and he introduced me to his new girlfriend. She asked me what kind of games I was interested in, and I gave out a couple of genres and then she asked what specifically I liked. I said, "Final Fantasy, especially XII." She responded by saying that it was boring and that she didn't even get past the wild Cactuar job. Then she complained that the characters were lame and had no personality to them, and that she wanted a protagonist like Cloud or Squall or a villain like Sephiroth. The plot was boring and going nowhere, the whole world was peaceful, etc.

Either than the fact that she thought she had a fair opinion on the game despite having only played through roughly 2% of it, there's several things she did mention that did strike me. The game's plot is a lot different than previous installments in the series. It seems boring at first but only in comparison to those melodramatic "End of the world" scenarios from the earlier Final Fantasies. And despite how I enjoyed the earlier games, the plot to FFXII was plenty exciting; it just didn't reveal everything from the start (or at the end of the first half of the game). You didn't know who your real enemies were until the final scenes. There was nothing wrong with that.

As for the character development, there was plenty. It was not as obvious to the player, though, as it would be in previous games. The characters in this game developed through interaction with each other, even if they did not have a previous relationship or friendship with others, and that's actually one of the better ways to develop characters' personalities.

Chris @ Mar 2nd 2007 10:05PM

At first I wanted to argue with this, but then I realized just how excited I get when they release a Trauma Center or Elite Beat Agents or Viewtiful Joe. Granted, the movie industry is pretty much the same, where there are only a few movies released every year that are held highly, but I think it tends to happen less with video games. It's just so easy to tweak a Madden or Call of Duty or Quake to where people will like it, and enjoy the "differences" but not have to be extremely creative.

ghnvt @ Mar 2nd 2007 10:29PM

Crappy games will always continue to be made if people keep on buying them, that is why harshly criticizing games is important to the industry because it allows developers to figure out where they screwed up and make the game even better. Just look at God of War II. All of the gripes we had in the first game have been addressed, at least a little. Then there are those stubborn developers who keep spewing out the same crap and now with great blogs and the increase popularity of the internet has given us all more of a medium to critic those games, making the industry more apt to create better games.

NintendoFanbot @ Mar 2nd 2007 11:16PM

You don't need screenwriters. I very much believe that many creators are holding themselves back. For what? Maybe based on the idea of appealing to as many fans as possible, maybe to appease general acceptances.

Games are supposed to fun. Movies are supposed to be cinematic. You can intermix both but their directions cannot be the same. If one aspect of games like 'quality stories' become more encouraged than the rest of gameplay a whole variety of games that don't require stories or exposition (and creators of such) could suffer for it.

soul4sale @ Mar 2nd 2007 11:29PM

Blake, I hear your point; I understand it; and I piss on it...but in a good way.

I say interactive digital experiences will not grow and mature UNTIL critics begin puncturing holes in the insular dork culture that surrounds their creation. Putting aside the legacy genres (puzzle, basic platformer, etc.) and simulations (racing, sports, flying, etc.) and you find that mature gaming genres (sandbox, adventure, FPS, RPGs, MMOs, etc.) ARE slowly groping toward some kind of cinematic and storytelling maturity, using their gameplay gimmics as a hook. But in an industry full of John Carmack wannabes, that progression is desperately in need of a critical kick in the ass from those with a love of the format but a jaded artistic eye.

I think middleware and other higher-level development tools (hated as they are for their power-sapping code) are doing a great deal to level the doofus-to-visionary ratio in the industry. But we also need a critical corp in gaming journalism to savage the even the best horseshit for what it is - badly acted, badly written, sensuality-devoid kill fests (I'm looking at you, Gears of War).

Steve 3.2 @ Mar 3rd 2007 1:30AM

I have a huge problem when people compare movies and video games. While both are generally created to entertain the masses, that is where the similarities end.

When a movie is created, the writer has a fixed amount of time to tell one possible story. When creating a video game that has a plot (since games like Tetris do not have nor need one), the writer has to consider that the player controls how much time it will take for him to get through the narrative. On top of that, the writer also has to juggle the actual game elements (i.e. combat, racing, etc.) and allow for multiple paths which can creates a huge number of possible variations to the story or even creates multiple stories. It's this lack of control the writer has over the pacing, order of execution, etc., that forces game writing to generally have less of an impact.

If you give a video game writer the same control as a movie writer, then the game gets slammed for being too linear. If you give a game limitless possibilities, there's no way anyone can give it a great story line.

So that begs the question, which is more important -- story or game play? Since movies have no game play, it's definitely the story (though they too sometimes get caught up in the graphics race). But in video games it's all about the game play. And if you can create a perfect balance of the two, I can't wait to play it!

Chuck @ Mar 3rd 2007 2:18AM

This post just sounds to me like someone responding to "Grow up!" with "No, YOU grow up!" When I look at the state of writing IN games versus the state of writing ABOUT games, I wouldn't point at the game developers as the less mature. There are exceptions in game writing, of course, just as there are exceptionally artful games at the moment (as other commenters have mentioned).

But for the most part, they're shallow responses to a game, written as if they were reviewing a toy. "It looked nice," "it was too short," "the sniper rifle is bad-ass;" that's the kind of thing I can get from the clerk at a store or from a fan message board. What are gaming journalists FOR, if not to give more insight about a game?

If a game's story and writing is shallow, then often there's at least a fairly interesting game mechanic there to back it up. But what value is there to a game review, if all it is is paragraph after paragraph of basically "this level was cool," "these weapons work well," "the graphics are cool," and "I had trouble getting online?" Where's the insight? How are game journalists justifying their paychecks?

Saying that videogames are still maturing is a bogus argument. It's been over 20 years now. And that hasn't been in a vacuum -- even poorly-written (but fun to play) games like "Gears of War" have higher production values than most movies did in the 30's.

And as commenters have mentioned, there've already been several genuine artistic achievements in games that got ignored, because reviewers slapped an 8.something on it without explaining WHY, and because fans looked at the screenshots and ignored it in favor of something that looked prettier.

If we like games how they are (focus on gameplay) as I do, then there is no need to worry about how serious our critiques are.
The whole "gameplay trumps story" argument is equally bogus.

There are plenty of movies that have shallow plots in favor of big action sequences or special effects, and still film critics don't seem baffled as to how to write about them.

A game reviewer can apparently say that gameplay is most important, so it doesn't bear mentioning. But that would be the same as a film critic talking about "Ghost Rider" strictly in terms of whether the shots were in focus, the audio was mixed correctly, the flame effects were believable, and the explosions were big enough. But even the most insipid reviewer will talk about what the game is trying to do, and how well it succeeds.

How come we can't except the same level of even the most shallow insight from the people who write about games? Why is it up to FANS of games like "ICO" and "Shadow of the Colossus" to point out that these are works of art, with subtle themes that are being addressed? Why don't "Civilization" reviews talk about how well the game's abstractions reflect significant historical events? Why do reviews of "The Sims" games talk about graphics upgrades and value-for-your-dollar, instead of talking about what the games say about consumerism?

Is it because game reviewers and journalists just aren't worried about how serious their jobs are? How are games ever going to be treated as art instead of product, when the people who are most responsible for analyzing them and explaining to people how they ARE art, just don't care?

NintendoFanbot @ Mar 3rd 2007 3:06AM

"Why is it up to FANS of games like "ICO" and "Shadow of the Colossus" to point out that these are works of art, with subtle themes that are being addressed?"

You're blaming journalists for the gamer's job: to BUY THESE GAMES and experience them for themselves. The journalists can't make you like a game as it's up to the gamer to purchase it and play it.

But I agree that the game loses the attractive, commercial luster if given an 8. Sometimes the games get huge ratings all around, lots of publication, and it still won't sell as much as it deserves.

It's up to the developer to discover what makes video games so special rather than go after what will sell every time.

"Is it because game reviewers and journalists just aren't worried about how serious their jobs are?"

I think the 'plight' of the journalists is a result of the real duties being in the hands of the gamers and developers. Journalists are often considered simply 'the messenger'. With the age of the internet where writers and readers can converge and converse that has a high chance of happening, if it hasn't happened already for many newsgroups.

Signed,
a lamenting EarthBound fan

NintendoFanbot @ Mar 3rd 2007 3:08AM

"With the age of the internet where writers and readers can converge and converse that has a high chance of happening, if it hasn't happened already for many newsgroups."

***change HAPPENING with CHANGING

dbeech @ Mar 3rd 2007 10:11AM

Too many people think that you can just apply the criteria for critical analysis from one media to another. This is obviously not the case; it is not just the medium which needs to mature but the method of analysis as well.

Of course, the ironic thing is that some of these games which aren't deemed 'worthy' of critique will be the one's that are picked apart the most once both method and medium have matured. Much like early films like 'Le Voyage dans la Lune' are still taught and discussed in most schools around the world.

LaughingTarget @ Mar 3rd 2007 10:41AM

I figure the more a game can be critiqued the less of a game it is. If a game warrants a full-on critique then it should have been a movie or TV series instead. It is difficult to critique shooting a gun or telling your character to use a magic spell on his turn.

Cam.ron @ Mar 3rd 2007 12:10PM

I'm a music critic for print and online magazines and I'm always glad to read these debates. The article raised good points, but what's missing is the basic fact that print zines are heavily restricted by word-count limits. They don't have the space to run 2,000-word critiques on crime and American captialism in the GTA series, or how "Okami" fits into traditional Japanese woodblock art. They can only run maybe 300-500 word reviews whose job is to simply tell readers what the game is about and whether it's worth their $50. As a gamer, that's the only thing I want to see in a review. There could be different schools of criticism, including those that only focus on what the graphics "mean" or what the music "means" - but by the end of the day, what counts is if the game is entertaining and worth your hard-earned money (note: the article failed to mention that video games are twice to three times more expensive than CDs and movie tickets, so consumer guides - however shallow they may be - are critically important). As for worries of pretension, they're very understandable. Video games are ultimately toys, aren't they?

Mr Khan @ Mar 3rd 2007 4:17PM

@ Cam.ron

Don't tell that to 360/PS3 fanboys

Eric Ward @ Mar 3rd 2007 5:42PM

@Cam.ron I think you raise a very good point, but you need to consider that this is an article posted on Joystiq in response to one from GameDaily, two journalistic mediums with no word limit. If I were to get a print magazine of game reviews, I would expect the same as you, but going online for my game news i should expect a higher level of literature.

And personally I wholly disagree with Blake's argument (though I do appreciate his article.) I think that intellectually critiquing games and gaming culture is an important step to raise the caliber and quality of this 'new' medium. To reach a place where many games have deeper themes and are 'worthy' of critique, we need to want to get there, and wee need to start now.

Brad Lee @ Mar 3rd 2007 7:05PM

@ Blake Snow

But don't you think it is possible to create more in-depth analysis of the actual gameplay of the games? Perhaps analyzing the "meaning" behind the gameplay would be a bit of a stretch, but more in-depth analysis of the gameplay (which is obviously the primary ingredient of games) is absolutely necessary if we wish to move this medium forward as more respectable form of artistic expression.

It really does seem like video game reviews are little more than descriptions of the game and a short bit of opinion. There is very little, and oftentimes no, critical look at what makes the game fun. Why is Lumines so fun while countless other puzzle games blow? This is the type of question video game journalists need to learn how to answer if we want our medium to be more respected. Unfortunately though, that is not exactly an easy question to answer. It's like answering why a book or movie is good.

You have to get beyond the technical crap, and right now video game reviews are just drowning in it. There is more focus on frames per second and graphical prowess than what makes the game fun or enjoyable, and I just find that sad.

"There are plenty of movies that have shallow plots in favor of big action sequences or special effects, and still film critics don't seem baffled as to how to write about them." by Chuck

I actually agreed with just about everything you said, except for that. I disagree, for the most part. Sure, some critics are good at reviewing action movies, but most are not. I read a review of "The Protector" which described how ridiculous the plot was. Well duh, it's a martial arts movie, and one of the most impressive ones I have ever seen. But the critic only gave the movie 2 out of 4 stars; she completely missed what makes The Protector a great movie, which was, of course, the amazing martial arts coreography.

Ikthog @ Mar 4th 2007 5:26AM

To the extent that games will be the subject of mature criticism and analysis, it will not be just for the degree to which their writing, dialogue and characters approximate a movie-like experience. Every aspect of games, not just what the characters do and say but what players are asked to do, and how, and in what ways, and what they are not allowed to do, and why, will all be part of the package. There is nothing "missing" from today's games that prevents or preempts criticism, certainly not their lack of riveting dialogue or first-rate storytelling. Indeed, that very shortcoming is itself a worthy topic of criticism. While far less common than game reviews, game criticism does exist, and it will continue to grow. You could write a doctoral thesis on Mario, and someone probably has.

The issue is primarily one of audience -- which is to say, is there an audience for real game criticism? Most gamers seem to find the notion puzzling and/or pointless, as they are primarily looking for a reliable opinion as to whether a game is worth their $50. What a game "means" is largely irrelevant to most of the people who play games today, as they aren't searching for meaning, they're looking for a fun distraction. The most commercially successful games aren't generally known for their status as art anyway, any more than are the top-grossing films, and the game industry will continue to follow the money, producing more of the types of games people buy. You won't find many games on retail shelves today that were designed to convey meaning, in an artistic sense -- to illustrate an idea, or make a point about human nature, or teach you something. That isn't because the medium isn't mature enough to do so. It's because there isn't much of a market for it.

To the extent that the "indie auteur" could make a game today that accomplishes something important on a shoestring budget, as is possible in other media, there also isn't a mechanism for recognition for such visionary work. Game journalism that doesn't focus solely on a game's "value" (its graphics, gameplay, sound, quality relative to other games, typically from the standpoint of whether you should buy it) is usually preoccupied with the business side of the game industry (i.e. a game or gaming trend is important because it makes someone lots of money). Only a handful of journalists and critics are really talking about larger issues and ideas around gaming, and most of those do so from an ignorant, outsider standpoint. If there is going to be a Lester Bangs (or whatever) of games, not only will he or she have to come from within gaming, but enough people will need to recognize the need for and value of such criticism to make it worthwhile.

I wonder how rock and film criticism would have developed in an atmosphere like the one we have today around gaming, where anyone with an opinion can spout off whatever happens to have occurred to them just this second, and the default tone is cynicism, mockery and personal attacks. I'm not sure a Lester Bangs would ever have had the chance to be heard, as everyone would be joking that he's funny looking, and his name is dumb, and people would be posting stupid comments about what he says without even reading it. To put it another way, if the gaming audience ever elevates itself above junior high study hall, real criticism may well thrive, but not before.

Abscissa @ Mar 4th 2007 7:31PM

Oh please, Video Games need critiques and deep meaningful storylines about as much as a Mel Brooks flick or the Three Stooges need it. They're all absolutely great, but to say they need critiques is is to completely miss their whole purpose.

Think about it: Since when does anything *have* to carry deep intellectual meaning to be widely accepted by society. Whether people are or aren't writing intellectual critiques about pepperoni pizza, bandages, or Desperate Housewives, it that really going to sway public acceptance? Does the public even know? If they did know, would they actually care?

Video Games will naturally get the respect they deserve, not when some pompous bourgeois ass reads or writes a critique (and let's face it - that's how today's public views that sort of thing), but when the baby boomers die off and the people who grew up with games take charge.

throughsilver @ Mar 6th 2007 1:47PM

I agree with respondent #3. To suggest games criticism be entirely about narratology is to miss the point of what a videogame represents. Why review a game in the same manner as one would a film when the inherently interactive nature of a videogame sets it apart from other, narrative-based media? The best videogames usually (though not always) tend to manifest as a combination of narratology and ludology, in varying ratios.

- Games will never be films, nor should they attempt to be.
- Who is to say when the medium of the videogame will be 'mature'?
- Read Edge magazine. It has the right idea.

Matt @ Apr 11th 2007 6:15AM

This is, of course, an important topic, and a lot of the posts here are insightful; thing is, most of this has already been said. I'll just add two things.

1) A number of people have grokked that game criticism is *not movie criticism*. In movies, you evaluate the story and visuals, because that's what movies *are*: visual stories. Games are *toys* (in a general sense - video games only partly fit the more precise definition of "toy"), so you evaluate the *experience of playing them*, AKA gameplay (that *does* include story, but not in the same way movies do). And to those who can't understand how someone can critique such an elusive thing, I say: is beauty a simple concept? No? Then how can you articulate a compliment to a beautiful woman?
The material is there. It's just the method that has to develop. To that end:

2) I STRONGLY URGE EVERYONE HERE to go visit http://www.insertcredit.com/ and read a featured article, preferably one by Tim Rogers, preferably "Dreaming in an Empty Room", his analysis of Metal Gear Solid 2 as "the first postmodern video game". What you will experience is the birth cries of video game criticism. Here, I'll even link it for you: http://www.insertcredit.com/features/dreaming2/
He and others like him have been doing this kind of thing for a while now, you probably don't know about them, and that's why video game journalism sucks.