Game Critics Should Embrace Friction, Personal Analysis
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Hey, yeah, guy who thinks he's super smart, a question is not an opinion, and the opinion next to it wasn't formed on the basis of zero experience. There's no irony to be called upon here. Great job trying to be smug, though!
Nobody's saying you're stupid for having an opinion, so no need to rustle those jimmies of yours. It's just that in order to form a cohesive argument for a point of view, there has to be an actual reason behind it. Even if it's based on a prejudice, that prejudice has to be explored, so if we just blindly wave about, nothing is accomplished. Got it?
You don't necessarily need to play games for even an entire week, but you do have to ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME to have a view to address. There are just many, many, many angry and emotional opinions formed on the internet, based on secondhand accounts of a game, and it sounds like the argument being made here is that those opinions are equally valid somehow because there's a kneejerk reaction behind it, and not because those points of view have a leg to stand on.
Back when Jimothy Sterling discussed this, a lot of people thought he was saying that critic's opinions were more worthy than anybody else's (which was not true). He was arguing against the vitriol that you're saying you are also arguing against. However, IN THIS ARTICLE, there is also an argument that we should accept emotions back into game criticism as a fundamental part of the process. However, there isn't any distinction made between emotional responses that add to the process, and those that would actually DETRACT from it, due to them obscuring or commandeering the purpose of the things being said.
If there was anything in this session that clarified this point, it wasn't recorded in the article.
This stance puts the other argument against death threats and such at odds, because those death threats are also opinions. Therefore, this actually makes it look like the position is "critic's opinions are worth more than anybody else's" even though it may have not been the intent.
Nobody's saying you're stupid for having an opinion, so no need to rustle those jimmies of yours. It's just that in order to form a cohesive argument for a point of view, there has to be an actual reason behind it. Even if it's based on a prejudice, that prejudice has to be explored, so if we just blindly wave about, nothing is accomplished. Got it?
You don't necessarily need to play games for even an entire week, but you do have to ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME to have a view to address. There are just many, many, many angry and emotional opinions formed on the internet, based on secondhand accounts of a game, and it sounds like the argument being made here is that those opinions are equally valid somehow because there's a kneejerk reaction behind it, and not because those points of view have a leg to stand on.
Back when Jimothy Sterling discussed this, a lot of people thought he was saying that critic's opinions were more worthy than anybody else's (which was not true). He was arguing against the vitriol that you're saying you are also arguing against. However, IN THIS ARTICLE, there is also an argument that we should accept emotions back into game criticism as a fundamental part of the process. However, there isn't any distinction made between emotional responses that add to the process, and those that would actually DETRACT from it, due to them obscuring or commandeering the purpose of the things being said.
If there was anything in this session that clarified this point, it wasn't recorded in the article.
This stance puts the other argument against death threats and such at odds, because those death threats are also opinions. Therefore, this actually makes it look like the position is "critic's opinions are worth more than anybody else's" even though it may have not been the intent.
Uh, no. Seriously, no.
This isn't about keeping gaming away from more academic critique, but rather personal observation that bias and anger stop conversation, not move it forward. Academic writing is by and large a sales pitch for your opinion, theory, philosophy, or whatever, not just a statement of it. You have to convince people through reason or evidence, of what you're selling, and ideas that put the quality of said reason or evidence into question hurt the work. Bias, by making any evidence or reason seem invalid because personal preference causes the falsification, distortion, or omition of things to make your claim more valid than it really is. Anger by coming off as defensive to any opinions not your own, and showing even an unwillingness to engage detractors, even indirectly, because you don't actually want conversation or discussion, but rather praise. It's a concept that actually tries to lower an already low quality bar on video game journalism by removing any form of of standards on how to present and make an argument, so that the the writer has as little to concern themselves with as possible.
"This is what I think" is not journalistic or academic. It's a forum post with pretensions. I get that game journalism is a lot of freelance writing and is hardly a university or the New York Times, but we don't do the medium any favors by keeping the bar low. The low bar itself should have most game journalists a bit more humbler just by virtue that they aren't peer reviewed, or even put through a stringent editor before publishing. Moving conversation forward does not mean falling on bad debate habits, it means improving your argument's form and foundation.
This isn't about keeping gaming away from more academic critique, but rather personal observation that bias and anger stop conversation, not move it forward. Academic writing is by and large a sales pitch for your opinion, theory, philosophy, or whatever, not just a statement of it. You have to convince people through reason or evidence, of what you're selling, and ideas that put the quality of said reason or evidence into question hurt the work. Bias, by making any evidence or reason seem invalid because personal preference causes the falsification, distortion, or omition of things to make your claim more valid than it really is. Anger by coming off as defensive to any opinions not your own, and showing even an unwillingness to engage detractors, even indirectly, because you don't actually want conversation or discussion, but rather praise. It's a concept that actually tries to lower an already low quality bar on video game journalism by removing any form of of standards on how to present and make an argument, so that the the writer has as little to concern themselves with as possible.
"This is what I think" is not journalistic or academic. It's a forum post with pretensions. I get that game journalism is a lot of freelance writing and is hardly a university or the New York Times, but we don't do the medium any favors by keeping the bar low. The low bar itself should have most game journalists a bit more humbler just by virtue that they aren't peer reviewed, or even put through a stringent editor before publishing. Moving conversation forward does not mean falling on bad debate habits, it means improving your argument's form and foundation.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all.SKBPinkie said:
I think his point is that a lot of critics are trying to emulate ordinary journalism and sound professionally neutral-- but they also need to convey a viewpoint on the game, since it is a review. Which, in my opinion, is an undesirable hybrid.
If you're writing a review, you don't need to sound uninvested or neutral. The whole point is to have an opinion, and I think he's saying that critics need to embrace that.