Should Any Aspect of Gaming Be Off-Limits to Discussion?

[BramblinTheGnome]

I think there are a lot of people (in this forum and many others) that confuse the ideas of criticizing the critic (including insults), criticizing criticism (including dismissal), and counterpointing criticism. First, out of the way, the first one is almost never useful and should be avoided in all cases except perhaps for when the critic has already aimed a shot towards the audience, and even then it's probably best to ignore it and walk away. Chances are your poorly worded insults will change nobody's opinion of a well written article, no matter how many misspellings you make. Your well written insults? Well, those might have a better chance.

Onto the second idea which I am seeing defended multiple times in this forum, I have to disagree that this is useful in most situations either. The only times I could see criticizing the criticism as being beneficial would be if the critic did not look deep enough into an issue, and therefore missed a specific point or idea that could change their general feel of a work, or they focused too much on a less important part of the whole to the detriment of the overall criticism. The problem with this is that all works of art impact each individual in a separate way. One person may be so bothered by what another would consider a trivial point that it ruins the rest of the experience for them. And even if it should be a small part of the whole, if it manages to ruin the whole then it IS an important topic to discuss, so this one becomes very hard to determine whether they have done their jobs in criticizing 'correctly' or not. I also understand that this is the category this post falls under, and that if a person was truly turned off by Shamus' previous articles due to not understanding his points, or strongly disagreeing with his points, that they have every right to dismiss his article as useful, or to feel that some disagreement with his article, even if it was a small disagreement, ruined their ability to enjoy reading his article. Which is where I realize I may be wordily pointing fingers while ignoring the ones currently pointed back at me, but I'm this far so continuing on!

The one that I hope most people falling into one of the other two categories believes they are doing is this last one, counterpointing criticism. But the issue with this is you can't just say "You should have focused on this idea instead of that one" as that falls under the last category. You have to say "I can see your point on the ideas you focused on, however I believe the material is much more enjoyable when you focus on this other aspect, and here's why." Or even "I disagree with your assessment of what you did focus on, as I viewed it this way instead." See how the last idea shows not only that you understood the information given by the original critic, but also built upon it and placed new information into the system? If done correctly, and if the original critic is open to suggestion, nobody will even feel insulted by the end.

 

[GloatingSwine]

But he's also right that decisions are being made on the basis of the reviews of a relatively small pool of critics, and (me here, not Shamus) some of those critics are neither doing a good job nor taking their responsibilities very seriously. And while the critics might start some discussions (or a round of insult-flinging and worse), most aren't really participating in them in a real way. Mostly, they're writing their reviews and moving on, for better or worse.

It's not the point of a reviewer to be involved in those conversations though.

A reviewer is not there to respond to the disagreements people have with them, they are there to make their opinion known, explain it with reference to the source, and then move on to the next review.

 

[inkheart_artist]

As I said last time, I do agree that you can write whatever you want, especially as a games journalist. My problem with the last article on how Shadow of Mordor failed to be a proper Arkam ripoff undermined your opinion of the game. It wreaked of reactionary nitpicking because people didn't agree with your first article. It was as if you were saying "Yeah? Well I didn't like this, or this, or this either! MEH Take that!"

You got what felt like the real problem you had with Mordor out on the first article. Agree or not, it was a legitimate problem to have with the game, something that deserved to be written about. A second, complete article on how you didn't like that there wasn't a grading system in the game seemed petty and unnecessary and, when the articles are taken together, called into question your more legitimate concerns. I have a bigger problem with how this makes you look as a writer than how you felt about the game.

I wish this was the piece that came after the initial review. This would have been a much stronger response than the last. There is this toxic belief that there should be some sort of hive mind associated with peoples interest and that they are entitled to every piece of writing in the field agreeing with them. It's so destructive on a personal and social level, ruining the individuals ability to think creatively and adapt to new information, and homogenizing the group opinion into stagnant oblivion. If the argument is so illegitimate that you want to completely dismiss it, don't bother responding, it will die far more quickly from neglect. Responses need to be inductive of a discussion, one without the goal of making the writer shut up or concede that they were completely wrong. No one gains anything from that.

 

[Artaneius]

I believe any aspect of gaming can be discussed. But I think that the majority of the gaming culture should have the full absolute right and authority to decide what it wants to do without people having to constantly bring up the "aspect" to see if they can make the actual change with time and patience. That is what the modern real world would call harassment. If you constantly called someone asking for money and they said no each time, sooner or later the person receiving the calls is going to get pissed and probably do something about it. People don't like being harassed in general. And right now an entire culture is being harassed at this point to make changes it doesn't want to make.

What needs to be done is just let things settle down for a bit. Probably for a year or two and bring this topic up again when peoples heads have cooled down. The more you harass someone, the more likely they are to lash out at you.

 

[Blackbird71]

*Raises hand*

I write the headlines for these columns (*ducks*). As for this headline, it was taken from the end of the third paragraph of the article (sans the Why).

I'll point out that omitting the "Why" in this case fundamentally changes the question that was being asked, and shifts the tone of expectation for the article.

My philosophy still stands in that you want a headline to be interesting enough to make people WANT to read the story.
...
The share headline is the one at the top of the story and usually asks a question or takes a point of view that the article is expected to answer.

I'll also point out that generally speaking, questions make for poor headlines, and all too often they venture into the area of "clickbait" that you profess to abhor. It's a cheap tactic, and if you really want to elevate the quality of your headlines, I'd suggest avoiding anything with a question mark at the end.

Anyway, just the opinions of one reader; take them for what they're worth.

 

[Callate]

A reviewer is not there to respond to the disagreements people have with them, they are there to make their opinion known, explain it with reference to the source, and then move on to the next review.

Yes.

And when their insights are on the item being reviewed in question, that's frequently for the best. A review should stand on its own, just as the thing being reviewed should- albeit perhaps with the chance that that thing might change and further review might be warranted.

...I'm trying to think how to phrase this, and I may stumble.

When a reviewer moves beyond criticizing the item under review itself- when they seek to criticize the perceived audience for the thing under review, or their perception of a philosophy behind the thing being reviewed, or the cultural context within which such a thing might exist...

I'm not going to say such a thing simply shouldn't happen at all, but we almost need a different term for it. Because to call it a "review" affords the "critic" a kind of cover that they might not deserve. People write rebuttals and letters to the editor and so forth about editorials; almost no one writes formal rebuttals of a review, and if they do they risk being dismissed as simply disagreeing with a subjective opinion on the work in question, not the myriad of other views presented which might only be tangentially related to the examined work.

 

[GloatingSwine]

When a reviewer moves beyond criticizing the item under review itself- when they seek to criticize the perceived audience for the thing under review, or their perception of a philosophy behind the thing being reviewed, or the cultural context within which such a thing might exist...

I'm not going to say such a thing simply shouldn't happen at all, but we almost need a different term for it. Because to call it a "review" affords the "critic" a kind of cover that they might not deserve.

You know, in just about every other field of endeavour, that's basically all a review will cover.

In film, books, music, opera, whatever else, the artistic qualities of the product will be the things being reviewed, it's only in games that people want to insist that those are invalid for review.

And, frankly, to do that reduces games to the status of children's toys. If you demand that a review be only a review of the technical qualities of a game, then you de facto refute that games are or can be artistic.

And you'd be wrong.

Watch this:


You will note that none of the technical qualities of the product are being reviewed here, and yet this is one of the more respected film reviewers doing one of his most popular reviews.

 

[Callate]

You know, in just about every other field of endeavour, that's basically all a review will cover.

In film, books, music, opera, whatever else, the artistic qualities of the product will be the things being reviewed, it's only in games that people want to insist that those are invalid for review.

And, frankly, to do that reduces games to the status of children's toys. If you demand that a review be only a review of the technical qualities of a game, then you de facto refute that games are or can be artistic.

And you'd be wrong.

I think you misunderstand me. When I suggest there's a diversion in criticizing things outside of the artwork, I'm not suggesting the critic seek or feign ignorance of things that might have affected its creation, nor stick to the purely technical details of criticism. If I'm aware of Wagner's antisemitism, that might provide an interesting insight in reviewing The Ring Cycle; if I describe "Ride of the Valkyries" as some kind of Aryan-supermacist marching theme, I'm missing a lot- particularly if I choose to castigate others for either enjoying "hateful" music or being "ignorant" of its creator's views.

Likewise, there's a significant difference between

Grim Shooter takes a cue from recent games like Gray Gun and Powder Burn in more openly directing the player in the correct mode of play.

or even

Grim Shooter suffers from the trend highlighted by games such as Gray Gun and Powder Burn in holding players' hands throughout the play-through.

and

Grim Shooter continues to ape the abysmal ease of Gray Gun and its ilk in a desire to pander to an audience without the attention span to learn basic game mechanics.

I'm not calling for criticism to only review games, or anything else, on technical characteristics alone. I never have, and I never will. But I think critics would do well to stop playing up a phantasmal idea that there's an unachievable objectivity, and everything else, whose subjectivity renders it itself beyond criticism.

There's a point where a critic is extending the privilege of their expertise and purview- not beyond objectivity and into subjectivity, but from critique into editorial. That may well be popular with those who agree with their opinion, and it may be entertaining and even interesting to witness. But it shouldn't go unnoticed that that is what they have done, and different standards and considerations apply.

 

[epthorn]

This article could have simply had the title posed as a question and the answer as "no" without losing much. Criticism of criticism of criticism? An author writing an article about why people who are unhappy about his critique have no basis sounds more appropriate for a forum topic than a feature.

Of course that would make this... criticismX4, so I guess it's just getting worse.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

"All of these activities qualify as "games", and they're all worth talking about."
That should be: 'All of these activities qualify as "games", and they're all worth talking about and to keep improving them by providing critical, positive feedback'.

 

[Blackbird71]

You will note that none of the technical qualities of the product are being reviewed here, and yet this is one of the more respected film reviewers doing one of his most popular reviews.

Will the technical aspects of what is being reviewed in this case in any way affect how it performs when viewed in my home? This is getting to be a bit of apples and oranges situation here. Yes there are some similarities, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the huge differences in the types of media being reviewed.

If you were reviewing a car or other piece of modern technology, you would most definitely cover the technical aspects such as features and performance. To do otherwise would be to ignore the primary purpose of the review.

Computer/video games are a combination of technology and artistic creativity, and as such, both aspects must be considered in any review that seeks to be thorough. Claiming that you can ignore the technical part of it just because that's what a movie reviewer does is a false analogy.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Will the technical aspects of what is being reviewed in this case in any way affect how it performs when viewed in my home? This is getting to be a bit of apples and oranges situation here. Yes there are some similarities, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the huge differences in the types of media being reviewed.

So you think people just run a camera and films happen?

Y'know, there are technical aspects like cinematography, editing, acting, quality of script, audio balance and editing, etc.

But film reviews are sufficiently mature, and film audiences expectations are sufficiently mature, that they are only mentioned if they are egregiously bad or exceptionally good, because film review is actually far more engaged with the artistic merits of film than the technical merits.

 

[Blackbird71]

Will the technical aspects of what is being reviewed in this case in any way affect how it performs when viewed in my home? This is getting to be a bit of apples and oranges situation here. Yes there are some similarities, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the huge differences in the types of media being reviewed.

So you think people just run a camera and films happen?

Y'know, there are technical aspects like cinematography, editing, acting, quality of script, audio balance and editing, etc.

But film reviews are sufficiently mature, and film audiences expectations are sufficiently mature, that they are only mentioned if they are egregiously bad or exceptionally good, because film review is actually far more engaged with the artistic merits of film than the technical merits.

You missed the point entirely (but of course you do seem to have a knack for that).

Generally speaking, regardless of how a movie was filmed, I could go to any theater and view it just the same. If there is a particular theater in my area that I enjoy which has a good audio system, I don't have to worry about whether this film will play with a different quality on that system than any other film I have seen in that theater. Once the film is released to home video formats, I could get a copy of it on DVD, Blu-ray, download service, etc., and I could view it on an appropriate and functioning player, and expect it to work just as well as any other movie in my home collection.

All of this is possible because there are standard formats and technology which, aside from differences in quality, have very little variance between platforms. When it comes to games, the technical aspects can cause vastly different experiences on one home system vs. another due to the countless possible hardware and software configurations that such a game may be run on. Because, of this, the technical and performance aspects are a vital part of game reviews intended to actually inform the consumer, and cannot be ignored in the same way that they can be with a film review. Equating the two forms of review by claiming that film reviews ignore the technical, so game reviews should too, shows an extreme lack of understanding of the media.