Reviews or Criticism

Can a review also be criticism? Can criticism also be a review? Are the two mutually exclusive? This is a dilemma that the medium of Games is struggling with currently, and I think that there are no easy answers to it. Over all, reviews are the most common form of commentary about Games; however, quantity does not equate to quality. Reviewing a game is the easier of the two by far, as you can do that competently without playing the entire game in question. Critiquing a game, however, requires multiple game completions and a careful analysis of all facets of the game in question.

The difference is simple to spot, for example I will briefly review Pac-Man, and then briefly critique it. The review:
Pac-Man is an oldie, but still a goodie that provides pinpoint control and tense action, while not overwhelming the player with too much to do. Levels are non-linear affairs that ask the player to clear the level of dots while avoiding the enemies that use rubimentary AI to track and eliminate the player. While the game play is limited to one level layout with increasingly fast enemies, it is highly addictive and enjoyable to waste a few hours with.

The critique:
Pac-Man can be seen as analogus to the struggle of the proletariat, or "Pac-Man", against the bourgeoisie, or "Ghosts", in the domination of the socio-economic sphere of life, or "Level". As the proletariat gathers more influence, represented in the game by the players score and advancement through levels, the bourgeoisie becomes more active and aggressive in its attempts to stop the proletariat. However, in the game the proletariat can rise up for a short time and drive back the bourgeoisie by utilizing special pieces of influence, likely representing a labor strike or other economic assault upon the bourgeoisie. Pac-Man is a game that can be viewed as both an example of the proletariat fighting the bourgeoisie, and a valid distraction of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.

Both the review and the critique have valid views on Pac-Man, but one is useful to a potential consumer, while the other is useful to someone studying the medium. Could the critique be used as a review? I'm sure it could, however it does not make any additional value judgements beyond its initial projection of Marxism on Pac-Man. The review, on the other hand, makes a value judgement that the game is "good", a nebulous term at best. In the end, each style has it's merits and uses, and both are necessary, however reviews are disperportionately represented in the gaming literature space, while most critiques are a shoehorn job at worst, and a somewhat sensible argument at best.

"The End of Gamers"? OH NOES!!!1!1!

"When we acknowledge videogames as a medium, the notion of a monolithic games industry, which creates a few kinds of games for a few kinds of players, stops making any sense. As does the idea of a demographic category called “gamers” who are the ones who play these games."

That was the second to last paragraph of the article "The End of Gamers", and there is enough wrong in that one paragraph, in my opinion, to cast a shadow on what was otherwise a well thought out and well written analysis of the concept of the "gamer". The article seems to assume that anyone of plays a game is a "gamer", whereas most people will say that while they do play some games, they would not consider themselves a "gamer". The act of playing games does not make you a "gamer", rather joining the culture of games is the essence of becoming a "gamer". When a person self identifies as a "gamer", this distinction is easy to make; however, it is not something that can be quantified by an outsider, and not often even by other members of the group.

Therefore, there is a demographic called "gamers", however it is so large and nebulous that it must be looked at economically as separate, mini-demographics, which could be broken down by genre, control style, or even the dreaded "hardcore v. casual" division. The film industry has a similar situation in that a movie has a target audience, just like a game has a target audience.

Also the assertion that the games industry does not just make a few games for a few kinds of gamers is flawed, especially when annual releases are broken down: there are more sports and FPS games released in a year than there are all other games, by the games industry. "Gamers" are far from gone, they are just more specialized than most expect them to be.

I think that an agreement about the label ascribed to the medium of games is an important step towards Game Studies finding purchase in mainstream academia. I agree that the phrase "video game" implies a game played using a video output device, while neglecting input variances. In this way, it is a useful phrase for the media to use in general interest articles, and as a reference point for the general, non game playing public. However, it is similar in tone to the word "movie", at least to my ears, in that it describes the most basic distinguishing characteristic instead of the medium itself. However, the word "videogame" or hyphen "video-game" seems too simple in attempting to encompass everything. However, "Interactive Entertainment" won't work either, as it would included things like digital comics or the terrible sega cd movie things like "Night Trap" or whatever it was called. "Digital Games" runs into a similar problem in defining what a game can be qualified as, as well as being the name of a studio if I remember correctly. This doesn't even include the social differences between console and PC gamers, or even between competitive, hardcore, and casual gamers. I don't know, maybe we should just reference the medium as the "Interactive Integrated Audio Video Feedback Simulation Medium." Or maybe just call them Games, with the understanding that it refers to any interactive experience that has the possiblity of failure to finish the narrative. Seems to work for Film.

it's here

Hi! More coming soon!