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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hilarious application of Marxist critical theory. However, I might make one suggestion; turn the sides fully.
ReplyDeleteConsider the little bits that Pacman collects to be resources, bits of capital, and so on. Pacman exists solely to gobble these little bits up and process them into something else - points and the ghost-killing powerup - in much the same way early capitalists gobbled up real-world resources. One of the chief tenets of Marxism (I'd argue) is the gap between initial and final product in a factory; I think Marx' term was something like, "disassociation of the worker from his product." If you think of Pacman himself as the furthest, most extreme (in the sense of distance, not value) arms of the capitalist class, then Pacman himself becomes both factory and prole, churning the little bits inside of him until they turn into scoring points - and the workers have absolutely no idea why in the hell they're working to making these abstract "scoring point" things.
The powerup? A wave of layoffs, a major acquistion, or even using finances to muscle into law legislation that favors you.
The ghosts? Clearly, these guys would be the communists, always frothing at the mouth to tear down the walls of gated communities so that they might instill equality and oppression over everybody.
I did think about switching the sides, but the fact that you can argue both sides proves only that if you aren't careful you will see what you want to, especially when critiquing something like Pac-Man.
ReplyDeleteI see what it is that your are saying. People should probably shy a way from critiqueing a game unless they are working for a scholarly journal.
ReplyDeleteAll that being able to identify and argue from multiple perspectives shows is that the writer/reader is /capable/ of seeing and arguing from multiple perspectives - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and to say that there is would be tantamount to rhetorical Fascism. The entire idea behind a critique - which is just a heavily-distilled argument - is to argue what you believe to be the /strongest/ argument, as there can never be a single correct answer, or even a single wrong answer.
ReplyDeletePost-modernist thought/rhetoric is stupid and frustrating, but its a hell of a model to beat.
XinJiki: Doesn't that run the risk of keeping good, well-composed and thought criticism/critique strictly inside of the ivory tower?
I wasn't trying to say there was anything wrong with being able to argue from multiple perspectives, just that there is a danger when there are so few well thought out critiques on the medium.
ReplyDelete