Editor's Note: I really see where Cameron is coming from here. If we -- the people who write about games -- are not willing to tackle issues beyond frame rates and review scores, we have nobody to blame but ourselves for the demonization of the gaming industry by news outlets. This may be easier for me to say since I'm still mostly an outsider to the industry, but I've never understood why so many people who write about games seem to be afraid of truly being critical of their medium. - Jay
Let me start with a little confession: about three years ago, I got so sick of listening to game journalists and consumers of game journalism navel gaze about the review process that I stopped listening to these conversations. When this topic comes up on a podcast, I skip forward until the discussion is over. When people write about it, I generally don't read it. I lost interest in the debate a long time ago. However, that's not because the subject isn't interesting. It's because the way people discuss it is unlikely to affect on the way we talk about games in any interesting way. To put it simply, I think everyone is missing the point.
So why chime in now? Something related to this seemingly endless discussion has really started to rub me the wrong way. Namely, I'm tired of hearing people who get paid to write about games for a living -- who are in a position to make the changes that everyone kvetches about -- resolutely refuse to call themselves critics, instead taking solace under the banner of “reviewers.” I'm sure that people use that word for different reasons, and that some probably do it for no reason at all. But whether they use the word innocently or as a way to dodge the responsibility that comes with calling themselves critics, “reviewer” may well be the most pernicious word in game writing today.
I had already been thinking about this when some music and film critics started reacting to a Boston Globe piece by former music critic Steve Almond, in which he writes off music criticism as “a pointless exercise.” His reasons for that pronouncement struck me as germane to the way a lot of gamers and “reviewers” think of game criticism:
“The very idea of music criticism — of applying some objective standard to the experience of listening to music — suddenly struck me as petty and irrelevant. I spent several more months as a critic, but my essential belief in the pursuit evaporated.”
I don't know how many people who write game reviews share Almond's assessment of the goal of criticism, but I've long suspected that most do. It would explain why so many game reviews follow the exact same formula of reporting on whether the game at hand lives up to current technical standards of graphics, controls, and basic functionality. Then they toss in a couple of words about whether the plot makes sense and state whether or not “fans of the genre” will enjoy it. That formula seems tailor-made to minimize the subjective input of the critic, though it has the unfortunate side effect of making sure reviews have as much chance of challenging the reader's thinking as a Consumer Reports article.
The rejection of the value of criticism is part of a larger anti-intellectual streak in contemporary western culture. The easy availability of information has convinced us that we're all our own experts, and that has lead to a great many people taking grave offense when actual experts state their opinions. When I see people in the field of game writing who could legitimately be called experts rejecting the mantle of "critic" in favor of "reviewer," I get the impression that it's in response to this anti-intellectual outrage. “Critic” has too much intellectual baggage. Calling yourself a critic just asks for angry comment threads, hate mail, and accusations of being overweight. A lowly reviewer has far less responsibility.
Of course, I have no way of knowing what people who call themselves “reviewers” are actually thinking. Really, it doesn't matter because my point isn't to condemn them. I'm making the case that having people willing to self-identify as video game critics would be good for the image of the medium and for the edification of gamers. This is especially true if some of these people take the time to really learn about criticism and how to talk about games in a wider artistic context.
We can't go on saying “It's just a game” every time someone wants to have a serious conversation about the significance of something like the No Russian level in Modern Warfare 2. If game writers aren't willing to make the case that games have the same social and cultural significance as books, movies, and music, then they don't have the right to complain when cable news pundits set the tone of the discourse and portray games as an entirely negative influence on society. Critics can combat that kind of thinking, but reviewers can't be bothered. They're too busy writing about the really important things, like frame rate and texture pop-in.
Whether or not they're using the word as a way to excuse themselves from serious conversation, reviewers need to grow up and learn how to be critics. They need to stop being afraid of the lowest common denominator -- the misanthropes who vent their frustrations in the comment threads of writers whose opinions are too complex to be expressed by a single number between 1 and 10. Those people will always cause trouble, and they will never matter. We shouldn't let them determine the intellectual level of video game writing any more than we should let Twilight fans determine the tone of literary criticism. Not even if they call us fat.
As usual, I share most of your frustrations, Cameron, but I disagree a bit with your conclusion. Not all game critics (or "reviewers") are created equal. I don't think it's really fair to make an indictment of game criticism as a whole if only certain outlets are guilty of polygon-counting fever and the other anti-intellectual review habits you describe. You wanna know why a lot of video game reviews seem to appeal to the lowest common denominator? Because as crazy as it might seem to people like you or me, the people who want to read reviews that have phrases like "the visuals are absolutely eye-popping" and "deathmatch multiplayer mode is a total bloodbath" make up the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of video game enthusiasts. That majority doesn't demand long-winded, Pitchfork-esque reviews (and I don't blame them,) so the people who write don't give it to them. Why risk losing a reader when all they ultimately want to know is how totally freakin' badass Game X is?
That having been said, I share a lot of your frustrations, Cameron. That's why I wouldn't be caught dead reading pre-Davison GamePro, or posting on IGN boards, or watching G4TV. I'm pretty selective about the game news and culture I digest (that's why I'm on Bitmob, damnit!) and that's because I understand a fundamental truth about myself: I'm not your average gamer, and furthermore, I'm not most game developers' target audience. But realizing that is what keeps me from shaking my head at the more frustrating aspects of gaming culture. And it doesn't make me sad that I'm not one of the "cool kids," it makes me thank God I'm not that lame.
My advice to you would be to:
- Avoid the gaming news/culture outlets that suffer from the anti-intellectual malady you describe. There's plenty of Internet for everybody.
- Read the Chuck Klosterman essay "Cultural Betrayal" in the book "Chuck Klosterman IV" (it's a 2-3 page essay on popular culture that's in a book you can find at any major bookstore, and it's highly relevant to the topic at hand.) You may find yourself blown away - I sure did.
- Revel in the fact that you have kindred spirits on this website. I do.
I am pretty much on your side of all of this, Cameron. I personally have been taking a very specific tack with writing reviews on this site. I pretty much only review things that other people seem to like that I don't think live up to my standards. I do this for many reasons but the most prominent one is that really is pretty much all of the games I have anything to say about these days.
Rather then dodging contreversy I seem to only be interested in controversy. Ultimately it's not the most popular way of doing things but I enjoy writing about games in this way and I think it's relevant to game's discussion as a whole.
Whenever I do this I get a fairly similar response numerous times "Don't you ever just sit down and enjoy a game?"
This just mystifies me. Of course I do, the fact is that I don't feel I have anything to say about games I'm just enjoying most times so I don't write about them. Their seems to be this overwhelming obsession with the positive in video game reviews that I think is misplaced.
In my opinion if people don't get passionate about a game's faults then the next game won't live up to the standards it should. So I complain because I want games to be better. I present my real reaction to a game as soon after I have finished it as I can, while all the emotions it made me feel (both positive and negative) are still fresh and give an accurate representation of how I reacted to the game before I started making excuses for it or against it.
I think this is an important wrinkle in games writing. Not enough writers show an unfiltered and honest reaction to a game. I would like to see a lot more of it. Even if it is too similar to internet tough guys for some people's liking.
I would also love just seeing more in depth intellectual criticism of games. I just don't have the time to work on being super thoughtful and studious myself. I am doing this for nothing and don't want it to become like a job unless it becomes a job. *chuckle*
I actually found the essay I spoke of above on the web. It was originally published in Esquire magazine. Definitely a must read.
http://www.esquire.com/features/chuck-klostermans-america/ESQ0105-JAN_AMERICA_rev
Paul: Thanks for the link. I see where you and Klosterman are coming from, but I've never been the sort who can be comfortable identifying something I think is a problem, then just walking away from it. I realize that the Gamespots and IGNs of the world are where they are because of majority rule. There's nothing I can do to change that, but I'd feel like I wasn't living up to my own ideals if I didn't point out how sad I think it is, and suggest a new way forward. So maybe this is one of those realist/idealist conflicts, and I've always been in the idealist camp.
But I have a selfish motive, too, as a consumer of game writing. There are literally four critics I go out of my way to read/listen to: Jeremy Parish (because of his great historical perspective), Scott Sharkey (because I love his combination of high-brow critique and drunken vulgarity), Jim Sterling (because he always says some outrageous thing that makes me reconsider my own opinion) and Yahtzee (because if he means even half of what he says, his standards are miles beyond any other critic's). I wish there were a lot more, and this piece is my attempt at a rallying cry.
Jeffrey: I totally identify with the problem of not being able to write about the simple, fun games you like. I enjoy a lot of conceptually simple, arcadey games like Mr. Driller and pretty much any bullet-hell shooter, but I don't have anything interesting to say about them. I get frustrated with the notion that anyone who really digs in and criticizes a game must hate it. I had a great time playing Final Fantasy VII, but if I were to critique it, I'd probably rip it apart. Sadly, the trend of reading reviews to confirm your opinion rather than challenge it is so pervasive that most of the dialogue around reviews boils down to "Hater!" or "Fanboy!" I think more people taking the risk of putting themselves above that, and just refusing to speak to that crowd, is the best thing that could happen to game writing right now. Maybe it would even have a positive effect on game development going forward.
I think there's room for both critics and reviewers. When I'm looking for some information about an upcoming purchase, I want to know how fun a game is, and whether it's worth my money or not. For that, I need a reviewer.
When I want to get deeper into the game and discuss its cultural implications, I turn to critics.
However, I don't think all reviewers need to be critics. If I opened up a copy of EGM and, instead of hearing about how Silent Hill 2 is a solid sequel with a number of improvements, I hear about the themes of loss and repressed sexuality that the game touts, I wouldn't be sure if the GAME itself was worth my time. There really is room for both professions, and honestly, the "by the numbers" reviews work for their intended audience: people who just want to know if a game is worth $60 or not. For those people -- and they make up the vast majority of the game-buying public -- the point is being made just fine.
"I think more people taking the risk of putting themselves above that, and just refusing to speak to that crowd, is the best thing that could happen to game writing right now."
This. Very much this. I like to believe an audience rises (or falls) to the level it's addressed. Game writing is broadly, traditionally and enthusiastically juvenille. The anti-intellectual streak is very strong in this industry.
I also don't think the roles of critic and reviewer should be mutually exclusive at all. Maybe some reviewers just need to feel comfortable lateralizing so they can realize they were critics all along.
Great article.
Well done. Fantastically written article. Especially appreciated how you managed to keep your message while being concise AND not descending into rant territory.
As you say, development of critical thinking relating to games is essential for us to shirk the adolescent yoke general media has put on the industry (one the industry, in general, seems to be incessantly propagating), to put it somewhat over dramatically. I also think that there's an unsaid addendum to that statement: The art of making games will be improved by a more developed understanding of them as cultural artifacts and not just pieces of code with art assets attached. We need harsh criticism to make this happen. We need a hero critic in the vein of Pauline Kael, to shake up the industry a bit. We also need more serious discussion of troubling or controversial themes in video games. Michael Abbot wrote about this in relation to Six Days in Fallujah. I'd encourage anyone to go seek it out. I believe it's still on the front page of brainygamer.com.
Great article, Cameron. That's why I applaud what John Davison is trying to do with GamePro now, it's not quite there yet, but it's on the way I think.
I hear people like Garnet Lee(sorry for calling you out) often say they're not real journalists. Well, there's a problem right there. Embrace and partake in real journalism and the medium's authenticity in the mainstream will follow.