We've heard the various one-liners of "Opinions are like **** and "Everyone is a critic". As a film reviewer, I dealt with those caveats from a daily basis. The reason? Film critics simply don't hold the weight or respect they once had. Maybe critics of right now don't mesh well with the current generation of film-goers. Maybe film critics are considered irrelevant by this point. A sad and unfortunate lesson that was learned for anyone, like myself, who wants to write about films for a living: There wasn't much to write about in films that hasn't already been written. There really isn't anything new that can be said.
Not so about games, which brings to the topic of this editoral: The importance of a game critic. Not a game writer. Not a game reviewer. A game critic.
Few really know the difference of a true critic. A critic is someone who overs analysis, theory and subjective outlook on a piece of work, a place in time or anything that requires a deeper look. Few game reviewers can be considered critics of their craft, mainly because a reviewer tells you whether to play the game or not. A critic requires the reader and, most importantly, himself, to be of an open mind on all types of medium.
A critic can't merely enjoy the piece they are analyzing: Some critics debate whether they can enjoy the work they analyze. It's hard to look a movie or game you enjoy and realize it's a rather poorly made game or to play a game you simply can't enjoy but realize it's actually a very well made, supremely crafted piece.
This leads to a great question: Why aren't there any game critics, or why so few? There are many arguments to suggest that it's still a medium in its infacy and that there's simply no need for them, due to the fact that no one is really asking for criticism in games: Just tell me if they are good.
But there is a growing contigency that is waiting for the day that is waiting for the same type of respect and celebration that movies, books and music have. And it will only get there with the evolution of what a game critic is and what he needs to do to represent his/her medium.
Where am I coming from with this? A medium is only as good as its criticism, and with all due respect, there really aren't many, if any at all, that deserve praise for their use of game reviewing. I base this on the fact that, until the early 70's, movies were considered merely movies to a mass audience, with the exception of a few groups of people.
That changed with the introduction of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, two critics that helped show different types of films to a mass audience. They dissected, analyzed and discussed in great length any and every film that their eyes peered on and they earned praise for not only their witty dialogue about films, but for helping move films forward faster than others could have possibly imagined.
They made films serious. They showed that films could touch and move people and that some are worth the time and effort to search for. People started going to art houses to see rare foreign films. Tastes were more refined and as such, films started to refine as well.
We need a Siskel and Ebert for games. Plain and simple. Especially since we can't identify with a creator and or a person who makes the games (exceptions are Hideo Kojima, Tim Schafer, Suda 51). We need reviewers to step up and show that games aren't merely just an experience that is controlled by a button and stick, that these games are far more than what they appear in face value.
A gaming audience can greatly benefit from having a deeper thinking of its form of entertainment, aside from a review score and a few paragraphs on how the controls work. Until then, we will always be in the rut we've put our industry in.
I'll be honest, for years I've hoped to become such a person, since gaming deservedly needs to be looked as an art and as a way to show different viewpoints and philosophies. Whether I will do it remains to question, but whether I make it or not, I hope someone does it.
Log in to comment