In the last few years, I've always enjoyed seeing movies with my dad. Not just because they were great movies (they were), but because of the time afterwards. I'd take the subway downtown to meet my dad after he got out of work, we'd see a movie, and then we'd take a cab home. On that cab ride, we could discuss the movie we just saw. I'd always love getting another opinion about what I'd seen, because then, I could bounce ideas and thoughts I had off of someone else, and hear things that I wouldn't have thought of myself. If I really liked a movie, I might even look for reviews of it online, just to hear more views.

I recently listened to a GFW Radio podcast (the most recent one from the date I'm writing this) where they were discussing the difference between a review and a critique. A review is written for someone who has never played the game, and is meant to guide their spending or playing habits. Because that person hasn't played the game, such a thing has to shy away from spoilers and specific game scenarios and such. A critique, on the other hand, is meant for people who have completed the game, to discuss not just aspects of the gameplay and how they work in the context of the entire product, but to talk about specific parts of the story, searching for meaning. Kind of like your average English paper on a book you've read, for example.

A few days ago, I completed No More Heroes, and wanted to see more views on its 'eccentric' story and ending. I went into the game with the assumption that game designer SUDA51 had something to say with this title, and I wondered what people thought about it. I didn't know where to turn, though. Nobody in my group of friends had touched such a niche title, and most of the people I knew from the boards hadn't played it. And where can I go here? If I look at Gamespot's review, it only talks about the story in the vaguest of terms. I can't take anything from that at all.

Most current game journalism is focused on games that aren't released. Previews are written about hot upcoming titles, and when those titles near their release dates, a review is written. After that point, a game drops off the radar. But a description of a title meant for people who have never played it (perhaps have never even heard of it) can only talk so much about what's good, bad, or memorable about that game. Any serious discussion from that point on is left to the wilds of game-specific message boards.

There was actually a recent Soapbox post about No More Heroes, but even that was forced to dance around a lot of the plot points that validate the views given there. Why isn't there space in the current enthusiast press for post-release, spoiler-filled discussion of a game and its scenarios and plot, especially now that, on the internet, filtering content out is easier than ever? In this way, we could help recognize the games that have the audacity to attempt to reach us with their storytelling, however they choose to do it. We could inspire actual critical discussion of meaning in games, and how it is communicated. Instead, we drop these titles and that potential for discussion, instead choosing to relentlessly pursue the same old press cycle of previews and reviews.

The medium is finally beginning to stretch its storytelling muscle, and its time that game journalism adapted to that.