game girl advance: The Role of The Critic

Google GGA:

extras

Links

www.flickr.com

More photos in game girl advance

Thank You for Donating!

If you'd like to help keep GGA afloat, we thank you!

Syndicate this site (XML)

Mascot by Penny Arcade!

Entry

Print this post

July 20, 2006

The Role of The Critic

A.O. Scott had an amazing essay in the New York Times a few days ago in which he pointed out (or maybe "lamented" is a better characterization?) the fact that the critics had roundly panned Pirates: Dead Man's Chest yet that did not deter audiences from piling up to see the film. "What," asks Scott, "is wrong with you people?"

I was amazed at how nakedly petulant Scott seems at this outcome. You can almost imagine him stamping a foot. "Why, oh, why, won't you people just listen?" No one in his right mind would suggest that a critic's opinion ought to be a barometer of a film's success; and yet you hear it all the time in the videogame world, in an exchange in the forums that goes like this: "Such and Such game sucks." "Oh yeah? Then how did it sell over a million copies?" Oh, I don't know. Marketing? Availability? The fact that EB Games employees were told to suggest it to every kid, mom, uncle who came into the store that week?

Scott goes on to ask, if no one seems to listen to critics, then why do critics exist?

It's clear that critics are not the "voice of the people," even if they start out to act as one. Ebert, the most famous film critic although not the best, is perhaps the reigning example of a man who seems to put himself in a pedestrian audience's shoes. But after a decade or two of reviewing cinema, it must be difficult: the average movie-goer sees how many films per year? I'm not sure, but the average critic sees many, many times that. Such a glut of cinematic experience is bound to alter and inform your perceptions of good and bad.

Take game reviewing for instance. If you've played quite a lot of videogames, then something like The Godfather comes off as, well, prosaic. But say you're a college kid on a limited budget - you've got Halo and GT 4 or something, both of which you play frequently, and you're looking for a change of pace. You might reasonably enjoy The Godfather - and you would not be "wrong" to do so.

Critics exist for another reason - they are not barometers of success, not even predictors of my enjoyment in a film or game. They contribute to my understanding of a particular film in a larger context; they write one side (or really, several sides) of the dialogue I will have about the film. They point out what's interesting even in a shitty film and I can either agree or not. I enjoy reading my favorite critics - Anthony Lane, Susan Sontag, and yes, my dear A.O. Scott - even when I have little intention of watching the film in question. Their essays are self-contained and of interest on their own. They, too, contibute to the world of film.

That is the element that is missing from mainstream game reviews, with some very small exceptions. It's rare that I feel like reading a game review about a game just to deepen my understanding of videogames as a whole. I know that is not the reason most people claim they read game reviews; but it is mine.

Posted by jane at July 20, 2006 11:38 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Since I only own a Gamecube and a Dreamcast, the vast majority of gaming reviews I read are about games that I will never actually play.

Mostly I read game reviews in the way you discuss yourself reading movie reviews -- I am just curious to learn a bit about the state of videogaming.

I wouldn't necessarily conclude that game reviews don't serve the same function as movie reviews just because you don't happen to read them that way.

Posted by: hoshimaru

on July 21, 2006 10:49 AM

As a long time gamer I have read many reviews of games. When I was younger I used the reviews to help make a decision regarding some of the more obscure titles. After I got a job at a game store I stopped reading reviews since I had access to every game for free. I proceeded to leave gaming for a while and returned when the dreamcast launched. I bought a few games and ended up with some stinkers so I started to read reviews. Up until a few years ago I used reviews to help me from wasting 50 bucks on crap. Now I have aged and play games for different reasons. I buy what I want not what some magazine or web sight tells me to.

As far as critics are concerned. Well, they are just people who get paid to tell you their opinion. The key word is opinion.

As I have said before I understand what critics do is simply a job. I can respect that. I can not respect critics that belittle other people for enjoying something they don't deem satisfactory.

Kind of like that Scott guy. Nothing is wrong with those people Scott. They are simply going to a movie that they want to see. It's there money and last time I checked America is a free country. So to the Scotts of the world and any other obnoxious critic out there, kiss my ass and all the other people's asses who don't agree with you:)

Posted by: undercoverrabbit

on July 21, 2006 11:01 AM

Actually, Scott's "What is wrong with you people?" was referring to a question asked of the critics, not the public. "How could you critics pan a movie that turned out to be so successful?"

Posted by: Bret

on July 21, 2006 12:09 PM

Critics are more for entertainment value sometimes. They give you a glance into what a particular piece of media is about, kind of like reading the back of a book, CD or DVD case if you are on the fence about spending your money.

Dead Man's Chest was well-worth the 10 bucks I spent to see it. It was an entertaining movie, well-written and avoided a heavy-handed approach. I knew I would see it before the critics started telling me it sucked and, per usual, my willingness to like a movie succeeded.

With games I tend to look at the trailer, note the developer and keep a skeptical eye since it's 50 bucks a hit instead of a movie or book's $10-20 plus they tend to take up a lot more time. I can finish a book in a few evenings, a movie in under three hours (unless it's a super-extended version) and listen to a CD while I do more-productive activities.
Conversely I have been playing World of Warcraft for 2 years, spent $50 on the game, $13 per month and several consecutive weeks in playtime in total for all my characters.

Game critics are vital to justify a purchase in some instances. Movie critics are important to give us a broad summary of the experience for our assessment. Book critics are needed because books generally have no marketing campaign and it's the only way for us to hear about certain titles.

Posted by: Tallest

on July 22, 2006 09:48 AM

Critics also get into a position where they (consciously or subconciously) consider their opinion to be more...not quite superior, but...erm.. educated, let's say. The problem with that is it does put you out of touch with the public.

I don't know about with game reviews (though I imagine it applies to a certain degree), but in books critics are trying to maintain this 'superior opinion'. If you just promote what's popular (which is not always good, lets face it) then what's your use as a critic? In some ways, if you don't put yourself above your readers, you're not worth reading - in a weird way.

I find it both perplexing and satisfying when the masses completely ignore critics - not infrequently to their own intellectual detriment! I usually agree with critics, but often mind them just as prosaic and cliquish (reviewing films/games/books as good or bad just because all the other reviewers are) as the general public.

Posted by: Leopold

on July 22, 2006 11:25 AM

It's weird. Almost everytime I see 'Pirates' talked about casually on the web (blogs, forums etc.) it is negative to the point of being a matter of fact; they don't even think readers could possibly have a different opinion. I liked the movie quite a bit, so its nice to see an article like this.

I don't trust video game critics more than movie critics though. It seems to me like there is a universal understanding to do all game reviews on a 7-10 scale. The content of game reviews are no different - if some part of a game is horrible, they may reluctantly say it's bad but then downplay the problem in the next breath. Most of a game review is irrelevant and when they do talk about something important it is like they are afraid to unequivocally make a negative statement. Maybe they can't bring themselves to do so if they know in their minds that they aren't giving the game a score worse than 7.0?

If the role of video game critics is to give opinion then they aren't succeeding when games are graded on a 7-10 scale. What's bad is good, what's horribly bad is passable, and the only things that are really good are the titles that are so over hyped you expect every critic go into a spasm loving it.

If the role of video game critics is to give information then they aren't do it either. Exactly how long a game is, exactly how hard a game is, how much depth it has, and so forth is never given except maybe in a passing sentence if you are lucky.

Posted by: dosboot

on July 23, 2006 12:10 PM

I agree with Bret; Scott's essay wasn't aimed at whining at the audience.

That said, he was aggressively bad on the Matrix commentaries (the ultimate DVD set invited three critics to do commentary tracks for all 3 movies); I'm not sure whether he missed the point of the movies or was playing up being negative, but either way I think he came off badly.

Posted by: ArC

on July 23, 2006 03:12 PM

It's got to be said, game reviews at the moment aren't criticism, they're product rundowns, by and large.

Posted by: Tetsuo

on July 31, 2006 12:29 PM