Games Criticism

[erikg88]

I like reading about games, but don't buy many, so the vast majority of games writing is useless to me. I don't really care if a game is a 7.5 or an 8, or whether it's worth 60 bucks. And it seems like after that initial judgement, most games don't receive further analysis. (Exceptions being made for AARs and the Stalker series.)

I've recently been practicing some games criticism, and have really enjoyed it. This essay I wrote about terrain and TBS explains why topography is the secret ingredient to good TBS, the brilliance of Civ's design, and one more theory about why Civ 5 fucked up.

Anybody else write criticism? I keep up with blogs like Critical Distance, but I'm always looking for more.

[Teiman]

I try to avoid looking at games that way.

I fear that if you analyze all games, you will be breaking the immersion.

I have a friend that love the Classic Music genre, and he don't ear music like me, he analyze the music on real time, so for him the POP music is boring because is so simple.
He know way more music than me, but his knowledge limit him to only 1 type of music. So maybe ignorance is bliss.

Being a programmer and all, I already know way to much about how games are built to feel comfortable.

[Adam Eayrs]

If I was into meth I'd probably write marquee Games Criticism. Because other than taking jaw-clenching fapping to the next level, I don't see what Games Criticism has to offer in terms of analysis over reading this forum or the others like it.

[TheWombat]

I dunno, I read the post linked in the OP and it was pretty good. Then again, I'm an academic so this sort of thing is like bread and butter; I've seen far worse examples of omphaloskepsis in my time. And I think the OP actually has a point in that blog. OTOH, would I routinely read such things? Probably not--I prefer less weighty discussions of games most of the time, though the occasional foray into heavy duty criticism isn't a bad thing.

[Fishbreath]

Formal criticism as a field is, broadly speaking, a stunning waste of brainpower on attempting to systematically analyze fundamentally subjective experiences, brainpower which could be bent toward actually doing something useful.

[Anaxagoras]

Formal criticism as a field is, broadly speaking, a stunning waste of brainpower on attempting to systematically analyze fundamentally subjective experiences, brainpower which could be bent toward actually doing something useful.

I can't think of anything more useful than better understanding ourselves, which is what formal criticism accomplishes when done right.

[Telefrog]

I found erik's blog post to be well thought out, if a bit longwinded. Overall, I'd like to see more.

[Tankero]

Not to be flippant about your efforts, erik, but I'm trying to work my head around what seems to be a disconnect between the amount effort you apply to make a point and the point itself. The tour through Derrida and semiotics in general's a nice trip down college-memory-lane, sure, but is it really necessary? I understand that you're advocating games that are consistent and where every part is made 'significant' within the context they define for themselves, but we really need to explore the signifier->signified relationship to get to that point?

Everything you say in that post is valid, everything you use (as far as sources and arguments) is well placed, I'm not questioning that post on those merits. However, it seems like you've gone to the moon to find out that the Earth is round on this one, and I think that you did so because you're trying to bridge the intellectual gap between the importance of the subject matter and the depth of your knowledge. If you were to apply these resources to gaming, you ought to do so in the context of their relationship with the culture that surrounds them, and the new interactive capacities man has with media, rather than in deconstructing why Tactics Ogre is awesome and why Civ 5's ruleset is bad. Examining this specific instance without speaking to the broader context that exists seems like really brewing yourself a nice storm in a teeny tiny teacup.

[Gordon Cameron]

Formal criticism as a field is, broadly speaking, a stunning waste of brainpower on attempting to systematically analyze fundamentally subjective experiences, brainpower which could be bent toward actually doing something useful.

Criticism is something that people do as naturally as breathing, so I don't see why it shouldn't be done well. If an economy can support a class of people who spend all their time practicing it, I'm all for it. At the very least it makes for more interesting reading than vague inarticulate opinion-slinging. And games, as one of the major cultural artifacts in our landscape at this historical moment, deserve it as much as anything else.

I find the criterion of "usefulness" to be one of those stealthily tyrannical methods of judging value. Oscar Wilde said, wisely, that "all art is quite useless," and I think his non-judgment can also be applied to other aspects of human endeavor in the absence of which we would be poorer.

[SamS]

Formal criticism as a field is, broadly speaking, a stunning waste of brainpower on attempting to systematically analyze fundamentally subjective experiences, brainpower which could be bent toward actually doing something useful.

Playing video games as a field is, broadly speaking, a stunning waste of brainpower on attempting to experience fundamentally subjective systems, brainpower which could be bent toward actually doing something useful.

Criticism is both necessary and fun, so why not apply it to an activity we engage in more and more often.

[Tom Chick]

When I read about a game, all I want to know is if it's fun.

-Tom

[TheWombat]

When I read about a game, all I want to know is if it's fun.

-Tom

REPORTED!

[alexlitel]

I think pies criticism is a very important topic.

What is the meaning of the pie? How well-baked is the pie? Does the pastry press go far enough its critique of pies? Should pie reviews aim to capture the experience of eating the pie or infer what the masses would think of such a pie?

However, I think we can all agree that a pie should be delicious.

[Zylon]

However, I think we can all agree that a pie should be delicious.

Don't be so narrow-minded. Some pies are serious pies, intended not to be delicious but rather to expose your taste buds to new sensations. Hence the genre-defining "shards of glass pie".

[theblackw0lf]

Since you said you're on the lookout for more blogs that do gaming criticism, some of my favorite blogs that look at gaming from a more analytical perspective

http://www.brainygamer.com/
http://www.psychologyofgames.com/
http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/
http://fullbright.blogspot.com/ (Steve Gaynor's blog, sadly shut down after moving to Irrational)

[Fishbreath]

I see I've struck some nerves. In the interests of continuing to be contentious...

I can't think of anything more useful than better understanding ourselves, which is what formal criticism accomplishes when done right.

This ceased to be true once an analysis of the emotional response some work elicits stopped being a part of the critical process.

Criticism is something that people do as naturally as breathing, so I don't see why it shouldn't be done well.

Aye, criticism is as natural as breathing. Modern criticism is something akin to an iron lung—a tool to keep you going once you've lost the natural capacity to breathe.

Playing video games as a field is, broadly speaking, a stunning waste of brainpower on attempting to experience fundamentally subjective systems, brainpower which could be bent toward actually doing something useful.

I play video games because it's a waste of brainpower. Doing useful things is my day job. Professional video gamers get to combine the two; providing entertainment is something I'd call useful. You might argue that English departments everywhere are proof that criticism is useful. I'd argue that English departments everywhere are proof that English departments everywhere continue to accept and graduate students.

Criticism is both necessary and fun, so why not apply it to an activity we engage in more and more often.

Fun is obviously a place where opinions differ, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. :P How is it necessary?

[amandachen]

Most games suck.

[MattKeil]

You might argue that English departments everywhere are proof that criticism is useful. I'd argue that English departments everywhere are proof that English departments everywhere continue to accept and graduate students.

[Tankero]

You might argue that English departments everywhere are proof that criticism is useful. I'd argue that English departments everywhere are proof that English departments everywhere continue to accept and graduate students.

[SamS]

How is it necessary?

criticism is simply a process for gaining understanding. It's not 'necessary' in and of itself, but if you think attempting to understand is a waste of brainpower then I don't know what to say.

[MattKeil]

criticism is simply a process for gaining understanding. It's not 'necessary' in and of itself, but if you think attempting to understand is a waste of brainpower then I don't know what to say.

I do. See above.

[lesslucid]

Formal criticism as a field is, broadly speaking, a stunning waste of brainpower on attempting to systematically analyze fundamentally subjective experiences, brainpower which could be bent toward actually doing something useful.

God, yes. It's such a waste of time trying to work out in advance if I'm going to enjoy a game before spending money on it, by reading someone's description of what it's like. I mean, I'm literally stunned to the point of unconsciousness for hours at a time by the waste of brainpower involved in reading criticism, let alone writing it. I employ the much more efficient method of just playing every game ever made, in alphabetical order of their titles. I'm partway through the letter B so far (just starting on "Battle Bugs") - have heard some good things about some of the "C" games and am looking forward to playing some of them, or I would be if I paid any attention to criticism, which naturally I don't (not enough brainpower to waste in such a stunning fashion).

[Adam Eayrs]

That variety of feedback on a game (tell me what this game is like so I can decide if it's worth my investment) was specifically excluded from the definition of criticism in the OP.

[lesslucid]

That variety of feedback on a game (tell me what this game is like so I can decide if it's worth my investment) was specifically excluded from the definition of criticism in the OP.

Well, I'd say that criticism exists on a continuum, from specific to abstract. Some criticism is specific to just one game, but other criticism puts multiple games in context of their genre or talks about the general design features that certain games have in common, or try to understand what the appeal of a whole genre is. The more abstract stuff isn't a totally different beast, it just works within differently defined boundaries. If you're interested in games, then thinking about games in a more general way is likely to be interesting too. And while erik's article about terrain isn't specifically a recommendation for or against game X, if what he says about Tactics Ogre strikes me as interesting enough, I may well end up playing it, and thinking about it & enjoying it in a different way than I would have if I hadn't read his article.

[Audiosprite]

This ceased to be true once an analysis of the emotional response some work elicits stopped being a part of the critical process.

what does this even mean

[Reldan]

Well, I'd say that criticism exists on a continuum, from specific to abstract. Some criticism is specific to just one game, but other criticism puts multiple games in context of their genre or talks about the general design features that certain games have in common, or try to understand what the appeal of a whole genre is. The more abstract stuff isn't a totally different beast, it just works within differently defined boundaries. If you're interested in games, then thinking about games in a more general way is likely to be interesting too. And while erik's article about terrain isn't specifically a recommendation for or against game X, if what he says about Tactics Ogre strikes me as interesting enough, I may well end up playing it, and thinking about it & enjoying it in a different way than I would have if I hadn't read his article.

I don't particularly agree with Fishbreath's points, but if you're going to take him to task for his comments about "formal criticism" then you don't get to be the one to redefine what that means so you can get some free hits in. No one here, not even the OP, is talking about the sort of criticism that you seem to be concerned with which is basically reviews of games or game systems. This is akin to me reading a case study on the psychologic effects of eggs being round and saying that helps me decide whether I find omelettes delicious.

Even the OP blog contains only a tenth part of what I'd consider an review of the games at hand, and even that that was merely setting the stage for the much lengthier critique.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Man the new posters sure all full of insight

[Robert Sharp]

Man the new posters sure all full of insight

Is that a euphemism?

[schurem]

When I read about a game, all I want to know is if it's fun.

-Tom

LMAO coming from one of my favourite gaming critics on the web this is just too fuckin ironic.

Its also complete superficial bullshit.

Remember the first stalker game, shadows of chernobyl. The first bit of it, where you are dumped into an extremely hostile environment with nothing but a little pea-shooter pistol and a leather coat. That was no fun (at least not until you got some better gear on) because it would kick your ass until it was raw and bruised. The game as a whole was (imo) all the better for it, because being weak in the beginning made the better stuff feel much more valuable than it would have otherwise.

I hope the superficiality of your comment is part of its irony. If gaming needs one thing to ever be more than junk and comfort food, it is a michelin guide to distinguish greatness. And greatness in gaming is not just "fun", just as greatness in food is not just "tastes nice". If all games are ever judged by is their fun factor, there never will be great cuisine, only a never ending stream of call of duty hamburgers.

[MattKeil]

^ The level of "did not get it" in this post is beyond imagination.