July 2, 2009
Don’t shoot the game reviewer
By
Michael Lafferty
While often thought of as
a cool job, reviewing attracts its share of critics
It was once stated that
everyone is a critic, and in many ways, they are. Each and every day you make
choices based on your own opinions and tastes. You won’t eat the fries from Fast
Food Mega-glomerate A because they are too greasy, or whatever they are cooked
in give them a particularly unappealing flavor.
See, right there you have
made a decision based on personal tastes and that, in a manner of speaking, is
being a critic.
Dictionary.com defines
critic, among other definitions, as one who evaluates or judges.
I think you get the drift
without belaboring the point that each and every single person, reader and/or
writer, could be accused of being a critic at some point.
It is a short leap from
the word ‘critic’ to ‘reviewer.’ And, of course, that brings us to the topic of
this column – game reviewers. Just like you, each and every reviewer of video
games is the product of his or her environment – whether that is social
upbringing, community influences or whether their tastes were formulated through
independent thought (of the ‘I like chocolate but I don’t like licorice’ variety
– I happen to like both, but not together, in my opinion, that would be weird).
It are those values and influences that each reviewer brings into the setting
when sitting down to review a game. Certainly, we like to pretend we are
objective, but the truth of it is that we are not that objective. And how can we
be expected to be objective when what we are writing is purely subjective?
(That’s more or less rhetorical.)
What you should expect,
though, from a reviewer is an honest assessment of what the game brings into
play, not only from a gameplay standpoint, but from an aesthetic standpoint. Ok,
whether something is beautiful or gorgeous (graphically) is subjective, but a
reviewer can tell you if the graphics have blurred areas, jagged edges or the
framerate stutters as a matter of fact, without personal preference interfering.
And the reviewer can, and
should, present the material in a manner every reader can understand. Developers
have technical phrases for the elements within the games, phrases that most
people would not understand. If a reviewer (and this can be chalked up to
opinion) infuses all these phrases into his or her story, that reviewer may
think he or she is being knowledgeable, but come on – the craft of writing is
about communicating. There are journals where writing awash with technical
jargon is acceptable, but if you are writing for the masses, then everyone who
might read the column (from younger gamer to the grandparent trying to decide if
a certain title is appropriate for the aforementioned younger gamer) should be
able to understand it.
Not every game made is
going to be a perfect best-selling title. Developers know that, if they are
honest with themselves, and gamers know that as well. It is the task of the game
reviewer to look at the game critically (which means to analyze it and report on
the things it does well – in their opinion – and those it does not do well) and
give his or her opinion about whatever title they are writing about.
And just because you don’t
agree with the assessment the writer makes does not make that opinion wrong. No
writer’s opinion is wrong, it is his or her opinion, and while your opinion
might be different it does not make one person right and the other one wrong.
You know, just because you don’t like grandma’s Thanksgiving turkey doesn’t mean
that grandpa doesn’t … of course, it might just mean he’s had longer to get used
to it.
