I sympathize with the modern games critic. There are many of them out there doing great, thoughtful work. They've got things to say. And the broad response from gamers, at best, is "we don't care." Or at worst, "shut the fuck up." Of course there are people who like their work, but my feeling is that is a tiny niche.
https://twitter.com/yacobg42/status/1684236237316534278
Games can be thematically meaningless, politically abhorrent, fundamentally not cohere as a story, and yet fans who have conflated their own sense of self-worth with the product they like will break their own spine to defend it.
Anyway, my question is, are they at fault? Not with the things they say, but their tack. Their approach to talking about games as a whole.
I view games largely as a functional art. I recognize I may be on an extreme end of this spectrum, but for me, the systems are the juice, the aesthetics are the rind. My assumption is that the same is true for developers. The conversations they are having with each other are not ones of theme, but of genre. Not of political systems, but mechanical ones.
Of course, there is value in pointing out developers' deficiencies in this regard. They make all kinds of assumptions about life and politics as they fill their world with bad guys and goals. Why does Mario collect the coins? But the answer to most of these observations, for the game, is "it doesn't matter".
But of course, it matters to the critic! But therein lies the dilemma: the game is a jumping off point for conversation, rather than the target. Because gamers don't care, and developers don't care. If the themes and politics of games are reflections of the culture they're created in, then the ultimate target of "thoughtful critique" is at culture itself. Which is why it doesn't land with the target audience. They are enthusiasts; they don't want to read about why they shouldn't enjoy something, gamers just want to have fun.
What do you think? Do you think there are flaws in the approaches of some games critics? Do you think the conversations we have about games are flawed? Do you approach the narrative of games with a critical eye? Do you think you should? I could keep asking more questions, but I think you get it. This isn't super well thought out, so I welcome "you're wrong, dummy!"
This quote seems to be massively missing the point in that it doesn't even consider the possibility that people like the game because it's fun to play. If Mr Fancy Games Journo is so focused on Art that he's forgotten games are about gameplay then maybe it's not the children who are wrong.
Two of the three of those are absurdly stupid comments about a book. A book doesn't need a theme to good. It doesn't need some higher purpose. Telling an entertaining story is enough and trying to shove entertainment into a pseudo-intellectual box is stupid as shit.
Games don't need the third, either. They don't need to tell a story at all.
Second this! I appreciate game critics and routinely factor their opinions into whether I'll buy a game sooner rather than later. But sometimes there are imperfect games you connect with, and 10/10 games that you don't mind missing.
Even in terms of art: it's helpful to read a critic's impression on an art piece, but it's also worth it to experience it yourself and form your own opinions.
But that defeats the purpose of reviews. I have limited time on Earth, I want to know what games are good, without sinking a lot of time into it.
Of course! I'm not saying reviews are pointless, just that it's ok to dislike a critically acclaimed game, or find value in a game isn't as well received.
If a game looks interesting, less than stellar reviews aren't going to stop me from buying it, but it might make me wait for sale.
Ultimately, your game experience is entirely your own.