Rodin's "The Thinker." Courtesy of
innoxiuss, edited by Level Up
The Idea: Game reviewers and game players get so
hung up on minutiae-i.e. game controls and combat systems-that too
often, they miss what's important and innovative about games. This in
turn creates a culture where gamers are searching for aspects of a game
to dislike. Instead, what's needed are more critics and gamers who
champion particular developers and games.
The Thinkers: Leigh Alexander, Ben Fritz, Keith Stuart
The Sources: Sexy Videogameland, The Cut Scene, Games Blog
The Quotes: "When a title attempts to explore uncharted areas, it risks
stumbling into areas that have been neglected for a good
reason--because they don't work as well. But when we fault them for
trying, without recognizing that the game might have done a few new
things well, or when we treat creativity or an attempt at inventiveness
as a design flaw, we're sending the industry some problematic mixed
messages. We demand innovation and invention, and then we crucify any
attempts in that direction."
--Leigh Alexander, Sexy Videogameland
"[I]n the case of games that are different in some way (like a
new IP, or a sequel from a new developer as in the case of "Silent
Hill: Homecoming"), a lot of videogame critics obsess about the small
stuff because they don't like the big picture....If we re-arranged our
priorities, I think we'd have more critics "championing" certain games
or developers. In the end, that's what I'm calling for and I think
that's what Leigh's implying. In the film world, there were critics who
championed the then-radical filmmakers of the '70s who transformed the
world of cinema. Wouldn't it be great if there were more videogame
critics who championed certain titles or artists, while acknowledging
their imperfections, the way Leigh does "Silent Hill: Homecoming" and
Hideo Kojima?"
--Ben Fritz, The Cut Scene
"[I]f it were a movie, Mirror's Edge would be critically lauded by the
specialist film press--it would be considered a forward-thinking
masterpiece. Sure, it's dangerous to compare two such different media,
but there are key similarities--one is the way in which critics should
be able to deconstruct the experience on offer and draw from it
undeniable values that outweigh concerns about basic construction. For
example, no-one complains that, say, 'Pan's Labyrinth' or 'Eraserhead'
lack the formal, easily recognisable narrative structure of a
conventional movie. Their aspirations exempt them from that
requirement. So should we really be marking Mirror's Edge down for
control issues--a game that aspires to re-interpret the very interface
between player, screen and character? Yes, I know, it's a clumsy
comparison, but the underlying point is--should reviewers just accept
that sometimes incredibly new experiences will lack some of the formal
substance we expect from traditional games? That's what innovation is,
it's leaping out into the unknown."
--Keith Stuart, Games Blog
The Reaction: Personal tastes aside, we don't buy the
argument that the nature or the amount of innovation in a game should
exempt it from criticism in other areas that determine how a reviewer
or critic evaluates a game's quality.
To read the rest of today's installment of "The Big Idea," click on the link below.
