Now, where I agree with you completely is that there needs to be more dialogue between bloggers, enthusiasts reviewers, and writers both academic and non-academic. To that end I think one of the most important discussion that can take place is just how different people define ‘game’ and how that shapes their rhetoric.

Simon, I’m still here, and actually GDA has been quiet mostly because I’m finishing up a game. Once that’s done I’ll be able to return to some of the things I started to write but never finished.

To your point, I can see what you mean that deep down bloggers and enthusiast reviewers are really doing the same thing, talking about the constituent parts of a game and commenting on which they like or don’t like. You’re also right that reviewers get demonized unfairly when most do an exceptional job, if a very specific one.

I suppose when I wrote that I was interested in ‘reviews vs. criticism’ I had a couple of very specific reasons. First, as I said I believe a good debate can have a clarifying and informative effect (and in this case it has because I’m now acquainted with a new perspective on the issue: yours). I was also interested in the idea of getting beyond simply talking about the parts of games and to start talking about games in general, their features and effects. I think that this wider scope is a characteristic of great professional reviews, blog posts and academic papers and books.

Interestingly, what I think all three of us are circling around is that there is far too little knowledge, among both bloggers and reviewers, of the really interesting things that are being discussed at an academic level by folks like Bogost, Juul, Wark, etc. Maybe someone should compile a reading list for all would-be game critics!

Basically what I mean is that in academic papers and books you’ll see people doing “critique” – Kantian, Marxist, feminist, maybe even p/m deconstruction, etc. – such as Alexander Galloway invoking Adorno while breaking down the assumptions we have when we talk about “realism” in games (in one of the essays in his collection), or Bogost invoking procedural rhetoric to look at the baseline assumptions that may have gone into coding a particular rule.

There’s this perceived superiority of bloggers who do “real, honest game analysis” as compared to reviewers who have to do it as a job within specific constraints. If you threw the bloggers a games writing 9-to-5, they’d probably devolve into the same consumer-centric writing style as the mainstream reviewers they pretend to be antagonistic toward. Because they’re both doing analysis – breaking games down and deciding which features are “good” and which are “bad.”

The problem is when one looks at a great analysis and says, “really good critique, man.” Which happens *every time* someone writes a good blogpost. This isn’t to say that a lot of bloggers aren’t writing proper critique (in the Kantian sense again, examining the assumptions of the player and the artifact that lead to the play experience), but that they have no idea what the distinction between the two is… and that “analysis versus critique” is what they should be opposing instead of “review versus criticism” – because really criticism doesn’t mean anything in any field.

The problem with all of these arguments is that, like those made by the Ludologists and Narratologists, they argue for the *place* of video games in various systems of indentification and codification (so as to create a definable space for video games to exist and from which we can launch inquiries and discussions), not the integral, essential elements that make video games video games. Obviously we know some of this, but I think that there’s a lot of writing being done that divorces itself from more careful, researched analytical work. I’m not sure what those qustions might be, but if designers and video game critics (of all stripes) can’t decide on what a game is (or “should be”) and instead often hop to what games “should be,” I think we aren’t giving the present and past of games enough credit.

Of course, there are people spending amounts of time I can’t imagine exploring these questions, but while they explore them, a lot of us (me included) are running around asking about questions that provide answers that are context-less, thanks to our lack of careful, widespread exploration of games (as a medium, as play,and as other things). We don’t have anything to stand on, and I think it’s hurting early criticism and early reviews; there isn’t enough communication across the strata of game critics (again, I’m talking about anything written by anyone about games). Right now we have reviewers, and we have bloggers, and we have people writing “within” The Brainysphere, we have people writing about social issues and issues of race, class, gender and how games reinforce societal inequalities, and we have people writing books like “Dungeons and Desktops” (not to say that it’s the be all and end all, it has problems, but it *is* a book). And we’re not talking amongst ourselves nearly enough, for fear of coming into contact with inferior or different methods of examining games.

And I really, really apologize for the long post! Thanks for responding, by the way.

Simon, I wonder if you could clarify what you mean when you say that people “mistake analysis for critique”? I know I certainly see a distinction, but it seems like you have a specific difference in mind.

Tom, this is sort of the same question, but what in your mind are these bedrock assumptions that go unquestioned?

@Simon: don’t feel bad I just found this as part of research I’m doing. Oh, and you’re right that most “criticism,” “reviews,” “journalism,” and just about everything else, are unconcerned with certain bedrock assumptions that games and games writing (regardless of claims of “legitimacy,” “correctness,” or “intellectualism”) take for granted.

The biggest problem to my mind is that both groups mistake analysis for critique (which is why I don’t group the latter under “criticism”). We’ve got tons of great gameplay/mechanical breakdown, narrative consideration, personal anecdotes on what games means to people, etc. But there’s a general lack of examining the underlying assumptions of construction and representation in games occurring outside book- or paper-length work.

In short, I need a juicier war than that.

Most don’t understand game design well at all. By relying on a nebulous cloud of emotions, feelings, and opinions, these bloggers talk from their feelings and never connect those feelings back to the game.

Not only do they lack the knowledge, but they seem to refuse to pick up the language necessary for critical analysis.

What makes it worse is that many privilege stories in games as if game design isn’t capable of sustaining critical thought alone. Instead of talking about game design or gameplay, they hide behind the stories in games. Unfortunately, even these writers neglect to use specific examples, or critique these game stories in a clear, elevated level.

It may be a bit much to ask for video game critics that have a strong eduction in game design as well as diverse background in literature/creative writing, music, art, etc. But at least understand how games work.

Without a strong foundation I doubt that many would be capable of effectively confronting each other.