"What's wrong with video game reviews?"

[The_Meach]

this thread really needs The Meach in here.

Every thread needs Meach.

videogames need some form of critical theory

"the new games journalism"

While ("Bow, Nigger" uses) videogames as its subject, what it's really talking about is the human condition.

And that, I think, is the key to the whole thing. New Games Journalism exists to try and explain and transfer the sensations allowed by videogaming to anyone who's willing to sit and take time to read it

Gillen's dead-on re: a new direction for the 'why?' question in videogame journalism. Currently we're getting Car & Driver. How Game X is put together and why we should (or should not) buy it. I challenge anyone to find another art form that has a coterie of critics that holds purchase decisions and 'fun factor' above all else.

GamesAreFun*.com is home to the original link for this thread and the author of the article concedes the intellectual high ground to GamePro immediately, saying, "a video game review is meant to help gamers purchase games they will enjoy." This expectation, held by many among our own members, will keep gaming journalism focused on the nuts 'n bolts ("Camera works like this; You get weapons XYZ, There is a snow level") writing style which drains prose of any feeling and never elicits a thoughtful response in the reader.

Game journalism has a choice, not unlike its parent industry, about where it will go next. True criticism seeks to draw out the essence of a work and impart that to the reader (which may say a lot about what game journalists, their writing faults notwithstanding, have to deal with: maybe there is nothing of artistic value in games today and Car & Driver is what we deserve b/c gaming is a hobby and not an art form).

*As long as this mentality (that games are meant to be fun) remains predominant, it will be increasingly difficult for games to become art.