dtrack wrote:What i am looking for are basically reviews like the ones on Gamespot and such and the gamer magazines of the 90s but the reviews could give more credit to historical and other contexts with more references may even from outside the gaming world.
ejamer wrote:Interesting post, although I have a hard time agreeing with some of the chioces/omissions. No NES-era games or platformers/side-scrollers, and yet you don't consider Metal Gear Solid, Counter-Strike or Starcraft to be worth omitting as "obvious choices"?
dtrack wrote:The point is playing 40 games won't turn a blogger into a critic.
General_Norris wrote:You confuse me, dsheinem. Obviously that Kotaku tries to be the videogame equivalent of the National Enquierer doesn't make give their terrible reviews a pass. Poor, sloppy criticism and click bait is still poor, sloppy criticism and click bait, no matter how much they intended it to be.
General_Norris wrote:There are very few critics whose opinion I respect but two that I really admire are Michael Barness and Matt Thrower, founders of Fortress:Ameritrash and No High Scores. They are both very intelligent guys and their knowledge of general culture, from comics to movies or classic books really shows in their writing. Barnes in particular loves direct comparisons to other works of art:
dsheinem wrote:See, that's the distinction you keep collapsing: a game review vs. a piece of criticism.
General_Norris wrote:dsheinem wrote:See, that's the distinction you keep collapsing: a game review vs. a piece of criticism.
A review is a piece of criticism by definition:
re·view
[ri-vyoo] Show IPA
noun
1.
a critical article or report, as in a periodical, on a book, play, recital, or the like; critique; evaluation.
I don't want this thread to get into tangents so let's focus on the main issue: The average reviewer, critic or gaming site is not qualified to write about the medium, for lack the wide experience array neccesary to make meaningful claims. There are certain games I feel no valuable critic can miss and hence I made my list.
Anthony Gallegos is a good example. He admits to never having played any JPRG, one of the most common and popular genres in videogames, yet he and his editor think he's fit to review one:
Arc Rise Fantasia review
To me that's like a movie critic saying he has never seen a love film or anything by Kurosawa. You can't teach if you don't know and that makes Mr Gallegos a terrible critic. You are free to disagree but articles like this one lower my trust on the site and a critic without trust has nothing.
That's my main issue here. But if you want we can talk about the Kotaku-bashing tangent in another thread. I'll even drop some links
dsheinem wrote:Sorry, one example from one site from three years ago is not good evidence of a widespread problem. Stop looking to IGN for insightful criticism. Look to them for reviews to help guide purchase decisions. On that score, Gallegos' review (which is honest about its starting position) is fine.
General_Norris wrote:I think we are not understanding each other Dsheinem. I'm just using that guy as an example to see if we agree or not not as proof of anything.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests