marurun wrote:Some additional grist for the mill... Criticism isn't just about analysis and making recommendations; it's also about entertainment. A more entertaining review is going to draw more eyes than a bland review, regardless the actual criticism contained in the review. Thus critics must skirt a line between meaningful analysis and description of a game and ensuring that the reader is engaged with the presentation.
Thanks for chiming in! And I agree, I think one must strike a balance between what we could call "being right" and actually providing an enjoyable read. It is easy to go on a long overly detailed tirade to talk about a detail that nobody actually cares about. In fact, it's one of the things I feel I've improved the most on.
And it's easier, I think, to generate entertainment in a negative review. You can make jokes at a game's expense and lash out without feeling too bad about it, and going low, as it were, is considered the easier road to entertainment, especially comedy.
While it may be easier to make jokes about a bad games, I also think you don't need to make that many jokes to keep an article engaging if the game you are talking about is interesting on its own. So that evens out, IMHO.
Another factor in play might be that bad games are often not enjoyable to play. A critic's review of a bad game is a chance for them to exorcise their demons, so to speak. It's an attempt to shake out the boredom and frustration of having to put hours into a bad experience. Who knows, there might even be a temptation to get a bit of personal revenge on a bad game.
There are critics who are more emotional or provide more of a personal experience, that's for sure. I've actually gotten much colder in that sense but I do appreciate critics who resonate or communicate on an emotional level.
