Reviews Reviewed
It always amuses and slightly annoys me when “serious” writers begin trying to wax philosophical about computer game critiquing. The argument goes something like this: “Films, literature, and art are all taken seriously and are considered important because they are intelligently reviewed. Games and the games industry won’t grow and be taken seriously until reviewers review intelligently and with insight.”
Now, one of my pet hates is juvenile computer game reviews - “It’s rocks man! It’s awesome” - but as much as I wish computer games were high art, they just aren’t. And anyone who says they are isn’t a gamer, or has never been exposed to high art. You can’t compare Diablo to Bach, or Quake 3 to Paradise Lost. To do so is ludicrous. It’s horses for courses and computer games, while containing amazing creativity and some sublime artistry, are not going to compete with the Renaissance masters. They are playing on different fields with different rules, and different objectives. As desirable as intelligent reviewing is, it’s not going to transform games into Masterpieces. Surely that is obvious?
Or maybe it isn’t. MyVideoGames.com trots out the tired old “gaming makes more money than movies and so should be equally respected” routine in a recent editorial.
[update: bruce] I don’t necessarily agree with the analogies here. Is anyone in the mass media really reviewing Paradise Lost or Bach as consumable entertainment? Is is only easier to pick out classic books and composers merely because their technology is old? Maybe I should keep these arguments out of news posts for now :)
MyVideoGames.com
posted by monty · at 6:05 am · filed under Reviews