Video games are not new by modern standards. Our textbook mentions the "cathode ray tube amusement device" created in 1947. Even though I can't imagine finding that object remotely enjoyable, it qualifies, in a very basic sense, as a video game. So digital games, in some form or another, have been on this Earth for 62 years. How is it impossible to find a historical critique? Why is it only very recently that people have begun to consider video games a legitimate medium that deserves to be taken seriously?
Like all new things, video games as a medium had to establish itself in society. While it is rapidly fading, the stigma associated with the more dedicated fans of video games is that of anti-society, of isolation, and of maladjustment. Perhaps this is the reason there are very little video game criticisms available. And while some may consider a review a form of criticism, it is not. As this article states, "criticism is an informed discussion, by an intelligent and knowledgeable observer of a medium, of the merits and importance (or lack thereof) of a particular work. Criticism isn't intended to help the reader decide whether or not to plunk down money on something; some readers' purchase decisions may be influenced, but guiding their decisions is not the purpose of the critical work."
Clearly, reviews are a means by which people attempt to influence a market and therefore cannot be trusted to present a reader with unbiased views on a particular video game or the medium as a whole. While reviews may have begun as a more pure form of critique, the increasingly commercialized video game market has driven reviews into formulaic consumer influencers. Even this review of Fallout 3, though calling to attention the limited scope that modern reviews have in judging a game's merits in an objective sense, is still nothing more than a review, giving a score at the end that will influence a potential buyer into spending or saving his or her $60.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like the quote that you took. It stuck out to me as well. I think that people are following the "formulaic consumer influencers" like sheep in a flock. Reviews are there to influence our opinions and the market. We don't have any really good critiques (that I know of), but I don't know how people would take it. I would like to read good critiques of video games, but that doesn't mean that the majority of the people who play games do. Like we have said before, the media (video games and reviews in this case) is feeding to the casual player, trying to rake in the dough. If I cared about how a game was rated, I would probably buy into a review too.
ReplyDeleteWith 4 reviews required for our course, I'm curious about your approach to writing them. With no affiliations to speak of beyond our own individual gaming preferences, do we still have a desire to influence the market?
ReplyDeleteThe way I'm choosing to write these reviews is to attempt to influence the market of me. Like it was mentioned in class, the best reviews are written by people with very similar likes/dislikes as the reader. So, with this in mind, I'm just going to write what I feel is good enough to write, only overtly attempting to influence people that are (as far as taste is concerned) exactly like me.
ReplyDelete