The idea of criticism in gaming is one of the hottest topics that you can really get into. Everyone seems to have an opinion one way or the other; they are unnecessary and often times inadequate, they don’t address the right aspects of gaming, or they are fine so don’t stress so much. Scores are what seems to drive the majority of reviewing sites for gaming, as they would with most other media (film, television, music, etc.) and what number out of ten any given person gives a game is something they justify through their written assessment. While the score itself can almost been seen as an advertisement in some cases, scoring an anticipated game extraordinary low or otherwise defying expectations can be effective in generating dialogue about the game. However, industry veteran Keith Boesky is wondering if reviewers are missing the point altogether.

Boesky describes the role of the critic in the gaming world and how drastically the style and presentation of games has changed over the last decade or so, but the reviews have not quite caught up. He stresses that many reviewers/critics have had their experience span across so many generations of consoles that they don’t seem to have the right mindset to review the current generation by the time the next one starts. Also, the fact that many reviewers don’t have time to experience the full game due to time constraints and massive amounts of content to cover, it dilutes the entire experience and makes the first impressions dictate exactly what the experience will be for the player. And since a lot of our first impressions are rooted in our expectations from the pre-game release information, failure to deliver on someone’s ideals of what the game “should” be can often result in a low score for what is actually a pretty good game.

The hypothesis that Boesky presents is built around the mixed reviews for Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway. Understandably confused by the low review scores for what actually is a pretty good game (played it, but not enough time for review) he tries to stress both the lack of time and the focus on “pop” gaming to really be what drives the minutia of most reviews. He also compares the film critics favourably in their treatment of bigger studio projects, saying that they laud independent films but generally trash the summer blockbusters.

In defense of those who would take the side of major studios, the ways in which game criticism is approached are obviously different than that of movies. Film critics also have a very formulaic approach to film, certain categories that are consistent across the medium, if not a bit disjointed in the way they are judged. Quality, does come out in the wash, however, with major studio hits like Iron Man and The Dark Knight garnering major box office success as well as critical acclaim.

Whether or not there is really a “wrong” answer to the question of whether or not game critics are failing their audience or their own craft is up for discussion all its own. Of course, there is such thing as a bad criticism, even one that does attempt to justify the point it’s making. It isn’t necessarily a matter of style, but the approach that people take with games that usually determine the kind of experience they will have and will communicate with their audience. While Boesky stresses that games from older generations may have a hard time adjusting in terms of the full experience that many game companies are trying to deliver, their perspective and retrospective in comparison to games they’ve played before do matter in terms of uncovering influences and ensuring that old mistakes are not re-tread. The same as film critics will recognize specific cuts and cinematography decisions attributed to directors or styles that they can reference makes for a deeper understand of why something may work, and why something doesn’t.

The emotioaln experience that he describes in his opinion piece is a fair point, if not a bit anecdotal to his son’s video game play-through time. Gaming at this generation has the capacity of shedding the “hook” that defined older generations, a gameplay mechanic or two that was the reason that you picked up the game. Dead Space, which we’re reviewing later this week, carries that full experience with a very film approach, but does still have that problem of needing to come up with innovative experiences throughout for reviewers to recognize the successes of the game as a whole. However, bad game design is still bad game design and as much as games are reviewed as art, they are reviewed as software and products. It’s a touchy subject, as stressed above, and Boesky’s article is an interesting read and a nice perspective on how we treat the subject material and ensure we are being true to ourselves and our audience.

For full disclosure: UGTV doesn’t affix scores or any equivalent to our reviews which makes them a hard sell as easily digestible material. While we mandate to spend time simply making sure we play the full game at least once before reviewing, we don’t have specific categories or items that we address beyond what we feel is imperative to making the experience work. I’d like to think we do it a little bit differently than perhaps the en masse review groups may, but that’s always up to our readers discretion and we always value input. The last thing you want to do with any game review is mislead yourself and your audience, and when you start playing a game you should know exactly what you are assessing and what you want to get out of it, then make sure your audience knows that, too.