4 ms·
I think professional critics are more useful in fields with a longer traditional of quality criticism. I haven't really found a set that are useful when it come
by TheCowboy 9y ago
I think professional critics are more useful in fields with a longer traditional of quality criticism. I haven't really found a set that are useful when it comes to video games for myself, and rarely even touch a game anymore.
Part of the problem might be that the time required to become fully versed in video games is immense, if finishing the games are required. One can get up to speed on the history of multiple film genres in less time than it would take to play through the genre of RPGs. Some games are meant to be disposable rehashes (e.g. modern war FPS) that just push the edge of graphics tech (which is OK), so it's easy to judge if the graphics suck or not.
I think another issue is that some people want the experience of the critic to match their own. A kid growing up will find a lot of ideas to be fresh that are tired and cliche to anyone with a childhood of [gaming,movies,etc.] experience. The drawback is that though peer reviews are useful, they don't always challenge you to think critically beyond what your peers think.
- shmerl 9y agoI agree, games are a more complicated medium to review because they require more time. That's why opinions of those who actually play them make more sense. They can evaluate game approach and highlight strong and weak aspects of it, in game design, story branching, writing and etc. I suppose technical aspects are easier to review for those who don't invest that much time in it. It's for sure difficult for RPGs, but even for FPS, take something like Shadow Warrior (remake). Without finishing the game, one can't know the story twist and full evolution of the main character which kind of puts the whole game in a different light. It's just a work of art IMHO. For any critic to adequately review it, they need to finish the game.