Flynn said:
I guess that really is the fundamental difference here. And Gamespot really hasn't had a track record for critique. So maybe the audience is expecting one thing and in this case got a little something else.
I'll tell you, though. I'm expecting (or maybe just secretly hoping for) the pendulum to swing towards critique. It's just so much more interesting and stimulating to read an entertaining opinion piece than a rote, by-the-numbers rundown of all the features, bells and whistles.
I think that's why Penny Arcade and Zero Punctuation are so popular. They really are reviews. Tycho's essays and Yahtzee's rants are cogent, funny and entertaining critiques of games. What Gamespot and so many other sites do is simply informative.
And honestly, I've been a consumer of media for a long time. I know, for the most part, if I'm going to like a movie or game before I've even played it. I'm familiar enough with all the genres, creators and whatnot to know what to expect. Sure, I'm sometimes surprised, but I don't really put that on reviewers for not properly informing me or the creators for somehow tricking me. It just turns out that I didn't like the thing as much as I thought I would.
I don't think any amount of words on a website could ever prevent that from happening. Nor would I really want them to.
I wouldn't mind if there was game critique, honestly. (Though, games haven' reached, and may never reach that kind of intellectual sophistication.) But if you're going to call it a review...you can't do the things that Dodson did. Like you said, the audience isn't expecting any of the superfluous opinions on PMCs, they've been expecting a more by the numbers..."Are the graphics pretty, does it control well, does it put you in exciting situations...etc.."...and I don't understand why a lot of people find this "dull" or "boring". Reviews aren't there to entertain you, they are there to educate the consumer that isn't like you or me--that don't know whether or not they'll like a certain game or not.
If at some point in time a game critique website pops up that doesn't focus so much on all the technical points in the review, but focused on the philosophical meanings of a game, it's shady morals, etc., I'm perfectly fine with it. But game reviews have been narrowly defined for almost two decades, and I don't think there is a place for personal moral opinions to seep into the reviews.
Notice I said moral opinions. Obviously, a review is going to be subjective. From how good the graphics look, how well the game played and how well they liked the story, the characters, etc. Just keep your politics at the door in game reviews, please, and put it in an editorial.
arne said:
It's 81% of the review. 43 out of 53 sentences.
math, it's fun.
Is it hard to sit with that dick so far up your ass?