The problem I find when it comes judging video games critically is we're all so fond of general quality as critics. In video games, the aspects of quality are a fair bit easier to measure relative to other mediums -- graphics, sound, content quantity, etc. As such, more subjective blurs such as "fun" tend to cause conflicts and dilemmas within ourselves and readers looking for hardline analyses of the medium -- as if a mere single person's opinion on a matter could truly make that possible. "Fun" is a non-qualitative, subjectivity, but the irony lies in the gaming community's insistence on this element being the defining measure of a quality game. There's the conflict.
It's hard to deny games like Gears or GTA IV are less than quality games. In part, their large budgets demand it so. But once certain aspects of these games come into play that don't match the real or projected quality of the rest of the game (Gear's online, GTA IVs... whatever), people's orientations of what "fun" is come into play. While one person's orientation allows him to have "fun" in spite of -- another is blaming the game's qualitative faults for his own lack thereof. This social fact alone proves that the only absolute element inherent to "fun" is its constructed nature.
I think part of the problem is how writers write their reviews. Game critics are often so focused on journalistic "integrity" they deny expression of the subjective experience. They often criticize in abstract absolutes in hopes to convey a certain level of sophistication -- scientific, even. Everyone wants an "objective" game review, right? But that's impossible. As long as "fun" is the definitive measure of a game's value, an objective thesis regarding games is untenable.
Game reviewers should inject more of themselves into their reviews, IMO. More, "I feel", "This reviewer feels" or "This did/didn't work for me" etc. Guide the readers through their subjective experience, so at its conclusion, the reader fully understands a review is just an opinion, which is all it can be, and not a critical analysis.
Less, "This doesn't work", "bad/superlative decisions abound" or "this may be contender for game of the year" etc.
I dunno. I think Shoe's Gears of War review is an example of a review done right.
Meh.
