When it comes to entertainment media, I generally think objectivity is a ridiculous notion. We can accept this in most kinds of art — i.e, “I don’t like this” is not thought to be analogous to “this isn’t good.” We can like things that are bad, and we can feel alienated or repelled by things that are well-crafted if they’re not our taste.
It seems more difficult for gamers to accept this, and by “gamers” I mean the kind that are “hardcore” enough to be overly invested in what other people think of something they like. I maintain that probably the biggest reason people read reviews is not “to find out if a game is good,” but to help them crystallize their own opinion — or to make them feel validated in that opinion.
But there’s still the assumption that a review can be generally correct or not, vs. something one agrees or disagrees with; certainly it doesn’t help that as a technology product there are aspects of a game that are governed by quality rules, that have a right and a wrong way they can be executed.
I hate that. I think for the most part the most interesting work in gaming culture gets done when we let go of this distant idea of games as only product; they are so personal, so subjective, so experiential.
There are people out there who think that Ocarina of Time is the greatest video game ever made. It isn’t[*], but I know why a lot of people think so. Read the latest of my Edge columns to come online and see what I mean.
Speaking of products and reviews and stuff, I had a thought-provoking question posed to me the other day, and it spawned an entire editorial: Why doesn’t the games press review Facebook games? Would having them on Metacritic or something offer a useful baseline for the space so that it can actually evolve?
All I’m doing right now is replaying MGS 3 in HD. Yep, still my favorite video game.
*”Ocarina of Time is the greatest ocarina-themed videogame of all time.” — Ian Bogost