Game Reviews Not Stuck In Pac Man Era?

Thanks to GameSpot for their 'GameSpotting' column discussing critics who say videogame reviewing is still much too basic an art. Quoting a subscriber-only Wall Street Journal article with similar comments to a recent Slashdot story, the author warns against overly conceptual game reviews: "Look at it this way: Would you prefer for me to wistfully tell you how Final Fantasy XI made me feel, or would you prefer for me to tell you how it works, what about it works well, and what about it doesn't work well?" And, although he thinks the WSJ piece has many good points, he takes issue with comparisons between game reviewing and film reviewing: "When was the last time you decided to see a movie based on a movie review? Film critics write to each other."

Comments

when I see movies

[Artifex]

I hardly ever pay to see movies any more; since our local art houses have gotten into the "business" (think internet bubble) of pre-release screenings, I get several invitations a month to go to free shows. Not to mention that my local film festival gets me other invites, simply for being a member.

I actually do read reviews, mostly online, when I can get them, simply because there's no local word of mouth nor advertising for these things, before I get the invites. Otherwise I just have to rely on what the email or card says about the plot of a movie. Basically in the last month I've turned down "Sylvia" because of horrendous reviews and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" because I don't do horror stories. This week I have 3 free movies to go see, including "Bad Santa," which I'll see ONLY because it got good reviews, "Shattered Glass," which sounds interesting but which I may pass up for an astronomy club meeting (don't laugh), and "Mona Lisa Smile," which sounds sappy, but which I'll probably watch anyway.

If I do pay to see movies, it's usually because of trailers I've seen in the theater that pique my interest, like "Veronica Guerin," which I'll pay for if I don't get a pass.