Sure. But personally I'd rather the critic write in a way that acknowledges their own subjectivity rather than seeking to erase it. When I encounter a critic like Kael writing unflinchingly from their own perspective, agree or disagree, I get something out of it that deepens...
-
-
Replying to @carolynmichelle @SirLarr
...my appreciation for cinema (or games) overall and really stimulates my thinking. That's far more enjoyable and interesting to me than a bland product evaluation with a sheen of (false) objectivity that just tries to tell me if a thing will pleasantly entertain me for X hours.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @carolynmichelle
I totally get it. It's more stimulating for me too. That's not a review though, that's critique. Reviews will have elements of that for sure, but making that the point makes it about what you want (insight) from the review rather than the audience at large (qualified judgment).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SirLarr
Of course it's a review. You can't say Pauline Kael didn't write film reviews. They may be in a style that's not in fashion today, but they are most definitely film reviews.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @carolynmichelle
I don't care to argue semantics. I just think the core if it is who you're writing for. You write for yourself and like-minded readers. Nothing wrong with that at all, I just think the focus should be more audience-centric.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SirLarr @carolynmichelle
Also I realize the irony about being semantic after dismissing semantic. More meant to say I'm sure she writes reviews but do you really think that's what the average reader wants out of a review?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SirLarr
Again IDK who this "average reader" is, there are always assumptions made that invariably leave a lot of people out. Pauline Kael was a hugely influential tastemaker in her day. Our notions of what criticism should be may have shifted but that doesn't mean they were wrong before.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @carolynmichelle
Hmm, well if you don't know your audience how can you write for them? I'm confident I can break down any game for anyone, let them know if they'll like it in terms they'll understand. And it's not about right or wrong, it's about audience or intent.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SirLarr @carolynmichelle
Luckily both approaches can exist side by side and each serve their relative purposes. To throw it all the way back, I just think Death Stranding very much illustrated the difference in approach.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SirLarr
The biggest problem with this, it seems to me, is that there's usually a group that then gets to have their tastes codified as more or less "objectively right," members of the status quo dominant audience, while those who disagree are wrong for "subjective" reasons.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
But it's ALL subjective. The Outer Worlds isn't objectively a good or bad game, but I think it's a bad one. Yet the dominant audience's position as dominant accrues political capital--"true" gamers love game X--which can then be leveraged against people of differing viewpoints.
-
-
Replying to @carolynmichelle @SirLarr
I think the conversation around games will be much better, more dynamic and stimulating and exciting--when we understand that it's all subjective, and I think getting there will be aided by more critics writing reviews--yes, reviews--that openly embrace their own subjectivity.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @carolynmichelle
Yes but most people click on reviews cause they wanna know if a game's good, not for a dynamic and stimulating conversation around games. But I guess that's me assuming about the audience. Seems reasonable when something's called a review though.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.