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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @carolynmichelle @SirLarr
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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
I want to know if the writer thinks the game is good, but I want that to come from their personal viewpoint, not their assumptions about who I am and what I want, and I want an ecosystem in which a wonderful variety of viewpoints are represented.
-
-
Replying to @carolynmichelle @SirLarr
In any case, you definitely represent the culturally dominant viewpoint here, so don't sweat a little upstart like me wishing things were different, the status quo is pretty deeply entrenched. Thanks for reading my piece and for the polite responses.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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.