The problem is dickheads like Roger Ebert don't believe games are worthy in terms of narrative or the general play message recieved. This seperates the mediums, and probably isolates these lonely game reviewers from the wider reviewing lexicon, but it also forces a radical narrow view of what reviewing games should be. Now if professional film critics could learn to appreciate paintings in a gallery like they do cinema then maybe they would have a clue. But they don't, They have no fukn idea, like i have no idea. >>> Sistine Chapel, its big and its about gods and shit.
It aint ever going to happen. Just try and get someone to review post modern interactive video art, after being experienced in reviewing normal movies. They don't gell and neither do game reviewers when an open interpretation is skewed.
“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.
