Desroko said:
I think there's a difference between a critic who attempts to qualify a work, and a reviewer, who merely seeks to quantify it. The best critics can incisively analyze a work, pull apart its themes, pick apart its details, and put them back together in such a way that that the reader can follow and achieve a greater understanding, as if they'd had a window into the artist's mind at the time of creation A reviewer watches or plays a movie or game and assigns a number based on whether it was "bad-ass," "awesome," "okay," "boring," or "gay." The videogame industry, from what I've seen, has no critics. It has a ton of reviewers, who sustain on themsevles on blind loyalty/hostility to a given system, schwag, and a rather pathetic sort of pride that comes from the towering achevement of their lives - getting their games website listed on Metacritic. |
I do not wish to get into an argument on semantics. However, I stand by the original point that those who provide reviews for video games think themselves self-important but are really not important.
(I also feel that critic as it is used with respect to restaurants is much more in line with reviewer than with traditional literary criticism).
Mike from Morgantown
I am Mario. I like to jump around, and would lead a fairly serene and aimless existence if it weren't for my friends always getting into trouble. I love to help out, even when it puts me at risk. I seem to make friends with people who just can't stay out of trouble. Wii Friend Code: 1624 6601 1126 1492 NNID: Mike_INTV |