Yes, I know this is from Ratatouille, shut up.

Anyway.

As a literature student, I tend to look at a lot of criticism in this light, and often ponder the role of criticism in different fields where I participate. As a literature student I contribute to the literature dialogue, as a moviegoer and movie fan I participate in the cinematic literary discussion, and as a game reviewer for this site I contributed to the same dialogue for video games, at least insofar as such a dialogue exists. I make this topic now, when I am not a Contributor, because that grants me crtain liberties to talk about criticism which a reviewer for the site simply does not have.

I think criticism in video games is problematic, and if we take Ego's statement here to be true - which I do, and it troubles me as someone who studies literary criticism - then it is perhaps more problematic in video game criticism than anywhere else.

Criticism in other fields typically seeks to enrich the experience of the person partaking in a piece of work (like a movie or a book or a piece of music or a bowl of soup) by giving them new perspectives on how things work and why they work as well as they do. Often - probably more often than not - criticism falls short of its ideals, and becomes essentially worthless to people who simply seek out experiences.

The questions I pose to you are these:

Is video game criticism (which is to say, the review system) actually worth anything? Do they serve to help appreciate games more, or are they just buyer's guides? Should video game criticism seek to be more than it is, or is the current state of affairs to your liking? Do we need scoring systems? Do we need reviews at all?

I criticise this thread.

Seriously, though, I think the purpose of criticism in gaming is:

a) To provide a guide for a potential buyer on whether or not a game is for them.

b) To help the developers improve the game in patches or a sequel.

The purpose of criticism is NOT to let people say "Ha, Game X is better than Game Y because it got 92 and not 91 on Metacritic!", but this is a common use.

The score shouldn't REALLY be used as a decision maker, but I do use it as such, occasionally. The score should be a brief summary of, objectively, how well the game would appeal to a general audience. The actual review should list facts about the game, its strong and weak points, and who would enjoy it. The game should not really be compared to any game on another console within the review, but if there's a better game on the same console, that might be worthy of a mention.

In a perfect world.
IMO.

i have always thought, critism in any manner is just a way to reassure the buyer, something like a body to existance.

the thing is, most videogames critics or critics of anything, critizise sometheing they don't work at or have expirience doing, for example i can bet you a thousand bucks mark bozon from ign has never done a mario galaxy. one thing is having knowledge about things and the other one is the expirience of doing it and the reasons for doing it. critics don't know why certain developers take certains path. critisicsm has being around since the times of acient greece, but what are critics if not people who make a living from judging the works of other while the themselves dont do a thing. a worker and a speaker.

critics any way, just give their opinion out, despite some of them actually believing themselves to be actual universal judgemnt gods, so people should take reviews lightly.

So you guys do see the ideal form of video game reviews as functioning as a buyer's guide, of sorts?

Matter of perception. Both are equally necessary, though the former is pretty much nonexistent. I'd like if they would, but they won't. People are too lazy to read, so it'd be helpful in buyer's guides, but not anywhere else. Well, in short, I'd like to see more analytic approach to game criticism, e.g. http://gamestudies.org/ (see some books those guys wrote as well).

1. There are a lot of people who get paid to provide it and also people who pay to read it.  You can debate the value to society if you like, but you can measure the worth of game criticism and other journalistic endeavors tangibly with real dollars.
   
   
2. I'd say that's something totally dependent on the reader.  I use reviews to learn more about a game to make a purchasing decision, but that doesn't mean I read reviews specifically written for that purpose and only those nor does it mean that what I use them for is definitive and generalizable to everyone.
   
   
3. All fields should seek to be more than they are.
   
   
4. I think a meaningful system is useful, but a system of nearly random numbers where there is no definitive difference between an 8.7 and an 8.6 has no value to me.
   
   
5. I've seen pro/con lists, impressions, previews, reviews, etc.  Some form of feedback on a game is useful.  I don't really care what it's called or what form it's in if it provides useful information.

Consider Ratatouille and compare/contrast the purpose of the restaurant review industry with game review industry. 

Please express your answer in complete sentences.

THat's a problematic question, since a restaurant review differs from game reviews in two key ways.

1. No two visits to a restaurant are going to be the same. A restaurant review only gives an indication of expectations, because the product you experience is going to differ in many key ways from the product that the reviewer experiences. So experience is not the only differing factor here!

2. A restaurant review, at its heart, talks about a consumable good - food. Cooking is certainly an art in much the same way that video game design is an art, but the implications of what goes into those two arts is very different. Food, at its heart, is a sensory experience, and rarely (if ever) makes a statement beyond the experience. Critical analysis of food must necessarily differ from critical analysis of other media of expression because the message conveyed is defined by the good consumed.

Restaurant reviews function as a buyer's guide because of the nature of food - there's nothing else to talk about unless you, the reviewer, are a cook who can talk about factors that contribute to the sensory experience and what that says about the process of crafting the meal. Video games are not necessarily subject to the same thing, firstly because anyone who plays games can talk quite a lot about what makes an experience work, and because video games provide a very different kind of experience.

A good response. 

Your first point is correct if incomplete.  I would encourage you to reflect upon the visitor's standpoint for a meal is comprised of the food and the consumer or reviewer.

You second point could bear with further exposition.  You end your point by saying "the message conveyed is defined by the good consumed" as the differing point between food and video games.  That statement has a hidden implication which you would do well to reconsider.

C+.

WoW you can either hold a conversation or not, but that is very close to condescension and I haven't got a lot of patience for condescension.