By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Best Description of Critics -- Ever

Porcupine_I on 13 January 2010

Who Criticizes the Critics?



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Around the Network
Vetteman94 on 13 January 2010
Desroko said:
Another way of saying "semantics" is "Using the right word for the right thing, instead of a word that kind of almost means sort of the same thing."

The reason why actual writers don't have dictionary.com is bookmarked is because actual writers are aware that words that have somewhat similar meanings may have very different connotations. Ask a painter living in a Brooklyn loft, selling her works to galleries, if she considers herself an "artisan." If she's like any of the painters I've known, she'll slap you in the face. Now ask the weaver working in the factory churning out rugs by the yard whether she is an "artist." She'll laugh at you.

Artist : Artisan :: Critic : Reviewer


Sorry I couldnt qoute the Websters on my desk without a scanner.   I only said they were similair in definition.  Not identical like critic and reviewer is.  

So since IGN basically does exactly what you describe a critic to do, explain to me why they refer to themselves as reviewers?



miz1q2w3e on 13 January 2010

That's exactly what i was thinking when i heard the "Ego" say that sentence (the second time i saw Ratatouille)

I must say that movie was fabulous, and i thought this line was beatiful. Sometimes you hear something so well written it sticks in your head way after you hear it.



noname2200 on 13 January 2010
Vetteman94 said:
Desroko said:
Vetteman94 said:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/critic

Interesting what the first word that they have under synonyms is.

While you're at that site, view the dictionary entry for "synonym." It does not mean what you apparently think it means.

If you look up "artist," for example, you will find the synonym "artisan." But anyone who thinks these are two words for the same thing, or even nearly the same thing, must re-acquaint himself with the English language before lecturing others on its proper use.

So insulting someone is todays way of arguing a point?   I see........but it still doesnt remove the fact that reviewer and critic are basically identical. Its just semantics.

As for you Artist/Artisan comparison, they have extremely similar definitions. So I dont know what dictionary you are looking at, but maybe it is not I who should re-acquaint themselves with the english language.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artisan

 

Pointing out the definition of something is not an insult. Unless you choose to take it that way. Why would you choose to do so here?

In either case, you're wrong and desroko is right. Connotation: it's a b****!



Vetteman94 on 13 January 2010
noname2200 said:
Vetteman94 said:
Desroko said:
Vetteman94 said:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/critic

Interesting what the first word that they have under synonyms is.

While you're at that site, view the dictionary entry for "synonym." It does not mean what you apparently think it means.

If you look up "artist," for example, you will find the synonym "artisan." But anyone who thinks these are two words for the same thing, or even nearly the same thing, must re-acquaint himself with the English language before lecturing others on its proper use.

So insulting someone is todays way of arguing a point?   I see........but it still doesnt remove the fact that reviewer and critic are basically identical. Its just semantics.

As for you Artist/Artisan comparison, they have extremely similar definitions. So I dont know what dictionary you are looking at, but maybe it is not I who should re-acquaint themselves with the english language.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artisan

 

Pointing out the definition of something is not an insult. Unless you choose to take it that way. Why would you choose to do so here?

In either case, you're wrong and desroko is right. Connotation: it's a b****!


He pointed out the definition of 2 words that werent even in the conversation nor are even related in anyway.   The insult was implying that I need to be re-acquainted with the english language, but I am not the one who screwed up the definition critic/reviewer.  So no I am not wrong



Around the Network
mike_intellivision on 14 January 2010
Desroko said:
mike_intellivision said:

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.

 

For those who do not recognized this, the above words are the beginning of the speech by Anton Ego (food critic) in the Pixar-Disney film Ratatouille.  

But I also thought it was a great statement in general on the self-importance and lack of real importance of critics. This seems to be especially relevant to game reviews this generation.  

Thoughts?

Personally, I feel it provides perspective to the philosophy that  reviewers define AAA games (where the term's generally-accepted origin was the emphasis the developer/studio placed on the game).

Mike from Morgantown

 

 

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
Cheebee on 14 January 2010

Lol, ever since I heard that in Ratatouille, I always thought it was a pretty good statement that also relates to game critics.



Nintendo Network ID: Cheebee   3DS Code: 2320 - 6113 - 9046

 

theprof00 on 14 January 2010

"Anyone Can Cook"



Torillian on 14 January 2010
Desroko said:
mike_intellivision said:

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.

 

For those who do not recognized this, the above words are the beginning of the speech by Anton Ego (food critic) in the Pixar-Disney film Ratatouille.  

But I also thought it was a great statement in general on the self-importance and lack of real importance of critics. This seems to be especially relevant to game reviews this generation.  

Thoughts?

Personally, I feel it provides perspective to the philosophy that  reviewers define AAA games (where the term's generally-accepted origin was the emphasis the developer/studio placed on the game).

Mike from Morgantown

 

 

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.

While I agree videogame reviewers don't live up to the lofty expectations you have for a critic I disagree that as a group they are as bad as you say in your last paragraph.  I personally have no towering sense of pride from reviewing, have thrown away most of the "schwag" recieved with review copies, and definitely do not have a blind loyalty or hostility towards any system.  In fact I don't personally know any reviewers that act as you have described.  I think that most reviewers are just people who like to play games and write about about them to inform people who are unsure of whether or not the game is worth playing.  I haven't met any that are the self righteous pricks you make them out to be.  Poor guys are just doing a job, some of them love it and some of them don't, but they don't deserve to be called pathetic.



...

papflesje on 14 January 2010

I agree completely and the funny thing is, I AM a critic - reviewer :)

I'd like to point out one thing though. Not every reviewer is thinking that his word is God's word or something. There are plenty of reviewers out there that give information based on what they've played and take into consideration (in the ways it's possible) to help readers to see whether a game is actually a classic-to-be, a worthy purchase and all that.

It would be too harsh to define every reviewer as people who think they own the right to bash / praise a title, because that's not true either.