I had to ask myself this question. Quite a few
bloggers have been tossing ideas around concerning reviewer reception of
innovation in games. Some have
not been impressed by the treatment of risk-taking and brave new design choices by critics and others have tread passively to their
defense. I think my position should be considered passively offensive.
In a very short period of time, much has been said. The most striking argument I have read is this:
And that’s because no matter how much a reviewer cares about innovation, the general consumer public does not. And before everyone throws out anecdotal evidence to the contrary, keep in mind that if you’re reading this website then you are not the general consumer public. A good review, even the most shining one will never be enough to convince people to go buy innovation. The market has already proven this.
Just to clarify the context, I'm sure the author is speaking about short term innovations only here. Still, I find this statement to be very accurate. It immediately brings into question the purpose of reviews and the internal conflict of innovation.
Any and all industries require innovation to keep from sinking, but the general public thrives on orthodoxy. Therefore the price of innovation is enormous and it only very rarely overthrows the current populous in a
Wii-
esque fashion. So for the most part, innovation follows the path of the
Segway. This is a crushing defeat in the eyes of the minority who consider themselves enthusiasts. We thrive off innovation and require it to maintain our passions. It's just too bad our voices are often silenced by a slew of numbers and dollar signs.
So now that I understand that innovation is going the way of a pants-less Tom Cruise, I have a new question. How should reviewers treat this mind-boggling subject? Leigh Alexander suggest,
"Reviewers know how to evaluate games against the systems with which they're familiar, and not how to evaluate games that break the mold." So if that is true, we can not fault them for
their findings, especially since its been proven that these things don't sell games. But it's also been said that reviews don't sell games either, so why must they be attempt to align themselves to the consumer anyway?
A while back I read a piece that specifically
contrasts main-stream games writing/reviewing vs personal games writing/reviewing via blogs. It seems like many writers have determined and focused their efforts on two hypothetical groups. A large group of "non-career gamers" and a small family of people like me, and the majority of games writing(specifically reviews) is geared toward the former. This is the most puzzling concept, since I am about 90% positive that most writers actually believe most of their readers come from that minority pool. My guess is that they only write to the majority to avoid the possible deterrent from a supposedly inclusive industry.
So where do reviewers stand if they argue to appeal to the general public who apparently don't care to fully read their work? Where do the
enthusiasts stand if we only read reviews to critique the
critiquer because we rather play and come to our own conclusions? Seems like reviews in the current format cause more
harm than good. Maybe they are really just a
ineffective, but somehow glorified form of marketing? We all know any game commercial would be worthless if it didn't feature at least one "4.5 of 5.0 -
RandomGameSite.com" claim.*
*After reviewing this post I am aware that it shifted more than I would have liked from a cohesive
statement to a random train of thoughts. I am too lazy to reorganize and
unconvinced that I can do a great job since I am still utterly confused about this issue at large.
