The holiday hangout will go online tomorrow! If there's anything in the regular subforums that you're going to want to access over the holidays, copy it now while it's still accessible.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions
. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum
. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
A necessary change to video game reviews and criticism?
Recently on Giantbomb
a 3 - part series was run titled On Games, Reviews and Criticism where Patrick Klepek and BioWare senior designer Manveer Heir discuss the current review process for video games, and the meanings behind the numbers.
After reading through the article, and taking a look back on some of my favorite review/critiques I started thinking what does the current state of reviews do well, and what does it need to focus on? I am a Kotakuite and have seen the various methods they have tried over the years to try and do this while keeping everyone happy. I do not think that this is an option as you cannot please publishers, gamers, and consumers all in one article.
I think that a review and a criticism should be two separate items. A review should contain basic elements of gameplay as well as the genre the game most fits into whether it be a casual game aimed towards mobile gaming, or a game that is geared towards the 'hardcore' crowd. At the end of the review the reader should have a clear idea of the game as a product and know whether it interests them enough to warrant a rental or purchase.
A criticism on the other hand should be a more in depth article. The author should discuss how the game holds up as a piece of entertainment. All the different facets should be discussed at length, and the game should have been given much more time and analysis than a review. At the end of the criticism it should engage the reader into a discussion with others as to why they feel the author is correct or not and really be a focal point of a community.
My question to you Penny Arcadians is how do you feel about how game journalism is holding up as far as reviews are concerned? What are your thoughts on what is being done right and what is not?