Absolutely.Silvanus said:
It'd be silly of me to tell a reviewer not to review a part of the thing they're reviewing.
The Apparent Anti-Intellectualism of Gamer Culture
- Thread starter The Jovian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It'd be silly of me to tell a reviewer not to review a part of the thing they're reviewing.
Very fair. Absolutely my position, as well.MrFalconfly said:
In my view, the failing of the Kill Screen reviewer (in the OP) isn't that he talks about narrative/politics necessarily, but that he overthinks the game he's reviewing, and neglects gameplay entirely.
This is an interesting point, and an undeniably different aspect of video games, in comparison to traditionally published media.MrFalconfly said:
Ultimately however, I'm not sure that I can agree with the conclusion drawn from the premise. Every medium is going to have necessary idiosyncratic properties, whose functionality are, usually, a prerequisite to consumption (obviously, artists tend to push these boundaries, but I'm speaking generally).
I don't believe, however, that a review has to weight those idiosyncrasies, in accordance with some predetermined guidelines, lest we label it a bad review, by default. The Lone Ranger review, previously cited, mentions relatively little about the the film in regards to the effectiveness of it's audio/visual presentation, instead focused, almost entirely, on it's subtext.
I also would fundamentally disagree with your claim that for "any actual artistic appreciation to happen, the thing has to work as intended", even in regards to functional objects. Just look at the Titanic, or any object used or built with an expectation of intrinsic supernatural/religious qualities.
Before we continue with this very interesting discussion (I'm being honest. It is interesting, because I get to see how other people look at this issue), I'm going to ask you a question.Hair Jordan said:
Do you think a sportscar can be a piece of art?
Or is it just me being a complete loon?
As for "Every medium is going to have necessary idiosyncratic properties, whose functionality are, usually, a prerequisite to consumption". So far, no other medium than videogames (except perhaps sportscars, but that's why I asked you) requires your active participation. Your input is what completes the art. Until you decide to play it, it's a "dead" piece of hardware. And that's the reason for why I think it's so important for a games reviewer to also review the gameplay, because it is the gameplay that (in my mind) complete's the art, and ultimately makes it art.
The difference between games and the movies above is that games are an interactive medium who's function hinges on user interaction. The range of nuance contained in that function varies from game to game depending on the design of the overall package, but it's integral all the same. Game play is what separates games from all other forms of passive storytelling. This is why there are so many strong arguments for considering a review that doesn't factor in the merits of game play, the defining element that separates games from all other storytelling media that's come before, flawed.Hair Jordan said:
Obviously the onus of this consideration rests on the person reading the review at the end of the day. If someone never played a game before but heard about how they've advanced in the use of storytelling tools and symbolism, the review in the OP would suffice because they've got no game play context. Speaking from the point of view of a gaming enthusiast who loves games specifically for their interactive elements, a review that doesn't engage the merits of said interaction is definitely flawed.
I think the piece should be considered an editorial. That way the author is free to pontificate on any musing he pleases without being concerned with the merits of a review.
I'm going to be honest, and say that I don't think it's feasible, in the boundaries of human discourse, to define what art is, for everyone. That being said, no particular argument stands out as to why sportscars cannot be considered art, that doesn't do away with art, altogether, by ridding human intellect of metaphysics. Furthermore, I'd argue that any intrinsic distinction is nearly impossible. Duchamp, for example, filled entire galleries with everyday objects. Had sportscars existed at the time, and he happened to display one, it would almost certainly be considered a priceless work of art, nowadays.MrFalconfly said:
For this reason, the history of art is an increasing trend towards "inclusion", where the boundaries of what constitutes art continues to grow. I don't think it's so important, however, to consider what is and is not art, but to focus on the expression or concept, as you can see it. What matters is whether or not the art is good, in other words. Indeed, the deployment of Duchamp's "readymades" was a two part process, the "creative act" of placing a snowshovel, or a pile of normal bricks, in an art gallery, and the critical interpretation by the work's audience, which legitimized the process as part of the artistic discussion. The object itself, is, essentially, irrelevant, which was Duchamp's point. Art is what we say it is, and entirely dependent on context - which includes the observer (which obviously includes critics).
Short answer - no, I don't think you're a loon.
If art is to be loosely understood as an expression in relation to some part of existence, as the artist sees it, then review is to be seen as an expression about the art itself, as the critic sees it. This unique point of view of the critic is what separates it from a mere description of the work in question, like a Wikipedia article.
If we don't expect the artist, themselves, to have some sort of duty to meet the public's preconceived expectations of what artwork should be (indeed, this would be the - end - of art), why should we then expect the critic to be restrained with such expectations, either? It's an important distinction. The role of the critic, like the artist, is intrinsic, not extrinsic. Their primary goal is to actualize their own, internal, motivations, which may happen to align, luckily, with what a lot of the public considers digestible.
Now you can easily counter, at this point, that perhaps you - do - have such expectations of artists, and their subsequent critics, namely that their work should be primarily motivated by extrinsic factors of pubic interest, but I would then counter that this runs the real risk of affirming the anti-intellectualism bias the thread alludes to. Narrowing the range of possible discussion on a topic to whatever suits your own definition of practical needs, even if those needs happen to be shared by many, is anti-intellectualism incarnate.
Indeed, who even said that there's supposed to be a line between what we consider artork and criticism in the first place? Some artwork/criticism, for example, blurs the line of what you would even consider artwork/criticism, such as when Banksy hung his own satirical artwork in the MoMA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/arts/design/need-talent-to-exhibit-in-museums-not-this-prankster.html
Any concerns about the review process falling apart into meaningless, should we entertain such outlandish behavior to be considered genuine "criticism" could obviously, also, be said about artwork. Art ranges the gambit from utterly incomprehensible squealing performance art to Full House. Despite this latitude, and general acceptance, no "core" of art is in danger of falling apart. Classical portraits and landscapes exist right beside Rothko and Dark Souls. There's no apparent reason why "traditional review" would be threatened by having an unbound approach to criticism any more than representational artwork has been threatened by modern art.
I think we can say that something is a "bad review", in so much that it's content is worthy of well reasoned ridicule, showcasing things such as internal inconsistency, or a poor understanding of it's subject matter. My argument, in a nutshell, is that running afoul of an individual's personal limitations they have set on what a "review" is supposed to be, isn't enough evidence, on it's own, to call it bad. You can, at most, say that you, personally, don't like it.
Going back to Duchamp's snowshovel, it's a different thing entirely to say that it's "bad art" vs. simply saying that you don't like it. Perhaps, an easier example to relate to is music. You may not like a lot of music, but that's a different thing entirely from stating that it's "bad music", which implies that others should agree with your assessment based on rational conclusions you've drawn.
Internet culture, in general, is constantly guilty of not observing this distinction, which is the root of the debate about anti-intellectualism. There is simply a grossly inflated sense of importance attributed to one's preferences, vs. the impact of making actually well reasoned arguments. Fwiw, reviewers, also, contribute to this error, which often leads to a justifiably poor reputation amongst critics.
In summary, not liking a review, because it prioritized ideological content, doesn't mean that it's automatically a bad review, even though we may label it that based on how well it's premises or content holds up to scrutiny. However, when scrutinizing the arguments made by the author, the scrutiny itself must also hold up to scrutiny, in a way that is consistent with logic and reason, and does not boil down to self-justifying preferences.
To revisit your car analogy, concerning leather seats, I'm not sure we could call your hypothetical review bad, purely for basing itself on issues of animal rights, any more than we can call my previously cited film review of the Lone Ranger bad, for focusing on the issues of Native Americans. It's a difficult thing to judge the relative importance of anther's ideology, or it's relationship to art, without proper disputation. As a thought experiment, I'd turn the example on it's head. How serious of an issue would a manufacturing component of the car have to be, before it should dominate reviews of the product, perhaps excusing omissions of things like how it handles? So long as an answer is possible, we have the thread of a potential justification for advocacy journalism, which is where the article in question is coming from. Again, that doesn't mean it's a sound read.
I think, that you might think that I'm arguing something I'm not.Hair Jordan said:
I'm not arguing that a reviewer absolutely can't touch on a subject relevant to a thing (be it a game, a movie, or a car). I'm just arguing that a reviewer shouldn't exclusively review one part of a product, as if it's in a vacuum.
What I'm arguing is a review that'd look something like this,
would clearly be classified as a bad review (I mean it doesn't even touch on the thing it says it reviews). And petrolheads would be in their good right to be miffed, because calling that a review of the Porsche 911 is false advertising at best, and plain old lying at worst.Porsche 911 reviewed said:
Now I must make it absolutely clear.
I'm not saying, nor have I ever said that reviewers can't touch on a subject that's relevant to the product (or work of art). I'm just saying that to call it a review, it must actually analyse the product (and if the writer thinks writing about gameplay is boring and they'd rather write about the implied politics exclusively, there's nothing stopping them from calling it an Editorial or an Essay).
I'd argue that it depends on the severity of the perceived issues, and the perspective of the journalist. That "review" potentially wouldn't be appropriate to a gearhead's website, and would generate a lot of distaste, but if it were published by PETA (who reviewed cars for some reason), I can't imagine a review reading much differently.MrFalconfly said:
To someone that cares very deeply about animal rights, it's an appropriate review.
At this point I'd argue that logic isn't relative. It's technically not a bad review. For someone that is deeply concerned about animal rights, it's factually accurate and well reasoned. It's just extremely, extremely....extremely....not appropriate to your taste.
I think gaming culture is just anti pseudo-intellectual. Death of the author apparently means that you can projectile vomit whatever bullshit theory you have all over any form of art and somehow you are supposed to be revered as a mighty philosopher or intellectual. I think maybe that concept is what gaming culture disagrees with. To say gaming culture is anti intellectual is to assume the other side is the one that is intelligent.
Sure you can call it a review, but you aren't reviewing the car.Hair Jordan said:
I mean this is misleading.Porsche 911 reviewed said:
While this
actually makes sense. You know what you're going in for, and you aren't left with the feeling of "what did this have to do with a Porsche 911?!?".the leather industry reviewed said:
I think by saying "you aren't reviewing the car" you're making an assumption.MrFalconfly said:
If a person, hypothetically, cares about animal rights more than any other facet of automobiles, then no other features of the car are going to be relevant if this overarching concern sits in violation. All of the relevant information they need will be given to them simply by telling them that the car contains animal products. The "car" has been reviewed, once it's been stripped of all irrelevant data.
It's important to note here, that we're taking the concept of "reviewing" to the boundaries of it's logical extremes, not unlike when people create gibbering performance art which is usually incomprehensible or unintelligible, outside of, supposedly, a very select few people.
We're essentially creating a very, very - very - specialized tool of understanding that will only be useful for a small handful of machines, at most. You cannot, technically, however say that it's a useless, or broken tool, in the same way that you cannot, technically, call it a bad review. For it to be bad, in the academic sense, it has to create some kind of logical error.
It just doesn't have any use to you - in the same exact way that countless works of art are also, probably, irrelevant to your life.
Edit: I think part of the reason this, hypothetical review, contrasts with the one I cited about the Lone Ranger is that there's not much room for interpretation here, which leaves a rather robotic, tiny-sentence review. A similar review of the Lone Ranger could have said...
-terrible depiction of Native Americans
...and been done. However the author expanded this idea to lend more credence to their interpretation. However, there's not much to "interpret" about seats containing leather, so we get a small, absurd review. It's not the type of thing you'd usually need a review to tell you. The essential content, however, is the same.
It's not an assumption, because you are by definition not reviewing the car, if you review the leather industry.Hair Jordan said:
Also, I'm firmly against the idea that "someone else will probably do it properly, so it's fine if I'm a lazy bum and just write about leather" is a good reason to pontificate on one exclusive component on a piece of art as if it exists in a vacuum.
EDIT:
I mean if some bender writes "reviews" for Top Gear Magazine, and thinks cars are boring, then I feel confident in saying that, that reviewer has got the wrong job.
But they're not reviewing the leather industry, per se (keeping in mind that it's your wording here, we're discussing the "essence" of your review, so let's not get caught in semanitcs), they're reviewing the seats - which are in the car.MrFalconfly said:
If we allow ideology into reviews, in opposition to journalistic objectivity and neutrality, this lack of neutrality will allow us to hierarchicalize components of the car based upon this ideology.
In a strict ideology, where concerns are "dealbreakers", we can remove any other concerns below them as irrelevant.
What you have left, are the seats, which get reviewed. Through this harsh ideological lens, the seats ARE the car.
You'd to do one of two things here, I think, to make this a bad review. You'd have to either
1.) invalidate the ideology
or
2.)invalidate the review's arguments
EDIT AGAIN: I think it's important here to focus, a lot, on point 1, because it hasn't been mentioned much, because, personally, I'm trying to stay away form discussions of individual ideologies.
But I think this is the part you're looking for. If ideology makes such a harsh criticism like this valid, your point of attack is the ideology itself. Obviously, however, this extends beyond the confines of the review.
The criticism from my example very much was of the leather industry, and the only link to the car was the seats (or just the general interior).Hair Jordan said:
And I don't think we should allow ideology into reviews, exactly because it causes reviewers to not review relevant components of art, simply because they don't take issue with it.
EDIT:
It is this kind of "dealbreaker review", which I take issue with.
It's not really a review. At the most it's an editorial, because it doesn't actually review the thing.
EDIT:EDIT:
What I meant to say is that, it's fine for the reviewer to use their ideology to review the thing. What I'm not fine with, is the reviewer using their ideology to get around reviewing a thing.
"We want to review games politically", isn't a good reason to avoid gameplay in reviews. That to me just sounds like laziness, and that they wanted to review other things instead of game which require them to actually review the game mechanics.
This is a fantastic Poe. I am absolutely unsure as to whether you actually believe this, or are making fun of people who claim it. Well played.Ubersupersloth said:
As to the OP, there are definitely people who do not want critical analysis of games to be part of the conversation about games. Whether that embodies a general anti-intellectualism; a desire for a gaming "safe space" (no one better point out racism or sexism in my games or provide consumer feedback as to the thematic elements of a game); the idea that some of these people are simply kind of dumb and attempting to tie individual idiocy to a group as a whole; or something else entirely.
But really, without any solid numbers (and I haven't really seen any solid numbers), it's hard to tell. Because, just in America, we're talking something like 160 million gamers. So we're going to have pretty much every race/gender/religion/etc. playing. But no real way to tell if those who don't want analysis are a key component, or just a standard category. Personally, I analyze the hell out of pretty much everything I watch and play, but that's largely because I simply enjoy doing so. I know many who have zero interest in analyzing anything they watch or play, ever. Does that make them anti-intellectual, or just personally intellectually lazy?
TL;DR Vocal anti-intellectual elements haven't been quantified as a clear enough percentage of gamers, and particularly relative to anti-intellectual consumers of other media to really be able to tell. I suspect over time, we'll get sociologists desperate for theses for their Masters and Doctorates and maybe get some info on it.
More in-depth analysis could take many forms, to be fair. I could completely believe something more positive or neutral (read: not a vitriolic, ideologically driven political slam piece... And preferably not classed as a "review") could be considerably more favourably received by your average gamer (whatever that means).Belaam said:
Don't you think? I mean, if we're using this as the example, the quality(which has been called into question many times) and the tone surely matter.
I know it's a long thread, so I'm going to try and not repeat too much of my other posts, but there's a difference between disliking something and disagreeing with it. Disliking things is a statement of preference.Toast B.C. said:
I dislike beets, for example.
Disagreeing with things is a statement of reason.
I disagree with communism.
Disliking communism would never be enough evidence to discredit it as a philosophy, while disagreeing with beets is essentially nonsense.
The basic issue, concerning anti-intellectualism, is two-fold.
The first major issue is that preferences are often substituted for arguments. The second, is that even when arguments are given, they're often unsupported or illogical, with no clear avenue of ultimate support.
Take your last statement.
"There is a lot of room for intellectual discussion about video games. A product review, is not that place."
This is a thesis. You do have a supporting argument preceding it...
"If I am looking to find out if a game is going to be worth my time to PLAY, i don't want to come to someone and hear about their philosophical hang ups."
This, however, is a personal preference. If I'm, hypothetically, of the mind that "game reviews" need not be free of ideology, you've merely stated your preference towards me, from my point of view, in an argumentative framework. You've done nothing, ultimately to invalidate my hypothetical point of view, which we can assume the author shares, which means your thesis is totally unwarranted. In other words, you've tried to invalidate the author of the article, for everyone, based on the weight of your personal opinions, alone. Regardless of the topic or issue at hand, debate, in this manner, is not well reasoned.
It is, however, extremely common, and is no way limited to video games. This thread quickly became about the article in question, but it was never the original subject, as I understand it. That was reserved for the responses, cited, from the gaming community. Keeping that subject in mind, a discussion about anti-intellectualism isn't so much about expressing disapproval itself, but how that disapproval is expressed. Does it follow the intellectual tradition and contain well reasoned arguments? Attempting to drastically redefine the understood framework of what is reasoned debate can be argued to have a strong anti-intellectual bias, particularly if the substitution stands to promote one's views without the need for justification.