Tiny Diggers – An iPad Construction Truck Game for Kids Age 2-5

A few weeks ago, Clint Hocking, Splinter Cell and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory designer and writer, noted David Jaffe’s (God of War producer) response to a less than stellar review that Gamespot posted for “Calling All Cars”.

The point of contention? That Gamespot lowballed him when other reviews were much more favorable. Jaffe then responds in detail to a lot of the criticisms in the review. But that’s not really what I wanted to mention. What I wanted to address was Clint Hocking’s call for what he calls “game criticism”.

we need more game criticism to counterbalance the overabundance of game reviews. The reality is most reviews are just spouting off the same old crap that is being repeated on 100 other sites anyway. If some of these sites would switch over to providing in depth analytical criticism instead of reviews, guys like us wouldn’t need to get our hair in a knot over a review at all.

I must say that I agree completely. I’ve always tried to view our reviews here as more along the lines of movie reviews. Truly bad movies get one star or one half star. Excellent movies will rate four stars. Here at Aeropause, I’ve always tried to treat our “Aeronaut” system in the same way as movie reviews. Three “Aeronauts” doesn’t mean it’s a horrible game, as a six out of ten would mean at Gamespot. It means it was merely an okay game that some people may find entertaining.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to truly address what Clint Hocking is saying because he doesn’t really give any exposition as to what “in depth analytical criticism” is and exactly how mainstream reviews are lacking it.

It makes me wonder if there are any mainstream reviewers that could be considered true game “critics”? The closest I can think of would be Tycho at Penny Arcade. He certainly has a way with words, but his gamne “reviews” always end up digging a little bit deeper than any other reviews. That, and he is also unabashedly opinionated. He likes what he likes and he is always true to his own sense of enjoyment.

Contrary to what one might think, it is this state of being hyper-opinionated that makes him one of the LEAST biased reviewers in the industry. There’s an almost Objectivist mentality at work there. “What is the value of this game? Does it entertain me? What others value is of no concern, only what is of value to Me as the individual.”

Yikes… I need to lay off the Ayn Rand essays for a while…

The point is that whether or not a game has inherent “value” or “worth” to YOU can be easily measured by how enjoyable YOU found it to be. However, some might suggest my job as a “game reviewer” is to discern the value of a game or concept to others besides just myself. Naturally, as a video game connoisseur, I will likely have opinions that are similar to many of you but, the differences are also noteworthy. Gabe and Tycho love Kingdom Hearts. I simply can’t stand it, nevertheless, I can see that behind those obnoxious Disney characters is a game that I’m sure many of you would find to be worthy of your energy and time.

So, which is the correct path? Pure, unrestrained opinions based solely on what I believe to have value, or that strange nebulous realm of trying to guess what others might like and enjoy.

To go back to movie reviews, I believe the vast majority cling to what they alone find to be worthy. Whereas, the bulk of game reviewers seem to base their reviews on what they think the rest of the industry is going to do or say in response, which I believe is Clint Hocking’s point when he says, “The reality is most reviews are just spouting off the same old crap that is being repeated on 100 other sites anyway.”

Thus, the call must go out that we as game critics need to be true to our own blasted opinions and biases. Yes, that will draw a lot more ire and criticism from our readers, but ultimately, that can be a good thing, too.

So, in the words of Shakespeare, “This above all: to thine own self be true.”