Shawn Elliott posted to his brand-spankin’ new blog a discussion with other members of the gaming press on the subject of reviews:
Prior to departing 1UP.com, I prepared two sections for a symposium that never got off the ground. Newsweek’s N’Gai Croal, WhatTheyPlay.com’s John Davison, and I agreed to generate questions for eight episodes.
I see what he’s doing here and at the same time praise and damn his (overcomplicated) study of the reviews process. Essentially what he’s doing here is not related to reviews at all, but analysis of the reasons why human beings are subjective by nature. See, that is why we have favorite reviewers for all types of media. That is why I trust a Roger Ebert film review more so than a Peter Travers one, or a Jim DeRogatis review more than, um, some other person at some other outlet…sorry, my music tastes have lapsed AC (after children). Hell, it’s why we had a friggin’ opinion about Ebert’s replacement on At the Movies (Michael Phillips was my choice, by the way). It’s because of the flavor each individual adds to their writing; otherwise it’s just a series of gramatically-correct, probably-way-too-advanced-for-my-understanding words on a page or website. There’s writing, there’s creative writing, and then there’s creative writing in the world according to [insert critic here].
“How much is on our minds before we begin playing any given game for review purposes? Will we imagine a range of probable scores that a heavily marketed, highly budgeted, and hugely anticipated game will get?” What do I do when I find a wallet on the sidewalk? Do I hold the door for the person behind me? Do these questions define what makes a better review or just a better person? And most important, are these answers even important?
I grew up in Chicago, and therefore on Siskel and Ebert. Ebert was always my favorite because, well, the Sun-Times is in tabloid format and easier to carry. Seriously, I always found Ebert to be a better writer. Although Ebert is the one with the Pulitzer, he always dismissed that argument by saying the Tribune’s format didn’t give Siskel’s abilities the room they deserved (Ebert’s reviews were always represented in essay format; Siskel’s in digest). But most importantly, I read Ebert because I felt he agreed with my sensibilities. From pre-teen to post-college, I rarely knew Ebert the Person, yet I still thought this. Why? Because of what I gathered from his writings and reviews. When he liked or disliked something, he said why. He gave examples. He gave anecdotes. From those, and over the course of 20+ years, I learned to trust Roger Ebert as much as I did my own parents. Maybe even more so.
Reviewers are so wrapped up in the formula they get lost in it, and I think that’s the real problem. Everything else is what it is, and as what it should be.