Criticism

Someone once said that we are all critics.  That gross overgeneralization of the human race was spot-on — we really are.  When it comes to anything at all, we have — or can quickly form — an opinion on it.  Not only that, but we quickly move from the opinion stage to the critic stage, whereupon we levy our gavel of judgment and deem it good, middling or “teh suck”.  When aliens discover the remains of our civilization millions of years from now and dig into the backup files of the internet, no doubt they will realize that everyone refused to shut up about everything.  And they will thank their lucky stars that the plague of humanity — forum trolls along with them — are gone for good.

So thought #1: we are all critics, of varying degrees.  Thought #2: some of us make a genuine effort to back up our critical nature with structure — analysis, comparison, testing, counterpoints, discussion.  Depending on the level of commitment, the craft of criticism may become so finely honed in a few that being a critic becomes, in and of itself, an art form.  They get very, very good at judging things — usually a specific field of things — and due to that expertise become trusted and well-known among the general populace.

Don’t guffaw too loudly, there.  It’s true.  Like most everything, criticism is easy, but great, thoughtful criticism that is shared in a coherent, well-structured way eludes the grasp of most.

Thought #3 (and I’m going somewhere with all this, trust me) is that criticism can come in a couple of flavors: objective criticism, subjective criticism and a blend of the two.  Thought #4 is that there is purpose for both types of criticism.  Being objective means that the critic attempts to divorce him/herself from any personal bias — a viewpoint that attempts to begin as neutral and progress toward a final judgment based on a wide variety of commonly accepted factors as to what is good and what isn’t.  Being subjective means that the critic begins the review from a very specific viewpoint with a personal history attached, and proceeds to cover the material and form a judgment, trusting that if you know him or her well enough, you can figure out if your tastes coincide or not with what they’re saying.

Many critics I know, myself included, go with a blend of the two.  There are parts of criticism where it’s very natural to shift toward a neutral stance to talk about the game’s history, how it relates to others in the field, and solid Facts of the Case.  Then there are parts that beg for a relational response — how did I feel while playing this, what did it make me think of, why did I like or hate this based on not only my current experience but every game I’ve played leading up to that point.

For the most part, everyone is okay with this style of review.  In fact, I’ve heard a lot of folks comment that they appreciate reading MMO blogs versus more “professional” games journalism because we don’t have to worry about being overly subjective when we feel like doing so.  The readers know we’re not holding ourselves back out of worry that we’re not being fair by misrepresenting all of the sides of the topic.

In my experience, the only time people get up in arms over criticism is when they deeply disagree with the judgment of the critic.  This often happens when the offended party is deeply in smit (as in, being smitten) with whatever is being examined, and for some reason we just cannot abide someone telling us that something we like is crap or that something we loathe is radiant.  The offended party, feathers all ruffled (and I certainly have had mine ruffled, no exemptions here), will often attempt to refute the criticism.  This is fine, as long as they stick to what was being said, but terribly often there’s a need to make it personal.  And the first step of doing that, of taking the fight to the critic is to attack the critic’s integrity.  How do you do that?  By saying that they weren’t reviewing it right.  That they were being too subjective or too objective or that they didn’t play it long enough or didn’t establish a mind meld with the offended party to experience the game as they did.

And really, that’s all silly.  In doing this blog, I’ve done a lot of criticism (and let’s be clear here: “critisism” doesn’t imply a bad opinion, just one full of critical thought).  Some of it was as thoughtful as I could muster; a lot of it was off-the-cuff brain farts.  People don’t always agree with what I say, and I don’t always agree with what commenters and bloggers say either.  Sometimes we talk about that, bandy the topic back and forth, but I try never to take or give it personally.  When it comes to any hobby, there’s always a huge variety of schools of thought, otherwise there would only be one source for all information and reviews, with everyone else nodding in agreement.