By Pentadact

Rob: Greg's right, Tim's wrong. Journo infighting puff piece.

" PC Gamer has a response.

STFU noob! "

It's beyond me why anyone ever stuffs crap like this into their pieces - even if it's carefully and pedantically layed out in some basic ironic manner, it never conceals the obvious fact that the writer (in this case Edwards) is barely able to conceal his bile for whatever he is talking about, and in an attempt to make light of it and parody the target, it backfires and ends up neatly summarising the style and gist of the piece itself.

Good game reviewing is game criticism. Buyers' guides are best left for mass media like GameSpot and IGN.

Jason L: 'Greg's right, Tim's wrong ... here, let me repeat Tim's position since I agree with it.'

What?

ImperialCreed: I'm in the PCG camp here, for the most part. I know this will sound semi-elitist but Greg might have a point where console game reviews are concerned, or reviews on the likes of Gamespot. It always seemed to me that the stuff in PCG (as opposed to the likes of one of those PS mags) was a bit more intellectual and cerebral. Certainly of a higher overall standard and much more entertaining to read.

The man just writes like he's never read a game review in a professional publication his entire life, and whatever validity there might have been to his claim is now lost in an angry sea of his own making. Pillock.

Rob: Jason: this'd be erring on the semantic, but I was repeating Greg's position.

Greg's making the distinction between reviewing and critiquing (as much as I completely agree that they way he does it is wanky and outdated). Tim's disagreeing with that distinction, sort of (basically saying there is no distinction). Tim's more wrong in the way he says what he says, I think.

Whether they both really agree is upto them to meet over a pint and discuss.

That aside, re-re-reading Greg's piece, I have this creeping feeling that the "we need our Pauline Kael" nonsense was kicked around a year or years ago, on the exact same topic. I just can't remember who was saying it last time.

HERE IT IS!: http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0706KLOSTER_66

Chuck Klosterman. Disagreed then, disagreed now.

And Kael is vastly overrated.

Martin: I'm not sure what your point is, Rob. Are you objecting simply to the manner of Tim's argument than its content?

Costikyan's assertion that there is a necessary distinction between a review and criticism is absurd. No, really: it's totally barmy. These are not mutually exclusive things. If F. R. Leavis concluded "D. H. Lawrence: Novelist" with the sentence, "Oh, and maybe you should buy read some of his stuff. 9/10" the preceding seven chapters wouldn't suddenly cease to be criticism. Consumer advice is just something that magazines choose to do - it does not prevent other levels of commentary from occurring.

In fact, Tim's use of "STFU noob" rather neatly illustrates the point that an elegant argument is not erased by the presence of a couple of crass words, or, indeed, a score.

If Costikyan had simply bemoaned the fact that there's *not enough* high-minded analysis of videogames, he'd have a point. There is high-minded criticism out there, he just ignores it for rhetorical purposes.

Rob: I and most others agree with Tim when he talks of game criticism being anything it wants to be. The best of it always has been. But like Greg says, there are those pieces that don't offer any constructive analysis or subjective opinion, and merely attempt to create a list of features, or whatever, and then grade things and draw a conclusion about it being a decent product. I don't agree that there's a place for writing that does nothing more than this. Or at least, there is, but it's not going to be at all progressive and useful.

Then there are criticisms which do all the lovely freewheeling things we've grown to love about videogames journalism, and yes, some of them can be buyers' guides by virtue of this fact.

That doesn't mean there's no distinction between the two styles.