2065: Some Thoughts for Critics

Hi critics of the world. I’m going to try and keep my anger in check today, but I’m making no promises, because this heap of crap from (once?) respected critic Jim Sterling was brought to my attention earlier today.

I don’t want to dwell on Sterling’s piece specifically too much because, to be honest, there’s even less substance there than there was in Mike Diver’s piece for Vice UK a little while back. Instead I want to talk about a more general philosophy that I think would be of benefit to everyone: critics involved in the industry, PR representatives whose job it is to get the word out about their clients’ games, the developers and publishers of said games and, of course, the various audiences who are interested in all the different types of games out there.

It’s actually a pretty simple philosophy, and it would go a long way towards preventing me from ever having to write another post like this, which, to be perfectly honest, I would be very happy about.

It goes like this: if you’re not going to give something a chance, I’d rather you simply didn’t cover it at all than spew ill-informed nonsense.

It makes perfect sense, surely: you don’t have to write about something you personally find repugnant/offensive/boring/unengaging/rubbish; PR representatives don’t have to look at the pipes in their ceiling and wonder if they can support the weight of a dangling human body; developers and publishers get their creative efforts into the hands of people who will actually respect their work, even if it’s not “flawless” (and nothing is flawless); and audiences aren’t belittled by people branding things they enjoy with pejorative statements.

You’d think it’d be that simple. You’d think that, with all the diversity in the modern gaming landscape, that supposedly respected critics like Jim Sterling and Mike Diver would recognise that something like Senran Kagura 2 is not going to interest them in the slightest, and, rather than posting provocative nonsense on the Internet about them, which only has the effect of riling fans up and cementing the attitudes of the prejudiced, they would simply move on to something that they are willing to engage with, that they are willing to explore in detail, that they are willing to do justice to.

Because coverage such as the pieces from Sterling and Diver recently — and God knows, there’s a bunch more of crap like this out there — helps no-one, not even the critics themselves. In demonstrating a clear unwillingness to even attempt to engage with a work they find personally objectionable, they undermine their credibility in the eyes of people who are interested in it. Note: this doesn’t necessarily mean that the people who are interested in it like it — there are plenty of Senran Kagura fans out there who prefer the Vita and PS4 games to the 3DS installments, for example — but rather, it just means that the critics in question become someone whom those audience members will not trust the opinions of in future.

As I say, this is easy to do. I don’t like Call of Duty and Battlefield, so you know what? I don’t talk about them at all, except on the occasions where I’ve decided to give them a try just to ensure that I really do dislike them and I’m not just against them because they’re popular. I don’t understand in-depth strategy games — I wouldn’t say I dislike them, because I’m often enamoured with the concepts, I just don’t “get” them — so, you know what? I don’t talk about them, either, because I can’t do justice to them. I don’t like Dota 2, so you know what? Of course you do by now.

The only reason that critics like Sterling and Diver put out pieces like they have done recently is to get a reaction. And it pisses me off that it works. In an ideal world, we would be able to ignore this sort of thing, and I would love to do that, but as I’ve commented previously, the world we live in right now means that it’s important to call attention to bad practice like this, because there’s not enough in the way of high-profile good practice to counteract the damage that bad critics like this are doing. Sure, there are sites like Niche Gamer, Operation Rainfall and the like who give this sort of thing a fair chance — as well as following the eminently sensible idea of having specialist writers rather than generalists attempting to cover everything and doing justice to nothing — but their reach is still limited compared to more well-established, profitable, commercial sites like Vice and high-profile Patreon beneficiaries like Sterling.

As I said before, it’s important to fight. I’d love to see outlets like Niche Gamer and OpRainfall grow into sites that can truly compete with the big boys, but I can’t help thinking before that happens there really needs to be a dramatic shift in how content is produced for the Web, and how people pay for it. Because it all comes down to clickbait; Sterling’s piece today is provocative nonsense, pure and simple, designed to rile up the Senran Kagura fanbase and allow those who dislike Senran Kagura the opportunity to laugh at their expense. And the only reason he felt it was appropriate to publish this — much as Diver thought it was appropriate to publish his pile of crap the other day — is because it would get people to click on it. Well, great job at being a critic. Ebert would be proud.

To summarise: if you don’t think you can do justice to something, or feel unwilling to put in the effort to engage with something on anything more than a superficial level, do us all a favour and don’t cover it. There’s plenty of other stuff out there that needs your attention, so rather than wasting everyone’s time — including your own — how about putting your critical faculties to use on something you’re actually interested in?

Just a thought.