The Guardian article I cited earlier today doesn't just highlight the fact that innovation is penalized in game reviews. As most of you said, a game shouldn't "get a pass" on poor technical execution just because it tried to be creative.It may be that we could be a little more forgiving toward new endeavors because, as the Guardian said, something being done for the first time is far more likely to be sloppy than an old-hat formula that everyone's had over a decade to iterate on.
But that aside, a main reason that this obsession on hardcore mechanical issues bothers me is also that it illustrates the massive divide between "us" -- the sort of folk that play a lot of games, immerse ourselves in the culture around games, and read blogs like Sexy Videogameland -- and your average consumer, who when playing Mirror's Edge would probably be unlikely to notice the same things you do, and who may actually (gasp) be more interested in something different than something perfect. The IGN review of Mirror's Edge, for example, would not only be impenetrable to the average gamer, but it would also not necessarily predict his or her experience.
Anyway, my Kotaku feature for this month is up today, and it continues the discussion on the difference between the average gamer and the fanatical culturist. No, not the difference between "casual" and "hardcore," but the often disorienting fact that what we think of as a "gamer" actually represents a very small subsection of the vast community of real-world folks that enjoy video games.
I used music and music journalism as a parallel -- bonus points, by the way, to Kotaku commenter Dan who knew I was talking about Wolf Parade's At Mount Zoomer. Thanks Dan, and of course it's no Apologies to the Queen Mary (and if Spencer Krug wasn't already married or at least I think he is, I'd want to marry him almost as much as I want to marry Paul Banks, okay, geekout over).
So yeah, article. Check it out, please!
