The Reviews Symposium, Part I

Some of you know I've been participating in a "reviews symposium" led by Shawn Elliott, John Davison and N'Gai Croal, and consisting of a number of venerated writers from various facets of reviewing and game criticism among whom I'm flattered to be invited.

I'll be honest, because I've said as much to my fellow participants -- I'm kind of not so sure what the ultimate aim of the symposium is or what end, exactly, it's intended to serve, but it is an interesting discussion among us about the issues that concern the work we do. And again, honestly, I don't see that we have discussed much about our issues that hasn't already been talked about at length and in a circular fashion by both ourselves and our audience, and it remains to be seen whether some of our shared questions can be answered definitively -- but the symposium's just getting started, and I'm excited to see where we'll all go together.

There looks to be a long process ahead of us, but I know it's the first time in my limited experience that I've had the chance to put heads together with long-lead critics, traditional print reviewers, and cross-disciplinary writers, like myself, Stephen Totilo and others included.

We've just concluded the first section on review scores, and we touch on the perils of exclusive reviews, too. Shawn's just posted the entirety of the symposium's first section on his blog now for everyone to share. Warning: There is quite a lot of text, but if you're interested in the subject, I suppose this is your definitive resource.

I actually sort of dislike the sound of my own voice on the subject. In the latter part of this year, somewhat frustrated and burnt out of the workload I'd taken on, I vented my spleen here at SVGL probably with more vigor than I'd like against the fashion in which others review games. I still think our critical vocabulary is insufficient and our approach to evaluating games is both too limited and too antiquated, in general -- but I feel as if I should have responded to that by doing my own best work, and not by complaining about the work of others.

I actually almost declined to participate in the symposium because I felt as if I was sick of hearing myself talk about these issues at all, but it was such great company among which to be invited that I couldn't refuse! Discussing with peers is better than whining into a vacuum, after all, and ultimately, I'm glad to be on board with these folks, appreciate their experience and insight, and am interested in the audience's reception. Let us know your thoughts.

Tweet