A locally known literature critic once addressed my Creativity Theory class in a very interesting talk on the subject of criticism. It is probably the only thing I agreed upon in the entire class (and to show, my grade for this class was a C-). What he said was very simple : You can't kill Mozart.
What he meant by that is that even if you do a scathing criticism of someone's work, they'll push on through and become great with or without your help. This echoes what a former editor for Solaris, a French language sci-fi/fantasy magazine said as well, in that anyone who gives up after being refused once wasn't ready to become a writer.
A trend in gaming media is that reviewers rarely give a numerical note that goes lower than 7 on 10, which remains a 70% average which is still quite good for all the flaws they find in those games. Many feel this is a failing of the numerical system, in that it cannot accurately convey the reviewer's thoughts on the game. I, however, feel it fails in another manner.
Let's face it : Numbers will never be able to tell what the reviewer thought of the game. We should not expect them to do so. Gross misuse of a 0-10 scale is something that is as much a failing of the scale than those who use it. A truly horrible game getting a 5 is doing a disservice to the game as well as the media, about as much as an overhyped game that simply didn't deliver getting a 9 or even a perfect score because it was overhyped. We get why they do so as it's been accurately depicted on Bitmob (a simple search with the journalism tag will show you), but at the same time, why aren't we doing anything?
Am I saying we're too soft on games? Yes and no - after all, not everything is terrible, and hyperbole will soon demolish anything you may have tried to do. In addition, anyone who thinks something is terrible on the internet can easily be dismissed as a "hater", with all the lost credibility that comes with being branded with this term. We can probably be a little bit harsher, however. If a feature is bad, we should not sugar coat it. If the graphics are terrible, we should say so. If the gameplay is awful, we should note why it is. If the story makes no sense, then we should rip into it (that one, I find, is overlooked so much that it makes the creative side of me shrivel and die in excruciating pain.)
It's funny, the courses with my worse grades are those that I took the most out of, as my Television Writing course (a C+) was also the source of this pearl - "If something you see on TV does not satisfy you, write the network. You'll be surprised to find out that they actually care." This is something I find we do not do. We consider ourselves critics, but the people who would be most interested in the criticism can simply ignore it as it does not come to them. Of course, companies with official forums can sometimes sift through the fecal matter and find a jewel of feedback. Not all companies have those as they can be a pain to manage.
Naturally, there's a way to do everything, and an angry letter will never accomplish much. A calm, collected e-mail detailing why you did not like a particular game may do better in the long run. I just ask that you have played the game beforehand, as otherwise it'll be all awkward and you'll look like an idiot. The thing is, while some of us fancy ourselves critics, this is an act that even your standard consumer can do, and should do.
With the web supposedly helping creators and consumers get in contact with each other, I'm surprised this very simple democratic act is so rarely done. Should we storm the inboxes of all developers and publishers with our righteous anger? No. However, instead of just posting on Bitmob that something about a game is bad, you can also get in contact with the developer or the publisher who would probably be interested (ranging from "not very" to "extremely") in what you have to say, if you say it intelligently.
