James Pugh recently wrote an article I suggest you read, about whether reviews should be personal, or merely a buyer's guide. I fall, as I assume most bitmob readers do, fully on the "personal" side of things. As my favorite film critic, Jim Emerson, is fond of saying, "no movie is seen, or made, in a vacuum". I would like to tweak that just a smidge, to "no game is played, or made, in a vacuum" - you can't write an honest review of a game without putting something personal in. Otherwise, as Mr. Pugh put it, your readers could just read the back of the box.

Dude - this game is gonna rock!

Which brings me to my main point, about emotional reactions to games. It would seem a lot of people are a bit dismissive of such a thing, they think that perhaps playing a video game is more akin to a "sport". These are the same people who bring up the tired "are games art" debate. Games have been around long enough, and studied enough, that they have a history and legacy, much like film. Obviously they haven't had the time to evolve in the same manner, over more than a century, but the internet has a strange effect of consolidating time and culture.

My favorite reviews are ones that take this legacy into account (see the reviews of Jeremy Parish on 1up.com for the best of these). But, invariably, the comments below these reviews espouse the dismissal of context, and request an "unbiased" review. Let me tell you, this is flat-out stupid. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" review - what you're thinking of is a press release. I realize comments sections on most sites are cesspools of the vilest denizens of our communica-sphere, but this ridiculousness is so widespread I can't help but think it needs to be fought.

Your average internet commenter.

A knowledge of history is vital to having an emotional reaction to any entertainment. A (good) film wouldn't have the same resonance without a viewer's knowledge of the history of both film and the world, and neither would a good game. A new Mario game, a new shooter, a new any type of game resonates because we understand its roots, the leaps and bounds its predecessors made, and can contextualize it in that way. It's the reason you can play a game from your youth, and your reaction and appreciation for it can completely change. A fourteen year old who plays a new platformer isn't going to appreciate it as much, or on the same level, as a thirty or forty year old.

When a new Metal Gear game comes out, a first time player might appreciate the humor, the flawless control, the incredible mechanics. They might even be annoyed by the endless cutscenes. But if they haven't played the NES classic, the PSX classic, or the PS2 classics, they simply can't have the same nuanced reaction. But don't think it only applies to sequels - the same could be said for Braid. Having not played the original Mario games, one wouldn't have the same visceral emotional response to its compelling remix of conventions.

This game is flippin' brilliant...

This is where I think games journalism has the most room to grow. There are hundreds of places, and people, who discuss film with the respect and scope it deserves. There are only a handful (that I have found) that discuss games in the same way. New Games Journalism is a good start, and I sincerely hope enough people think games warrant this kind of treatment to keep it going. I wish we could just do away with the god-forsaken scores entirely, and force the masses to actually read the articles. For now, I'll just avoid comments sections everywhere but Bitmob like the plague.