The journalist Mikhail Klimentov of the Washington Post publishes an interesting discussion on videogame criticism, from the importance of the modalities in which it is exercised to the aspects related to the relationship with the public.
Klimentov’s in-depth analysis starts from the assumption that, unfortunately, “Something broke in the process of writing video game reviews. What is the ultimate purpose of a review? Nothing more and nothing less than offering the reader a key to answering the question of whether or not a game is worth playing. certain title and whether the latter really deserves to carve out a slice of its limited time on this Earth “.
The editor of the Washington Post then goes into the merits of the causes that, according to him, are widening the distance between readers and the opinions expressed by sector journalists: “The one in the reviews is a a task that journalists perform in different ways, although in the end it can all be summed up in two schools of thought. The first includes the editors who try to give readers a general picture, weighing the words with discussions on gameplay, history and various characteristics such as longevity. In the second we then have journalists who try to enlighten readers, giving them new tools to understand a game or providing them with further food for thought. But both of these approaches are damaged by the way reviews are written nowadays. “.
In his article, Klimentov illustrates all of the criticality of the current system deputy to drafting reviews and the problems journalists have to face in order to provide the most comprehensive information to their readers. The “breaking points” reported by the author of the Washington Post are many, but they mainly focus on the management of embargoes. According to the Washington Post reporter, the tight deadlines on embargoes that publishers and development houses often apply to their upcoming titles negatively impact the quality of the writings of industry critics.
Furthermore, for Klimentov, videogame criticism would be affected by this problem also due to the embargoes on the analysis of the increasingly numerous videogiochi open world (with the example offered by Far Cry 6), that is, products that are impossible to fully dissect if not after dozens of hours of gameplay. The other aspect to take into consideration, for the signing of the WP, is then that linked to the limitations that some embargoes impose on “sensitive” aspects of his works to avoid spoilers, such as the final sequences or the most important events of the plot: however, these factors determine the success of interactive experiences strongly centered on the narrative, hence the misunderstanding that could be created in those who read insights that do not provide clarification on these specific aspects.
He discussed this and many other aspects Francesco Fossetti in the last broadcast held on the Twitch channel of Everyeye.it to continue the discussion on the analysis of videogame criticism among reviews, opinions and controversies.
If you are interested, at the bottom of the news you can see the recording of the last intervention of Fossa, as long as you are subscribed to our Everyeye Twitch channel. Those who want to support us can subscribe on Twitch for the price of 3.99 euros per month or for free through Amazon Prime. Replays of our Twitch broadcasts are no longer available on the YouTube channel Everyeye on Demand, but the video archive remains online until September 2021. Subscription to the Everyeye channel also guarantees access to VODs and exclusive channels Telegram and Discord of the Everyeye Horde, with further insights and opportunities to interact with the editorial staff and the community.