Continuing on from the discussion on Chuck Klosterman's game criticism article, there's actually a good, detailed piece by veteran journalist John Scalzi, discussing the ever-complex issue of games, criticism, and game criticism.

Lots of good points here, but here's just one: "The current generation of video game reviewers are primarily reviewers, not critics. Which is to say that the reviews are aimed at telling readers whether a game's play is worth shelling out $50 for, and not about the cultural and aesthetic context of the game and why it is significant in that regard."

However, he continues: "This is not a problem. Reviewing tends to be thought of as the idiot cousin of criticism, but as someone who has done both, I reject this interpretation, because it's jackass stupid. Reviewing a game with an eye toward its playability, the enjoyment it gives to the consumer, and its simple overall fun factor is entirely valid." Yes! Smart!