"Sorta Unabomber Manifesto-y, isn't it?"

What, because of the crazy?

I got two paragraphs in before I started quibbling, and stopped when I realised that the author was taking his premise as a given (that videogame news makes it impossible for a critic to work, "critic" here not being defined as "a person who takes apart a work and shows how it ticks" which I understand is the academic definition, and many of whom exist for games, but instead "a person who wants to 'shit on' games" which actually also exists just fine).

And then I realised that there's another premise behind that: that having more critics of the negative kind is somehow desirable. I'm not sure why, and don't want to probe it too much lest a abyss of assumptions reveal itself in front of me. But I can be guided by cliche enough to know that artists don't read negative reviews, hell most people don't give time for the negative, and the overly negative have never had a particularly strong influence over the creative arts. Who cares about Pitchfork reviews? It's a nice dream to think that creative types care about their reviewers at all, but the only thing of lasting value reviewers bring is when they turn into critics of the first stripe - capable of describing the components of a work, what works and doesn't, and WHY. The up-and-comers read the reasons, and they learn from it, and the medium advances.

Apparently, Merus thinks being a critic means leading some kind of self-esteem-building writing workshop.

"Literary journals should be a dam against the unconscionable scribbling of the age, and the ever-increasing deluge of bad and useless books. Their judgments should be uncorrupted, just and rigorous... Literary journals would then perform their duty, which is to keep down the craving for writing and put a check upon the deception of the public, instead of furthering these evils by a miserable toleration, which plays into the hands of author and publisher, and robs the reader of his time and his money.
...
Under the system that prevails at present, literary journals are carried on by a clique, and secretly perhaps also by booksellers for the good of the trade..."
http://insomnia.ac/essays/on_criticism/

I hope the relevance is obvious.

Somehow I knew there was something about how worthless criticism that is not as practised by Alex Kierkegaard is on Insomniac. Thanks for finding that. It's a bonus that it's so deliciously delusional - there's no way I can get where he's coming from without passing the idea that there's a "right" answer as to whether a work is any good. That'd explain his frustration, I guess - it's *obvious* that these so-called "experts" don't know what they're talking about, because they simply never agree! And from there we get the moral language ("it's all a giant fraud!") and the perspective of the critic as a guardian against mediocrity, which thankfully can't happen in reality.

I've changed my mind. I suddenly have time for Alex Kierkegaard's wild and insane objectivist rantings, so long as I keep in mind it's like taunting the Time Cube guy.

(And while I appreciate you putting words in my mouth, Dervish, no really, I think I made clear how I see the critic - as an analyst. This involves taking apart bad things and showing us why they are bad.)

I agree, give permaianan to the audience that there is useful and beneficial elements such as education, sports, playing music, or games that sharpen skills

Sigh. Merus, do you LIKE mediocrity? Do you like being lied to? The reason there should be so much "shitting" is because there is so much shit! Or do you think popularity is the best indicator of quality?

Anyway, of course negative reviews matter--otherwise there would not be such blatant manipulation aimed at avoiding them.

The purpose of criticism is to offer insight to the reader, not give the next dev team design pointers (though they might find the insight useful). Criticism is not about being "right;" it is about having articulate, forceful reasons for whether a work is any good. And since "good" is relative (just as relative as what "works"), passing judgment means RANKING, which means COMPARING, which means having EXPERT KNOWLEDGE of whatever it is you're reviewing so you know if it's been done better in the past.

Grow up, humble yourself a little, and accept the fact that good critics know more than you do, have more refined taste than you do, and have insight to offer. With any intelligence, you'll learn something, see beyond the latest releases, and find better games that are worth playing. Or would you prefer to sift through hundreds of games yourself?

P.S. You are using "objectivist" incorrectly--not that it would apply to AK anyway.

dervish, choke on a dick

Self-declared God's gifts to human knowledge are ten-a-penny, as are enraged little outcasts who depend on thinly analysed block-quotes for their relevance, and - apparently - your pseudonyms, Alex. I paid your one-man circle-jerk of a site a visit, once. I've considered going back - but really, there are so many other writers on offer who can make better points in fewer words (and far fewer invectives) that I fail to see the need.

You're fond of scare marks. Here are a couple more to chew on: "I will do such things - what they are, yet I know not: but they shall be the terrors of the Earth".

Sorry, I can't help myself. I know this is a year-old thread, but the following just has to be highlighted:

"Criticism is not about being "right;" it is about having articulate, forceful reasons for whether a work is any good."

It usually takes me a good three or four paragraphs to trap myself in a paradox, Alex. You've managed it in one sentence. Bravo.