There is a problem in games writing.

It’s part of a larger problem, a need to be taken seriously as writers and critics in the public sphere while writing about an artistic medium that’s largely seen as the province of “gamers” and children, but writers and critics are constantly putting themselves at a remove when writing about games. It’s as if they don’t want to be seen enjoying a medium they feel is “childish” and anything other than a hot take will get them branded as pariahs or worse, “gamers.” Often, the result is absolutely wild takes that have no basis in anything that goes on in the game.

This includes writers who complain that Hades II isn’t serious enough and that it’s lacking in grandiosity, people who believe inexplicably that Aaron Paul was phoning it in in Dispatch and the player choices don’t matter, and those who seem confused that they even have to engage with the game to review it. The choice to tear something down is seen as more important than actually meeting the material on its own terms and exploring what it has to say.

It’s an odd way to approach anything in a medium, by taking it too seriously and judging each work within it in ways that have very little relation to the text. Imagine if other art critics had to first position themselves antagonistically to the medium and to the work’s more immature qualities as a whole before addressing the work, elevating those that “transcend the form” and punishing those whose work doesn’t meet the lofty standards of “high art.” Taking points off in a scoring rubric just because the book was the wrong genre or didn’t discuss the themes you wanted to in the exact way you prefer.

You have to accept a work on its terms to criticize it, to understand what it is and isn’t interested in doing before you decide to tear it asunder. Complaining about a game’s “mismatched themes” only makes sense if the themes are actually mismatched. Randomly assigning higher ideals to the work so you can tear it down easier doesn’t make sense from any perspective.

Granted, to take a game seriously, you have to criticize what you think are its failings. No work is perfect and some are less perfect than others. “Turn off your brain” and “let people enjoy things” are fine for regular conversations, but in the critical arena such things are best left by the wayside. If something fails at what it’s trying to do, you should say so, and openly.

But to hold games to some ridiculous higher standard rather than meet them on their own terms, and punish them for failing to live up to it? That’s not criticism, that’s as childish as these writers treat the medium they’re criticizing.

Are game writers taking their work too seriously to the point of doing the medium a disservice, or are they not taking it seriously enough? Please share your thoughts with us on our Boss Rush Facebook Group or our Boss Rush Discord.

Featured Image: Adhoc Studio

---

Boss Rush Gamescast – A Gameplay Review and Discussion Podcast

Boss Rush Gamescast is the gameplay discussion show from Boss Rush. Every other week, a panel of hosts and friends from across the internet take a deeper dive into the games they’ve been playing—featuring light spoilers, fun segments, and great conversations. New episodes drop every other Tuesday, with Patreon members getting early access one week in advance.