The world is full of bad critics. After all, it’s the easiest thing in the world to just sit down at the keyboard and bash away at somebody else’s work. Hurling invective and pointing out the appalling shortcomings of whatever you’re reviewing is fun and produces amusing copy if you’re good at it, the kind of copy that keeps readers interested and coming back for more cheap laughs at the expense of some third party. All too often I see criticism written as a kind of mutant insult comedy.

The problem is that while writing that way can certainly be fun (Yahtzee over at the Escapist has made it his stock in trade), it betrays the very conceptual underpinning of criticism. The reason a critic writes a piece is to give his evaluation of some subject to his readers to help them decide if they might want to try (buy/drink/read/whatever) the subject for themselves.

In theory a good critic derives credibility from his ability to organize his thoughts and explain his opinion on the subject of his review. Distilling a mass of unfocused thoughts and opinions into a concise, comprehensible format is the essence of writing critically, and the ability to do it well is the mark of a skilled critic as opposed to some jerk with a keyboard and Net connection.

In order for an opinion to mean something, it’s important for a critic to explain the reasoning behind it. “Fantastic Four was a lousy movie” is a bad review. It’s just a simple declarative without any indication of why the writer feels that way. “Jessica Alba’s wooden acting made Fantastic Four a lousy movie” is much better, though exaggerated for comic effect. The second example is much more useful to the reader because he now knows much more about the basis of the critic’s opinion.

Another important element of good criticism is balance. Obviously there will be times when something is transcendentally good or abysmally bad, but the vast majority of the time there will be good and bad points about any review subject. I like to see at least some attempt to talk about the bad points of a good product and (perhaps even more importantly) the good points of a bad product.

The reason why the latter is so essential is that is perilously easy and fun to just trash something, writing poisonous and mean-spirited prose more or less just for the ego trip. Not only is this shallow and unhelpful to the reader, it’s disrespectful to those who created whatever is being reviewed. Whoever they are, they may have made some mistakes (perhaps even a lot of mistakes), but they still put forth the time, effort and money to produce something, and the least they deserve is a certain level of respect for that.

This is why my standard review format has a Pros and Cons section. I customarily do those first to help me organize my thoughts. It’s a useful discipline to be required to fill in those blanks, even if it does leave me sometimes reaching to find a “pro: for a bad product or a “con” for a great one. I think long and hard before putting “None” in either of those blanks.

As for the Final Verdict scores, the use of numeric ratings is a hotly-debated topic among critics. Some reject it as an artificial device that forces them to pigeonhole their opinion. Some like it because it’s a simple way to crystallize the basics of a review for the reader. I’m in the second camp (obviously) but I certainly have sympathy for the opposing viewpoint.

When determining what score to give a product, my personal philosophy is to be stingy with the extremes of the scale. To earn a five a product must truly excel in every way. Something I really like merits a four. Something worthy of the all-time best list rates a five.

Conversely, to earn the dreaded one takes a special lack of achievement. Not just bad design, but bad conception, bad execution, bad production values, bad everything. A bad game or poorly-sculpted mini gets a two. An unrecognizable or defective mini gets a one. Infamous Neo-Nazi RPG Racial Holy War gets a one (for bad game design, not just the evil, insane politics of its author.)

Regular readers of the site may have noticed that I give out a lot of 4s. That’s because it’s early in the life of the site. I’m mostly reviewing favorite stuff from my personal collection that I feel is worthy of sharing with the wider world. As time goes on and I start getting more review copy submissions (knock on wood), I expect the score curve to flatten out a bit.

This has rambled on enough for now. I hope this look into my personal philosophy of criticism has been interesting. I certainly value comments and (gasp) even criticism from readers.

Popularity: 4% [?]

No related posts.