Wow. I don’t know how much managed to get to 2,000 posts without distinguishing yourself as a massive douche before now. Good effort, though.
That’s not what you asked. You asked if Roger Ebert complained about poor reviewing standards. Answer: Yes.
Also: what’s with the quotes? I get that you don’t like the word, but Elliot is using it correctly.
Seriously?
Er…discussion of the state of film criticism has been a perennial topic of discussion by film critics and everyone else involved with film for decades, and film, film related academics, and film criticism are a significantly more mature field than their equivalent in video games. See also self examination of criticism/philosophy/editorial ethics or quality and quality in music writing, news journalism, sports, food, wine, theater, any industry that can manage to generate a distinct class of commentators/observers/critics.
I like the word just fine. It conjures the image of great minds meeting in Greece, ruminating about matters political and philosophical over amphorae of the finest vintages.
I am also a fan of irony.
The quotes are for the literal-minded, of course. Never let it be said I am without consideration for my fellow anti-elitist videogaming proletarians! Who’s up for a game of Wii Fit?
That’s funny, because failing to play the game with any thoroughness is exactly why the majority of all DW6 and Bladestorm reviews utterly missed the mark in both a factual and an editorial sense. They expected more of the same from Koei, and when they got something different, instead, it’s obvious that a lot of writers just went ahead and ran with the “more of the same, c” story they’d already written in their heads - exactly like you apparently would have.
Amphorae are wine jugs, not wine itself. It’s like suggesting my coffee mug is a fine brew.
If your major exposure to the word comes from Wikipedia I guess.
For people from an academic background it’s a lot more mundane and unthreatening a word, no worse than seminar or convention or conference.
After realising I was reading Doug’s posts in my head with a kind of ‘Ralphie’ voice, it occured to me that this thread is a lot funnier if you think of Doug as an alt account for Shawn.
“mugs of the finest local brews”
“Vintages” is a perfectly acceptably term when used to refer to wine. I should know!
Really, if you wanna try and lecture me about grammar or usage, keep it to PM.
That’s not really what I’m on about. It’s that if a guy says he’s listened to the CGW/GFW podcast and honestly can’t pick out Shawn Elliott from the crowd, he clearly wasn’t paying that much attention to what was being said at all.
I like Sean Molloy and Ryan Scott, didn’t much care for Darren, but I wouldn’t have really blamed a guy for confusing the two. I mean, their voices were pretty different as were their gaming tendencies, but they were both pretty laid back and didn’t often get into heated discussions with anyone or lay out a lot of hard opinions. I could see people not really being able to tell them apart from one another and the same goes for guys like Jeremy Parish or Nick Suttner or even Matt Chandranait.
But if you’ve listened to the 1up podcasts with any regularity, especially 1up Yours or the classic GFW Radio, and you’re going to tell me that you couldn’t pick out guys like Luke Smith or Shane Bettenhausen or Shawn Elliott, guys with really strong personalities and a lot to say and a tendency to dominate the conversation (even to the detriment of the show, at times) then you either weren’t listening or are a liar. I donno which one you are, guy, but you’re not really worth paying any more attention to.
I wondered exactly the same thing. He’s been here since 2002 and only now goes nova.
I guess the silicon chip inside his head, etc…
…oooor if you’re a humorless QT3 twat distressed over perceived blemishes on their golden calves, as it were.
He knows his own mind, and isn’t looking to the community for validation. He practices what he preaches, and is offering commentary for the puposes of elucidation, not justification. You REALLY think Roger Ebert cares what the community thinks of his critical style?
I guess I’m giving you more of a chance because I really want to know why this bothers you so much, and to me you’re not being very clear.
So you’re saying that Shawn Elliott and the ten reviewers he’s doing this whatever-you-want-call-it don’t know their own minds, look for validation, never practice what they preach, and not just justifying themselves?
As for Ebert, the amount of time he puts into responding to comments about what film criticism ought to be and the humility (“How many of these have you broken?” Ebert: It’s been a long, strange trip) makes me think that he does care, but I’m guessing that wasn’t as big a point for you.
Look, I can’t speak for any of those people, but let me tell you why I like the idea. I like the idea because with music, books, movies, or (it seems) just about anything else, you can end up having a variety of conversations about them; they can be childish, they can be simple “this is what I like what do you like” kind of conversations, and they can be critical and intelligent conversations. The latter type doesn’t exist for games to the point where you could talk about it like that with a new person you’ve met who plays games; talking about games critically is extremely…oh, how do I put it…unpublic.
Most published games writing doesn’t give room for that. They’re trying to figure out why and perhaps what to do about it. Why does that bother you? Do any of those 10 writers not write enough for you? They spend plenty of time talking about the damn games–the only possible exception is Hsu, and even he wrote a few items for Crispy recently.
What golden calf am I distressed about, exactly?
How about a guy who didn’t find said “strong personalities” saying anything terribly interesting, and fast-forwarded to the bits that WERE interesting?
Well, you’re certainly distressed, and this is a thread about the folks that are generally regarded as the critical voices for and of this hobby. Do the math?
So you just listened to Jeff and never listened to the responses.
Were you pantsless at the time?
Should Jeff be terrified?
(Jeff, you should be terrified.)
It’s interesting that you like Jeff, but no one else. Yet Jeff is here in the forum sticking up for the very guy you’re attacking.
You’ll listen to what he says, but not what he writes, eh?
I’m actually a LITTLE concerned that y’all find these podcasts so memorable. They aren’t exactly This American Life (or even Kevin Smith) – they’re background noise, by and large!
As for Jeff, I don’t necessarily agree with him – liking his style of delivery and agreeing with him wholesale are two very different things. I’ve fast-forwarded through plenty of Jeff’s chatter, too.
Seriously, though, this thread has become a referendum on Shawn Elliott fandom. If we’re gonna go down that sad and sticky path, what’s the appeal? Seriously! Link me to an awesome article he’s penned or sumthin’.
I’ll bite: what are the problems currently plaguing games reviewing?
You mentioned “reviewer didn’t play the game all the way through”, which I actually don’t think even makes it onto my top 10 list of problems with game reviewing, assuming the reviewer actually played the game honestly for a “reasonable” amount of time, where “reasonable” is dependent on the game and the reviewer. But, I’m not a hard core gamer, so I don’t value the completionist thing very much.
Anyway, what are peoples’ lists?
Chris