I want to read critiques, not reviews.
Public.icon
"It's impossible to change the mindset of those who are already steeped in the conventions of the industry, so I'll only say this to young people and hobbyists: A review is when you evaluate a product based on its various merits and flaws and determine whether it is good or not. So just because a game has a metascore of over 90 doesn't necessarily mean it's a masterpiece.
Reviews are delivered according to the standards set by each media, so there is a certain order to the standards set by each media. Critiques, on the other hand, are written by individual authors to position works in culture or art history. They don't talk about scores or playing games on weekends.
The two are similar in nature, but fundamentally different. For example, as a critic, I would be troubled if someone said a game was good just because it had a high metascore. I only want to do work for people who understand these differences.
"The act of scoring (review, evaluation) and whether something is good or not are irrelevant."
A review is like grading a report assigned to a student based on certain criteria and giving them a grade. Criticism, on the other hand, is an act of trying to put into words what something is, whether it's a work or a phenomenon. They are completely different in nature.
The reason for this is that "I'll give you points for doing this technique without making any mistakes" is a story about scoring in sports, and Art criticism is not something that can be set up with scoring criteria in advance. That's what game media doesn't understand. Because discussions tend to happen within the frame, pinetree1981 says "I want to read criticism ".