Game discourse needs game history!

If we are going to look at games as art, there are lines to be drawn. We already subconsciously draw these lines. We trust certain reviewers over others, especially in genres we love, and disregard those less engaged or knowledgeable. This isn't always about the reviewer's skill or expertise; we may disregard genres they do not like or have shallow engagement in, under the assumption we probably won't like it either due to aligning interests.

When games are looked at as consumer products, these opinions and words are worth listening to. Some games are unfairly criticized, others unduly praised, but these subjective opinions are acceptable in the context of purchasing decision. However, many reviewers don't finish games and operate under tight deadlines for maximum engagement, which can skew their perspectives.

The issues crop up when these reviews are taken to be the final arbiter in a game's overall worth. OpenCritic and Metacritic are going to average out these scores, and it's going to stay as it is for eternity., turning initial reviews into gospel. Reviewers may then produce analytical pieces reinforcing their original stance, often catering to their inner circles with safe criticisms or politically charged commentary, whatever earns them brownie points for the week.

The issue is that many journalists lack the knowledge and skill to fully understand a game or its intentions. Their limited grasp of gaming and franchise history further skews their analyses. Without understanding the game's objectives or historical context, critics produce shallow or misguided reviews, homogenizing the "soul" we associate with certain franchises. "By 'soul,' I mean the core intention behind a game, beyond any specific mechanic or idea. Game design has regressed as much as it has progressed. Instead of getting a wide variety of experiences, some are promoted while others are shunned. Heavily accessible experiences are further promoted while several difficult genres are ignored indifferently or criticized for their lack of accessibility. This homogenizes the industry and leaves behind huge leaps of progress games have made.

Modern games often iterate on past successes, but the initial ideation part of converting a non-gamified action into a gamified mechanic is mostly lost. For example, classic Tomb Raider games may have clunky controls and outdated graphics, but they capture the essence and complexity of tomb exploration—something modern iterations fail to replicate despite improved visuals.

Games like Planescape offered highly philosophical narratives with extensive role-playing, prioritizing tone and dialogue delivery. While presentation quality has improved over time, it's hard to say the same about the quality of stories.

Elden Ring is praised for its lack of markers and emphasis on discovery. It gets put on a pedestal and called revolutionary while games like Gothic and Morrowind had done better more than two decades ago. The over-reliance on markers became prevalent due to reviewers themselves promoting them, leading to a state where their absence is now celebrated.

Elevating game design requires understanding fundamentals beyond current trends. This demands active engagement with games, competence in their mechanics, and historical knowledge to appreciate their evolution.

Gamers, rise up.

Gamers with knowledge and understanding have taken the cause into their own hands and are now doing great work through YouTube and blogs. And unlike journalists, they are mostly driven by pure passion. They are you, and you are them. Step up and good luck brothers/sisters!