Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Katamari Damacy - A Critique 89

Beth A. Dillon writes "In this Game Career Guide feature, Katamari Damacy — A Critique: Part One, Ryan Stancl argues for game criticism in part one of a three part series on Katamari Damacy, this week featuring Biographical and New Critical forms of analysis." From the article: "Video games now, more than ever, need to be not just reviewed, but critiqued, because of their negative image in the press, in politics, in the general public, and quite simply because they are so ripe for critiquing. Games aren't just for kids anymore, and it's not because of the sex and violence. Over the next few weeks I will be introducing you to eight schools of criticism - Biographical, New Critical, Marxist, Structural, Jungian, Psychoanalytical, Feminist, and Post-Colonial - giving a little history behind each, and showing how they can be used to critique the video game Katamari Damacy for the PlayStation 2."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Katamari Damacy - A Critique

Comments Filter:
  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Friday September 15, 2006 @01:54PM (#16115116)
    I can see the intellectual exercise of critiquing a game according to any number of schools of thought. What I don't get is for whom is such critique necessary?

    The gaming audience isn't really interested in anything but a straight review. Your politicians aren't interested in anything beyond general conversation about the negative effects of games.

    Maybe your soc or psych professor wants to hear about it, but I doubt there's anything to say that hasn't been said before about games.

    I don't mean to be down on this, but it just seems like an utter waste of time and effort. There just doesn't seem to be a payoff here.
    • by TopShelf ( 92521 )
      I think they're trying to justify some post-graduate study grants or something. It seems like there's a new article here every week trying to establish game reviews as a new field of socio-artistic critical analysis. *yawn*
    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)

      by UbuntuDupe ( 970646 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @02:05PM (#16115205) Journal
      No way, we *really* would stand to gain from some Marxist critiques of Katamari.

      "When you roll over items and get bigger, that's like how capitalism squashes the little guy and gets bigger and more powerful..."

      "Deep stuff, man."
      • It would actually yield a lot more than that if the author stuck to one type of critique and extended it for several pages, instead of expending so much effort explaining the critique and then throwing out two superficial paragraphs, or a bunch of quotes, to apply it to the game. He writes as if nobody is familiar with these styles of critique (common in English programs, if not necessarily among the Slashdot crowd), but more troublingly, he writes as if no one has ever critiqued games before (which is fal
        • Oh? English majors learn how to make these kinds of critiques? Well, excuse the hell out of me. I would never question the judgment of a McDonald's cashier!
          • Looks like I hit a little too close to home for one moderator. Sorry man, a Literature PhD doesn't entitle you to a job better than that of a fry cook.
            • by Benwick ( 203287 )
              Seriously, I'd rather chat with an educated fry cook than a closed-minded geek. !Viva las hamburguistas!
      • No way, we *really* would stand to gain from some Marxist critiques of Katamari.

        "When you roll over items and get bigger, that's like how capitalism squashes the little guy and gets bigger and more powerful..."

        Hmm... You work like crazy to keep from being squashed like a bug, and if you work really hard, your reward is to get to work even harder. Yeah, sounds like capitalism (or at least the Marxist view of it) to me.

        Oh, and see how the King of the Cosmos is a direct reference to both monarchy and r

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I think you're looking at it in the wrong way. While I think that "critiquing" is complete bullshit, there are intellectual types who enjoy looking at "art" "poetry" and "music" only because of the "critiquing" While I don't mean to portray them in a negative light, but they are the same types of people who will exclude some things as art poetry or music simply because it "isn't intellectual enough", meaning that it hasn't gone through the critiquing, so it must not be "high level art."

      You get the same kin

    • i could see the point, but i think its being way overdone here.

      people do care about stuff beyond simply what comes out of the black box company. it'd be nice to know more about the background and production. for example, if i would be much more willing to buy game X from a company who treated its programmers well. i would pass on game Y that treats their programmers like dirt. it might be a little more expensive, but i'd think of it as worth it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Peganthyrus ( 713645 )
      Why is it necessary for there to be deep, nuanced critique of books, movies, or music?

      The "gaming audience" and politicians may not be interested in this sort of criticism, but there are people who want to make games, or want to think about them on other levels besides "GAMEPLAY: 8/10 GRAPHICS: 10/10 MUSIC:3/10 OVERALL SCORE: 95%!!!".

      Insightful criticism can help reveal ways of approaching the medium that are not immediately obvious from a simple viewing. Some creators will take inspiration from this sort o
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Couldn't the same be said of literature as well? It's a good book if it's just "fun to read" or "draws you into the story"? Well, those are certainly important aspects of literature, and if that is what you get out of a story, great. However, it's always more interesting to dive deeper.

      I was once very apprehensive about the validity and utility of critiquing literature myself(it didn't help that I had an extremely arrogant roommate who seemed to think that studying literature was the only truly "hard"
    • by Shadows ( 121287 )

      I saw this argument every day in college: I can see the intellectual exercise of critiquing a book according to any number of schools of thought. What I don't get is for whom is such critique necessary? The reading audience isn't really interested in anything but a straight review. Politicians aren't interested in anything beyond general conversation about the negative effects of books. Maybe your professor wants to hear about it, but I doubt there's anything to say that hasn't been said before about books.

    • by prell ( 584580 )
      Why do anything? Why make art? Because you care. And what you said doesn't come from that place; it comes from a place where people give up and worship the status quo.
    • I think that perhaps you are painting with too large a brush. While it may be true that a lot of the gaming audience isn't interested in anything other than a normal review, I think that there are a number of people who are bored with normal reviews that just discuss graphics and bugs.
      While it very well may be nothing than metal masterbation, most reviews are little more than press releases. Who is to say one is more or less worthwhile than the other? I think that is a question we each have to answer for
    • I think the question you're opening up here is not, "Why would anyone go to such overexaggerated critiques for videogames?" but more, "Why would people go to such overexaggerated critiques for anything?" Such masturbatory criticisms are usually written for a specific audience - for people who like to read critiques. Naturally, those people want to see such things for everything...
  • by revlayle ( 964221 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @01:55PM (#16115129) Homepage
    "Woo, tangent."
  • by nebaz ( 453974 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @01:58PM (#16115146)
    Clearly the King of All Cosmos represents the "man", screwing up royally, and making the Prince (mouse sized) fix his mistakes, by creating a bigger and bigger ball of the proletariat. This clearly glorifies bailing out the powerful, sticking it to the little guy to rectify the mistakes of 'the man'. The message of the game is 'be a good little consumer'. This game should be banned at all costs. It is just the man keeping us down.
    • And don't forget the extreme violence in this game, what with the crushing of people and the wrecking of buildings and the giant sticky-ball-induced carnage. Quick, someone inform Jack Thompson!!!

      It's a video game. It doesn't need to have any hidden social contexts or vast theologies or anything else of the sort behind it. If the creator said that he wanted to make it because he thought it would be insane amounts of fun to do exactly what is done in his game, that's enough of an explanation for me. If

  • not just reviewed, but critiqued
    Help me out here: what's the different between a critical review, a review by a video game critic and "critiquing" something?

    (Maybe the last one is performed by a French guy?)

    • For TFA:

      "There is a clear distinction between a review of a work - a movie, a book, a piece of art, or even a video game - and a critique of one. Movies, literary works, and pieces of art all have critiques written about them all of the time, so why not video games?

      It may have to do with the fact that a lot of people still view video games as for children, that games don't really have anything to say, any depth to them.

      But whatever the reason (I'm not exploring that issue here), video games are made b
      • There is a clear distinction between a review of a work - a movie, a book, a piece of art, or even a video game - and a critique of one.
        Th' author who penned this trash stated thar be a "clear distinction" an' then utterly failed t' explain th' distinction. He employed a sophomoric convention: make a bold statement an' then hope yer audience be too cowed t' question 't. Ya swabbie!
        • It's unfortunate that you couldn't take the time to state that originally. I stand by my original comment: read first, then post.
          • Quit yer girlish whinin', landlubber. This topic`s old news anyway; find somethin' current. Ya horn swogglin' scurvy dog!
  • See Mom? (Score:4, Funny)

    by RobK ( 24783 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @02:03PM (#16115193)
    I told you that a liberal arts degree wasn't a waste! Do you know where my McDonalds shirt is?
  • > "Video games now, more than ever, need to be not just reviewed, but critiqued, because of their negative image in the press, in politics, in the general public,

    Yes. Subjecting Far Cry to deconstructionist critique is the sure way to gain widespread public acceptance.

    Let's all talk about fracturing Katamari Damacy along it's natural fault lines and reading the subtext underneath it! It'll be so much fun!

    The author has clearly either run out of reasonable things to think about, or is still in or has ju
    • Video games are creative expression and are a depiction of the creator's impression of society, just like any painting or book or movie. Games are perhaps the most philisophically deep medium of all time since they are designed to challenge our physical bodies and mental abilities at the same time, all the while placing us in a state of suspended disbelief while we control someone who is not ourselves. That's a pretty tall order!

      Don't take video games for granted. They're pretty amazing when you think
      • by bunions ( 970377 )
        I think you're giving video games a little too much credit, but it's not video games I have an issue with, it's the idea that anyone except your graduate advisor gives a shit about your Marxist critique of X or your masterful grasp of Derrida in your insightful paper on Y.
  • by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @02:11PM (#16115262)
    ... is, is it FUN?

    If a game doesn't have that, it doesn't matter what philosophical, political, biological, cultural viewpoints it presents.

    --
    Game Design is about the unholy trinity: Abstraction, Logicalness/Consistency, Convenience
    Unfortunately, far too mamy players are argueing about the wrong thing, usually the red herring of realism. If you favor realism over abstraction, you have a simulator, not a game.

    • Bang Bang (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Benwick ( 203287 )
      Well, think of it this way: if you see Grand Theft Auto: Vice City as a satire, you'll get a real kick out of it. If you see it as an indoctrination into a life of crime, you may be wary that other people are playing it. An in-depth critique of the sort the author seems to want to apply could shed some light on the matter, and perhaps determine the creators' intent, or whether GTA:VC is "a good thing" in terms of the goals of one or another critical community (e.g. Marxists, who might take issue with the
    • by Hahnsoo ( 976162 )

      Unfortunately, far too mamy players are argueing about the wrong thing, usually the red herring of realism. If you favor realism over abstraction, you have a simulator, not a game.

      Although it's easy to point to the "fun" litmus test to determine whether or not a game is reviewed, fun is a subjective and abstract concept. For some folks, realism IS fun... there are many hobbies which take pride in the details (model ships, amateur rocketry, etc.) and gaming is broad enough to encompass the realism and att

  • I've got only one real argument with this guy's point about why games need to be critiqued. A game should be worthy of critique rather than review. For example, critique of Katamary Damacy might be intellectually stimulating for the writer and fans of Katamary Damacy, but the game itself does nothing that deserves critique. It's the equivolent of critiquing Zoolander.
    The point of videogames is almost solely as entertainment, and there's very few games that go beyond that. A game like Shadow of the Colos
    • A game like Shadow of the Colossus would merit critique in opinion because it creates a unique universe, with mythology, and presents classically inspired questions of the nature of heroism.

      And Katamari doesn't?

      Okay, maybe heroism doesn't play a large role, but KD is as unique a work of art as anything on the market. It has a visual and music style all it's own, and a gameplay mechanic that focuses on actual playing rather than military simulation or violent conflict. These factors alone make it worthy of e
      • by PMadavi ( 583271 )
        Katamary is definitely a unique entry in terms of concept. I agree with that. The gameplay mechanic is simply exploring, and becoming efficient at exploring. In that sense, it's really not different than a lot of the violent, or military simulation games that you allude to. I don't really see where's there a lot of depth in the game itself. It's interesting solely because it's unique conceptually, not because there are layers in the game itself. Still, you're right that the differences themselves are
  • There really is only one measure of a game. That is the profit to the manufacturer.

    All soci-whatever-isms are taken up by the market behavior.
    End consumer, store positioning and "culture reaction" are all taken in by the final sales.

    Wether the game feeds violence, care-bear-ishness or whatever.

    • Games are important in different ways to different people. You've focused on their place in the economy which is a perfectly valid viewpoint. Others see them as a way to relieve stress, to be told a story, to be social with their friends, or to improve their own abilities.

      You've accurately pinpointed the relevance of video games and given your own opinion on the matter. You've critiqued video games. Therefore you've disproved your own argument.
  • by ucaledek ( 887701 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @02:26PM (#16115376)
    I disagree with the above posters. I remember when the slashdot community got in a big huff each time Ebert questioned the status of videogames as art. Guess what art does? It gets critiqued. Literature, painting, theater, sculpture all do. Recently(the past few decades) have seen movies and, to a much lesser degree, television have become viable subjects of critique. So why not video games? Not all games are purely entertainment to occupy your time. If they were, the majority of games would be the simply puzzle games like solitaire and their ilk, games that most people it seems on slashdot scoff at as "not real games." Games usually tell a narrative whether obvious or not. Myst wasn't just a set of puzzles disconnected from each other. It was a series of puzzles that both helped unlock parts of a story and were part of the story themselves. Another, perhaps less obvious example, is Contra. You're not just a "thing" with a gun shooting other "things." You're a commando fighting soldiers and aliens. Level progression tells you you're fighting in some overall picture. Even without narrative, you like certain games and not others, and I don't mean quality alone. I've liked some 9/10 games and not others. Why? Because of some aesthetic response that merits examining. When we examine games critically we can better understand, perhaps, the mechanics of enjoying a game. Then hopefully, we put that to use and make more enjoyable games. The article in the end I take as a first step towards this aim, though I don't necessarily like its analysis, though maybe because I've always been more of a historical/marxist/political reader when it came to my undergrad thesis.
    • One could deconstruct video games in a marxist light - even simplistic games.

      Take Pacman for example. He eats dots and gets chased, or if he's lucky he eats a big dot and temporarily chases his persecutors. In the end, he is chased again and must run for his life, eating what he can in the mean time. Why does he do this? Because he must! Maybe Pacman is representative of a proletariat activist - he forages in his daily life while dodging his oppressors, but now and then he strategically sticks it to
      • I know of someone who made a pacman-like game in which presidential canidates ran around eating money, chased by the mascot from the other party. Seemed like political satire to me.

    • I agree with you. If games are to be taken as a genuine art form, then they deserve to be studied in the same way that other art forms are studied. Furthermore, I have noticed some criticism levelled against critique of art in general. Critique of art is to culture what pure research is to science. It may not be clear, even to the critic or researcher, what the result of their work will be. That work, however, if properly conducted, should be valued for its own sake. Just as pure research sometimes st
    • Simple example, Let's say there was a game about the movie "Wargame" at first you fight with the computer but slowly you develop a strategie of reconsilliation and win.

      A game like that might have taught Bush a thing or two.

      Hopefully the evolution of your strategy could help you understand existentialism or perhaps just consider the perspective of your adversary.

      Really literature doesn't give answers it asks questions (Unlike the parent poster's game).

      I am a Comp Sci, English double major (Read Sad a
      • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
        A game like that might have taught Bush a thing or two.

        Sadly, very few people drew much in the way of insight from that film, beyond "it's a cool adventure story about a computer hacker." And it's a shame too, because it actually has a LOT to say about humanity and our curious habits. It really is a MUCH better film than people give it credit for.

        -Eric

  • -- Maybe this is all Takahashi thinks is going on, or perhaps this is all he wants the critic to believe is going on, but the truth is, there is so much more - to not only this game, but every work of art out there, waiting for the viewer to unlock.

    If the artist claims there is nothing else going on and the viewer insists that there is something else going on is it not possible that the viewer is creating hidden meanings to fulfill their own desires? Making something of nothing?

    -- The critic then misses all
    • I'd expect lots of hidden meanings. For example, look where long coding hours combined with thoughts of "love for pet bunny" + "maybe I'll get to date a girl someday" led these game coders: http://www.ffinsider.net/ff12/pix/viera.jpg [ffinsider.net]
    • I disagree with your arguments. Video games can be critiqued just like a famous painting or novel.

      If the artist claims there is nothing else going on and the viewer insists that there is something else going on is it not possible that the viewer is creating hidden meanings to fulfill their own desires? Making something of nothing?

      Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings in chapters that he mailed to his children in the army and RAF during WWII. The story is full of war and genocide, yet Tolkien claims his b
    • Your critique seems to argue that the creator is the ultimate source of meaning. However, why should that be the case? Why should the creator be able to tell me that the meaning I have for something isn't valid? How can we even know what the author "meant?"

      Tolkien may have hated allegory, but I've yet to be convinced that Lord of the Rings isn't full of it regardless of what he "meant."
      • Hrm.

        You seem to have said the same thing I did, but you did it more clearly and concisely.

        It looks like you win our little game of one-upsmanship.
    • Yes, the critic is adding meaning to the work that the artist doesn't acknowledge is there - but that doesn't make it invalid. In other areas of artistic endeavor, this is accepted as a particular take on analysis. The idea that the narrative has an existence and a meaning beyond and separate from what the author deliberately intended is the core of narrative theory.

      If you want to get high-falutin', you can think of it sort of like the old proverb, "no man crosses the same stream twice. The second time, it
  • Game theory is still new, but it's an exciting field. I think they have yet to have their breakout text that puts them on the mainstream academic map, but it's still worth looking at the opening page of "Gam3r 7h30ry" [futureofthebook.org]:

    Suppose there is a business in your neighborhood called The Cave(TM). It offers, for an hourly fee, access to game consoles in a darkened room. Suppose it is part of a chain. The consoles form a local area network, and also link to other such networks elsewhere in the chain. Suppose you are a

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bunions ( 970377 )
      > Game theory is still new

      Glad to hear it's new, they won't mind changing their name to something that isn't taken already then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory [wikipedia.org]

      > That's pretty much genius right there.

      That's pretty trite right there, actually. I think pretty much every stoned high school student has thought the same thing at one time or another.
      • Every stoned high school student thinks of a distorted version of the cave analogy because Plato put it into the common stream of Western thought. These kids aren't making it up out the air, they're taking it from the numerous books, movies, TV shows, and other stories that already have the premise of the cave in the back of them when they're made. That said, none of those kids does as good a job of thinking through the consequences of the cave as Plato did, even though Plato came many thousands of years ea
        • by bunions ( 970377 )
          > What's interesting about Gamer Theory is that it's going all the way back to source in order to get its project off on a solid footing.

          So you're telling me that the interesting thing about this is that it's recasting 2000 year old ideas into a modern context? You'll forgive me if I'm not immediately bowled over.
    • "Game theory" is already taken by economics. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory [wikipedia.org] )

      "Gameology" ( http://www.gameology.org/ [gameology.org] ) seems to be about on the same level as "assology" ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ass ology [urbandictionary.com] ).

  • We Live Katamari (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spyrochaete ( 707033 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @02:59PM (#16115627) Homepage Journal
    While I'm disappointed that I have to wait to read the other two parts of this critique, I'm glad it's being posted at all. This is a game worth in-depth analysis.

    One of my favourite aspects of video games is the representation of the real world. Many people are enthusiastic about this aspect of gaming but most don't share my take on the subject. I wouldn't be a Slashdotter if I wasn't wowed by pixel shaders and bump mapping and advanced AI, but what really fascinates me is the artistic representation of reality - the statement made about our world facilitated by creative use of limited resources.

    Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is one of the greatest contenders in this field as its depiction of a fictional California-esque state [generationmp3.com] is totally astounding, replete with buildings, streets, varied geography, natural wonders, rolling landscapes, and all juxtaposed by a pissed-off populace. There's a great scene in Lucasarts' Grim Fandango where Manny Calavera, protagonist and reaper, travels to the realm of the living to collect the souls of recently poisoned fast food patrons, and the real world is quite a ridiculous caricature [gamespy.com] that is completely alien through the eyes of residents of the land of the dead.

    Katamari Damacy is unique in that the protagonists are not human at all, but permanent residents of deep space. To The King of All Cosmos and The Prince, Earth is one planet of millions, but it is not just any planet. The Earth is populated by excitable little people who have absolutely littered their entire planet with stuff [yimg.com], and it is this stuff that makes Earth a suitable place to collect materials to repopulate space with stars.

    Stuff here, stuff there, stuff everywhere! Not only can anything smaller than your katamari be rolled-up and added to the clump, but every collected item can later be examined replete with a concise but innocently baffling description in the limited omniscient of the space-faring royal family. Some such descriptions of the hundreds upon hundreds of ordinary objects and creatures include:

    Coconut Crab -- "A crab with strong claws. It doesn't look anything like a coconut at all..."
    Peach -- "A butt-shaped fruit that is more tasty than butts."
    Faucet -- "Hot and cold water comes out of the same place. We are amazed."
    Loud Momma -- "Her voice is loud and when she laughs, babies start screaming."

    This is why the game is deserving of critique - because the game itself is a critique of urban civilization. It patently points out how much more complex and frivolous and ludicrous our lifestyle is compared to the orderly motion of the galactic ocean.

    Furthermore, this analysis goes to show how effective the game is at alleviating stress! Consider all the things you worry about in a day - the cost of living, pollution, rush hour traffic, long lines, crime, the environment, the fact that you'll never visit all the places you want to see, etc. All these things become insignificant in Katamari Damacy. You needn't worry about any issues - any objects - larger than your katamari until later on because for now they are simply obstacles, and anything smaller is all but an insignificant bump. To The Prince, ignorance is bliss. All that matters is to keep on rolling. Put your frustrations aside, block out all unneccesary data, and just keep on rolling. Just push and push, your katamari grows and grows, and before you know it you're towering over people and cars and buildings and mountains until the very curvature of the planet is a minute detail of the great cosmic tapestry.

    There are a million possible interpretations of this depiction of reality. One could argue that the game is an advocate of Buddhism, declaring earthly luxuries as mere white noise. Or pe
    • There's a great scene in Lucasarts' Grim Fandango where Manny Calavera, protagonist and reaper, travels to the realm of the living to collect the souls of recently poisoned fast food patrons, and the real world is quite a ridiculous caricature that is completely alien through the eyes of residents of the land of the dead.

      Your insight is interesting. What you point to in Grim Fandango and in Katamari is similar to what is called in literary criticism "estrangement" or "de-automatization". Estrangement ha

    • Again I must ask you why we're describing the literary value of this work, you don't need to do that with a painting it's the impression that conveys the message. Games are unarguably experiences and it's those experiences that need to be shaped to convey a message, sadly those experiences often are read this then jump on this :(
  • A critique of this game at this point is pretty far behind the times and not really all that relevant now that there have already been two additional iterations released since then (We Love Katamari & Me and My Katamari). If anything, the sequels are in more need of critiquing than the original. There is much wrong in the sequels that have a direct negative effect over the gaming experience, when compared to the original Katamari Damacy.

    The author should probably start focusing attention on the new "inn
    • The reason he probably chose this game is because it's something that everyone is familiar with, it's off-beat and interesting like any good art, and it's whimsical enough that no one will take it too seriously and get offended by the reviews when he takes on contorversial styles like Marxist and Feminist.

      Incidentally, did anyone else read the New Criticism section and realize that they now had a name for all those hated, pretentious, fluffy critiques that make up nonsense from symbolic manipulation like so
    • The game that really merits critical review is Dance Dance Revolution. By creating a video game with the health benefits of a sport, the designers have made an unambiguously positive contribution to society. Playing FF7 may make you a better person inside, but it's hard to convince people of that if they have preconceptions against games. DDR's benefits are tangible and easy to persuade with.
  • I could go news, and I will HAHA! You thought there was another point of view? Honestly though it's interesting in the fact it's complete bull.

    Honestly you can critique any game this way and find absurd things, but the fact is most games arn't art. People don't labor over every line of code and such these "critiques" are more about the player or critiquer's own opinions on the game. When designing a game there's a vision, but most of the time the vision is "roll stuff up, have fun" "Kill large groups of
  • It's called "pretentious".

    Come on people... they're video games. Escapes from reality. An interactive entertainment medium.

    We don't need those types of critiques for games. Sure, there are literary critiques and movie critiques... but I find that more often than not, critiquing pieces of art can become over the top and obsessed with their own virtuoso. Additionally, what the critics may think is a masterpiece may be trash to me, and vice versa.
  • Is there a Pseudointellectual kind as well?

    Rob
  • If you go actually RTFA, you'd see that he spends fairly little time actually critiquing the game, giving only a few examples of how KD might be critiqued in that style/school. If you, like me, got excited at the post's title, look elsewhere.

"Marriage is like a cage; one sees the birds outside desperate to get in, and those inside desperate to get out." -- Montaigne

Working...