PARA QUE SERVEM OS CRÍTICOS

Toda a gente devia compreender isto.

“Critics exist for another reason - they are not barometers of success, not even predictors of my enjoyment in a film or game. They contribute to my understanding of a particular film in a larger context; they write one side (or really, several sides) of the dialogue I will have about the film. They point out what's interesting even in a shitty film and I can either agree or not. I enjoy reading my favorite critics - Anthony Lane, Susan Sontag, and yes, my dear A.O. Scott - even when I have little intention of watching the film in question. Their essays are self-contained and of interest on their own. They, too, contibute to the world of film.

That is the element that is missing from mainstream game reviews, with some very small exceptions. It's rare that I feel like reading a game review about a game just to deepen my understanding of videogames as a whole. I know that is not the reason most people claim they read game reviews; but it is mine".

O resto do texto está aqui.

O crítico de cinema João Lopes já tem explicado isto vezes sem conta, mas a maior parte das pessoas continua a insistir que os críticos – de cinema, de música, de videojogos – devem existir exclusivamente num horizonte de “serviço ao consumidor”, explicando se vale a pena comprar ou não um produto cultural, e numa perspectiva maniqueísta de estar “certo” ou “errado”.

Quem fica a perder são, sobretudo, os leitores.