Hi all,

We have just published a OpEd titled *Yes, Game Critics Understand
Innovation*, which talks about some of the recent criticism from the
mainstream media levelled at games journalists following the release of
/Mirror's Edge/. If you could post a link on your site that would be
very much appreciated.

*Link:*
http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2008/12/01/yes-games-critics-understand-innovation/1


*Quote:
*/There’s an argument too to say that it’s the role of the critic to
explain the flaws of the game (even the tiny ones) so that the reader
can make an informed decision, but in this instance I don’t hold much
truck in that. If that were the case then the critic should be telling
the reader that the game is about running away from fights, not that
there aren’t enough fights in it.

I’m both lucky and biased though because I think bit-tech is a site
which does this well, recognising and rewarding innovation whenever we
see it and always giving honest and informed reviews. That’s why we were
able to give Episode 2 a ten out of ten and an excellence award, but
also weren’t afraid to tread the unpopular path and say that Gears of
War 2 was little above a seven. It’s why we’ve only ever given three
games a ten-out-of-ten score since I’ve been here, though many have
edged that line and retrospect perhaps disfavours some others. This
isn't a science afterall.

Do games critics need to understand how important innovation is?
Obviously, yes. More important than that though is the ability to
recognise when something really is innovative (and Mirror's Edge owes a
lot to the chase sequence from Call of Cthulhu from what I've heard) and
the wisdom to recognise that just because something is innovative
doesn't mean it's perfect.

Simply; innovation isn't worth anything if you can't get the basics
right - though that doesn't mean any developers should stop trying!/
*

*Cheers guys!

Tim Smalley
www.bit-tech.net