Whither are the RPG reviewers? We've had 30+ years of this hobby/industry and yet we can't seem to get reviews that are elevated past the fanboy stage. Yes, I am biased in what I expect from a reviewer because I did do the whole Opinion Editor thing while in college, and a big part of that was fostering people to write reviews that were more than "this is my opinion, suck it!" Opinions can be bad, wrong, poorly informed, and even poorly articulated. Yes, everyone has them but that does not make them right. You know?
I look at comic websites like Comic Book Resources (link) and I see that, while in a similar geeky milieu to gaming, they manage to rise up put together a decent body of review. Mind you, I'm not calling for the New York Times level of quality (although that would be nice) but RPG reviews need to really to elevate themselves. The leading RPG site on the internet doesn't come close to the level of quality that sites like CBR or even Newsarama achieve. Even those sites are not perfect.
Now, it isn't like there aren't bright spots in RPG reviewing. SJ Games' Pyramid has always been the "gold standard" for reviews in gaming. This is something that I never made a secret of, even when I was actively posting on gaming "related" message forums. I think that RPG reviewers across the internet, particularly those at sites like RPGnet, could learn a thing or two, or three, from going back over the body of work from Matthew Pook.
Now, this is a completely different effort from a body of critical thought for gaming. As bad as the bulk of RPG reviewing tends to be the attempts at "critical" thought on gaming is even worse. I would like to see someone who is well grounded in Art and/or Literary theory (and by this I mean actual scholastic work in these fields and not some "well, I am an academic" person who thinks that they can do that sort of work) start to create a body of critical thought for RPGs. Yes, there is some out there but its really misguided attempts by people who think they know better about tackling the field. A shame really.
None of this is an attempt to get people to "convince" me that I should be doing these things. Yes, I can do both reviewing and critical writing but I'm not often moved to review something these days and while I would be interested in seeing critical work done on RPGs at the same time I'm not convinced of the real need for it. Really, I think that for design purposes much of the time a more solid grounding in the history of game design would serve most designers better than a critical overview.
Think of this more as a call to arms. I want to see reviews being done, and I want to see them being done better than they are. You are a reviewer and not an entertainer, while you do have to hold the attention of your audience you are not a replacement for the entertainment of the experience of gaming. Get in. Give us your opinions, explain them and rationalize them if you can. Get out. There is no need for fiction, no cutesy tricks with inserting the reviewer into the review. And for Pete's sake there is no need for hundreds upon hundreds of words. Editing is your friend. Be concise and make your point, and then get out. As a reviewer you are not the end destination.
Maybe, though, it is time to put my money where my mouth is and put out a few reviews myself here.
