With the recent tabloid outrage over Liam Fox’s comments regarding the new Medal of Honor, there’s been an outcry in the videogame press about what an idiot he is and how, plainly, he simply just doesn’t get us.

Well, it’s not just us. Guardian columnist Marina Hyde brought her opinion to the issue over the weekend, arguing convincingly that Fox is clearly misguided when it comes to the disgust he reserves for the game. Hyde points out the kind of character Fox is (“a walking Daily Express leader column”)  and quite astutely notes that it’s kind of worrying that the defence secretary is overly concerned with a videogame which features virtual representations of the Taliban: “Hang on – the secretary of state believes a video game is part of the wider defence picture? “Yes, he does,” [says a spokeswoman]. Aha. Are you on the point of seeing why we’re losing?”

If nothing else, it’s just nice to see somebody who isn’t part of the videogame bubble commenting on a game in a way that isn’t condescending, written in ALL CAPS OUTRAGE or contains the words “sick”, “filth” or “tax payers money” 30-plus times.

While not exactly the same subject matter, Andrew Kauz over at Destructoid has written a rather awesome article on the “lobotomisation” of videogames in which he mentions the recent MOH furore: “The Taliban in Medal of Honor does absolutely nothing for the advancement of videogames. It affects the game’s quality in no way, appealing only to those who feel a need to hold signs protesting the release of the game or those who feel the need to mock those protesters to legitimize a pointless inclusion in a videogame.”

I sincerely suggest you read both articles as they equally bring some great points to the debate.

According to an article posted on Friday in the Guardian Games Blog, Mirror’s Edge is getting less than perfect review scores simply because it’s got too much innovation for reviewers to handle. The article by Keith Stuart titled “Do game reviewers really understand innovation?!” makes a few rather interesting claims.

Stuart points out that the game probably wont be getting scores as high as other major titles coming out this season, but says rather boldly that “if it were a movie, Mirror’s Edge would be critically lauded by the specialist film press ‘“ it would be considered a forward-thinking masterpiece.”

His main argument seems to be one of the weight (or lack thereof) given to “innovation” in reviews. Taking examples from film Stuart makes the argument that when a game is being innovative, is it not fair to give it leeway if the innovation comes at a cost to the conventional aspects of games?

For example, no-one complains that, say, Pan’s Labyrinth or Eraser Head lack the formal, easily recognisable narrative structure of a conventional movie. Their aspirations exempt them from that requirement. So should we really be marking Mirror’s Edge down for control issues ‘“ a game that aspires to re-interpret the very interface between player, screen and character?

And this is where my opinions begin to differ with those held by Stuart. I don’t think Mirror’s Edge is as stunningly innovative as claimed. It’s a seemingly new idea yes, but it’s not a grand enough leap forward from other games to warrant the high level of praise being given to it. First person perspective, running away from enemies, avoiding direct combat, quick time events, the colour blue: all of these things have been done before. The innovation is the combination and blend.

I am a firm believer that most of the artistic language games use is embedded within the aspect unique to the medium: the gameplay. One of the most important parts of the gameplay itself is how you control your character’s movements and interactions within the game world. This makes the controls a very integral part of the experience.

In the example above, Stuart talks about giving leniency to the game. He gives comparisons between the game’s shortcomings and those of critically acclaimed films.  In my opinion, equating the effect of control issues in a game with an unconventional narrative structure in a film is wrong. A much more accurate comparison would be to liken control issues with a poorly constructed narrative; something creating a profoundly different effect.

I think he is misinterpreting the target audience for most reviews. The example of a review he gives is one from IGN. It’s not written as an artistic deconstruction of the game to be read by well informed game critics; it is written for the average gamer. And the average gamer most likely doesn’t realise the artistic value games take on. These are game reviews, not game critiques. The difference between the two highlighted last year in a talk by Ernst Adams.

A further example of the difference between a reviewer and the critic is that a reviewer should take into account the value (in cold hard money) of the game. This is something which will change the priorities of the player, and subsequently those of the reviewer, likely pushing aside the purely artistic or innovative parts. A game critic would do what Stuart suggests is needed: de-construct, and applaud innovation and art. I completely agree that there is a need for articles like that to expand the audience of gaming as well as the artistic expressionism games are developing. But I don’t think that the average game review is a place for that.

Judging this medium on set criteria like graphics, sound, gameplay, lasta-fecking-bility ‘“ oh God, sometimes all that crap needs to be torn up.

I happily second his call for more in-depth, critical analysis as a basis for a review of a game. But I don’t agree that the places for the exploration of the often subtle artistic substance a game provides is within mainstream game reviews.

Reviewers are not undervaluing innovation with Mirror’s Edge; they are simply reviewing it based on the often shallow yet highly effective common criteria of quality. This is a definition of ‘quality’ that reflects less of the artistic or innovative value of the game, but more the enjoyment of the gamer.