I’ve noticed many tend to banter on about “their vision” as a means to regain ownership over the piece they feel critiquing has denied them. If you do not see the point they were making from their perspective (an impossible feat given these are internal)then you clearly got it wrong or must be informed how you are to view the piece. People wonder why arrogance is bred in these situations?

On the flip side critiquing is a truly lost art often misunderstood to mean criticism. I’ve rarely had an evaluation that didn’t involve the logic that, since your decision wasn’t in line with the management, then you made a mistake that must be corrected. Then they must be reassured you won’t do it again.

This often happens even when the results are favorable, it is the method, not the outcome. This breeds frustration. Most evaluations from experienced are designed to meet the expectations of person doing the review to see if you were successful. This is where you are pleasing the subjective views of the person doing the analysis and a “right versus wrong” situation is created. Expression gives way to placation and the status quo never produces great things.

I think most people need to be mature enough to accept the critique and to learn when something personal is at stake. Lets face it, creating something is a personal experience and while humans can strive to be objective we must rely on professional attitudes to carry us above that personal involvement.

Many performing this task need to be aware that it is the subtle that helps keep the lines of communication open. Artist are artist, peers among peers. There is a point where a reviewer needs to engage them one-on-one as a creative mind and then “share” ways based on their collective experience to improve. Those being critiqued should feel mentored rather than judged and that relationship with direct suggestion can make the difference between “fixing” your art to match and striving to improve it.

Realistically, the value of a critique is in the recievers perception of the words used; howvever, language is a vital area of concern when defining the difference of constructive, and critical critique.

Corvus, your comment are dead on target. (pardon the cliche’) Too often we have people attempting to critique the skills of the artist and try doing so with a lack of ethics, language skills, and professionalism.

Might I offer some advice to those who wish to be involved in critiquing the works of any writer. If your goal is to constructively build on the writers talents, then consider using language skills, and maintain a sense of professionalism about it– remember, this is writing (you know–LANGUAGE). Artists aren’t the sensitive creatures everyone thinks they are, but we do understand the difference between those that are trying to be nice, and those that are talking from some other usefull part of their anatomy.

Professionalism goes a long way– on both sides of this issue.

But overall that was a pretty good class, and the professor went over some of the stuff you’ve written here at the start. I specifically remember the “avoid you statements” thing, and everyone in the class really made it a point to say things like “I think this could be developed more” or whatever. Though generally everyone was too nice to say anything negative, haha.

I do think good video game design is more subjective than good information design. As I mentioned to someone recently, set two designers down with the same set of game mechanics and you’re likely to get two, if not three, very different, and quite likely good, games.

As far as “you” statements go, I think it’s quite possible to incorporate the Receiver’s statements (another form of output, no?) that were made outside a work that’s being critiqued, and to do so without breaking this rule. Which of these sounds like a stronger critique statement for Mike Miller’s output?

“You market your studios in a really juvenile way. You’re hurting the industry with your blatant sexism.”

“Your marketing traditionally is filled with juvenile humor and thinly veiled innuendo. I worry that this is not the most constructive approach to take in an industry that’s attempting to mature and reach new audiences.”

I would like to comment on two points you’ve mentioned:

“Don’t Tell Them How To Do It” – I really think this depends on who is doing the critique and to what purpose. For example, Edward Tufte quite quite often criticizes different pieces of information design by re-designing them according to certain rules. Comparing the original and re-design not only helps to prove his point, it also helps his audience to gain an understanding for the principles of information design.
Now, obviously information design is not quite art but games aren’t quite art either. (oops, I hope that won’t spawn another discussion)

“Avoid “You” Statements” – This one is quite often difficult. In many cases, the artist choses to stage a kind of act around his work and his persona becomes part of this work. Kinda like in the move “The Prestige”. I speaking of guys like Tomonobu_Itagaki or Mike Wilson.
Or to give a less extreme example: In your recent comment on Braid you did mention some of the things Jonathan Blow said OUTSIDE of his game. The relationship between Braid and Jonathan’s other works – or generally his identity – has significance for evaluating Braid.
The reputation of an author is also important even in the scientific community, where an objective review seems more possible.

@Alex If your intention is to only produce work that means something to yourself, then there is no need for the critique process. A critique implies you’re interested in a conversation, in communicating something. I’d say that a critique can help you become more clear, rather than “better.” A critique is a mirror that reflects how your work appears–in that particular person’s eyes.

now of course this has to be treated carefully, ’cause someone could use it as a blanket rejection of all criticism, but i think it’s important to point out how meaning is hijacked/dictated in our everday lives in ways that we don’t realize (i immediately admit guilt) by ourselves. in a way, telling someone a painting needs more red in it, can be someone imposing communist ideology on another without either person knowing it. i particularly like how you focus on the audience-artist dialectic, because in the end we’re not trying to make something “better,” but “______ for a certain audience”

And of course, since I’m relatively inexperienced, I want to improve at my craft, so that I can better communicate what it is I have to say through stories and gameplay. Having my stuff formally critiqued is a convenient method of helping me figure out how to do so.

But then again, I went to a university, not an art school, so that may have something to do with my lack of a fragile ego.