The Criterion-Based Approach for Evaluating Media ¶

A criterion-based approach (no not that Criterion) for evaluating media¹ is an approach for evaluating media through the use of criterion, meaning standards that can be applied in the judgment of many works.

For example, coherence is a criterion that captures a media object’s cohesiveness, meaning how well its parts coalesce into a unified whole.

Another example of a criterion that can be applied to media would be originality. Generally, we would value a narrative told in a more original way, more than that same narrative told in a less original way.

This criterion-based approach doesn’t provide us means for objectively evaluating media because there’s no single set of criteria that we could apply to all media “objectively” and produce useful results. Furthermore, when applying the same set of criteria to the same media object, two different critics would likely do so in different ways and thus reach different conclusions. For example, if I was asked how “cohesive” the Dadaist masterpiece Freddy Got Fingered is, I would say that it’s quite cohesive whereas you might say that it isn’t cohesive at all.

So, this criterion-based approach doesn’t serve to end discussions about media because it doesn’t allow us to capture some kind of objective truth about it — rather it should be used for starting discussions about media. A criterion-based approach for evaluating media gives us an opportunity to think about the criteria we would choose for evaluating the media we’re interested in and, in doing so, allows us to gain insight about ourselves and what we value in media.

Keep in mind that a different set of criteria might be more or less appropriate for evaluating different kinds of media.

For example, an interactivity criterion might make sense for a video game but much less so for non-interactive movies.

A no anime bullshit criterion might be appropriate for anime because making anime is expensive and thus anime is more prone to catering to our primitive reptilian brains to maximize viewer numbers and so they tend to be filled to bursting with harmful and boring tropes. But, I’d argue that an anime bullshit criterion might be more appropriate for live-action movies and TV (see the live action adaptation of Kakegurui for an example of this) because in small doses and in unexpected places, a little anime bullshit never hurt anyone.

Applying a criterion-based approach for evaluating the video game Cairn ¶

Let’s use this criterion-based approach for evaluating the video game Cairn which I played through a few days ago.

Cairn is described by the developers like so: “Reach a summit never climbed before in this survival-climber from the creators of Furi and Haven. Climb anywhere and plan your route carefully, managing pitons and resources to survive unforgiving Mount Kami. Discover what Aava is willing to sacrifice to achieve the ascent of a lifetime.”²

Cohesiveness: Do all the parts of Cairn work in concert towards a singular purpose, whatever that purpose may be?

Yes, I’d say so.

The narrative is concise and not overly wordy. It’s delivered subtly through poignant cutscenes, in-game set pieces and smaller moments as Aava climbs Mount Kami.

The ambient music leaves room for Mount Kami and Aava to take center stage through the soundscape produced by the sounds of howling wind, pouring rain and Aava’s grunts, her swears and her rock grasping noises. The subtleness of the music amplifies the effect of the few key moments when the music becomes more grandiose.

The leftovers that have been left behind by the climbers who came before act as foreshadowing for the physical and mental path that Aava finds herself on.

Every part of Cairn pushes us to contemplate the following question: Why do humans hurt themselves and the people around them in pursuit of goals without knowing why and at what cost?

Originality: Does Cairn differentiate itself from the other games like it?

Although climbing is one of the most common actions you can take in a video game, few, if any, games depict and simulate climbing as realistically as Cairn does.

Games like Assassin’s Creed allow you to keep a single button held down and climb any surface without any substantial effort on your part.

Games like Peak, Peaks of Yore and White Knuckle have climbing physics that aren’t as realistic and grounded as Cairn’s is.

Narratively, I’ve never seen a climbing game depict the act of climbing as something dangerous and inadvisable. The majority of video games are about overcoming challenges, they’re rarely focused on grappling with the idea that “overcoming” certain challenges might not be good for us and our loved ones.

Let’s call it the “French manoeuvre”, taking a narrative we’ve heard a million times before (“I’m going to prove something to somebody, probably myself, by climbing the ‘mountain’”) and taking it one step further, sometimes one step weirder.

Visually, Cairn is inspired by French comics. This kind of cel shaded graphical style is not unheard of (just to name a few games with similar art styles: Sable, Rollerdrome, etc.) but it’s far from being common.

So, despite climbing appearing in many video games, Cairn is quite original due to how realistic its climbing simulation feels and the uniqueness of the narrative it weaves around it.

Intensity of Effect: Did playing through Cairn make me feel anything? If so, to what degree?

Playing through Cairn, I was on the edge of my seat thinking about how the narrative involving the characters you meet during your climb and those you’ve left behind at home would play out.

I felt a constant sense of foreboding and tension as I crested each part of the mountain, higher and higher than the last, revealing the next increasingly challenging peak I would have to reach.

I felt a sense of loss exploring the ruins of the people who used to live on the mountain and reading through the notes they, and the climbers who came before, left behind.

I felt a sense of elation when I brought a letter I had picked up along the way addressed to a character that I met further up Mount Kami and she rewarded me with something quite simple but important within the context of Cairn’s survival mechanics — a Thermos.

I didn’t cry playing Cairn, but I came pretty close once or twice which doesn’t happen to me often when playing games.

Overall, the intensity of effect was, for lack of a better phrasing, quite intense.

Interactivity: Is Cairn better for being an interactive video game or could I have watched a commentary-less playthrough of the game and had the same experience?

Cairn is much better for being an interactive video game.

By playing the game yourself, you, controlling Aava, viscerally feel her struggle of climbing Mount Kami because you’re enabling it through your button presses and catering to her desire to reach the top by choosing to continue to climb.

As you climb Mount Kami, you’ll be faced with a variety of paths leading up the mountain of varying difficulties. You’ll rarely be rewarded for taking the harder path. But still, I often found myself choosing the harder path despite knowing that I was unlikely to receive an explicit reward for doing so.

This gameplay-driven experience mimics Aava’s own pursuit to climb Mount Kami. Her refusal to pick up the phone whenever her agent calls, asking for updates on the climb, makes it clear that she doesn’t care about the clout she would get by being the first human to reach the top of Mount Kami.

Aava is climbing Mount Kami because she feels as though her whole life has led her to this. Her self-identity is intimately tied to her expertise as a climber. Will you, taking along Aava with you or vice-versa, continue to climb Mount Kami despite all the evidence you’ve seen along the way making it clear how misguided Aava’s goal is?

Has your identity as a gamer pushed you to bash your head against a tough boss over and over despite not enjoying the process because you’re scared of what it would mean for you if you weren’t able to beat them?

I’m just asking for a friend.

Overall, the experience that Cairn provides is enhanced by it being a video game because the experience of playing it reinforces and supports the story being told and its themes.

Stability: Does Cairn work or is it plagued with bugs that lessen its effect?

Cairn is well polished. But, its climbing physics, despite being quite innovative, can be a little unpredictable at times — leading to unexpected falls that make playing Cairn a less fair and smooth experience than it would be otherwise.

Overall, Cairn could be a little more stable but a little jankiness is understandable considering how innovative its climbing simulation is.

So, overall, overall, overall, Cairn is awesome. It’s not perfect but it’s such a specific sniper shot targeted at my own tastes (I love climbing games and I love French auteurs). Playing it, I couldn’t help but become enthralled by its siren song which didn’t drag me down into the depths but rather pushed me upwards, all the way up Mount Kami.

Working through these criteria one-by-one helped me to understand my own feelings about my experience of playing through Cairn, to understand where it lands for me compared to the many other climbing games I’ve played and to work through some arguments for convincing myself, and potentially others, of its aesthetic value.

Hopefully, this process has convinced you of the usefulness of applying a criterion-based approach for evaluating the media you enjoy (or, conversely, the media you think is ass).

Criterion-Based Approaches in the Wild ¶

It seems to me that criterion-based approaches for evaluation and comparison purposes are quite common. Criterion-based approaches are easy to apply to, well, pretty much anything and they’re quite easy to think about and share with others.

Video games critics have been doing this for decades. You’ve probably read a video game critic frame their review of a game through the lens of criteria like graphics, sound, gameplay, etc. As an exercise for the reader, I’ll let you think about the quality of these criteria and the utility of assigning scores to each criterion (spoiler alert, I think it sucks).

In moral philosophy, virtue ethics is essentially a criterion-based approach for evaluating ethical and not so ethical decisions. In virtue ethics, instead of criteria being aesthetic in nature like they tend to be when evaluating media/art, they are moral in nature, eg. virtues.

Final Thoughts ¶

According to John Dewey³, art criticism must be flexible enough to tackle the new forms of expression required by the ever changing world we live in while being structured enough to produce interesting criticism (which is an art of its own).

I believe that a criterion-based approach for evaluating media fits neatly into this category. Criteria can be changed to adapt to new kinds of art and changes to ourselves while providing a stable foundation for evaluating and discussing art, no matter what form that art takes.

Evaluating art is integral to creating it and experiencing it. Whether you’re creating art or simply experiencing it, improving your ability to critically think about it can’t hurt.

What criteria that are the most important for you for evaluating your favorite kind of media?