Out with traditional game reviews?
by Blake Snow 
{ Jan 23rd 2006 at 8:30AM }
We talk a lot about video games here; the companies
that make them, the systems that play them, and the gamers that dig them. But what about the media outlets that review
them? What's to become of traditional game reviews?Traditional game reviews generally prescribe to a standard format from which a critique is then derived: Intro, graphics, sound, overall score, you get the idea. But as the next-generation of gaming is upon us, should video game reviews change with it? What's your opinion on the state of game reviews?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
luis @ Feb 17th 2006 11:16PM
I personally think that traditional game reviews will soon take a backseat to more social-style reviews, e.g., http://www.gibbity.com. But that's just me, and I'm pretty heavily biased.
Jay @ Jan 23rd 2006 8:38AM
Should they change? perhaps.
Graphics: --%
Is it actually good? yes/no
will it make you appear cooler? yes/no
for next gen systems only, though. my motto this 2006 is so going to be "games are stagnant". I reckon.
Carl @ Jan 23rd 2006 8:46AM
I think games like shadow of the colossus is an excellent example of how the current rating system isnt giving justice on some titles. Not on part of shadow of the colossus (save perhaps the audio), is actually a 9 out of 10, however the way all of the elements in the game are meshed together so perfectly to create the universe... That, is atleast a 9/10 game.
JaSoN! @ Jan 23rd 2006 8:47AM
how about a score for "innovation"?
clear cut scores are always a problem though. something more like a pros and cons way of interviewing, like your amped 3 review was a way more interesting to read. its just the raw information on how the game is as opposed to rewarding scores based on opinions and taste. i'd prefer to see that.
plus an incentive to play, artistic quality and most importantly, is it worth the money or do i feel cheated.
maybe with the new hoped expansion of the videogame demograph some kind of "suited to 'this type of player '" category should be introduced. such as "hardcore online nut with a lot of money and free time" or "college student looking for a quick after pub fix with friends".
i could relate to that.
Abe Froman @ Jan 23rd 2006 8:50AM
The length of gameplay is a factor that I'm not seeing dealt with consistently. Some games are amazing games for rental (10 hours of gameplay, etc.), but not a good idea for a purchase. Do you punish a game's rating for length of play, even though it may be a better gaming experience than a game that's longer?
Carl @ Jan 23rd 2006 9:22AM
I am strongly of the opinion that games should be reviewed in a manner similar to CD reviews. In a CD review, does anyone ever say, "Wow, that's nice fidelty!"? No, they just talk about what other CDs or genres the music reminds you of, and how the album works or doesn't work as a step in the career of the artist. Game reviews should be like that. Give us a flavor for the game, let uus know the major play mechanics, tell us if it works or not, and let us know how it evolves the career of the director and/or the franchise character.
Spence @ Jan 23rd 2006 9:24AM
I think with the divide in home consoles with the HD/SD corners each going after different markets the reviews will change.
It's an interesting point because it's set a new standard.
I have always thought the format for reviews should be from someone who has actually played the game well.. and has no bias over the genre..
I personally like a long review well written, less emphasis on the graphics and more on the experience the game gives you.
Sure metadata is great, but it's getting a bit much with many games getting 90% or above.
I remember John Peel used to rate every album he listened to, 2 stars meant it was good, 3 stars meant it would be played on air definitely, and 4 stars was like unreal.
His favourite band the undertones clocked up about 28 stars as he listened through the song 'Teenage kicks'
My ideal review would assess the experience you get from the game, the basic story for those who don't know much about the game.. what the gameplay is like.. and a general bat around of what the game can do, who it is aimed at and who might enjoy it.
At the end there should be some kind of Pros. Cons. summary for those who are still on the fence, here little things should come in, like poor control system.. or it requires a lot of accesories to get the most out of it.
Then the metadata, how much it costs, release dates, what systems and finally an average percentage summing up the reviewers general vibe from the game with a closing comment stating who it would appeal to and who it would not.
This is the kind of definitive review that I remember back in the days of official playstation magazine UK for the PS1.
It's all changed with internet media, it's lazy.. get reviews out for everything.. often leaving articles empty, giving props to a game based on the demo disc and no background into the history of the game company.
A well written review should be a one stop shop, and to commenter #1 you are completely missing the point. A game cannot be restricted to such pigeon holes.
With the nintendo DS and revolution hoping to widen the games market reviews will have to change to a mass market, and with thet the format must change too, more booklike, instead of.
BUY THIS GAME IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE 98% BEST GAME EVER, when in fact the Grand Theft auto series is getting a little repetitive, and while being a big seller might not be to your taste.. why not try something a little more exotic and experiment with a different game developper.
I expect the PS3 and xbox 360 reviews will remain piss poor aimed at a market of fools who will buy whatever their mate has, and whatever the website (IGN) says.
and the Revolution will have a series of really great review sites putting out definitive reviews aimed at a new market of people.
soco @ Jan 23rd 2006 9:28AM
i think there needs to be separate sets of gameplay ratings for the online, and for the single player. some people only play games in single player, some only the multiplayer, and some both. some games such as PDZ are abysmal in the singal player portion but amazingly fun in the multiplayer portion. with online games probably taking a bigger role in the next gen than in the previous generation, i think this aspect deserves a different look.
it'd be similar to some sort of multiplayer rating. games like mariokart are ok, but they're so much more fun with a group of people. i have actually went through and just looked at rankings to decide whether or not i want to read the whole reviews, just in an attempt to find good multiplayer games.
LatkaGravis @ Jan 23rd 2006 9:37AM
I never liked the way reviews deconstruct the game into separate catgories of graphics, sound, gameplay, lasting appeal, etc.
Sure it gives a quick breakdown of the game but it doesn't take the place of a well written explanation that describes the experience. How can you quantify a subjective experience?
Cem @ Jan 23rd 2006 9:53AM
I think the following elements are important:
- immersion
- fun
- addictiveness
- user experience
There are so many 'good' games out there that I didn't play long enough, because other cool news games came out. However, some games are so good that you really want to finish the damn thing.
Fods @ Jan 23rd 2006 10:00AM
We all talk of the "regurgitation" of the same idea for games these days: Sequals, film ripp offs etc. When reviewing games why dont we talk about the orignality (or lack off) of aspects.
Timmay! @ Jan 23rd 2006 10:00AM
A lot of reviewers, and I'll name names, gameinformer, need to stop being so soft and lenient in their reviews and scores. I've seen games that were absolute crap, and blasted by most other magazines get a middle of the road score in gameinformer.
Honestly, I've seen some of the best reviews in EGM. They gave Shadow of the Colussus high scores, and for all the complaning about it, reviewed Kameo honestly. That's why I stll subscribe to and read EGM. And yes, they do value gameplay over graphics, hence the Kameo review.
WizarDru @ Jan 23rd 2006 10:13AM
There is no single standard that will work for everyone. However, the current review process feels too much like car reviews, and not enough like content reviews.
For example: Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube is visually superior to Resident Evil 4 on the PS/2. It has better textures and more polygons per character. That's a fact. But does that make it BETTER? Not really. It's the same game, just customized. How much difference does the improved graphics make? That varies from person to person.
Take Electroplankton. One reviewer gave it 5.0, while another gives it a 9.0. That's quite a gap. No review can be taken without the context of the reviewer. There is no absolute truth, here. If a person who hates FPS games plays Halo 2, and doesn't even try the multiplayer options...can he truly give a review worth reading of that title? I'm not talking about fairness or objectivity, here, but actual value. Tastes vary, and if someone doesn't like Kung-Fu movies, I don't ask his opinion of Iron Monkey...the same applies for video games.
The reviewers whose opinions I trust the most are Gabe and Tycho of Penny Arcade; their tastes gibe with mine and they aren't bound by agreements to protect some property. I know what they like, and what they dislike. I don't need every aspect of the game explored...I need to know if it's FUN. I need to know if I, personally, would get something worthwhile out of the experience. Most reviews spend too much time analyzing the game as if it had some objective criteria list that it could hew to and then spending too much time trying to be glib, instead of giving me details.
Kevin Parrott @ Jan 23rd 2006 10:39AM
I second the call for a separate online rating. I could find very little about the COD2 online multiplayer before I bought it. I just assumed it would be as good as the PC version based on what little information I found. Had I been forewarned of the multiple online problems, I probably would have waited for a price drop, or just rented it.
Olly @ Jan 23rd 2006 10:49AM
press start online (http://www.pressstartonline.co.uk) Have an excellent review system. The game is given two overall scores out of 10. one is a more technical score, the other is a 'heartfelt' score. They sum it up as follows:
"Our Unique Scoring System explained: Left number is the "head score" - our objective score; what we rate it with our "reviewer's head" on. Right number is the "heart score" - the reviewer's personal leaning. "
its a great system and the site has some excellent reviews.
GlitchCog @ Jan 23rd 2006 10:59AM
The biggest problem with game reviews is that many of them play to the hype and marketing. There's very little integrity in that industry.
If I really want to investigate a game, I go to GameFAQs and read all the bad reviews for the title. If they aren't convincing enough, I go ahead and get the game. It's much more revealing than reading the shit some hack journalist wrote so he can ensure his next preview game.
"6/10" shouldn't be the lowest score; it should be slightly above average. Video game rankings are ridiculously inflated.
BlackYoshi @ Jan 23rd 2006 11:30AM
I think its best to think of the review scale as something like the school grading scale. We all don't say that the scores are overinflated because a 60 is a low score. Its probably easier to have 5 as an average, though.
Tony @ Jan 23rd 2006 12:13PM
This is actually something I talked about on my site, but few of the people who visited it seemed to care or feel there was actually a problem. There seemed to be a "if you're not going to fix it, don't complain" mentality, which I found rather strange considering I don't work at a professional site/magazine. Apparently no one can find fault in anything according to some people, lol.
I don't feel that many magazines have gotten beyond the old Nintendo Fan Club Letters in many ways aside from becoming more vulgar. Games that need more attention are given a paragraph and a completely arbitrary score. What is the basis for comparison? None of us know and I doubt the reviewers do either.
It also seems that, in many cases, "features" simply mean "previewing a game with huge, blown up pictures before anyone else!".
It's just weird to me that there are such different standards for game "journalism" compared to any other type, whether its related to an entertainment medium or not. Stuff written in most magazines simply would not fly for even the most basic, professional music or film reviews. This doesn't mean things have to be pretentious, but I think it also means that reviews have to move beyond the simple segmented review style that has been mentioned here.
So many times I read a review and I don't even really fully understand why the reviewer found it entertaining. You get seemingly gushing reviews that result in a 7 and then reviews that point out so much negative points and then get a 9... what happened there?
The other thing that comes to mind the a lot of the discussion of story. Most of the time for RPGs this involves "the game's story is good" or "the story isn't that good, but the characters are fun" and then four paragraphs are spent talking about things anyone could have judged from a screenshot. There really isn't a lot of a deeper look into things... I feel a lot could have been said about the themes in Digital Devil Saga 1 & 2 (such as the value it places on life, environmentalism, etc), but instead there has been absolutely nothing.
I have far less of a problem with internet game sites. I think some of the things 1Up has done have been commendable. Stuff like N-Sider, Game Politics and so forth have never been a problem because I feel they treat the material in a serious (but still entertaining) way.
I certainly don't think all magazine writing is bad. They have to conform to word limits because there's really no choice and it seems a lot of the work is done in a style that is just most approachable for younger teenagers because that's a massive market... but I don't know. Like with anything, there's good and bad.
DCSimian @ Jan 23rd 2006 12:13PM
I remember reading the review for Freespace 2 in PC Gamer way back. The game was (and still is) incredible. Great gameplay, amazing graphics for the time (still looks pretty good), excellent fun factor and definetly worth the money. Regardless of the good score, all it got was barely a one-page blurb. Higher profile games, Diablo 2 for example, got five to six pages worth of reviews and writers gushing all over them if it was even half as good.
I hate the fact that good games with low hype get these measly little articles written about them, giving them little exposure to the masses out there. I can understand that if a game truly sucks, yeah, it's not worth much space. But if a genuinely great game comes along, it isn't given the same treatment as the high-profile stuff. Fine, let Mario, Master Chief, Diablo be your cover story, but don't let the other really great games fall by the wayside.
As far as the scoring goes, I agree with those of you that said that it should be more of an open review format, rather than a breakdown of technicalities. Maybe there could be a pro/con section with a basic is-it-worth-your-time-and-money score or comment at the end.
KungFu-tse @ Jan 23rd 2006 1:10PM
I think reviews these days are a bit too analytical nowadays, especially with breaking the game down into different categories and giving each a score (i.e. IGN).
I read the IGN and GameSpot forums from time to time, and there's always some thread about "Well, why did this game get an 8.8 and this an 8.7. Does this mean the former is better?". That's the ultimately flaw in the decimal point system. People get the impression that if this game gets a 9.5, and this gets a 9.4, then the former must be better despite it being released four years ago.
I like a much simpler system like Ebert's & Roeper's Thumbs up or Thumbs Down, either you like it or don't.
You guys probably remember a good 'ol site call Daily Radar about 6 years ago. Not only did the site have humorous features, but it also had a simple rating system: Direct Hit, Hit, or Miss.
Yes, I would like to know how each category does, like graphics, sound, gameplay, value, etc. But ultimately, I'd like to know if the game is a Buy, Rent, or Pass.
Thomas Crymes @ Jan 23rd 2006 1:39PM
The game experience is king. Aside from the graphics and the sound, did you have fun.
The problem is that different games have different conventions. A racing game has some expectations, an old-style arcade game has others.
The problem with today's reviewers are the following:
1) Too lenient. On a 1 to 10 scale, an average game gets a 7 (at least that is my experience).
2) Not enough time spent playing them. I don't care about deadlines. I don't care that you want to be the first to press with a review. Playing through a game on easy, doesn't really give you a true game experience. And how do you really rate a game with on-line play without devoting a lot of time to playing online with others?
3) As others have stated, they concern themselves too much with the superfluous. Let us assume good graphics. Don't mention them unless you are particularly struck by them as being great or awful. Don't mention them to fluff your word count.
tellute @ Jan 23rd 2006 4:52PM
I think Carl has it spot on. Give a feel for the game then tell me if it's worth buying, renting or running from. That's all I need.
phylot89 @ Jan 23rd 2006 5:59PM
I say begone with scores, games are too sophisticated to be simply slapped with a figure. How about reports that span across multiple issues (1-3) ala journals, now that's what I like to see.
Capital @ Jan 23rd 2006 6:00PM
I've come up with the best review method!!! (hopefully)
Have multiple people review on one site. For example, DOA4, dont make 1 reviewere tackle it but 3. Each write their opinion than an average is made. Video games are very opinionated so multiple ppl is the best way to go.
what do you think?
Dylan Horkin @ Jan 23rd 2006 6:20PM
Having a rigid rubric takes away from the review's quality. That's why I find the actual review SO much more useful than their numerical ratings.
Some sites have a "tilt" value, which is great - if the reviewer liked the game, they can give it a little boost. But I think tilt should be 30%, minumum. A game can have bad graphics and sound, yet somehow still be good, or have incredible audio/visual and terrible interface, or just terrible quality overall.