08.21.07
On Game Reviews
Essay Week 2007 runs from August 20 to August 24, 2007. Each day I’ll present a short essay on a topic of concern to me; as you may already have noticed, though, I have the option of including a pre-essay post giving updates on ongoing life events if necessary. Some of the elements in these essays may be controversial; I hope, however, that most will be well-regarded and at least read with an open mind. If you have anything to say about them, please feel free to leave a comment; I read them all, even if I may not respond due to time or other concerns. We’re staying in a gaming mood today, talking a little bit about game reviews and how they can or should be improved.
Last week, a friend of mine was a bit disappointed and quite discouraged by some reviews he’d seen about a particular DS title. The criticism in question focused around what was perceived as weak writing and a generally overcliched storyline. Now, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that my friend was upset because he was a fanboy and had some unnatural and improper attachment to the game; but, of course, you’d be completely and totally wrong in this case… as my friend just happened to be one of the lead translators/text editors on the title. As you might expect, the remarks about the writing were probably taken a little too personally.
It would be tremendously hypocritical of me to say that without further qualification, of course, as I have been known to be a little overdefensive about my own prose. But I digress.
The thing about it is, the game reviewer culture has grown quite a bit since the early days of official magazines and Larry Flynt’s offering (”Video Games and Computer Entertainment”, which I absolutely loved as a kid– I didn’t actually discover the Flynt connection until a few months ago). The internet has contributed quite a bit to this metamorphosis, and in fact has arguably spurred it. In both media, the early reviews were either overwhelmingly positive or overwhelmingly negative, with scores ranging from 10-25% and 80-95% exclusively. As time wore on, however, reviewers became more cynical even to themselves, and began suspecting the more glowing or damning pieces of being biased by fanboyism. These days, games extremely rarely pull out of the 40-70% range (depending on the scale used by the sites in question this could slide ten points in either direction). In short, a reviewer could no longer afford to love or loathe a game completely.
I personally think that’s a grave disservice to the readers. Gamers, individually, have pretty wide preferences, and in general most human behavior gravitates to extremes. People have high hopes for games, and when those games don’t live up to the expectations they have a right to be disappointed. Still, that does not mean game scores should be artificially raised or (more likely) lowered simply to ensure an appearance of propriety. If a reviewer likes everything about a game, then he should be allowed to say so; too often I’ve seen reviews exaggerating seemingly minor flaws in games to provide for the ‘fanboy buffer factor’.
I think the best example of this is the dustup last year over Twilight Princess. The infamous “8.8″ debacle highlights both the extreme reactions of gamers and the tendency to overemphasize seemingly minor flaws in otherwise good games (note, of course, that I still have not played TP nor do I really intend to on purpose). The largest criticisms I could find based on a reading of the notorious review are “tacked-on controls” and “average but not fantastic graphics”. Both are more or less common to first-gen Wii titles, which (of course) we know now, but in the immediate it seemed like overly harsh invective to people who were invested fully into the Wii thought-mode. However, citing these as the primary detriments to the game– instead of more relevant criticisms that were seemingly downplayed, such as lack of difficulty or auditory glitches with the Wiimote speaker– appeared to me as if the GameSpot editors were looking for (excuse the term) bullshit talking points that could be plausibly denied by those who wished to.
It is with some sense of dry bemusement that I wonder when holding an opinion became such a heinous crime, and holding a dissenting opinion sentenced the believer to social damnation. Players who like games which were low-scoring are often seen as outcast, unappreciative, devoid of taste. I know several well-respected and highly-intelligent people who got a big kick out of B-level titles like Saints Row, Yakuza, Starfox Command, or Armored Core 4. Heck, even games which were rated well at the time spark division and invective– for an example of this, go to any console RPG message board and ask about Final Fantasy VII.
The point (and I do have one) is that one cannot take a single opinion to be the sole judge of a game, and one cannot even really look at the collective opinions anymore (though aggregate sites like GameRankings do a pretty good job of skewing closer to general public opinion). If there’s any real lesson to be taken away from this, it’s that a player has to seriously do his homework if he wants to understand if a game is really any good, and that means more than just looking up the average score and taking a risk. Recently, with console gamers getting the ability to preview titles via demos on Xbox Live and the Playstation Network (and, if Nintendo smartens up, the Wii + an external drive of some sort), the field has evened a bit as players can try the game without that risk, and see for themselves if the game is worth playing, unfiltered by the reviewer or the internet. Reading the entire review and judging all of the aspects according to one’s own preferences, and not the preferences of the reviewer or the mob, should be the sole criteria for whether a game is worth its purchase price.
The same largely applies to any media, of course, but dammit, if games are going to be considered as art on the level of film or music, then the task of game criticism should be subject to the same rules and standards.
Ramen Junkie said,
08.21.07 at 3:54 pm
As a game reviewer, I find the biggest problem is actually finding games I DON’T like. Especially since I’m not in the game review sector that gets free junk dumped on them. I’m not going to go out and buy a game I don’t expect to like.
On the other hand, disliking something tends to create controversy. I really should review Final Fantasy 12 soon. It seems to be pretty well praised and frankly, I don’t like it. It’s got good points but I haven’t thought about touching the game in months. It’s boring. The battle system sucks balls.
At the same time, I took a bit of flack for writing a positive, non cynical review of Pokemon Diamond.
Rob Browning said,
08.21.07 at 7:00 pm
Using a nebulous number to label the quality of a game is a concept whose time has come and gone, used to mimic the more mature criticism of movies and music though video games are quite a bit more complicated than either of those. The best way to rehabilitate game reviewing at the moment is to just stop using a rating scale.
Rob
Ramen Junkie said,
08.21.07 at 7:07 pm
I do agree with rob. Number systems just flat out don’t work. They can vary widely based on a person’s tastes and don’t always apply to every review.
Honestly I think the number ratings are part of why I’ve procrastinated my participation on Netcrack into pretty much nothingness. Half the time I just can’t make the numbers apply. Or they don’t produce a relevant result.
How would you make a graphics ranking for a DDR game? I suppose yeah, the images are or are not distracting to the game play. But is that even related to say, a graphic rating of Halo 3? Does DDR not having crisp realistic players make it any more or less of a good game?
John said,
08.22.07 at 7:31 am
I have to disagree somehwat. An overall number score for a game is too subjective to be of any real use unless the reader is familiar with the reviewer’s bias and scale. But, individual scores are important when determining quality of a game’s components relative to other, ‘peer’ games.
Taking your example, RJ, DDR will probably have a consistent 6 or 7 in the “Graphics” category; this is relative not to Halo 3, but to other DDR titles released. Let’s say a DDR title is released in the next 6 months with grainy videos, disgustingly polygonal dancers, and choppy framerates for the backgrounds; that gets it a lower score compared to other DDR games. If the next version has graphics commensurate with the rest of the series, then it gets a 5-7 for the graphics score. If, however, it goes above and beyond what’s expected for a DDR game’s graphics (face-mapping onto a nice-looking dancer model using Eyetoy/x360 Vision, for example), the score will go higher. Obviously, for some games, graphics will be emphasized less, and if there must be an overall score, the graphics score should be weighted less in figuring out the overall. DDR is sort of a bad example; but, replace it with “generic WW2 shooter” and you get the picture. The comparisons should be made within the genre or the system, and should be contemporary (ie six months after Halo 3’s release, the bar goes higher for the same graphical score as Halo 3).
Oh, and I don’t see the Buffalo News or any other newspaper movie critic in a huge rush to abandon the “star” rating system for film. So, film and music criticism is more mature, and uses a numerical/mathematical rating system, but video game criticism isn’t as mature but in your opinion needs to abandon such a rating system? I think a better idea than to scrap numerical ratings altogether is to more clearly define, for the readers as well as the reviewers, the criteria for which ratings numbers are assigned.
….you can tell I’m a software developer. “It’s not wrong, the requirements were just unclear!”
Rob Browning said,
08.22.07 at 3:33 pm
So, film and music criticism is more mature, and uses a numerical/mathematical rating system, but video game criticism isn’t as mature but in your opinion needs to abandon such a rating system?
Yes, because video games are different from movies and music. You admitted as much yourself with your suggestion that sub-scores are a lot more useful in video games than general scores.
Rob
BIFF Phunbaba said,
08.23.07 at 8:42 am
Numerical rating systems have value to the truly casual game buyer- somebody who really has never heard of the game before. He/She is usually making a go/no-go decision based on only that number. The question is: “Is this one of them there suckey games that will end up used to level the couch, or will it get played a lot?” The numbers are a little better than the thumbs system.
For those of us who follow games and game development, they are pretty meaningless. I’m usually aware of a game that might interest me at least a year before it’s released. I know who’s opinions I respect, and I’ll know a lot about a game before it hits the shelves. (I’ve been fooled by the hype on occasion - Doom - but not often.)
The point- the value of review and it’s form is dependent on the target audience.