great read! i have nothing to contribute!
Recommended Reading: More Musing on Game Reviews
I think you're right-on, Jeff. But I do believe that many game reviews run into two common problems.
First, many reviewers seem to be too caught up on minor problems with a game, then adjust its score negatively. Some games do so many things so well that any minor gripes can be forgiven because the overall experience is so good. GTA and Gears 2 come to mind. Second, along the same lines, some reviewers still like to evaluate the particular elements of a game, ie: graphics, sound, controls, gamepley, etc., as if these were all discrete entities that could be evaluated on their own merits without respect to the whole package. I don't think these elements can be evaluated without looking at the overall experience.
For this reason, I think that an indiviual's impressions can be most helpful. I understand the importance of scoring games, but I also see the drawbacks.
Looking forward to the Bombcast!
"Mamboozo said:I heard he was trying to take over GB (why else is Luchadeer the Luchadore here?), so watch out, he may subtlely take over everyone's posts...."Mamboozo said:"Mamboozo said:Bit of a bug that I just stumbled onto. I'll let dudes know. BEWARE OF MAMBOOZO HE IS EVERYWHERE AND NOWHERE""Mamboozo?"I was wandering the same thing. In the article it says it's by jeff, but on the forums it's by some guy called Mamboozo. Weird."
There is a bug that generates a man named Mamboozo? That's pretty sweet! =P"
Finding a reviewer akin to your personal tastes will always play a larger role to me than a consummate system of appraisal. I totally agree that the comparison between movie, music, and game reviews is worthless (why model game reviews after a system that is proving futile itself?). Great article as always.
Movie-game comparison makes Homer go crazy
Comparing games to movies is specious, because games have, by definition, some level of active participation required (you can just watch a movie, but if you watch a game, even Metal Gear Solid, eventually it'll just stare back at you and ask you what the hell you're waiting for (even games that play themselves have the option to let you jump in, otherwise it's not a game)). It makes games a bit more personally eccentric an experience because the player has to perform, in a sense. The more performance, timing, reflexes, and so on demanded from the player, the more varied the result is going to be.
I expected Mirror's Edge, despite its first person perspective, to have learned from Prince of Persia, Flashback, Getting Up, and Tomb Raider, in having blocked sections of actions that help limit player movement enough to get you going in the right direction and help you time jumps. A lot of folks have been talking about the contextual problems of moves, and that's solved by making things more rigid, at least until the technology catches up a bit. Yeah, Mirror's Edge is cool, but there's more going on than what's on the screen. That little controller thingie is the other device you tend not to get in movie theaters that changes things.
Movies are also fairly single-format. Ever since theaters got rid of smell-o-vision and skeletons on rails flying at the audience, there's a pretty set format for movies. So when a reviewer starts talking about the film, you understand that the thing they saw was coming from a screen, and that there was sound coming out of the speakers, and that the gibberish was translated in the subtitles below the action on the screen. With games you actually have an extra level of difficulty, because you're in a sense also being the game's director. The more rail a game is, the less this is the case, but if a game becomes too rail, it ceases to be a game. That constant, extra level of interaction adds a personal quality that absolutely demands more personal disclosure than the formalized movie review. And the best reviews, I think, are the ones that are a little personal. Roger Ebert is a favorite for more than just his age in the industry, the guy puts a bit of the personal into his reviews. With games this is even more vital, because they are a de-facto more erratic experience that needs to be pinned down. "It sucks" just begs the question: "were you having a bad day when you reviewed it, man? Give me a bit more detail."
Venatio, Ryan reviewed Mirrors Edge. That makes me wonder if you agree with the review or the review score, because if you didn't even know who wrote the review, did you even read it? or did you just look at the 3 stars and immediately disagree...
I'm playing through Mirrors Edge right now. If I had to describe it to someone who knows a bit about games I'd call it a Another World/Flashback/prince of persia/Abe's oddysee type game in a 3D first person perspective that suffers slightly from this. If you've played any of those old games, and played them recently enough to see through their nostalgia factor. You will probably have an idea what type of experience, and what type of frustrations, you can expect from it. That's not to say I don't enjoy it. still the reviews I read beforehand helped me to not oversell myself on it.
As far as Reviews I'm a little split. Thing is, by the time the review comes up you've already got a pretty solid image of the game from the previews of it. There was an article about this in the swedish gaming magazine Level called "The Preview is the new Review" by Killscreen.
So while I personally don't base a lot of my purchases off of Reviews (but rather, I know I like this game cause I liked it the last two times I bought it, if that's any better), there are still instances where they affected me. Example: Definetly waiting for the review of Sonic Unleashed before deciding on it, if it has the same problems as the last three games I'm not getting it. Example2: Who the heck cares about that Mortal Kombat series anyway? Well, apparently I do since I'm planning on getting it after hearing some fanboys throw love at it through their podcast and review.
All I wish game reviewer outlets would do is scrap the scoring systems they've got. Some people say you need a scoring system so you can see at a glance if the game's worth your money and that simply isn't true! A perfect game doesn't mean it's for you at all, no matter what the score is you still have to dig into the actual review to see if that's meaningful to you. All scores do is get people to rage about how "this game should of gotten a 5 not a 4" or "this only got a 3??? Bias!?!?!". It really doesn't matter at all what the score is, even if you disagree with the text that's still the reviewer's opinion so then that still doesn't matter what the tone of it is, because you can still see if the game's worth your cash.
So yeah, please remove scores on reviews, it does nothing but fuel fanboyism with I think sucks.
I think reviewers should have as little air of mystery around them as possible. Rather than writing extensive reviews, they should write extensive character profiles of themself, likes and dislikes, opinion on brittany murphy, favourite food, top 50 games of all time, what they think is fun, how much they play, how long at a time and so forth. These profiles should be well written and fun to read. Point is for the readers to find a person that they can to some extent identify with. If that is achieved, it really should be enough for the reviewers to say the game sucks or rocks. It shoulc be a "oh, you liked it? let me have a go then" type of scenario. This type of review would also not spoil the experience in any way because that's another problem i have with in depth reviews, that i already have a made up mind about a game and check some boxes while playing it, being in a reviewer state of mind while i'd strongly prefer the explorer, creator or mass murderer. But BS in the end, this is not marketable and with that in mind, i really do like how da bomb handles their business. as the beavers say, keep up the woodwork (wtf brain?)
I partly agree with the guy about Mirror's Edge. While it has flaws and it should not be given a free pass because it's ambitious, I am more inclined to forgive the occasional misstep when a game gives me such a novel and fresh experience. At the end of the day I can look back at Mirror's Edge and what I remember isn't the ocassional frustrating bit, but rather the terrific, fresh experience (I felt) the game provided. But again, that ties into no review being for everyone, and you just have to decide for yourself if you think it's worth suffering the occasional frustration for innovation. I think it is, but I realize it isn't for everyone. I'd give it 4 stars.
Game reviews are not dead and they are not going away.
If anything, game reviews are getting very mainstream. Even the major news sources are now reviewing games. I remember seeing a game review on CNN one night. The trouble with this is that the games that are reviewed by everyone are games that already have a lot of coverage. While many GOOD and INNOVATIVE games are not reviewed because they are not mainstream enough. Sure the Halo's and the Gears will get tons of coverage by decent writers while the lesser known games and game genres get little to no coverage at all.
The problem is that with Gears and Halo (for example, but this model could go for any AAA title) is that with all the millions of dollars invested in development and testing, the games can not fail. I don't know about you, but I didn't need a review to let me know that Halo 3, Gears 2, Resistance 2, or LittleBigPlanet were going to be great.
Gaming is mainstream now. You can not deny it anymore. WIth all this added attention, many less informed gamers will look to reviews as guidance on whether or not to buy a game. I could definitely understand why PR firms would want to manipulate the reviews before the game is released. However with the added public coverage of video games, the lesser known genres such as JPRGs, WRPGs, Fighting Games, and Adventure games are (in my opinion) getting slighted to pander to the masses.
Gaming exists in many forms and we have many forms of gamers as well. I bet many people didn't even know that they still make point-and-click adventure games. There is a market for these games and the more game reviews pander to the mainstream, the less attention is paid to the games that are good and sometimes innovative. At the end of the day, you can't get all your reviews in one place; you have to do a little searching for sites that review games to your taste.
First of all people need to realize that the text/video is more important than the score. A good review should always tell why it is good/bad. Maybe I don't mind 10h cut scenes, but the reviewer does so he gives it a bad score. I hate reviews that doesn't mention anything bad and still give it 7/10 (if there is nothing wrong it should be 10/10 right?) same thing when the entire review is full bad stuff and the game gets 5/10.
If you know the reviewer it helps, but a good review should be able to tell everything you need to know even if you have never read a review from that particular person before.
Having read reviews for pretty much every game I've bought the last 10 years I'm a firm believer that they help, however quality is better than quantity which seems to be the focus these days with metacritic and gamerankins and such.
Now that I think about it, it's been a while sense I've actually looked to a review for a true verdict on a game. More often than not I buy the games I'm interested in, which is why I didn't look up any score for Fable 2, Fallout 3, Dead Space, GoW 2, GTA4, or any of the plethora of other games I have simply bought on the faith that I'd enjoy the game.
It's not exactly that I don't enjoy reviews or that they don't inform me sometimes but I find that an opinion for a game holds more weight than an actual review. Most recently I picked up Burnout Paradise, not because I went around searching for reviews but because I heard Jeff talking about it with such enthusiasm. Now I have yet another fantastic game that I quite enjoy simply through one person's opinion of it. Granted, that's all a review really is however it's outside the normal constraints of the review that I like to hear opinions of games. The Bombcast is a great example of a place to just get an honest opinion without the necessity of presenting everything you both like and dislike. It was enough to know that this game is good, therefore I want to play because I trust that this man knows his games.
wow people had comments up the a about this... good article Jeff.
So my two cents. I wholly depend on you guys (video game critics) when picking a game, but I NEVER take one single opinion as law. I prefer to "get to know" my video game reviewers and compare all their reviews collectively, and also distinguish between different magazines/websites. I know my own tastes will not actually match up to the reviewer's and I might actually take negative criticism of a game to be personally positive because I may personally prefer the "negative " aspects of the game that the reviewer had. This to me has always made it important that the reviewer has their name signed to the review.
@ Thrawn
Man, you know what, I also heard that GamesRadar podcast too.
I can't say I agree with what they said about your review Jeff. They were there just bashing you and the things they said were pretty out of line.
But you know, they are known to be comical jackasses who drink on their podcasts, lol!
A good read Jeff!
I don't rely on reviews so much because my taste is a bit weird but I watch every video review to see what the "pros" have to say. I like Zero Punctuation's "reviews" because they are funny and I like the references but these reviews will never make me hate or like a particular game. I have played many games and I know what I like and what I don't like in a game.
I find most of giant bomb's reviews close to my taste though. For example Mirrors' Edge 3/5 hell YEAH!
I totally disagree with most (dare I say all of them) of gametrailers' reviews. Especially when it comes to PC games. These guys don't know anything about PC gaming.
I'm curious... and confused. So, if a game has an interesting concept, but flawed execution; it isn't very good? Well, except maybe Metal Gear according to Jeff, who must have liked the "concept" so much that the clunky controls didn't clash too much with the experience. So be it. I agree. Metal Gear games are some good games. Well, that begs the question: what constitutes an "interesting concept"? Is there a standard? Can there be a standard? No. Jeff also addresses the issue of reviews not being entirely objective, but often in his reviews or commentary will blatantly defend his "objective" take on a particular mechanic in a game. As Jeff said of others, I'll do the same; I'm not addressing Jeff's review, but rather whether one can even objectively criticize execution and mechanics. To beat a dead horse, Jeff and many other critics severely crticized Too Human's camera and control scheme- much to its detriment. Sounds like a case of "Untapped Potential". Well, I for one find Too Human's control scheme much more user friendly than any other game of its type, and its camera is fine to excellent. When I started playing Fable 2 I got frustrated because the controls were not as well designed as Too Human. Was my appreciation for Too Human's control and camera immediate? No, it frustrated the shit out of me, but I developed an aptitude for it and eventually a preference. So I ask again? Are mechanics and execution any more objectifiable than any other component of a game? I would say no, and cite Too Human as a prime example.
P.S. @ Haribammi: An extensive reviewer profile would be great, but unfortunately, it's just one more corruptible system. So, the reader has to attempt to amass their own "reviewer profile".
Reviews are subjective to the person reviewing the game and his experience towards that game will determine whether or not the game is good while meeting certain criteria's that are up to scale with current technology. Although, I will agree with some viewers here, a 5 star rating system should include increments of 0.5 since there is a big difference between a 4 and a 5 (It's going from an A- to an A+, however, you are forgetting the A which is still great, but not perfect). You have given a lot of 5's lately, although maybe some of those games should have been 4.5/5. 5 stars should be reserved for games that are revolutionary and innovative and that will be talked about for many years to come.
Good points, Jeff. I feel like a number of games this holiday season are receiving extremely varied reviews, such as Mirror's Edge, Last Remnant and Need for Speed Undercover.
These three games — which vary from about a 5.5 to an 8.5 depending on which site you're reading — show me that while an increasing number of gaming "journalists" are giving their two cents, much of their criticism seems either unjustified in their writing or based on what the game was supposed to be instead of what it was.
I hate using air quotes, but on a side note I think that game reviewers should not even refer to themselves as journalists because they're not gathering information, they're simply giving their opinion ... end rant.
Ironic article...I mean coming from the guy who hands down writes the worst game reviews on the internet this is just laughable. The last person the world needs to try and stand on the side of the game reviewers on this issue is Jeff Gertsmann! Unless of course you want to just make people laugh.
I couldn't buy a game because of an advert, or just looking at the back of the box, i probably did when i was a kiddy and got excited about everything (i don't get excited anymore, i am a man... (-_-)...).
What i look for in game reviews is the mentioning of the factors i want in that particular game, perfect example, i had been playing shooters for a fairly long time and got a little tired of murder and grey-brown graphics so i decided to go abit crazy and get a colourfull but still decent rpg or something, i must have been looking at Eternal Sonata at the time because thats what i bought.
I loved that its story was about a musician with a facinating life, i loved the well made, individual and sometimes kooky characters, the gameplay was final fantasy but if they decided to make a fun one, but above all it was colourfull and fresh, just what i needed to end my shooter blues for awhile.
When reading the reviews for Eternal Sonata i looked for these things:
was the rating high? yes, that means i'm getting a quality game that probably won't turn into a turd after the first level.
did it have the criteria i labelled above, colourfull, good story, fun gameplay? yes, i'd played final fantasy before and knew it couldn't be worse.
most important thing, is it a kids game? not necessarily, yes the graphics and friendliness of the voice acting is suitable for kids but, underneath it all is pretty adult story of a brilliant man who battled with illness and his relationships with loved ones throughout times of war and turmoil, and i loved it.
Don't know if i responded to the post there, got abit carried away, this is a comment not a forum post i'm.... i'm sorry.
I think there's also the point that reviews in todays fast-paced internet journalism have to come out fast. Of course, reviewers get their copies in advance (most of the time, I guess) but still have to deliver a review by the day the game comes out and EVERY SINGLE publication will be talking about it on that same day.If your site doesn't have the review up, to bad for you.
So the game wll be talked about for some days, dissected on the Internets, summed up on Metacritic until a bunch of other games come out (usually a few days at this time of the year) and then we're on to those and I guess in these conditions it's hard to have proper critique of a game. But, as they say, those are reviews, not critiques. I still wonder exactly the difference between those.
Anyway, it would be cool for game journalists to go back to a few games after a few months and write a more profound analysis of the game, after having the opportunity to have some time with it, without the pressure of an article deadline. I like those "late reviews" a lot better.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment