Added by Jeff on Nov. 24, 2008
76 comments
I don't know enough about you to tell you if you'd like the new Kanye West album. Hell, I'm not even sure if I like or hate it yet.
While there's been an off-and-on call for changes to the way games are reviewed for years now, the intensity of these calls seems to have increased over the past 12 months. Some people are finding reviews to be impenetrable. Others think they don't offer enough actual criticism, with many outlets devoting pages and pages to essentially retyping the instruction manual before getting on to the "is this game any good or not" part. Then there are the random attacks from folks who seem to think that reviewers aren't even playing the games they're writing about.
With a varied outcry like this from several different groups of people, you might think that the status-quo for game reviews has got to go. Well, I'm still not entirely convinced that game reviews have travelled to the land of music reviews, where only a scant few seem to actually get anything meaningful out of them, while the rest of us just buy music that we've heard before and already know we'll enjoy. Part of that's because games often have mild-to-severe technical issues that can absolutely ruin the experience. The other reason is that at $60, games simply can't be the disposable, impulse purchase that music and movies can be. But I'm not really here to defend the form.
I've read a couple of interesting articles that touch on some of these topics that you may want to check out.
Gamasutra's
Leigh Alexander has a
piece up on Kotaku discussing, specifically, the notion of people being into games enough to be
into games, but somehow not into them enough to get online and actually read anything about them. It's a large segment that probably accounts for the majority of people out there playing games. Believe it or not, there's still a world of people out there who make their game purchasing decisions based on a cool ad on TV, or game rentals, or even by staring at the back of the box.
Sounds like a crap shoot to me, but then, as the guy who has written game reviews for the last decade or so, I'm the very guy you'd expect to say that game reviews serve a very real purpose when used correctly.
The other article is a bit more pointed, it's Keith Stuart penning an article for The Guardian titled "
Do game reviewers really understand innovation?" It goes on to talk about
Mirror's Edge and starts to compare game reviews to film reviews. He claims that if Mirror's Edge were a movie, "it would be considered a forward-thinking masterpiece."
Personally, I think Mirror's Edge is a forward-thinking mess, though my opinion on the game doesn't really have much to do with what we're talking about here. Considering how much of a game's enjoyment typically comes from its execution, great ideas that don't translate well into an actual game are effectively useless and only serve as a big, blinking sign that screams "UNTAPPED POTENTIAL." That's a big part of why you see reviewers lamely say "maybe they'll fix it in the sequel," and it's what makes the comparisons between game reviews and film or music misguided. It's only in extremely rare cases--take most the
Metal Gear Solid series, for example--that a game's concepts and ideas can elevate it above and beyond clunky, frustrating mechanics. And Metal Gear essentially did it by making the most interesting parts non-interactive.
Similarly, we still don't know enough about you to accurately tell you if you'll like this or not.
I'm not really here to defend "the game review." In fact, I think most of them could be better. Most of the popular styles of game reviews that are employed by outlets today are less valid than they used to be, since attempts at singular authority and true objectivity make the insane assumption that there's a "right" answer to the game review question. As gaming spreads out and its audience's tastes diverge more and more, no one review can possibly serve everyone's needs. At best, it's my feeling that the right path is one that deals in specifics about our personal experiences with the game, even though there's no guarantee that the reader will have an identical one. We can point out the things we feel are relevant, and hopefully answer some questions that any prospective buyer may have about the product in question. Not to bring too much of our take into the discussion, but it's this concept of "no review fits all" that led to a lot of the decisions we made about Giant Bomb's reviews, from the scoring system to the first-person tense.
I find that I'm also becoming increasingly drawn to more personal takes on game quality, even if I don't think those serve the same purpose as a more traditional review. Take, for example,
this review of Gears of War 2 from Tim Rogers. It's a fun read, definitely moreso than
my own text review of the game was. But then, I don't think I would get nearly as much out of the review if I hadn't already played Gears of War 2 for myself. As a result of that, I can totally relate to Rogers' highs and lows, or at least understand precisely what he's getting at in cases where I don't agree. If I was trying to figure out if I should buy the game for myself, I'd probably come away from that article thinking "well, that guy sure seems to like it" and very little else. The Escapist's regular video series,
Zero Punctuation, is largely the same way. Without any shared reference points, the words would lose much of their meaning. I'm not intending this as a knock against either Rogers or Ben Croshaw, mind you. That's just a factor of the way they've decided to cover games and I'd guess that it was a very deliberate decision.
But to just blindly throw out every aspect of game reviews in order to ensure games like Mirror's Edge get more credit than they probably deserve doesn't exactly sound like a great way to go about doing things, either. It's asking reviewers to talk more about the developer's intentions than about the actual product. That doesn't seem right at all. The people seeking revolutionary innovation at all costs are also probably the people who would listen to a podcast or dig deeper into alternative coverage of a game to see that, even though the core game is absolutely flawed, there's still something here worth seeing.
Either way, these links are some interesting reads. What say you, dear readers?
Salute: 1UP Acquired By UGO, Downsized; EGM Shuttered
Sony Issues Handy Chart, Giant Bomb Issues Handier Chart
Pre-Release Killzone 2 Demo Only For Pre-Orders in US
LittleBigRoll
Metal Gears of War?
Warning! Caution! Overload! Planned Downtime Tonight!
Ninja Blade Demo: We Cut Some Guys, Watch
1.5M Xbox Live Users Online, Bogging Us Down
Guides
on Nov. 24, 2008
on Nov. 24, 2008
on the subject of subjective reviews, did you, jeff, happen to hear about of all the hating on your MK vs DC review from the latest gamesradar podcast? it seems that their main reason for being frustrated with your 5 star rating is becasue they aren't really into the whole "crazy fighting game" thing. For example, they think the story from mK vs DC is complete trash, while they seem to have enjoyed the latest WWE smackdown game.
it's another example of game reviewers that have varying tastes, which is something that gamers who depend on reviews need to understand. I'm way into to "crazy fighting games," and so are you, so I can conclude that i need to buy the game, based off your 5 star rating.
on Nov. 24, 2008
The best reviews don't really tell you whether something is good or bad, but rather whether you'll enjoy this or that. It sounds similar, but it's not.
on Nov. 24, 2008
on Nov. 24, 2008
I come to GB for good reviews, they are nice and short and give me a good idea if i should look into the game further.
People who complain about reviews (namely that guy ragging on you about the MK vs DC review) have issues. I know that you guys aren't the be all and end all of gaming reviews, but i take what you guys say into account when i spend my $80-110 (Australia sucks) on my gaming goodness.
The way that you guys rate games is fantastic, you don't singularly rate games on graphics/gameplay/sound etc, you rate it if its a good play or not, and at the end of the day thats all that matters. I don't care about graphics and sound as much as i care if i have a good time playing the game or not.
Sorry to ramble, but I hate the crap that reviewers get from others that have no idea what you are on about. I would rather your review system over someone's who rates a game out of a 0-100 scale and can justify a point here and a point there.
Reviews are subjective peices of writing and are largely influenced by a writers original opinions of the genre/franchise/platform.
Its time people realise that its not gospel, but its a single opinion about a game which makes that score what it is, hence why when you look on metacritic there are so many variations. Just because GB (or any other site) may rate it a bad game doesn't mean that its crap, its just that their experience with the game wasn't what the others experienced.
Sorry to crap on for so long, i've probably overstepped my mark and missed the point. But stuff like this really 'grinds my gears'...
on Nov. 24, 2008
on Nov. 24, 2008
on Nov. 24, 2008
on Nov. 24, 2008
Unless one person is doing every review for a website, you're always going to get varying degreees of likes and dislikes which will inevitably lead to some websites having biases for certain things. For example, why is this website always reviewing the XBox360 version of a game and not the PS3? Or why does this website not review any RPGs whatsoever, including a game like Valkyria Chronicles which most people who have reviewed it having no problem calling it a contender for game of the year. Of course it won't win because of the overhype games like GoW or GTA4 get but the truth is a collection of random gamers reviewing hundreds of games can never be an accurate barometer for whether or not a game should be bought. I come here because I enjoy the community and talking about games, but the truth is I don't hold the reviewers opinions any higher than any one on the forum. I read player reviews just as much as Jeff's or Brad's. The Giant Bomb crew don't have any special reviewing powers that I don't have, even if they've played a million more games than me that doesn't mean they know more than I do about the games I like, or anyone likes for that matter. They just give their opinions on what they like, and I enjoy that. Look at the priority Brad gave to reviewing Final Fantasy 4 as a reference..
on Nov. 24, 2008
on Nov. 24, 2008
on Nov. 24, 2008
on Nov. 24, 2008
Looking at this scenario from the otherside, when you discount Molyneux's intentions, Fable II becomes a lot better, but in any case saying a game is good or bad because of the intentions of those who made it is not the right way to go. If a developer fails some of his/her goals, but the game has heart, it can save it, but it shouldn't be recognised on the ground of what it tried to do, rather that it should be commended on what it achieves and criticised on what it doesn't.
No game is perfect and it goes without saying that neither is any review, but in the case of a review all you can do is talk from experience and make it common knowledge that it is your experience and your opinion. With any luck, you'll find an audience (however niche that audience may be) that agrees with you, for the most part, but regardless of the outcome you safe in the knowledge that you spoke from your heart (and sometimes your head, too).
on Nov. 24, 2008
I'd really like to see more of these sorts of articles, if anything to liven things up a bit. Good job Jeff!
My two cents:
I'm not a fan of things like metacritic and gamerankings. Reviews are, in essence, opinions, and like all things there are opinions that matter more to you than others. If you've read several reviews by the same person and relate to their tastes, then you're more likely to value that person's opinion. You shouldn't look at all the reviews to gauge the quality of the game, simply the opinons of the people behind them. sure, we're more lucky in the video game industry to have mroe glaring flaws to find (i.e. graphical tears, bad animations and the like), and more often than in other mediums there is a consenus, but when you get into games that dont' have such easily identifiable flaws, opinions start to change from person to person. The bottom line is you can't just take the sum of all the reviews and say "this is how good this game is", but instead take in the opinions of people you value. I value GB's opinions on games because I've read stuff by them for a long time now and I relate to their tastes. When they give a review, I take their review into consideration when I'm thinking about buying a game, but I also value opinions from other websites as well. Take into consideration reviews of the people whose opinion you value, because reviews are two things and two things only: an opinion and buyer's guide, although at times people take them as much more than that.
on Nov. 24, 2008
Also, people need to stop taking offense when a game they love is not so well received by critics. If you love a game, then why are you even looking at reviews ?
on Nov. 24, 2008
on Nov. 24, 2008
I really think reviews are point of views, no matter how far way from his personal taste a reviewer tries to be , there will always be the personal touch.
I have always based my gaming purchases on reviews, and I really think reviewers pay a great service to the gaming community , since games cost so much nowadays.
So to base your purchases on reviews you have to find a reviewer, or a website that has the taste that meets yours.
For me , it used to be Ign , but lately they have been bashing games I really like, so I went to look for other reviews. Today I read every review there is to read about a game and take into account each opinion I find. I usually read IGN`s, Gamespot, GB and watch GT reviews. I also like Zero Punctuation reviews , but I think they must not be taken too seriously , since Ben Croshaw is a really grumpy guy.
One bad thing about having to read all this reviews is that it takes time, a lot of time, on a season like this one, it has been taking a HUGE ammount of time. So I tend to prefer video reviews, as they pretty much sum everything that is said on text ( On Ign they simply read it for you).
One thing I have to complain about reviews todays is that everybody evaluates the same things , games cannot be linear, games have to be long , etc. etc.
Between my family work and friends I don`t have much time to play games , I LOVE short games, because I can never finish really long games, like oblivion for example. What`s wrong with a linear story ?!?! I loose so much time doing shit on GTA IV that when I play the next story mission I totaly forget what the last one was about. One example of a great game, IMHO, that didn`t get good reviews is John Woo`s Stranglehold, it was a little repetitive, a little flawed, but it was incredbly fun and should have had reviews around the 8`s , and not the 7`s it receieved.
I also think inovation is overrated: mirror`s Edge Ideas are great, but too Human`s control scheme sucks...
Well, I am loosing my point here. To sum everything up. I think reviewers have to consider their taste when writing their reviews, otherwise they will all be the same. That way we can consider every point of view before buying a game. I also think the idea of what makes a game good has to be changed a little, afterall a game shall be fun, even though it is linear, short and doesn't look that good.
on Nov. 24, 2008
on Nov. 24, 2008
on Nov. 24, 2008
I also agree that many game reviews could be better, but I will put part of the blame on the majority of readers who usually don't read the reviews anyway. There are so many people who only care about what score a review gets without taking the time to read the review and I think this has affected the quality of a review. Whether reviewers try to appeal by writing long, redundant information, or putting in "catchy" phrases that they think are funny but have nothing to do with the game, it's become more of an entertainment piece than an informal one... Not to say that throwing in a joke here and there is a bad thing, but a review should be able to speak about the game in an informal matter that will make sense to anyone reading it. Also, a review shouldn't be so short that it leaves me with a bunch of unanswered questions, in which the gameplay is hardly touched on.
Anyway, really enjoyed reading this, good write-up!
Login or Signup to comment.