On Games, Reviews, And Criticism -- Part 1

More articles like this one please, Mr. Patrick.

@BeachThunder said:

For mostly better and only a little bit worse, "On Games, Reviews And Criticism -- Part 1" is the best Patrick article in months, and makes a strong case for mostly-unedited email exchanges when done right.

The comment - review genre has rarely seen such a good example of an elegantly written response. Blending the format of an internet comment with serious critique, this review is succinct and worth anybody's time.

These kinds of articles are fantastic, definitely want more.

I wouldn't say that game reviews really sway my opinions of a game or whether I will buy it or not. Quick looks and listening to stuff like the bombcast are more likely to sway me. Of course, there are times when nothing will change my opinion, I knew from the moment skyrim was announced, for example, that I would get it, no matter what anyone said about it, and that I am likely to get the most recent Assassins Creed game even though what I've heard about it hasn't been that great.

I can absolutely see both sides of this discussion. I totally agree with Manveer that reviews and criticism should be separated, but the reality is that we just aren't quite ready for that.

Take film, for example. Film began really hitting the mainstream in the early 1920s. It took around 30 years before something like Cahiers du Cinéma was started. For those who aren't familiar with Cahiers, the publication was/is a French magazine that totally redefined how films are analyzed and talked about. The people who began this magazine were the ones who really got auteur theory started.

Since we're still relatively close to the beginning of video games, it may be a bit harder to determine the time when it hit mainstream, but just for the sake or argument, let's say that is was around the time of the SNES and Genesis (some might argue earlier, but I think a case could be made that mainstream success didn't really start until around the PS2 era). 1990 seems like a good compromise when games really started to hit.

With that said, we're about 22 years out since games hit the mainstream using the above criteria. So this is definitely the time that these conversations should be beginning to really take place. The problem, though, is that what happened with film is that when this separation started to occur is that the ideas from Cahiers eventually became what we would call "Film Theory" today. Film theory, while valuable, is mostly studied in the classroom - in fact, my degree is in Critical Studies in Film. In the United States, at least, film reviews are still pretty much like video game reviews. Even great critics like Ebert don't really reference a lot of the things we discuss in film classes.

And here's the reason why - the public couldn't care less about auteur theory, framing and composition, mise-en-scene, and all of the other things we film nerds like to talk about.

The same goes for the gaming public - and maybe even to a greater extent in that games are generally geared at a younger audience. They don't care about game theory. They want to know if it's fun or if it's broken. They want to know if they should spend their money on it. Does that have to be done with review scores? No. But it sure makes it easier.

What I would argue is that we have a definite need in this industry for a Cahiers du Cinéma equivalent. I think some that there are some folks trying to do that. But to think that it will replace reviews or eliminate the issues with reviews would be naive. Most of those issues are much more systemic than I have space for here.

Want more pieces like this? Let me know.

Yes! More of this, less of this: http://www.giantbomb.com/news/rocksteady-probably-not-developing-batman-arkham-world-next/3855/ please.

Very interesting article, I always enjoy hearing from devs like this. Keep em coming!

It's weird reading well thought out arguments over videogames on the internet.

I expected some aweful bashes or personal insults any second and that's kinda sad....

Very thoughtful article, I enjoyed it a lot.

Thinking about the movie criticism/review industry, though, they run into exactly the same problem. When a blockbuster action film comes out for example, positive reviews with good scores sometimes belie the critical venom the reviewer has toward the tropes of such films, even if they are well-made within the genre. Reading such a review is a strange experience.

I think ultimately, the consumer of the review finds a few critics or websites that are doing what they want them to do, whether that is closer to a critical review or a "Consumer Reports" functional review. I know when I come to Giant Bomb, I'll get a solid opinion on whether or not a game is worth my time and money. On the other hand, when I go to Kill Screen, I'll get a good critical review. I'm not implying that KS doesn't mention functionality, or that GB never delves into criticism, but there's a difference in primary focus.

Well done Patrick. I look forward to seeing the rest of this discussion as well as more articles of this kind.

I am studying cinema at this moment to become a movie critic, as I love to read and write about movies. One of the lesson I have learned from Yahtzee Croshaw (of all people) is that review scores are kinda bullshit, and it is absurd to convert any opinion into a single independant number. A 4 for "Fruit Ninja Kinect" is not the same as a 4 for the last Legend of Zelda? Of course it's not, those are two completely different games! Still, I do applaud Giant Bomb for having only 5 possible ratings, instead of the possible 100 since, like my teacher once said, what the hell is the difference between 76% and 77%?

As always, a great article. Thank you Patrick, I look forward for the next letters.

TL;DR

I'm sorry, but come on, 3 pages and this hadn't been done? Someone had to do it!

In seriousness: good stuff Patrick, keep this sort of stuff up.

What this article doesn't seem to address is that the vast, vast majority of the videogame consuming populace doesn't give two shits about review scores, just like movie-goers. They see something that appeals to them and they will buy it. The "uproar" over the Uncharted 3 review was more of a knee-jerk reaction by a miniscule handful of PS3 super-fans, probably mostly teenagers, raging on internet forums. There is far too much attention paid to the loudest idiots.

It's comforting knowing that people can still have rational conversation, but, it'd be hilarious if the next two installments spiral out of control. Either way I'm enthralled and I want to read more.

I really like this discussion, but I don't feel like there is one right answer for everyone. This actually makes sense to me, since there's clearly not one right answer for the question that Patrick and Manveer are trying to answer (as their correspondence here shows).

Some people simply want their opinions validated. They are going to buy the game, or not, and they want to confirm that they're right in spending their money on it. I fall into this category most of the time. After playing games for 30 years, I know what games I tend to like. I've done my homework to know what's coming out before it does. When the reviews come out, I use them to confirm that there isn't something that I missed, like crappy performance, a lackluster story, or major technical glitches.

Other people want their opinions challenged. I believe this is the minority, but Patrick stated that he falls into this category. I use reviews for that purpose from time-to-time. Like Patrick, I want to see why someone wouldn't like the game and compare that to my internal values and see if I should hold off. Alternatively, when a game that I'm not interested in gets a great score, that will certainly catch my eye. A prime example is Driver: San Francisco. I had absolutely zero interest in that game before the review came out, but the good score caught my eye, causing me to want to watch the Quick Look, which then led to me purchasing the game and really liking it.

In either case, I don't expect the reviewer to really care what my intentions are when he or she writes the review. The review is trying to answer the question "Should I buy this game?" It doesn't matter what my incoming bias is, a well-written review that breaks the game down into its pros and cons will suit that purpose.

What i look for in game reviews is a sign of the quality of a game, but i have a habit, i am too familiar with the technical side of video games.
 
Tomb Raider Underworld is my example, it's a decent Tomb Raider game, as a fan of the series i should definately get it. If the reviews of the game suggested that it was a horrible mess and no fun at all then i'd feel inclined to skip it, label it as the dark point of the series and move on but that's not the case. Many reviews sum it up as being a new game with some nice polish which doesn't "solve the issues" the games have had before... but if there were issues then they weren't a big deal for me so i should still totally play it.
 
I saw gameplay footage of the game and noticed some things, then the demo came out and i definately don't want to play it, bad animations are a problem for me, try moving at walking speed in that game across any uneven surface and lara will bug out unsure of foot location in regards to the run animation she's trying to do at the wrong speed. When wall climbing, lara takes on the persona of a robot crab. 
I don't have a PS3 but fortunately the animations in Uncharted are so floaty and poor that i don't care, a game series often praised for it's animations.
 
There are other games i haven't purchased due to minor technical reasons, but there are many more worse games i have due to something good i noticed in them.
In this regard, reviews arn't as useful to me as something like a Quick Look, where the person playing is giving opinions that maybe arn't matching up with what i'm seeing on the screen, not something that would happen in a review. Recent examples, i think Trine 2 is a bad game and have no interest in it and while i'd love to play Mighty Switch Force, i don't have a 3DS but thanks to the Quick Look i bought the steller soundtrack.

This was really cool to read Patrick and it's why I love Giant Bomb over every other game site out there. Another major piece of information we have learned is that Manveer likes pie more than cake.

In his review he states "Uncharted 3 is the most exciting game in the world, but only until you deviate from the script." He goes on to expand on how the game makes you feel like nothing more than an "interactive butler" at times.

I just want to say, since I don't know if you ended up bringing this up, Patrick, that the impression it seemed other people got from this part was not that he knocked Uncharted 3 because it was linear, but because the way scenes were scripted, sometimes the scene just plain broke if you didn't do things in the right way. If a camera is panning for a dramatic shot and you decided to not follow the path, for example, it didn't compensate.

The statement was much more that Uncharted 3 tried a LOT more to make it a cinematic game, but forgot that players can be a bit random at times. As a result, the majesty of a scene can just fail, and it implicitly requires the player to basically "buttle" their way through the levels, doing just what the movie director wants them to do.

That said, I otherwise don't disagree with the resulting commentary on the matter. I just wanted to point this out in case it wasn't.

Really interesting read.

Absolute rubbish that game reviews and criticism should be separated.

If a film had (for example) a sexist agenda (e.g the film simply reinforced negative stereotypes and attitudes towards women through its depictions of and actions of / upon them with no attempt to provide some sort of social commentary on the problems arising from sexism) then film reviewers would mark and critic it accordingly. They would not just throw their hands in the air and say "Nevermind! It's meant to be horrifically sexist - its that kind of film! 10/10". Instead, they would question the viability of such a film, and would do so within their review.

To deprive videogames of an equally deconstructive and reflective approach within reviews merely undermines the importance and potential of games as both narrative and interactive forms of entertainment / art.

Personally, I also have issue with the linearity found within Uncharated - more so than the linearity found in other games - because it works against the theme of the game. Nathan Drake an adventurer exploring various ruins / temples etc for (supposedly) the first time and yet he seemingly knows the exact, correct route to take through these structures. Surely, if the narrative is to be believed, Nathan has never explored these areas before, so how come he knows exactly where to go? And why am I (as the player) deprived of the opportunity for exploration when I am playing the role of an adventurer? This constant undermining of the fiction creates a dissonance between the player, the protagonist and the narrative that, personally, I have never overcome.

So, the criticism isn't so much the linearity, but the contextually appropriate use of linearity within the fictional framework of Uncharted.

Surely, if games are to progress and evolve, such issues must be assessed, and done so within a review and the score modified accordingly. If we just scream 10/10 all the time, games will never get better - they may even devolve.

Dropping scores is totally a part of the answer, IMO. I don't see it as easy at all, but it is a way out. Your number doesn't have to be justified or do any justifying if it's not there. Let it ride. Say what you want to say about how you liked the game. Unfortunately, you'll take a hit for it if you do it that way.

Also, do reviews have to be done pre-release? As hard as it is to wait, it could be worth it.

An interesting alternative is to make reviews into little stubs, with criticism to follow later.

I agree with you 100% Patrick.  Your comparison between a $10 movie and a $60 game is the one I was going to make as well.  Untold numbers of critics give their personal opinions on nearly ever new flick that comes out at the box office.  Why should we expect less from a product that is a much larger investment, both in terms of time and money?
 
A lot of it comes down to expectations.  Compare the Uncharted series to what we recently saw with the Spiderman trilogy.  Both have great first entries, but seemed to perfect things with the second iteration.  By the time the 3rd installments arrived, people were expecting a lot.  Unfortunately, both were steps back in terms of story telling and tried to compensate by just throwing more flashy stuff at us on screen.  There is a difference between being bad and being disappointing.

I like all giantbomb stories, Patrick Tictac.

Hmm. I am interested to see how this discussion continues.

And yes Patrick, I certainly would like more articles such as this. Nice work.

This is great Patrick, thank you for doing your part to elevate the conversation. More features like this are most certainly welcome.

One of the best things I've seen Giantbomb do. Thank you.

Some people simply want their opinions validated. They are going to buy the game, or not, and they want to confirm that they're right in spending their money on it. I fall into this category most of the time. After playing games for 30 years, I know what games I tend to like. I've done my homework to know what's coming out before it does. When the reviews come out, I use them to confirm that there isn't something that I missed, like crappy performance, a lackluster story, or major technical glitches.

THIS is the kind of meat I want to consume. Let's see more of these.

Good article and I would like more. I appreciate Patrick's articles and am glad he has joined the Giantbomb crew.

A major point to ponder though is what if a gamer has not played MW1 and 2 or not played Uncharted 1 or 2? If they come into part 3 fresh, the game very likely will feel like a 5/5 for them. How much of a review stems on what has come before and what is expected now and how much is based on just judging the game for what it is period?

Madden seems to get by with 9s every year from major reviewers. It's obvious which way most reviewers review Madden (not to start a debate on the actual quality of Madden). How is it fair that Uncharted or MW, for example, get judged based on past products more harshly than say Madden? Not saying GB does this but there are websites/publications that do. For another example, Dynasty Warriors has taken huge score losses due to not innovating enough over the years and essentially rehashing. However, if I've never played DW before the newest iteration, does that mean it's not a game worthy of a score better than 4/10? Food for thought.

This is a really great piece. More, please.

I'd like to comment on my disappointment in Heir for missing what the actual criticism of Uncharted 3 was in that Eurogamer review. Parkin was complaining not about the linearity of the title, but the level of over-scripting that actually restricted further one's ability to explore and play in an already linear space. In essence, the game would often punish the player for jumping right instead of left. Or it might punish the player for jumping one second early not because you didn't make the jump, but because the building needs to crumble when you land on it, so hanging off the side isn't good enough. This is different from the ultra-polished linearity of the Call of Duty franchise; Modern Warfare 2 deserves less flack than Uncharted 3 because it's generally pretty impossible to go the "wrong way" because they simply closed the other path.

Games criticism absolutely has a place in game reviews. Reviews are a chance to summarize your overall opinion of a product; in many cases, the score and the summaries (both at the front and bottom of the review) are a chance to express your purchasing opinion of the title, but the middle is certainly reserved for "what is this game, how does it play, what does it do well, and what does it do wrong?"

Nice read, looking forward to the rest. Stuff like this is great during slow news cycles.

I have no problems with games being linear but if the series has had pretty boring shooting mechanics the entire way through and then you release a sequel with even more shooting and action sequences then you have earned a fuck you.

Fuck you Uncharted 3.

That was a really well written piece by both parties. Can't wait to read the rest of the conversation and I hope you do more of these @patrickklepek .

In hindsight, the fuss over the 8/10 for Uncharted 3 from Eurogamer seems crazy when Tom Chick gave it 4/10.

http://www.honestgamers.com/reviews/9640.html

*Wall Text Alert*

I think an open dialogue between game journalists and developers is kind of fascinating. Keep it up Patrick

Giant bomb..making sense of the gaming world!

WE WANT MORE LIKE THIS

I hate scores, they mean nothing to me. I won't buy a game because it's a nine and I wont ignore a game just because it "only" got a seven. I'm all for getting rid of them. Though really, I make my own decisions based on video and demos of games, I haven't actually read a review in a long time.

I like this. More like this.

@Coreymw: I think my problem with this approach is I don't know what it means to review a game on its "merits alone", at least not most current games. There are plenty of sites out there that basically review every game as if it were made for someone who has never played other games, but is that really useful to most of the people who go to a site like Giant Bomb?

"Gamers" have already played other games, and generally buy sequels because they have played the previous games in the series, and buy games in a specific genre because they like games in that genre, so the background of the reviewer is extremely relevant to the experiences of those people who have played these other games.

The kind of reviewing that Manveer wants is very boring, without much of the personality that draws me to reviews in the first place. Of course the reviewer should still try to address the pure "quality" of game production as well, but whether a game is well-made and well-polished is only a small part of the picture for many gamers, and that is why they gravitate towards websites where the reviewers tend to share their experiences.

I really really don't like games that are too heavily (or blatantly) scripted and I'm sure there are others out there that feel like this. And I also feel like reviews are mostly a recommendation to buy. The combination of these two facts alone makes it absolutely necessary for the reviewer to name this mechanic.

It's also why I like GB's review scale. It's about "how many people are there that would like this game?". 5 means almost everybody will like it, 2...not so much.

Patrick you beast give me more articles like this :D
 
I will read this on my Giant Bomb App later.

Mr. Klepek, may we please have some more? This is a great conversation and would love to see more of these.

N'Gai Croal did some similar posts for Level Up on the Newsweek site; these posts fill that void perfectly.

Fantastic piece of content for the site. When at the end of the GOTY podcasts Ryan pointed out his joy and the benefit of having Patrick join the crew; I immediately thought about the occasional bitching about Patricks work in the comments below and how absolutely pleased I was to hear the crew not taking any of that to heart. It's this kind of content that we get now that he's joined the crew that we didn't get before that makes me proud to support the site as a premium member. The more of this kind of thing I can get the better. Thanks for doing what you do Patrick.

I love shit like this, Pat-baby. Keep them coming.

I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Hier! The reason Eurogamer's review picks on Uncharted's linear nature and not COD's is simple... Shooter's linear nature is less noticable from the first person perspective. Think about it... From a FP point of view the world would appear larger then in 3rd person, like Uncharted. I have always felt that the camera placement and graphical style of Uncharted makes the space seem small! The other thing that makes the comparing of Uncharted/COD unfair is simple... COD doesn't have climbing and puzzle solving! The climbing and puzzle solving of Uncharted is probably the most linear experience in a video game since Tomb Raider! Mostly because Uncharted is the spiritual successor to Tomb Raider! Tomb Raider 1 recieved amazing review scores... Tomb Raider 3 recieved terrible review scores because the formula "didn't deviate from the norm". Wouldn't it be fair to say his review was trying to reflect that! The reviews around this place are widely opinionated at times.. By Heir's standards it sounds like they are criticism and not reviews? Which is confusing! I think the real problem is that people love Uncharted and don't want to hear about it's short comings!

More articles like this, please.

"The easy way out would be to drop scores, but let's not kid ourselves, as that won't happen. What's the middle ground?"

And why can't it happen? Other publications do it, wholly successfully (bar the problem of getting advance review copy), so why not Giantbomb.

Rockpapershotgun's Wot I Think reviews are great. You get a personal piece from the author, along with critique without the miserable hang-up of sticking a number at the bottom.

I want 100 more of these. Challenge my preconceptions.