Necros Says: Hey. It's been a while. As a weekly column, Rantoid is back, for now at least. We'll see how summer break affects its continued appearance.
Within the past year, there has been a lot of discussion in the gaming community about the worth of the review system. It has been posited that review scores are only for fanboys to generate flamewars (and higher traffic) and those who are too lazy to read the meat of the text. At the same time, they're a necessary evil, as the majority of gamers prefer some sort of quick summary to collect the reviewer's thoughts. Sites such as Metacritic and Game Rankings also rely on scores to give a popular opinion of titles, though these systems are routinely undermined by different interpretations of a number's scale. There have been numerous strategies for how reviews can be fixed, such as 1UP's independent letter scores and Kotaku's highly original score-less reviews focused on pros and cons, but gamers can not and will not come to any consensus on this issue.
Now that I have your attention, I'm shifting this article elsewhere. Because seriously, I think we're all sick and tired of talking review formatting to death.
What concerns me is how reliable game reviews can be in the first place. Consider this: every publication and independent review source plays these games under extremely different conditions. Some assume that running through the entirety of the game is the only way to get a true feel for how well the game succeeds at its goals. Others believe that merely getting the general idea of the game is enough to give an accurate opinion of these games. In the past, Gabe of Penny Arcade has called out reviewers on specific oversights in reviews, telling that anyone who played the whole game knows that the review is inaccurate and flawed. I have to agree on this point: if the game changes mid-way, how would you know if, having played through only the majority of the game, a reviewer failed to mention the ending of Bioshock, generally held to be a let-down? The reader simply assumes that the reviewer knows the entire content of the game.
So what can be done? The easy answer would be to assure every review is done after a complete run through of the game. This is completely impractical. How many reviewers devoted the time to covering the 100+ hours of content in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion? I doubt any did. Then what about MMOs? Were reviewers able to reach level 60 in World of Warcraft before it was time to submit their review? And how deep did they get involved in guilds and PVP? For that matter, it's impossible that reviewers were able to determine whether Halo 3's multiplayer would be entertaining enough to last beyond an initial month or two of play.
The problem here is time constraints. An accurate review is always highly desirable, but when it comes down to it, a review released to gamers a week or two after launch can be nearly worthless, much less the comfy period of a month some of these games require. Film critics have it so much easier: 2-3 hours of their time, followed by the time it takes to analyze 2-3 hours worth of content. With games, though, it's a never-ending struggle between balancing a game's length with the deadline.
This deadline also causes a bigger problem: it hinders the gameplaying experience by causing unnecessary fatigue and stress for the reviewer. Picture this: knowing the deadline, a reviewer boots up Game X to see he has only completed four of the game's 15 dungeons (according to the developer) and he must focus his energy to plowing through the game. That was the scenario I found myself in last month for dvddesign's achievement contest. I bought Rock Band early in the month, since I was told completing Band World Tour would take a long time, and with RHWeeeee6 as my bassist, began crashing through the game on drums. It started out fun, but by the end of the month, when we were playing for long bouts nearly every day, the pleasure was quickly replaced with tedium. We lifelessly hit and strummed our instruments, desperately attempting to get through all the cities to meet the deadline at the end of the month. Notably, my bassist's girlfriend asked if we were even enjoying ourselves anymore.
No, we were not. In forcing ourselves to push through a game in too short a time, we had sucked the life out of the game, reducing it to a series of tasks. In short, the game (noun: an amusement or pastime) had become work (noun: exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something; labor; toil). There is something extremely wrong with that. So when 1UP's features editor Jeremy Parish writes on his personal blog that he is currently "working on" six RPGs for reviews, you have to wonder how much of a damper is being put on his opinions by slogging through six lengthy games at once; he notes shortly thereafter that he's "blowing off" his work to play the new GTA IV (emphasis added mine - except for the game title, that's just good game title formatting).
At the same time, should experience even play into a game review? I, as do many of my fellow Dtoiders, agree that game reviews are inevitably subjective, and to try and separate bias is an exercise in futility. However, how much should one's personal enjoyment of a game be allowed to filter a review? Before you disagree with me, allow me to turn your attention to 1UP's review of Halo 3. A 10/10 before their switch to a letter scale (resulting in the obvious change to A+), the review's final paragraph clarified that, despite the notable drawbacks that Editor in Chief Dan "Shoe" Hsu took the time to note, the game was still so much fun and offered so much to any gamer that it deserved a 10. I'm not disputing his score, because in that context, it clearly fit; what I question is how much the personal experience of the gamer should factor in to the final review.
As for answers to these questions, I sadly have none. Sorry to disappoint you. The answer of how to analyze the conditions of gaming for a review are too complex to encapsulate in the summary of some no-name writer on a free blogging network. I can, at least, plea to reviewers to make some note of the circumstances of your gaming, even if it's not as blunt as Kotaku's review footer, which notes which version was reviewed and what percentage of the game was actually completed. It might mean some reviews won't be completely accurate, but at least it's somewhat more honest.
Necros spent the last month playing Rock Band and struggling to finish the end of his sophomore year at Syracuse University. When he's not neglecting Destructoid for real life activities, he can be found as a regular on Failcast.
|
(# 0) on 05/11/2008 16:57
The comments are peppered with different points of view, and certain patterns appear that we could consider more objective.
That's just what I think. :P
(# 1) on 05/11/2008 16:59
But you are right on the WoW point. When reviewers probably reviewed WoW, they maybe got to level 30, ran a dungeon or 2 and felt they knew the game. They never ran a 40 man raid, felt the pressure of having to show up to raid everynight and kill the same bosses for 5 hours each night.
(# 2) on 05/11/2008 17:04
Games like WoW on the other hand are so time consuming that a reviewer could not possibly have spent the time necessary to get to the "end game" , or experience the frustration that is PvP servers.
Also dude, Im your man if dvddesign tries another crazy stunt like RockBand again
(# 3) on 05/11/2008 17:05
(# 4) on 05/11/2008 17:09
The one thing I want to respond to is the issue of whether a reviewers level of fun while the game is played should be factored in to the review score. Personally, I think that it is essential that the level of fun to be incorporated into the final score.
A game could look beautiful, the controls could be good, it could do everything write from a technical standpoint but if it isn't fun, then the game has failed. In the case like this, the review score needs to be lowered for lack of fun.
In the same way, there can be games that are just terrible in almost every way but are extremely fun for reasons seemingly inexplicable. In that scenario the game's review score should be boosted.
(# 5) on 05/11/2008 17:12
(# 6) on 05/11/2008 17:27
Also, let me revise this:
Necros spent the last month playing Rock Band and struggling to finish the end of his sophomore year at Syracuse University. When he's not neglecting Destructoid for real life activities, he can be found as a regular on Failcast. As well as doubling his comments in other people's blogs.
Better.
(# 7) on 05/11/2008 17:28
A good example: I'm not a person who really gets riled up about bad frame rates in games. If other parts of the game design are extraordinary, I tend to overlook a chugging engine that can’t necessarily handle what s onscreen. That sentiment perfectly explains why I totally LOVE Shadow of the Colossus(as opposed to just liking it.) I imagine plenty of game players wouldn’t be able to get past the terrible frame rate that can, at times, make Shadow unplayable. But I can put up with that because the underlying game play, story and graphics are so good. A number review in the high 80’s doesn’t necessarily tell me if the choppy frame rate is excused by good game design, or vice versa.
Similarly, if a game has a downright stupid, insipid, or porely handled plot, I’m not going to take as kindly to it as other gamers(who happily ignore story.) Perfect example: Gears of War, which has outstanding, visceral gameplay and great dialog, but the core plot of the game isn’t just half- assed. It’s FULLY ASSED. I’ m don’t think as highly of Gears of War as other people, but I’m not going to find out about a bad story from a number and a game synopsis.
The bottom line is that games are EXPENSIVE. Gabe at Penny-Arcade may think that reviews are useless, but I imagine that both members of the webcomic have a bit more disposable income than the average gamer(including a tie to the industry which sees them inundated with review copies of games, just like traditional sites). With the exception of theatre( and all theatre production, like dance) games are among the most expensive artistic mediums around. You don’t have to pay money to see(most) artwork, a movie costs 8 to 10 dollars(and even THAT is too expensive) and books retail for around 10 to 30 dollars. Games can be 60 dollars or more, and for that kind of cash, people should NOT have to waste their hard earned cash on junk. They deserve to play the best. Reviews and review scores DO inform many people’s purchasing decision, and, by researching all possible opinions on a game, they are more apt to grab a product they genuinely like, instead of spending their cash on junk.
(# 8) on 05/11/2008 17:30
I actually got in to Newhouse last year, but opted to go to a liberal arts college instead. (I'm at Hamilton College! Not too far away from you!)
Still, you must have MAD media skills!
(# 9) on 05/11/2008 17:39
I think Gabe took more of an issue that some reviewers were rendering premature judgement on a game before they grasped the full breadth of its design. I don't think many people would agree that game reviews are pointless, especially since they provide a more reasoned analysis than typical word-of-mouth reviews.
Newhouse didn't even look at my portfolio DVD when they accepted me. :( But yeah, I freaking love being in the editing suites all day.
(# 10) on 05/11/2008 18:12
You would think that this problem would be abated by Publishers sending out review copies earlier: certianly some games benefit from being played at a leisurly pace.
Ideally, someone who wants to purchase a game SHOULD find as many differnt opinions on a title. Even if critics feel positive about a titles worth, a potential consumer may find that the elements of a product being praised are the exact design elements they don't like.
If you only went to Destructoid for a review resource, you would be doing yourself a diservice,then if you also didn't check out 1up,Kotaku,Giant Bomb, and a whole slew of other sites. That's the wonderful part of being an enthusiast. You know how to obtain enough opionons on a certian product to make informed decisions. You have the power to NEVER purchase a product you won't value.
.
(# 11) on 05/11/2008 18:34
I've been burned before by not reading the reviews and just blindly checking the numbered score. Way too many games with a rating of 8 or 8.5 that weren't worth the cash.
But then again, sometimes a game comes along like Assassin's Creed where the reviews are all over the place. Who do you believe when one outlet gives the game a 10 and another gives the game a 7? Game reviews are quite tricky, and it seems this industry is very prone to biased reviews based on prior agreements and other garbage like that.
It's hard for the non-hardcore, that's for sure. They're probably the demographic that gets burnt the most by using reviews, especially considering a fuck-ton of Joe Sometimes Gamer is subscribed to GI, a magazine run by the nation's largest gaming retailer, GameStop.
I don't know what I'm getting at specifically here, but I can say this: It's telling when there really isn't much positive to say about such an influential and important part of gaming culture.
(# 12) on 05/11/2008 18:45
(# 13) on 05/11/2008 19:29
At the very least, I'd like to see reviewers preface their reviews with the details of their exposure to the game. Otherwise, reviews are just something to read, not something to use to guide your purchasing decisions.
(# 14) on 05/11/2008 19:36
(# 15) on 05/11/2008 19:37
It is indeed their job to be able to portray this in a more general review, where they look at the game's strengths and weaknesses to figure out why they feel that way.
Its the same with any type of review. Auto magazines never agree to a score for the same car for example.
In the end, its all a grain of salt. If you understand the reviewers preferences, it becomes easier to gauge that to your preferences.
(# 16) on 05/11/2008 20:20
Well, as someone who has now written a couple of official reviews, I can definitely see where you’re coming from. It sucked even more for me because the two games I’ve reviewed (MLB 2K8 and NBA Ballers: Chosen One) were rather shitty; there wasn’t much that was fun about them (I gave them a 5.0 and a 3.5, respectively). I did not have a good time slogging through those games for review, let me tell you that.
But ideally, that also leads to a better review for the readers. That is, if I played the game for 8-10 hours and didn’t enjoy the time I spent with it, you’re going to hear about it — and then you won’t waste your $60 on it.
(# 17) on 05/11/2008 20:46
But it's not like any of this is going to change. Like you said, Deadlines. They suck.
(# 18) on 05/11/2008 22:57
(# 19) on 05/13/2008 14:00