I'm going to start an experimental review series called Wryviews. Though my approach isn't set in stone, I want to take a non-traditional one since I think reviewers try to make your decisions for you instead of just giving you the information you need to choose for yourself. I think reviewers feel the need to skew scores for often ridiculous personal reasons, which is why I want to score in a way that I hope is easy to do objectively. I'm going to score based on how well I think the developer achieved its goal. Quality's a subjective thing. Depending on what kind of game and what type of person you have, a game could be considered great or awful.
I've got a couple examples here of what I don't want to do in my own reviews. These games didn't get many really bad scores, but it's obvious that certain things lowered the scores. I chose specific quotes from low down on metacritic that I thought perfectly represent these screwed mentalities.
"Despite a great presentation and being simply is fun to play, it's disappointing that even over 10 years, something hasn't been developed to rival its position as one of the best Kirby titles ever, especially when this could of been it instead."
Kirby Superstar Ultra - 65 - PALGN
These people basically just admitted that the game was good, and one of the best Kirby titles ever, yet gave it a 65. The way game reviews are currently set, at 60 is about as low a score as you can possibly give without calling it absolutely worthless. That just doesn't match up at fucking all. Letting a personal grudge get in the way of a recommendation is just stupid, and it happens to a lot of ports and remakes. This grudge doesn't even make sense. All the previous handheld Kirby games aside from Squeak Squad were great themselves, and even that was still a decent game. Being old doesn't stop a good game from being good. The developer's goal was to make a port of a good game so that more people would have access to it, and they accomplished that perfectly. This is why I want to work with a five star system too. If 6-10 are the only points that even matter to anyone, why not just cut the fat and make it 1-5?
"Etrian Odyssey requires patience and resolve to unlock the mysteries of the Labyrinth, with not enough reward in return. This is a game only for the hardcore. All others need not apply."
Etrian Odyssey - 50 - GameShark
A lot of reviewers give a game a low score just because they don't like what it is. They don't acknowledge a game's craftsmanship and give it a low score for arbitrary things like being difficult or niche. For what it was, Etrian Odyssey was vivid, creative, and wonderfully crafted. It deserved very high scores, even if only certain people would be able to really appreciate it. The developers didn't just accomplish making a great Roguelike, they made a creative one too with the whole map making aspect. That was one of the most brilliant uses of the DS touch screen I'd ever seen. For the record Etrian was way too much for me but I can still tell it's a fine game. It's completely pointless to review a score lowly based on the fact that it's niche. By that logic we should start reviewing fighting and strategy games based on their general appeal, instead of how they match up against other games in their own genre.
My second issue with the typical review is that they feel the need to explain every detail of the game to you. It feels very systematic and dull. Sometimes it feels more like I'm reading a summary as opposed to a critique. This is a difficult problem to tackle, but my solution is going to be trying to make the review feel more like a flowing conversation and less like a documentary. I'm going to try keeping details concise and try to actually spread the information instead of going "summarize, criticize, summarize, criticize."
So there you have it. What was originally was going to be my first Wryview of Shadow of the Colossus ended up being a criticism of game reviewers. If anyone else has some input on what they'd like to see from me, or what problems they have with reviews themselves I'd be happy to hear about it.
PS: After I finish my first Wryview I will be taking a shot at a Dreamcast Homebrew series.
|
Wry Guy's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
you don't like reviews now just wait for the holiday season when pertnear everyone is blogging a review of the same games. i hate reviews but i do like to read them.
I see what you did there.
How about a game you know you'll hate? It will definitely let help us see what you are envisioning as great review.
UGH. stoopad speeling.
*It will definitely help us see what you are envisioning as a great review.
Also, let me rephrase that question:
How about reviewing a game you know you'll hate but is considered good overall? Like a Metacritic score indicating it's generally found enjoyable.
@De Bloo: That'd be hard for me to do. There's barely any games out there that I know I'd genuinely hate, even if perhaps I don't care for one. To start reviewing games I genuinely wouldn't enjoy I'd have to venture into genres I try to avoid. That's one thing I really hate to see out of reviewers is reviewing a type of game they really don't know much about.
Like I said, you should be stacking a game up against other members of its own genre, so if you don't know anything about that genre you really shouldn't be reviewing it, not unless you make sure to inform people of that fact.
I mean, I personally would never review Etrian Odyssey, even if I think it's a pretty finely tailored game. I can't even get past the third floor before the FOEs start mauling my team.
confirmed; cblogs are more trustworthy than the front page
Hoborg, STFU and get banned.
You're better off with someone like me trying to handle the conversation than a person who's going to flame the pants off of you. I at least try to approach you in a manner that might be constructive, considering I give you the opportunity to actually respond to me in a proper manner. Carrying an actual respectful conversation with another member of the community would have helped your image a lot too and portrayed you in a friendlier light.
Based on your behavior, it's just not possible to paint you as friendly or approachable. A person who only responds to praise and flames cannot be seen as either of those things. I actually did defend you to the point that was reasonable, so I can't really accept the complaint that what I said wasn't positive.
I already said that I gave up considering you never would respond to me. I have no reason to go where I'm not wanted. You've got nothing to worry about from me.
@wry guy
sometimes compairing one game to another can hurt your opinion of it, for the longest time mass effect left a bad taste in my mouth for not being kotor3, but i had to get that out of my mind, and it wasnt till a picked it up on platinum hits that i really enjoyed it for what it is. however, i still dont think lazer swords and mind tricks would hurt, but i just have to keep telling myself, mass effect is not star wars, mass effect is not star wars...
I'll be interested to see what you do with this. In my eyes, it seems like a pretty difficult task. After all, what happens with those games that you just don't find fun for whatever reason? It's obviously the developer's goal to make a game that's fun, but if it's not fun for you, it's got to be considered a failure in some way, even if it just ends up being a game that isn't really for you. I think the fun factor has to factor in to some extent, and completely separating that from your own personal tastes is going to be tough. Still, the more angles that we have in terms of approaching videogame reviews, the better.
I actually need to understand fully what's being criticized before I can agree or disagree with the critique. I'd like some detail, at least enough of which I understand the ropes and everything.
I guess that's why reviews go into detail about something, they want you to understand fully what they're talking about first, and then what they think about said subject.
At least, it just helps me understand what's good and bad about a game.
If 6-10 are the only points that even matter to anyone, why not just cut the fat and make it 1-5?
The problem with that is that you're just shifting numbers around. Nothing changes. 6-10 becomes maybe 3-5, and if you keep paring it down, you're going to wind up with a 1 or 2. It's partly why I hate numbers in reviews, but they're too embedded to change anymore. =\
Also, the thing about how reviews seem to summarize instead of critique. I think it's got to do with the objectivity of the author. I mean, you're not allowed to have an opinion on things anymore. You have to state everything in cold hard facts and be objective. That's dry as hell to me. I never understood that...but anyway, my point got lost in the rambling so I'm cutting this off now. =P
@Doomsday Forte: Well, the point of reducing the scale is so that maybe the whole scale will actually be used. 1-5 are never used in the review scale aside from when a reviewer wants to make the point that you should buy it, which is what 1 star would be in my reviews. 6 is usually reserved for a game that's not bad, but not that comes with strong recommendation. That'd be a 2 star. 7 is reserved for average games, that'd be 3 stars. 8 is reserved for decidedly competent games that do come with a recommendation, which would be 4 stars. 9-10 are usually reserved for games that people consider nothing short of perfect, but that's a completely pointless thing to reserve a number for, so 5 would simply be my highest recommendation and nothing more.
I'll wait and see one of your reviews...I think it's hard to avoid some subjectivity, but I think you may well be on an interesting track! :)
I like it. Just about everything you said here is spot-on. I look forward to getting to see you approach reviews from this angle.
@wry guy do you mean that a 1 is a game we shouldn't buy or will we be seeing a 0 for a game that doesnt warrant a purchase
This is a neat idea, however, as a reviewer myself, I have a problem with people thinking that any one review is the "be all end all", and should be picked apart. Even if a site like IGN uses the tagline "the one source for all your reviews" as their marketspeak of choice, consumers should learn to consult multiple sources before making their decision. That horrible Kirby review you noted is one of a thousand, and it's one bad egg.
Sure, you can have a "bad review" (Eurogamer's Darkfall review was outright yellow journalism, and slander), but it's just one opinion of many. I think instead of putting reviews in the stocks, we should inform the uneducated public not to just use one of them to form an opinion.
There is one HUGE PROBLEM I do have with some reviewers, though, and it's with the reviewer itself, not the review (since it can be ignored). Like you mentioned above in the Etrian review, obviously, the person tasked with it sucked at video games, and the game obviously required some sort of skill to complete.
I'm of the opinion that if you have a very niche game that was obviously made for niche groups, you should score it accordingly. Sure, you should note the problems all around, but don't take score off because it's "niche", or "it's too hard". Those are horrible reasons to score down a game.
Also, maybe I'm opening a can of worms here, but what's the problem with number reviews? The only reason they get flak is because some kid from n4g.com immediately sees the huge "5.0" next to The Conduit, and comes in to rip on the reviewer without actually reading the review. Other than that, they're simply a guideline.
Read the review! Be a smart consumer, and take a look at what the reviewer thought was good and bad about a game, and not take the score as gospel. If you don't like scores, imagine they're not there: a lot of other people enjoy them, and ostensibly, if the review is well written, you should get everything you need from it. Of course, bad reviewers are the chief concern here, and I'm only referring to people who can do it well.
@Wry Guy: I know what you're saying, but what I mean is that the numbers will change, but not the meaning. 5 becomes 10 and so on like you said, and people will still attribute the old 100% scale to them if they can. I know that in the smaller scale, 1s and 2s would be probably used more, but that's also affecting the other end. Why should a game ranking between a 9 and 10 count as a 5 by your system? What about an 8.8? That's suddenly a flat 80%. I'm not ragging on you, just playing Devil's Advocate and all. I'm just not a big fan of numbers in reviews.
@Mag: And I'm not a fan because so many people read only the numbers and that's it. Metacritic keeps track of numbers, but unfortunately only provides blurbs of the high-ranking reviews. At least, it looked that way when I did Halo 3 just now. Oh, and I just read this tidbit: "If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review." So you can't even leave out a number and force people to read!
But let me get to the point. People put a lot of stock into numbers. Go queue up a game on GameFAQs, and tell me that your eye isn't automatically drawn to the 8/10s and 9/10s and 6/10s and so on. Why do you need to read the review when a game is getting 3/10s all over the place? It's how Metacritic thrives.
I'm not trying to vilify Metacritic or a numeric-scale rating system, but the problem lies in the people such things are targeted to, sadly. I'm all for text-only reviews but numbers are impossible to escape from. At least Destructoid puts their numbers at the end, but there's no way to stop someone from scrolling all the way to the bottom to look first. =P
Look forward to the Wryviews. Just be sure to keep it real.
@Magnalon: I don't necessarily think any one review is the end all be all. In this case I just took the reviews that I thought best showed what I thought was a stupid mentality. Remakes and ports in general often get marked down just for not being something new, and niche games often get marked down just for not having a lot of general appeal. It's something I see pretty often, and I just picked the reviews that worded it the most plainly.
@slayer the player: It's true that it's hard to not compare one game to another, but I'm gonna do my best. As you mention that I should probably do my best to not compare Shadow of the Colossus too much to Ico, especially because Ico is one of my favorite games ever.
Also, I'm not going to have any 0 stars. 1 star just means it sucks, that's all there is to it. There's no need to have any more than one mark that says "Stay Away." Anything more than 1 star means there is at least some kind of redeeming factor. I can't even imagine the game that I would have reason to give 0 stars for. If I ever did use 0 stars, it'd have to be for an impossibly bad game like the kind of shit the Angry Video Game Nerd makes a living off of.
@Doomsday Forte: I get you're just playing Devil's Advocate. I do that all the time. As for why a 9 or 10 should be a 5 star for me, well when you give a game a 9 or a 10, it's basically for the same reason why I wouldn't bother giving an 8.8. There's no need for an 8.8. What made someone decide to give a game such a precise score as 88/100? Why even such a precise score as 17/20? We don't have a proper reason to make the changes in the scale so minute.
3 stands for an average game, 4 stands for an above average game, 5 stands for an excellent game that stands out. If I start nitpicking it's going to destroy the meaning of the ratings in the first place.
When you got to a website like metacritic and start averaging the scores, then you have a lot of numbers and the proper criteria to start making those kind of fine distinctions, but I fail to see the point of individual reviews working on such a scale.
Wow, very good responses and a good idea. To sum it up in one way, different strokes for different folks (in terms of review styles and the reviewer themselves). But I hope this turns out to be a good series :)
In other words, you are kind of saying you are going to write a non biased review not based on scores, difficulty of the game (in terms of how much trouble or lack of you had with it). Which is good :]
Also, as I've said before, I can't wait for a Dreamcast Home-brew series *fap fap fap fap fap*
I should say "detailed" scores. So 1-5 in general (which is what I've always preferred. By having 0-100%, it makes you wonder about it too much.
"Remakes and ports in general often get marked down just for not being something new"
I agree completely, this really pisses me off. My friend came over today, and we decided to play Super Mario Brothers 1, and he just wanted to skip to SMB2 because "they're exactly the same game". That's not the point at all. Also, he was negating playing Fifa 96 because it's got "shit graphics"
Fucking arse.
Anyway, have fun reviewing some games :]