George Bush doesn't care about Eternity's Child.
When big debates like this over game design and game reviews occur, what it usually all comes down to is that gamers truly don't understand what is all incorporated in making a game, and game designers often don't understand what is all incorporated in playing games. The difference, however, is that you can't expect gamers to know how hard it is to make a game, but gamers CAN expect your game to be good if they pay any amount of money for it. In other words, whether it's fair or not, the responsibility all falls on the game designers.
In my opinion, the only time the gamers are ever at fault is when a game is really good (gets nothing but really good review scores), yet doesn't sell well. Games like Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil are the first two that usually come to the mind of most our readers. We all have that game we know was good, yet no one bought, and felt terrible for the game designers who either didn't make a lot of money, or even never got to make another game ever again.
tl;dr -- Aquaria looks way better than Eternity's Child, yet you will probably make more money than those game designers did, Luc. So please STFUAJPG. I'd rather listen to Destiny's Child than hear any more of what you have to say (which was a lot. of shit.)
Hamza CTZ Aziz
Tom Fronczak
CitizenKaneClap.gif
Dyson
That's hilarious! Btw, how many comments did that review get?
[Note: The review has been posted by now. At the beginning of the discussion it hadn't, but from here out, its been live for a day or so.]
Hamza CTZ Aziz
Over 350 at this point.
Conrad Zimmerman
Nearly 400, which is mind-boggling.
I think the manner in which a designer responds to a review can have a serious effect, too. People don't tend to forget those sorts of things and, in the age of the internet, getting information on a name you vaguely recognize is only a click away. The next time Dyack or the Lair team has something that they're hyping, people are likely to think back on the stunts and name-calling that transpired. A bad review can be forgotten but, if you fight it, you're only drawing more attention to the negative aspects and will generally come off looking like a douchebag.
And there's nothing people like to look at more than a falling star.
Dyson
I read them when they were up to 250. I can't believe that he was responding drunk -- probably not the wisest choice. I'm glad that it was a two person review, too. Rev has a rep for hating on everything, so he could just have said that as a defense. With Conrad's same score, there's no doubt about its suckage.
DMV
Rev may have a rep for hating on things, but I've never found his criticism to be unfounded or illogical.
I think Luc must've been expecting a good review because it's an indie game and he's had a blog on Destructoid. So, why wouldn't we love him and look through the game's flaws to see it's true inner beauty?
The Jim Sterling
I've written an entire essay on this to the point where it'd make its own article, which is something I've been planning for a while, so I'm going to hold back my elaborated points for its own feature. Suffice it to say though, that I have a big problem with the way reviews are run these days. Chief among my issues are such abhorrent practices as review embargoes and this pathetic rush to be "first" with the work.
Brokering deals with publishers for exclusive previews, news and assets is a practice I can understand. However, when it comes to reviews, which are where honesty in games media actually counts for something, signing clandestine agreements for exclusive benefits creates a world of stigma which you can't rub off. Maybe IGN, for example, was being honest with itself and its readers when it gave GTA IV a 10/10. After all, plenty of other Web sites did that. However, in the rush to be first, and proudly boasting the world exclusive deal it brokered with Rockstar, one has to wonder exactly what was agreed, and it creates questions of bias that may not even be entirely fair, but are impossible to shake off.
I know of sponsorship deals gone sour over review scores. I also know that certain publishers in certain sour deals have, in the past, been a party to exclusive reviews. That stinks of bad medicine to me, and I don't like it.
As I think about the original argument, I think "lazy" is the wrong term to use when talking about reviewers. In truth, they work very hard -- but I think they put their effort into some very questionable practices. Time that should be spent purely focusing on the gaming and striving to be as honest as can be is spent instead inking deals and rushing work out of the gate to beat the rest of the press. As the guys in charge of review content around here, it's Nick and I's job to make sure that kind of shit doesn't fly on Destructoid.
Hamza XYZ Aziz
I finally saw videos of Braid for the first time today while working on the new release post for Monday. Does it remind anyone else of EC, expect, you know, good?
Jim Sterling
I'm really looking forward to Braid. Rev, Chad and myself will be reviewing it for the site. I am somewhat positive it will receive more than a 1 out of 10.
Nick Chester
Visually, it's slightly similar to EC (i.e. it doesn't look typical). But the game couldn't be more different. I can almost guarantee it will not get a 1 out of 10. It's very puzzle intensive, requiring a lot of bizarre and complicated time manipulation that had me stuck in a few areas. Also, what does this have to do with the Dtoid discusses?
Hamza CTZ Aziz
Nothing at all, actually, haha.
Joe Burling
I <3 Braid
Jonathan Holmes
A quick word on Eternity's Child and it's now infamous review. Luc Bernard couldn't have paid for a review that beneficial to his game. The amount of controversy that now surrounds Eternity's Child has generated curiosity about the title that never would have come from a positive review. I'm sure that the game will sell buckets, and that some people will actually love it.
But back to the point. it's interesting that Dyson states he knows which reviewers he feels he can trust, while Jim says you never know who is taking money under the table for a good review. If we, certified gaming journalists, have this this much trouble keeping track of who's reviews are legit and who's are not, what chance does a new gamer have of sorting it all out? Its the people who need game reviews the most that are the most likely to be duped by them.
I was in Target the other day and there was a gaggle of non-gamers staring at the 360 and Wii games. They owned both consoles, but knew nothing of gaming, and didn't know what game to buy. This is the kind of person that could greatly benefit from a good game review.
What did they get instead? A Target employee pouncing on them and saying "Buy Endless Ocean! It's the bomb-diggity!" (real quote). The gaggle of new gamers were on to him though. They asked "Does the game have a point? It seems pointless." His response "Oh yeah, it totally has a point. There is this lady on a boat, and you totally get to know her. It's got an amazing story." Clearly, the Target guy was more concerned with convincing the customers to buy Endless Ocean than he was with actually helping them find a game that they could enjoy.
Thanks to Target guy, the gaggle bought the game, although they clearly stated to him that they want their games to have a "point". The "reviewer" put his own agenda above that of his customers, and that resulted in them buying a product that they will likely find no use for. That's the definition of a "bad review", and it's something we see far too much of in the world of gaming journalism.
*****
So, there we go. Not exactly the hotbed of action that EC review caused, but the topic itself certainly lent to some interesting points of view (and this time without hentai!). As always, these discussions are unedited and tend to lead where they may. This week's destination seemed to be that everyone has a woody for Braid.
See you next week!
(Special thanks to Dale for taking care of last week's <3)
Contest:
3:40 AM on 08.06.2008
| 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Space Giraffe is not Tempest. If you play it like Tempest, you ARE one of the morons he railed against. It's a very deep and challenging game if you actually learn how to play it.
Personally, I thought it was garbage. See? Reviews in action!
what you can almost guarantee you will get though, is:
"Hurrr hurrr,I like this game, you should buy it 11/10"
or
"Eugh, I didn't like this game, avoid it 3/10 [insert hilarious derogatory and useless comments for cheap laughs]".
As I see it, with the advent of the internet, we have a bunch of people reviewing something with no real idea how to properly critique. This is something more apparent in big, mega-uber-hyper-hyped titles more than poorly received ones, where otherwise significant flaws are glossed over as minor or nonexistant issues.
the thing Jim brought up about the rush to be on metacritic first isn't really true with smaller sites, like the few i write for.
i try to take my time with a game and play it as I would normally if I'd have just bought it.
yes, our review gets out later than everyone elses but it's a better, more honest review than those that have rushed to get on top
If I was to consider a game for a review, I'd rather NOT give it a numerical score. What makes one game great will make another one be scene as derivative and stale. What determines what nocks a point off or adds a point on? Why isn't this written out somewhere for everyone to see.
Another thing that bothers me: Storylines shouldn't factor into a game review. Basic premise and characters are ALL a reviewer should consider, unless a game has a really good story or a really awful one. If its just there it shouldn't knock a game or put its score up. Some games feature story throughout and shouldn't. I end up skipping cutscenes in games where the story bores me, but I still can find SOME fun to have with a game. Only a handful of games I'll play for their storylines, most of the time: I just want to play video games.
I also think a reviewer should say how much time they spent with the game and certainly how far they made it into the game. Some games don't get really memorable until there are the would you kindly revelation moment. I get the feeling with role playing games, they never sink the time into finishing all the sidequests and sometimes even the main story. Its hard to figure out a way to review a story other than good or bad; "I liked it," "Well I didn't." Another concern that some people have is spoilers. A video review for Persona 3's special edition gave away the ending. Seriously go take a look if you want to see for yourself. They spoil it like they were daddy warbucks! I wanted to play the game, but knowing how it ends now changes that experience. Since ya know, a role playing game like Persona 3 is generally focused on story you would think they wouldn't talk about the ending without at least saying "we might talk about the ending, just a heads up." Some courtesy and professional is appreciated.
I hate reviews. I'd rather just read some "professional" thoughts and opinions without a score. Point out some of the faults, but try to stay within the lines of constructive criticism. One thing destructoid does that I like is the rent it or buy it recommendation system. I like that over a traditional score. Its an easy message that is quick to deliver and is appreciated. Also I think just hitting the basic gamepro five for every game isn't going to work. That is fun factor, story, graphics, audio, and control. Those are things to consider, but shouldn't be the same template over and over again. Please don't write six paragraphs, everyone feels like typing TL;DR. I generally skim reviews, so if you could highlight stuff for the lazy (and face it most of us gamers are lazy) that would be appreciated. Just keep this stuff in mind and you too could be a decent game reviewer. I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak from my own experiences and thoughts. I for one, don't like how reviews are done for games. I see no real alternative, but I thought I would offer some opinions.
I might comment further if I feel the need to do so.
One final thought -
I want to know whose reviewing games. I don't mean talk to them or hang out. I want to know their credentials. Do they have a journalism degree? Have they been playing games since the days of Duck Hunt/Mario Bros? Were they Sega or Snes supporters back in the 16-bit wars? What kind of collection of games do they own? How much money do they actually make talking about games? Did they research the game on Wikipedia or the flash official game websites? Does that money come from advertisers for the products they are reviewing? Do they care what randombullseye or other non-staff gamers have to say? What kind of games do they enjoy playing? What kind of games do they personally detest? Would they rather have games with continues or hide-and-heal gameplay? And whatever else you want to add to the list.
I think it would be cool if reviews had a little something like that in them. A listing at the end of the review saying, "If you like {Game A} and {Game B}, you will probably like this game." Some reviewers do it but not often enough I think.
GTAIV got some stellar ratings but to be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the series. I played GTA3 and loved it, but after a while the whole beating up random people thing got kind of boring to me. The game is certainly more famous for this than actual story. Despite the ratings and hype, I didn't go out and buy GTAIV because it's just not my type of game. I played bits of it and personally I wasn't terribly intrigued by the story and I thought the controls were a bit clumsy in places.
Conversely, Cooking Mama on DS has a Metacritic score of 67, but I simply love the crap out of that game.
Again, I tend to listen more to what my gaming friends recommend for me over reviews. I read reviews really just as a quick overview for learning about game play and to see if the game has any major drawbacks. Scores are so biased one way or the other, that I really appreciate how Destructoid users two reviewers on the same game so you can see two different opinions.
I think that's what few realize about critics. Everyone's looking at every single critic and trying to divine whether or not they're trustworthy, scrutinizing reviews looking for some damning evidence of collusion. But it's either a case of "they did their job so well there's no way to prove it" or "no one really cares anyway." Gamespot's still around, Eidos hasn't been sued, and they're all feeling lucky that no one caught on to the several hundred other instances of the enthusiast press skewing numbers and sacrificing credibility to keep healthy relationships with the industries they cover.
I feel the only way to establish trust in any reviewer is to compare your own experiences with theirs and see if they match up. It takes time and it's easier on one's self to just read 10 reviews of one game then read many reviews of tons of games in order to find that one critic or one site who's not only untainted but also similar enough to yourself to be worth listening to. I think, if anything, the community here is lucky to have a group of very outgoing individuals who aren't afraid to make their personalities known and who stand by their work.
I think a lot of this would be solved if reviewers would stop getting so damn hung up on things like metacritic and digg. I swear, whenever I see a digg link I almost wish undigg existed so I could undigg it purely out of spite. :p
I may have to do a proper response in a post.
This is really what it's about. Links to the site. Back when Dtoid was trying to figure out how to go about reviewing games, a lot of people along with myself suggested a scoreless review system. This didn't happen because metacritic required numbers in order to be listed and thereby bringing people to the site. It's sad, but it's true.
One of the biggest problems with review scores is that they are subjective and depend on each person. We know that Rev A. uses 1-10 (all of them), but does everyone that visits the site irregularly know that? Doubtful.
I still prefer to read a review about what the reviewer liked and didn't like about the different aspects of the game. The story, the gameplay, controls, graphics, multiplayer, etc... These types of review give you a better indication as to whether or not you agree/disagree with the reviewer and whether you should care enough to actually buy the game. Having comparisons of other games that have similar elements helps a lot.
Otherwise, I worry that gamers and consumers may not trust indie productions after getting too burned. Basically, I really only have 2 other things to say on this..
A) I'm willing to occasionally stick my neck out for Space Giraffe and any indie production I've played and liked alot.
I still feel it is a good game for $5, I think his average of reviews on metacritic still reflect that. But, regardless of price, as long as a gamer can try any game demo first, that is fair enough to help decide if they should get it or not.
B) With that said.. I'm not willing to do anything for EC at this time. At last check (a few minutes ago) his demo that he said should be available to everyone Monday, (Aug. 4th) was & is still not up on Steam at this time, (Aug. 6th).
Therefore, I still have nothing to demo or try or play and see for myself unless I buy it. Now that it's Wed. morning and he said the demo would be up by now.. Well, personally, too late for me to keep caring.
All I know now is I think the low score was justified.. That low, tho'? I don't have any way to tell or defend something I can't even playtest or demo.
I'm an indie game developer also, so, in some ways, take a grain of salt with my words if you like since many indie dev's (as much as I'm a fan or not) are still my competition! But, I'm always willing to lend a hand or some advice if and whenever I'm asked.
Oh, and I owe Topher a slurpee.. My DToid header keeps reminding me. ;D
Reading the review, you would know the game isn't much fun unless you're masochistic, but how are you supposed to reconcile fun and technical excellence with a single review score?
It's retarded. I figured a system of grading with +'s or -'s depending might work (A for excellent on a technical level, - for not being fun despite the fact) might work, as it reveals both, but in the end it's still a matter of choice. I loved the first Ninja Gaiden for being fair but hard, but I can't stand the second one.
tl;dr, writing reviews is hard and scores are pointless.
What about GameRankings? I'm pretty sure I've seen links to reviews on there that didn't have scores.
Or do all the cool kids go to Metacritic now?
This makes sense because then publishers may stop putting in stupid time consuming no skill rewards for killing stupid pigeons or finding orbs or flags or any of that nonesense.
After trying to complete GTAIV pigeons or Crackdown orb hunting or Assasin creed flag hunting BEFORE having to put pen to paper than your review score may be lower to show the TRUE overall experience the game provides.
The solution, obviously, is to have the entire industry switch over to completely arbitrary rating systems.
Tom Fronczak (Whom I better be seeing at PAX!)[/b] -- 2nded!
"I want to know whose reviewing games. I don't mean talk to them or hang out. I want to know their credentials. et, al."
I like what you said in that paragraph a lot.
@ beehive:
"Back when Dtoid was trying to figure out how to go about reviewing games, a lot of people along with myself suggested a scoreless review system. This didn't happen because metacritic required numbers in order to be listed and thereby bringing people to the site. "
Nope. Close, but the number scores stayed because of a Bob Puma. Stared me dead in the face and said "the 1-10 scale will never go away." Now, the reason is metacritic, but when Play and EGM dropped the 1-10, my soul had a hearty belly laugh at his expense.
@RJG:
"Reading the review, you would know the game isn't much fun unless you're masochistic, but how are you supposed to reconcile fun and technical excellence with a single review score? "
I'm of the opinion that if it isn't fun, then it isn't good. These are games, and if they break tech boundaries, great, but they still need to be fun. They still need to be games.
Some games can have their enjoyment ruined by bad tech, such as crappy camera or bad AI. That would take away the fun and, I assume, lower the score. Fun, of course, is subjective, and that needs to be factored into the review. But if you've been playing games long enough -- as somewhat suggested by randonbullseye -- than you should have a well versed history of what type of game mechanics work, and what ones don't.
It's called being objective. 99% of reviewers content is about how much they liked or didn't like the game. They then use specific examples of game play-music-AI-whatever to support their opinion of how they felt of the game.
To me, this is not a review. I don't need to know whether or not you liked it, I need to know whether or not I will like it. This should be the mission of every reviewer. Know who the game is being made for, then use your breadth of gaming knowledge to inform the reader, the person looking for info on the game, whether or not their interest is justified.
I don't need to write a multi-paragraph article telling me whether or not I liked the game I just played. I need to write one telling you if you will.
To use Madden as an example: I would never give any Madden game the time of day in my life. But those games aren't made for me. I can tell you I'd give 'em all zeros, but that certainly doesn't do any service to the fans of the series, does it? SO if I were to have to review the game, then I'd have to take into account who the audience is and whatnot. After that, then maybe I would give it a more accurate score.
Who know, but that's the weird crux of a review. There's no way to keep your own opinions out, but you kind of have to. But again, you kind of don't, and I think that's where yo got muddled in your Ninja review.
"Can I recommend a technically perfect game, that also happens to be not fun for me to play?" Tough call, but I think that you answered your own question in the text of your review the only that it could have been answered.
Reviews = Serious Mindfuck
No it isn't. A personal opinion is a personal opinion. A review should be an objective critique of a game. I don't expect to see the former from someone paid to produce the latter. Yes preference will influence enjoyment, but you should be able to see a games flaws and highlights even if you aren't a big fan of the genre.
Of course that's usually followed by the trolls resorting to berating you for commenting on a review.