MERCH!
Giant Bomb - a website about video games and the people that make them

The Problem With Game Reviews (III)

by sweep

This topic seems to crop up every so often Anyone who wants to backtrack over my previous blogs on the subject can find CONVENIENT LINKS here ( Part I ) and here ( Part II ). Jeff wrote a really decent article on this today which was my inspiration to chip in yet another two cents as to the whole " Why the fuck can nobody agree on game reviews ?" thing. Instead of writing a huge chunk of text (...

This topic seems to crop up every so often

  Anyone who wants to backtrack over my previous blogs on the subject can find CONVENIENT LINKS here (Part I) and here (Part II).

Jeff wrote a really decent article on this today which was my inspiration to chip in yet another two cents as to the whole "Why the fuck can nobody agree on game reviews?" thing. Instead of writing a huge chunk of text (See "The Problems With Game Reviews" parts 1 and 2) I think we can keep this short and sweet.

There are simple answers. Oh yes. Here are some:


  • No game will ever be perfect
  • Everyone has different tastes and opinions
  • People play games with various depths of understanding
  • Reviewers are often subjected to strong social pressure
  • There is no universally acknowledged structure for reviewing games

But I think the main reason that the review process wont work is because

  • PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET ARE CRAZY YO!!


(Proof)


So I decided to check out the articles Jeff recommended and here are some

COMMENTS AND SPECULATIONS


TrippyKeith Stuart of Gaurdian.co.uk said

"If it were a movie, Mirror's Edge would be critically lauded by the specialist film press – it would be considered a forward-thinking masterpiece."
It's not a movie. Its a game. They are different forms of media and the game industry is now credible enough to stand on its own two feet. In terms on ingenuity Mirrors Edge is spectacular - but that doesn't necessarily translate to its primary function of being a source of interactive entertainment.
"critics should be able to deconstruct the experience on offer and draw from it undeniable values that outweigh concerns about basic construction."
True - and the merits of Mirrors Edge in particular have been appropriately praised, but that does not excuse poor game design. The game can be as ingenuitive as it likes, but if the construction is at fault then the ingenuity may be corrupted by frustration or boredom, or even worse we may simply surrender and never progress to witness said "Ingenuity" at all. In a film your progression is guaranteed. I'n a game it is negotiable. Dramatic but still true - not necessarily for mirrors edge but for games in general.
"That's what innovation is, it's leaping out into the unknown."
That was a truly terrible reference. Hang your head in shame Mr Stuart.



Leigh Alexander of Kotaku said

"All of us "on here," within this world of ours, are not just in love with games - we're in love with the culture we've created around games, and that culture, obsessed with information related to our pastime, is only the most vocal minority at the tippy-top of a great big bell curve. Outside in the so-called "real world," away from our regular guildies, the folks with familiar forum handles, and the hundreds of comments spewing angry invective on the latest contentious review, there are millions of gamers in the world. They just aren't "culturalists" (cultists?) like us, and so we fail to recognize them."
Zoom to see quotesI am very aware of this divide (I think I blogged about it?) - Most people will go in and buy whatever is sitting at the top end of the "Top Ten Games!" chart. I therefore find it ironic that the primary source of immediate reviewing on the box of a game is often from websites such as Gamespot or IGN. Call Of Duty 4 anyone?
"Game Reviews would have listed for him a raft of minor criticisms he'd never even notice, but wouldn't have told him anything about whether or not he'd like the game. "
This summarises perfectly and I completely agree. Each person is looking for something specific - the relevance of a game review will reflect the aspirations of the prospective buyer. Each case is individual.



Jeff Gerstmann of Giantbomb said

"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."
The reason I'm here is because I have a sense of familiarity with the reviewers. I want a personal description, because that's honesty - and I can translate it in the same way I would translate a review from an old friend in real life. I also know that if Jeff whines about Super Smash Bro's not being a valid fighting game then he is just being a jerk. It IS a fighting game dammit!


Anyways, that's all I have to say about that. What you want and expect from reviews will differ with what you want and expect from your games. I'm happy to continue reading whatever the giantbomb guys put up and then making my own decisions accordingly. Go with what works.

I love how I can reference my own blogs to enforce my points.
So much for "short and sweet"...

Thanks For Reading
Love Sweep