David-D--NelsonWhile there are plenty of editorial opinions out there I think reviews, which are supposed to have some level of objectivity, qualify best as video game criticism.
Since literature, film, painting, photography, music, and other forms of art all have their own scholarly fields of criticism there's no reason why video games shouldn't either. It may take some serious time before any of it is accepted writ large since there is still plenty of argument over that whole art thing, but it's something I pay attention to nonetheless.
Like any other field of criticism it has its trends, bias streaks, strengths and weaknesses. Until recently though I've felt like things got off track somewhere in the PS3/Xbox 360 generation. Maybe that was because of the explosion of gaming related content on the internet, fanboy extremes, or maybe it was because of the huge influx of previously none-gamer type people into the customer base. Whatever the cause, looking back I think some things got twisted.
The 10 scale seemed to stop being used properly. Anything decent got an 8, and anything that got a 7 was considered pretty bad. Below that, it had to be quite broken. There were often serious biases against any type of gameplay that wasn't immediately accessible or reliant on constant action. Flash over substance wasn't just the trend in the games themselves, but it became what impressed critics the most. Not every game got pummeled for this obviously, but that was because a good anchor of video game criticism stayed largely intact. However I think the landscape dictates that we move past that anchor, and it appears that we are doing so now.
When I first started doing reviews about 4 years ago I held fast to that anchor as well, namely Judge every game on its own merits as an entity unto itself. In short, don't criticism it for what it should be but for what it is. This came from a school of literary criticism I am fond of. The thing is, many other schools of thought exist and a good reviewer should be flexible as the industry changes. I think things have changed for the better recently because critics seem to be willing to cross that old line and judge games a little bit more on what they should be instead of what they are.
It's a new generation and we are coming off a very stagnant field in which many different genres all tried to pack into one area to appeal to a certain crowd. That killed a lot of good things. Unsurprisingly Lightning Returns reviews that weren't great got attacked by the new class of FF fans for bias, but from my perspective applying what this game should have been (a coherent finale to a confused trilogy) was a perfectly acceptable way to critique the entry. Other titles are getting like treatment. Thief and Lord of Shadows 2 are getting fairer marks because critics are noticing the attempts to appeal to everyone aren't beneficial but detrimental. Even Call of Duty is starting to experience a correction in scores that many probably felt was long overdue. It seemed strange to me that something so technically behind and largely unchanging per iteration should get such easy passes time and again. Now I believe there is recognition that without sufficient in-franchise experimentation the games just don't deserve to get the same scores every time.
So while I still think it is good to mainly critique a game on its own merits, I believe now more than ever there is something to be said for holding each game up to the standard set by its own franchise, the standard of its own intent, and yes even the standard of what fans are looking for. In that respect I feel like gaming criticism is back on track to help encourage diverse and unique gaming experiences instead of letting shenanigans and laziness slip by as was so common in the last generation.
Stop with all the god damn remakes and hd updates and keep bringing out new titles!
I second this statement. Games like The Order 1886 and the likes get judged way before anyone has even had a chance to play them. Instead it's easy to dismiss a new IP as something that will fail instead of a breathe of fresh air. I'm quite tired of the same rehash to cater to the whiney people. We need original ideas.
I love a new IP as much as the next guy, but a classic is a classic and those of us that adored them are only (more often than not) too happy to see the old tale freshened up a bit. Not only that, but the re-releases give a new generation a chance to enjoy them. Admittedly, Chrono Cross is very hard to look at graphics-wise, so an HD update would allow a generation that never played PSone-era to dig into without griping about graphics.
HD re-releases and remakes have merit – in some cases even more so than a new IP. If you don't want the update, don't flippin' buy it – problem solved.
Last edited by MrAnonymity on 3/1/2014 11:14:53 PM
@ MrAnonymity
I'm all for classics getting a face lift, sure thing. That's why I'm buying the FFX/X-2 HD remake. It's a fond memory that I can experience again with a new coat of paint. No harm, however, when you have Call of Duty 5 million and Battlefield 600 and more of the same over and over that's where it gets very stale. Games like The Last of Us are a breathe of fresh air and show that game developers can still showcase originality in this chaotic gaming world of the same thing over and over. I love new stories and I love new worlds. So seeing games like The Order 1886 or Beyond Two Souls, Last of Us, Heavenly Sword, Enslaved etc etc always tickles me more than the next CoD clone or sequel.
They can remake, rehash, re whatever they want. Just so long as we also get new IP and fresh ideas. I just hope that the developers or publishers that make money from the old stuff invest it in the new.
Reviews hold a lot of sway with popular opinion, so it is always a good thing to see more and more reviews actually serving their intended purpose. Either way, there really comes a point when you ultimately decide for yourself. Even with a general consensus across multiple reviews, there could be something about the hands-on approach that reveals something hidden that appeals only to you.
I firmly disagree with reviewing a game based on what fans expect. That's a pretty damn slippery slope to start on because a game should stand on its own merits; not on what people think it should be because of series history. By all means, compare it games from the past, but you can't knock a game because it doesn't agree with your preconceptions of what it should have been. Once you start doing that, you stop being an objective reviewer. Reviews are supposed to be informative but that doesn't mean they can't include some opinion.
As a convenient example, take Lightning Returns. A reviewer can state that the battle system feels simplistic and watered-down compared to those seen in past iterations of Final Fantasy. That statement is based in fact, though remains an opinion as, outside of the command interface, there is still considerable depth. Where I would draw the line is when a reviewer says that the battle system is bad because it isn't like those found in previous FF games. – There exists a fundamental difference between the two viewpoints. One is based in fact, the other entirely in opinion, and the latter is an example of a person weighting a review with bias. It may be considered informative, but it is misleading.
With that out of the way, I too have noticed a general balancing of review scores to better reflect the /10 score system that the majority of sites still use. It makes me glad to see it, however I think that it is still skewed too high in general, with unthinking, simplistic and straightforward games getting high marks simply because they aren't fundamentally broken. That is a mistake as it can only serve to inspire more such creations.
Critical consensus should be used to try to better the industry, and I fail to see how rewarding inanity can lead to improvement. That is one of the reasons that I'm a little worried about the reception that Titanfall is going to get. It is going to be praised to high heaven, even though it offers little more than a small twist to the well-established CoD formula. A good reception means that it will be considered a sign of betterment, rather than difference. There's a distinction to be made there, I think. I mean, it's good that the formula is being reworked, however minimally, but should that excuse the core mechanics remaining fundamentally unchanged from a title that is now seven and a half years old?
I'm all over the place here, I know.
I just want to finish off with a wish for more in-depth criticism. Reviews are fine, but they are flawed in that it is their primary goal to inform the potential customer of their quality. I want to see more critics stepping away from that and looking at the artistic side of gaming. The stories that the games tell and the ways in which they are told. I mean, a person could go deep into the Messianic principles, the concept of destiny, humanity, longevity and stagnation in life, and more in Lightning Returns. You could discuss how they are presented through the sidequests as well as pure narrative construction, but it won't happen. There is a lot of discussion about Bioshock and Spec Ops: The Line because people want to evangelise them, but there are a lot more games than just those that dwell on culturally relevant topics. That is what I want to see more of. Critics actually being critical of such attempts, rather than offering less than two hundred words on subtext while talking about the narrative of a game.
Anyway, that's enough rambling. I'm done.
The problem with always treating something as it's own thing is you have to ignore all advancements thus far in the industry, which systems are or are not outdated, the place of the game in history, and whether or not any changes are working better or worse. You isolate the game from the world around it, and I think that does a bigger disservice than allowing in the calculation of what it aught to be, for example Resident Evil 6 and Lords of Shadow 2 aught to have been less confused and all over the place partly because this isn't what fans are looking for.
I'm not sure I understand your sentiment. I mean, if you review a game in a bubble, then surely it's destined to get a 10/10 every time, simply because you're ignoring everything else? To that end, you compare it to a kind of "industry standard" (inverted commas because no such thing really exists). By all means, compare it to the past and state that the games feel confused in their identities compared to the relative purity of their predecessors. The accumulation of ancillary mechanics and random plot points causes that, not fan expectations.
I'm not saying to remove comparisons to older games, or other games, or the industry as a whole; only to refrain from reviewing and scoring a game based on what fans think it should do. The issues of RE6 and C:LOS2 apparently go far deeper than just being other than what fans want, in that they lack a sense of purpose.
I think another problem is expectations in general. Whether they be based on previous entries in a franchise, or the hype build up prior to release, the expectations that a person forms prior to getting their hands on a game seems to be a major contributing factor in forming their opinion on the game as a whole.
I expected Lightning Returns to get bad scores, because the previous titles had set a very bad precedent.
@Lawless
What is the better solution? reviewing a game based on opinion, or fact?
Basing a review on facts, is essentially what you say reviewing a game in a 'bubble'. But at the same time this leads to your other point where games are being skewed higher in the scores just because they aren't broken. Because in a 'bubble' a game can be good, but when compared to other games in the industry or in the series, it isn't amazing, but this strolls into opinion.
There definitely needs to be a balance of opinion and fact, while trying to keep expectations out of it completely.
I actually disagree with both of you when you say that reviews are becoming more balanced these days, I am almost giving up on reviews all together these days, and barely ever read them because they seem to have become glorified opinion pieces. A critical review is intended as you say, to inform the user as to the quality of the product, not to give them YOUR view of the product. A lot of people don't understand the difference, and accept reviewers opinions as 'fact'. I have seen MANY people on this site say no to a game simply because of Ben's review.
Last edited by Akuma_ on 3/2/2014 8:29:57 PM
I'm glad we can have a discussion of this kind in a rational and respectful manner. Love this site, and thanks Dave for the opportunity.
Akuma,
If the options were as stark as one or the other, fact. Always. But, as you say a degree of opinion is necessary as there is a need to compare it to other games. And how you regard it against those other games is where the opinion comes in.
And I think it really depends on where you look. There are a lot of reviewers who base their reviews almost entirely on opinion. And there are others who skew it more to objective analysis. I would say that Ben falls into the latter category – in general. But what I was referring to when I mentioned 'balance' was the use of full X/10 scale, not the way that reviewers go about their business. Maybe it's just the sites that I frequent, but I'm seeing more often that reviewers are willing to give a solid, though unspectacular, game a score of 6, whereas they would heretofore have scored eights.
id like to add reviews should ONLY come once thd reviewer has BEATEN the game and given a half @$$ed review because they didn't bother to finish it because they didn't like a setting or short stealth missions
how do you say the story of a game sucks when you don't know the full story or how its even played out
Because quality of every aspect is inherent pretty early on, except in certain instances. It isn't very often that you can read a book and have to get to the end before being able to pass judgement on its quality (probably the only one that I can think of that I've read is The Beach, by Alex Garland, because that third act was a cop-out and, IMO, dragged the story down considerably). For a ten-twelve hour game where the story is with you constantly, half is generally all you need to know whether it is a good story or not; whether it drags on necessarily by weighing itself down with filler or ensures that everything plays a role. The quality of the writing, the emotion within it. Longer games with more complex narratives generally take longer to get going, so you may need to play more to get a feeling for what's going down.
It is an interesting point.
I agree with you, but I think most reviewers would find it hard to manage their time if they are completing EVERY game they review.
The question is, is the game the same the whole way through?
Let's take FFXIII for example, the first 10 or so hours are not that exciting, but once you get out into the (not so) open world, the game becomes a lot more fun. So a review wouldn't do it justice if they didn't finish it.
However, I agree with Lawless that the quality of some games can be apparent very early on.
I think a 5 should be used as the average game. Like "this game is alright, has problems but its playable to an extent"
A 10 should be "you cannot miss this game. It excels in atmosphere graphics gameplay soundtrack character development and story"
Instead something gets a 7 and its instantly a horrible and terrible game. I'd give something like mass effect 3 a 7, and because it has its issues but its also a good game. Very rarely should any game get a 9 or 10 because no game is truly 100% perfect.
It can easily be perfect to an individual though which is where I guess reviewing games becomes kinda foggy. I didn't read reviews for Metro but I assume it got around 7 or something. But for me its a 9 for my own personal reasons. People should learn to read a review, take it in like a review and then try something and give it their own opinion and not follow a herd of people who are doing the same thing.
Reviewing a game will almost always be an opinion instead of fact because no one can truly review a game on a games quality. I couldn't bring myself to give a COD game more than a 6 because its all the same stuff over and over and over again.
Yes, but I've played games that were rated a 10 and hated them. I couldn't bring myself to even get half-way through before I traded it in.
Then I have played games rated a 7 something and loved it, some of my most favorite games were rated in the 7s or low 8s.
Has anyone else had this happen where a top rated game sucked to you?
Last edited by Tim Speed24 on 3/2/2014 8:47:49 AM
Happens more than I care to admit Tim. I too have noticed that a lot of my favourite games are rated in the 6-9s. Oh well.
I do all the time. My favorite games all seem to be in the 8's, aside from Uncharted and TLOU.
i miss the good old days where games were reviewed for what they ARE, not what they SHOULD be!
reviewers tend to harp on the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again too.
CLOS 2 perfect example, 99% of 99% of reviews is filled out with complaints to the stealth.
ok its crap, ok it does not fit the setting, NOW F*CKING MOVE ON TO THE REST OF THE GAME!!!!!!!!!!!
we need to go back to the good old days where reviews always meant judging every little detail of a game, and judging it for what it is, not what it should be!
and judging it by judging the WHOLE game, meaning finishing the dam thing, its impossible to properly review something if you have not experienced all of it!
I have the game those stealth missions are filler, they don't improve the game and I would prefer they weren't included but they aren't as bad like some reviewers are preaching.
I think Ben review it's fair I just don't agree with the plot being awful, but with this time the history being more focused on Gabriel without Zobek narrating… how the game hits you now it's very polarizing, if you don't like Gabriel as a character I can see why some people wouldn't enjoy much LOS2.
Last edited by Oxvial on 3/2/2014 3:53:03 AM
the games being pretty unfairly flaked though especially with the story, i mean CLOS was hardly the best form of video game storytelling!
what made CLOS so great was its artistic flair, varying settings, enemy variety and combat.
there was so much variety in everything and you really felt like you were going on a adventure, and from what ive seen of 2 its more of the same!
tried to play a bit of it tonight but usual typical steam keeps f*cking crashing every time i try to boot it so i cant play any of it.
When you have articles like this shooting up about LOS2, then I think it's safe to say the game failed to be as awesome as the first:
http://www.playstationtrophies.org/news/news-12444-Castlevania–Lords-of-Shadow-2-s-Allegedly-Troubled-Development-Exposed–Studio-Director-Blamed.html
It's sad, but well it happens. This is one of those instances were I will wait for a price drop. I want to play it, but with this type of thing it's not worth 60 bucks. Looks at you Oxvial.
Game it's not a pos, can't take this anon letter rant who it's entirely focused on hate a guy because he has a ego serious ( not even daring to say 'hello' when you meet him in the hallway., lol! ) and I doubt it's legit, guy talks like if this was Duke Nukem Forever. Only true thing said there it's the first one being a better game.
Last edited by Oxvial on 3/3/2014 2:17:36 AM
I agree, If you did not beat the game then you have no place to do a review imo. I agree we do need people to review games though, Lets us see what we are getting into and a idea of what the game has to offer BUT i can't say this enough never ever base a purchase on a review, If you have been waiting years for a game you love or a game you know you want then go with your gut because 9 times out of 10 you will enjoy it. When i saw that lords of shadow got a 6 i was bumed out because i was expecting more but i still went out a bought and enjoying every second of it,
Btw very underrated game the only fair review was from gamespot they gave it a 7 out of 10 and i'am sure they completed the game before casting judgement.
Games are games. As long as its fun, tons of factors like speed, length, graphics, and more don't really matter. But the holy grail of gaming is to combine all of them to make the ultimate game everyone must have.
yeah well i hope that thingsw ill get bk to the way they were in the ps2 generation and what i mean by that is the community and the critiques most everything i know i am guilty of a bit of fan boy banter and i'm happy to admit it you can ask my friends i have said such things. but i just want things to calm down and i think i will atleast in my circle try to lead the charge cos i know y'all will agree it'll be better for ever one i thats something i've come to realise in this generation change over and it's cos of the gaming culture i was used to with the ps1 and ps2 gen and this one from a community and critique/review stand point from a general over view perspective has been a mess and i think y'all will agree with me on that and it is time for change in the community and critique/review area for some piece.
happy gaming =)
if your not going to finish the game leave the review score blank because that review score doesn't belong
many of us take gaming as a hobby but reviewers are getting paid to play X game Finish it and Review it
Ben here had a topic defending reviewers are the one that should get paid Well if you want your money then you should finish your damn job and review the whole damn game otherwise you shouldn't you getting paid
many companys fire workers who half @$$ their work and slack off game reviewers should be the same way
looks like ill stick with Fan reviews from now on
My problem and the very reason I don't use reviews as an aid in mu purchases, is that reviews are no longer informational. Today reviews are opinionated, uninformative and just a bunch of mumbo about what one person thinks.
I like to read reviews that tell me how a game plays not how much the gameplay was enjoyable or not. I like a review that outlines the story (without spoiling it) rather than critiquing the story writing.
What if the story or writing doesn't work? I like to know if it doesn't live up to its potential.
"I like a review that outlines the story (without spoiling it) rather than critiquing the story writing."
"What if the story or writing doesn't work? I like to know if it doesn't live up to its potential."
DIsmael, World is asking for more than the outline bigrailer is asking for. If the writing doesn't make sense, a critique would be beneficial. Otherwise, a mere outline might make a terribly pieced together story sound intriguing.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 3/2/2014 4:56:52 PM
You can't write a review without critiquing the various aspects of a game. That makes it an overview. It lets you know what a game is, but doesn't tell you what it's like.
"Duke Nukem Forever is a first person shooter with crass humour. The core of the gameplay is to shoot at aliens with a variety of guns that are equipped on a two-weapon loadout system. Players are also able to interact with various environmental items, such as urinals and whiteboards. Furthermore, buffing items such as alcohol and steroids, offer brief improvements to various of the character's abilities. Etc, etc,.
"The story takes place a number of years from the previous game in the series, following which Duke Nukem has become a worldwide celebrity. Once again, aliens are invading the Earth and Duke is forced to combat this threat after they attack him in his home. The action takes place in a variety of locations, including a casino and Hoover Dam. Etc., etc."
Doesn't it seem ascetic? It tells you that the systems work, but not how well they work. It tells you what kicks off the story, but not whether it makes any sense or how good it is. It tells you some of the locales, but not how well represented they are, or whether they are enjoyable to play in.
If that's what you want, you're better off reading the Wikipedia entry on a game than reviews.
World – all I need to know is what the story is about. Tell me something about the atmosphere and characters and I'll make a decision on if it sounds interesting. Don't tell me why YOU'RE (not you) not impressed, because that's YOUR opinion. I'm just saying if I would have listened to half the reviews last gen I would have missed out on so many games. The main thing that bugs me about reviews lately is telling the consumer what the story is about gets lost in all the critiquing. That's more what I am referring to. Sometimes I feel like I don't even know what the game is about after reading reviews.
Lawless it's more of a preview approach that Ben does at times for games that I gather more useful information. That's the approach I like and you can still make it a review by being objective when describing the game. I'm talking about reviews that are so personal that it's ridiculous. If a review can tell me about the game, give me the sense that's aspects are implemented well and put a score to it that's fine. And you are 100 percent right in regard to what you are saying, I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying lately this approach works far better for me. It's really not that big of a deal what I prefer.
And by the way I refer to wikipedia far more than I do reviews. I've never been let down with this approach.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 3/2/2014 7:04:12 PM
Ah, I'm with you now. And I do agree, actually. I tried watching Yahtzee's review of Lightning Returns and just had to turn it off. Overly opinionated and criticising the game without seeing enough of it to get the full picture.
A small amount of opinion is necessary, however. What the reviewer regards as good/great will always influence their take on a title in some capacity, and I'm fine with that. Take a couple of points off for having a poorly implemented system and mention that, not because you don't agree with the inclusion of a mechanic that you don't like even though it works.
And yeah, I do the Wikipedia thing a lot, too. 🙂
Still, whether someone enjoys the story or not, is a personal opinion.
Educated adults can argue that point, saying that bad writing is bad writing regardless of enjoyment.
If the review says the story is bland, does that mean you will not enjoy the story yourself? of course not.
Akuma,
Enjoyment and quality are not synonymous. Example, Les Miserables is wonderfully written, but a lot of people will find it bland and boring because it focuses on character, rather than action. On the other hand, the Fast and Furious franchise is inconsistent, with some poor dialogue and employment of retroactive continuity, but a lot of people still enjoy it.
One is opinion, the other objectivity.
Lawless – Yeah reviews do need some opinion. I'm okay with a review mentioning a poorly implemented mechanic for instance, but to focus on that and not explain how the game plays doesn't let me know if maybe I'll be interested in it. If the review doesn't think it's good tell me a little about it so I can make a decision. Not just that's it's bad.
Like you said take a couple points off and fill me in.
And which one sells more games? Opinion or objectivity?
Honestly, during school I HATED English class, so all this talk about the quality of writing doesn't really excite me haha, so I am not really one to argue.
I just can't wait to see the mgs5 GZ review, they will see past all the great things that the game will have to offer and give it a 5 because its not as long as msg4. But i will still be getting it day one i have been a long time mgs fan and i will not let a review change my mind!
I think what we are trying to say is the reviews need to to fair and consistent, I' am ok with a game the got what it truly deserved if the review was fair. If i were to review and game i would review it for the thing i have experienced, gameplay, sound, combat, etc etc, butnif i have not beaten the story i could not past judgement now how is that fair to the readers. I understand that a few games start off slow and the story seems to suck but even though you have to stick it out to the end if you want you readers to take your reviews seriously.
I wonder if it would ever be possible for the industry to agree on a set metric for the review of games. Scores can be calculated for individual categories and then conclude with an overall score. If certain standards can be aggreed upon then the playing field would be evened. The reviewers thoughts, opinions and comparisons can supplement the article as a recommendation to the reader. The most difficult part would be actually deciding on said metrics. Maybe we should create a Gamers Association or committee of professionals to undertake this endeavor.
What do you think David? Can the humans pull it off?
I don't trust reviews at a 100%. I read them to get an idea about a game. And I don't believe that games should be judge a little more on what they should be. What if a game is better than it's predecessor in every way? What if the developer tries something new with their franchise and it works?
And as for Resident Evil 6. I'm glad that I played it. I enjoyed it very much, finished it on professional mode. And my only complain is 1 QTE in Ada Wong's campaign. And you need to play all of the campaign to have a better view of the overall story.
About Enslaved. Most of you liked it. But for me, I hated it. And I did try it because it has a good reputation in this site. I admit that the few early chapters of that game has a great build up. But halfway in the game, it's all downhill.
And I think the battle system in Lightning Returns is not dumb.
And by the way. If you are doing a review and the story will dictate the score, I think you should have finished the game first. What if a game has the same style of story telling like the movie Memento.
Last edited by homura on 3/2/2014 7:40:33 PM
I agree with the Enslaved opinion.
Dishonored was the one game I never understood the love from the reviewers.
I still haven't played Dishonored, so I don't have an opinion about the story. However, I've seen some gameplay videos and it didn't interest me so based on that, I still have no plan to get a copy of Dishonored.
But Remember Me, despite of the not so favorable reviews, is one of many games that I really want to play. Funny isn't it?
Last edited by homura on 3/3/2014 4:16:23 AM
I played Dishonored for about 4 hours and never touched it again. I don't get the praise for it either.