Why Reviews Don’t Work

Game reviews are a prominent concern of many gamers, and it’s one of the issues which has been gnawing at me since I began thinking about starting this blog. It just so happens that this last week I read an excellent article on it. It started with this Kotaku post , which linked to this original article from Lost Garden.

Danc is a game designer who is concerned with the disconnect between industry reviews by “expert gamers” and actual user experiences. In his critique of the standard reviewing system he makes many valid points, but I get the impression that Danc feels he has a definitive solution to the review issue by encouraging reviewers to examine games from the perspective audience. I think that overlooks the greater issue with game reviews: the attempt to create impartiality on either the side of the reviewer or the reader. The fact is that you can’t say that a game merits a 9.2 by its intended audience, because you don’t know if that audience is reading the review. That’s why I think the whole idea of grading systems in reviews is bullshit. It doesn’t matter if you’re using numbers, stars, clovers, or horseshoes, I think any rating system over simplifies the complexity of videogames as an industry. Some reviews try to get past this by merely recommending or not recommending a game, but that really boils down to a 50/50 rating system.

What I propose is that a review be broken down to the component parts of a game and be expressed openly with bias. I think that if a reviewer is an “expert gamer” and therefore is going to review everything from the perspective of the “hardcore”, then do it. Just tell everyone you’re doing it at the same time. It’s entirely possible that a game will merit a 7.5 to the hardcore but a 9.2 for the casual gamer, who is the demographic the designers are aiming for. That doesn’t invalidate the 7.5. What invalidates the 7.5 is its static position in the ether of public opinion. What the hell does 7.5 mean? Would it not be more informative if a reviewer said “the graphics in this game weren’t very clean and detailed, which detracted from the overall experience because you needed to see certain elements to progress further”? That’s informative. That tells me that if you’re one of those fetishists who needs his/her HD, this game may not be for you. For someone like me the graphics aren’t as great a concern, but how they affect the gameplay does. Look at that, in one simple sentence this example has appealed to two entirely different perspectives on gaming. Perhaps we should be putting more emphasis on getting reviewers who are good at conveying their experience to others, rather than finishing a game in record time and slapping an arbitrary number on it?

This suggestion is similar to what Danc calls “Tourists”:

“The tourists: Every Man players who approach writing about a game like a travel journalist on a safari. The goal is to evoke the emotions that the individual reporter experienced, not to predict what everyone’s experience might be. They succeed if they provide simple entertainment.”

I agree with Danc on this, but I think that this tourism perspective doesn’t account for an explanation of bias. That explanation can do a lot to help readers understand which reviews are going to give them information which follows their own bias. Consumers want to know that the experience they read is what they will get out of the box so they know what to buy. I know Danc feels that reviews are loosing that sway, but I can’t honestly think of another reason for reviews to exist. Other than allowing fan boys to wage flame wars over how their favourite games deserve better scores.

I also think that we need more diversity in reviews. This doesn’t necessarily mean we need more review sites, but perhaps more categorization of reviewers on sites. Why not have a reviewer or two who do nothing but examine casual games from the perspective of those who game only once or twice a week? That would be nice. I always find it frustrating to find all the hidden gems in gaming beyond the Halo and Grand Theft Auto reviews. Perhaps this will insure a little more variety.

All this would require a shift in the industry which I don’t think we’ll get for a while. Let’s face it, reviews with numbers make it easy for publishers who want to see those 9’s and 10’s next to their games, and reviewers want the publishers to pay for advertising. I never cease to be amazed in the fact that reviews haven’t been eliminated with the distaste that so many user-based sites have for them. I guess the average gamer still gives those reviews some clout, and until the user base is willing to make the shift en masse the industry doesn’t need to move forward in this respect.

Looking at E3 2008

I realize that being a day late on my first update is not an auspicious start, but it was because I made the time to see The Dark Night. I think that’s reasonable.

So, E3. This year featured the closest observation of E3 that I’ve ever done, and I must say I was a little disappointed. That’s not to say I wasn’t impressed with a lot of what came out of E3. I guess what I’m saying is that while each of the big three manufacturers came out swinging, I didn’t feel like any of them landed that critical blow to knock back their opponents. I’m not passing judgement either way on Microsoft’s new interface until I get it in the fall, I expected Nintendo to have a peripheral more impressive than something which (in my opinion) makes the wiimote as sensitive as it should be out of the box, and Sony’s promises of ‘Just give us two more years’ seem kind of hollow in the present. I guess what I’m saying is that it seems like the big three have accepted that people have made their choices, and they aren’t looking to go beyond in terms of diversifying their audience. I certainly didn’t see any reason to pick up another console other than my Xbox 360.

There was lots of interesting stuff coming out in software. Here are a few things I’ll be watching for:

Mirror’s Edge: From what I’ve read, this is a lot of people’s favourite of the show, so I won’t spend too long on it. I like the look of the title and I’m really interested in something that’s first person, and yet you don’t have to shoot to experience the fullness of the game.

Far Cry 2: I didn’t play the first Far Cry, and I’m not one to be sold on graphics alone. However, after seeing this game in action, and given that it’s essentially an open-world FPS, I’m really interested in trying it. It just looks really well done, with lots of play options to keep me busy. I probably won’t be sold until I get a playable demo, but it looks like a really cool start.

Left For Dead: I’m not a big zombie-game guy (though Resident Evil 5 looks awesome), and I don’t think I’ll buy this one. So why am I mentioning it? The “director AI” sounds revolutionary. Essentially it moulds the game to match what the player has demonstrated in terms of abilities and based on how stocked your inventory is. The idea of a game that adjusts difficulty on the fly to your level, without you having to guess how your idea of “hardcore” meshes with the developer’s sounds really cool. This kind of smart AI could mean a big step up in gaming, and I think everyone could see some big changes in software over the next few years.

There are lots of other great titles that were shown off at E3 (Fallout 3 for one), but I think most of those speak for themselves. For the most part it looks like I’ll be waiting until the holiday season to get my hands on any of the stuff I was sold on right away. I am a little excited to see a playable demo for Too Human on Live, and from what I’ve played I think that it will justify a purchase in August. For now I’ll be satisfied playing through the unopened games on my shelf and catching up on all the stuff I haven’t had a chance to play since the last holiday season.

And now, for a taste of things to come…

A few months ago, as I shoveled snow off my driveway, I got to thinking about starting a blog to give a voice to my various opinions about gaming.  I was hesitant to start since I thought I would quickly run out of content to post, but since then I’ve found my opinions continuing to flow with ease.

Now the snow is long gone, and I thought starting a blog about video games the day before E3 seemed not a bad idea.  I must admit that I am a fairly casual gamer.  I have other concerns in my life, but that’s not to say I’m without opinions.  While some weeks I don’t get much more than an hour of play in, I spend a few hours a week reading up on video game news to try and keep informed.  I do encourage comments, but please realize I’m not posting to provide news, but rather to express my own perspective on things.

I won’t post anything else to get started, especially since E3 is going to fill this week with material for next week’s post.  I think I’ll try a few of the demos that have been piling up on my hard drive.