If you are like myself, you have probably played and enjoyed a video game, then perhaps found a review that you didn't agree with on the game.
When the original Mercenaries released in 2005, I purchased it day one for my Xbox. I really enjoyed the game, and thought it was well worth the $50 I payed for it. I had more than 40 hours of game-play on just the first play-through of the game.I remember getting my copy of GameInformer that had the review for Mercenaries in it. I could not believe the game received a review score of 7.5 out 10! I emailed the reviewer, asking why certain things were left out of the review about the game. My biggest complaint about the "review" was the fact he did not mention how long he played the game, or if he even completed it.
The second post I ever posted on the site, was titled, "An Open Letter to Adam Biessener of GameInformer". I emailed Adam Biessener about his review for The Conduit, and how it lacked information. As with my first email to Game Informer back in 2005, I still have not received a reply from Adam(or anybody at GameInformer).
Those are just a few reviewers I have disagreed with, there are more.
The Grind:
My biggest issue with reviewers on major sites is that I rarely know how long they played the game before "reviewing" it. I think a good example of this was with The Conduit. The Conduit's multi-player was plagued with glitches, and I don't believe there was a single reviewer from any of the larger sites that addressed them in their reviews.
Addressing the question, "Should there be game review standards?" I believe that every review, especially from the major sites, should include one thing for the readers to know; and I believe every reviewer should do at least one thing before playing a game and then writing a review.
The Brew:
1. The amount of time the game was played - If the game has single-player and multi-player, how many hours/minutes were spent with each should be included in the review. If a game has a single-player campaign, it would be nice to know if the campaign was finished.
IGN.com recently changed their review scale, but not really their review policy. I found it interesting they bothered with changing the scale of reviews, but not the policy as to what information is provided to the readers of the reviews.
In IGN.com's "Reviews Policy", they have a Q&A section for it, and one question is, "Do you 'complete' games before reviewing them?" Well, the answer was, "Not always. Keep in mind, that not every game can be 'beaten'...", as if this needs explaining, they mention puzzlers, sports games, and MMOs as games with "no real end".
What I found really interesting about this Q&A, was when they said, "As a general rule, IGN's philosophy is that editors should play an assigned game as much as they need to in order to give a fair, in-depth review that can accurately represent the overall experience."
So, currently at IGN(and many other sites it seems), if a reviewer plays a game for 1 hour or less, they can write a review and call it a day, and the readers have no idea how much the game was played. Does that make any sense?
There are very few reviewers that do provide the hours played, that I know of.
Nintendo-Okie.com's Tony Miller provides how he obtained the game, as well as "Total Play Time". He recently reviewed Madden NFL 11 for the Wii, and his "Total Play Time" for the review was 27 hours!
2. Read the game's instruction manual & control options - This is what I believe every reviewer should do before playing a game.
Since the Wii(and some PS3 games) introduced motion/gesture controls this generation, I think reviewers really need to read the instruction manuals and control options in games. When The Conduit released on the Wii it wasn't perfect. What it did get right though, and set the "standard" for Wii FPS games, was the customizable control options.
I still have trouble understanding how reviewers complained about the controls in the game. One "reviewer" for The Conduit said of the controls, "...after wrestling with the terrible controls...", then wrote an entire paragraph about what was wrong with the "motion controls". Yet, he failed to mention the game had fully customizable controls and he could have switched the motion controls for button presses in some cases.
I can only imagine what will happen with reviews when Sony's Move and Microsoft's Kinect release, and reviewers just hop into the game without knowing if calibration is an option.
Thoughts/Questions:
While review scores are subjective, I do not think the lack of information, or misinformation in a review is subjective.
These are just two things that I think would improve the "review" method for games, and give readers a better way to understand how much weight they should put into a review.
Are there any "standards" you think would be beneficial to help make the game review process better? Do you agree with my two points, and are there any sites that you know of that I didn't mention that put the "Total Play Time" in every review?
There are very few reviewers that do provide the hours played, that I know of.
Nintendo-Okie.com's Tony Miller provides how he obtained the game, as well as "Total Play Time". He recently reviewed Madden NFL 11 for the Wii, and his "Total Play Time" for the review was 27 hours!
 |
| I wonder if Matt Casamassina finished this game before he "reviewed" it, or was he busy applying for his Apple job instead? |
2. Read the game's instruction manual & control options - This is what I believe every reviewer should do before playing a game.
Since the Wii(and some PS3 games) introduced motion/gesture controls this generation, I think reviewers really need to read the instruction manuals and control options in games. When The Conduit released on the Wii it wasn't perfect. What it did get right though, and set the "standard" for Wii FPS games, was the customizable control options.
I still have trouble understanding how reviewers complained about the controls in the game. One "reviewer" for The Conduit said of the controls, "...after wrestling with the terrible controls...", then wrote an entire paragraph about what was wrong with the "motion controls". Yet, he failed to mention the game had fully customizable controls and he could have switched the motion controls for button presses in some cases.
I can only imagine what will happen with reviews when Sony's Move and Microsoft's Kinect release, and reviewers just hop into the game without knowing if calibration is an option.
Thoughts/Questions:
While review scores are subjective, I do not think the lack of information, or misinformation in a review is subjective.
These are just two things that I think would improve the "review" method for games, and give readers a better way to understand how much weight they should put into a review.
Are there any "standards" you think would be beneficial to help make the game review process better? Do you agree with my two points, and are there any sites that you know of that I didn't mention that put the "Total Play Time" in every review?
One of the things I try to do with all of my reviews at Nintendo Okie is to give you as much information about how I obtained the game, how long I played the game and some of the things I did in the game. I don't get into technical junk, unless it's things like very obvious frame drops or extremely distracting things like having textures pop in very noticeably.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a professional gamer, just a gamer and I try to do my reviews with a regular person in mind. I think it's very important to let people know what you did while playing the game. If you quit playing let people know why. I think they'll understand. It's all about being honest with the people that read our reviews, or anything else we do on the site.
In all honesty, I think reviews just need to take the score aspect out, because people usually base the whole game on one number. Trolltaku does reviews well, people should take their one good aspect and learn from it.
ReplyDeleteWhile part of me likes grading games to summarize your general view on them, I still haven't decided which method is best.
ReplyDeleteI think the intended audience is something to consider as well. Games like Wii Music score horribly yet sell well,. and it's NOT because they 'suck' necessarily, but because most of the people reviewing them just aren't the target audience and it doesn't mesh with them.
I actually wish there were more "casual" game reviewers out there. A game can be casual and well produced, for sure.
It's funny you mention this because I've actually been strongly considering removing that whole informational aspect of my reviews.
Why? Because I get so much* crap for being honest with people. I'd look better if I lied. "WAT u only play crystal bearers for 5 hours and not beat it?" Um, yea, and those were five hours of my life I can't take back and the last 2 were the same as the first two. It's called "efficiency."
Or in my Transformers review, I admitted that I never watched the old cartoon and got into Transformers because of the Michael Bay movies, which I actually enjoy to a degree, and got a bunch of hate for it.
Makes me wonder what* people want. I could be ambiguous like IGN and look better for it or I could be honest and get trash talked.
@Destiny
ReplyDeleteHonesty = respect in due time
You mention the review's audience, well, most of the gaming audience are immature teens and fanboys, so you will always be wrong no matter what.
Try to get passed that and write how you really feel, then in time, people will come to respect you.
@ Destiny
ReplyDeleteI've always thought honesty was the best policy when dealing with this issue. I try to be as honest about everything as possible and it's cost us some game coverage because of it, but in the end I don't care because if a game is crap,then a game is crap. I learned very quickly when I started doing this a little over a year ago that you can't please the internet and it's actually worse because it's the internet.
I've also thought about getting rid of the score aspect of the game, but it's not completely gone. I think the 5 point scale works really good. Anything 3 stars and up is really worth checking out and I think people kinda get that. and it makes it a little easier on us to score the games that way.
CWG, dude I know that you have a soft spot for the first Red Steel game, but PLEASE don't use that as an example of a game being shafted. After playing that game for 20 minutes I decided to get rid of it. It is HORRIBLE. Again, in disclosure, I played and beat Red Steel 2 first and then only played a little of the first level.
ReplyDeleteIn retrospect, I find that many reviews of Madworld and The Conduit should be revised down, but IMHO, reviews of Red Steel 2 should be revised up.
I mainly read reviews because I'm interested in other people's opinions, but not because I can't make up my mind. In other words, I like the discussion aspect of them. Usually I know whether I'll like a game just watching videos online or even looking at screenshots.
ReplyDeleteI think scoring games is kind of ridiculous (thought tempting) because you can't really put a number on art. You can't put dollar signs on it either (there was a recent discussion about this on Jeremy Parish's blog). And besides, people scream like children when they see their favorite game got anything less than an 8 out of 10.
Gamepro actually had in right in breaking down the score into categories with one of them being "fun factor." A game might have poor graphics, sound and even control, and still be fun.
I think with multiplayer games it is difficult for professional reviewers to meet their deadlines and have time to really try them out this way. Sometimes the servers are not even up yet or populated then because they are reviewing the game before it comes out.
Another issue is whether they are encouraged to praise games with the biggest budgets and marketing campaigns. In the movie world, critics are lambasted for NOT praising big budget popcorn flicks, yet the opposite is true in the world of video games.
I could not agree with you more. Many aspects of a game may be irrelevant or not important to certain players. If a game is criticized and penalized because of those unimportant aspects, then the review itself becomes irrelevant. I am working on a media review/rating system based on learning and intellectual profiling.
ReplyDeleteI agree that reviews should provide more information about how the reviewer played the game, however we have to remember that reviews are an opinion. While playing a game, we all bring our own life experiences to it, and thus react differently. If you actually read a review, instead of just skipping to the score, you can usually develop a better picture of what the game is actually like. Also, reading multiple reviews, or using a review aggregate site can help.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a lot of good points here. I know my reviews have changed over time, from what I did a few years ago on certain sites to what I do now on my blog. I try to log in a lot of hours before posting (which is why I haven't put my my madden review yet as I was churning out 2 more draft classes in college) - but generally I like to beat a game before reviewing it. Generally though - some of the games I play like Record of Agarest Wars or Final Fantasy XIII can take a hundred hours before I'm 'done' with them, which means the review is coming out weeks after the release.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree - I like commenting on if I got the game from a friend, got it used and if so at what price, bought it on release day - and also commenting on how long it took (like Transformers taking me about 14 hrs to beat the main story, but then getting more playtime value out of the online modes).
I have no problem w/ scoring, because like anything else it is subjective (I may like the art direction of a game while someone else finds it odd and I may find a soundtrack annoying that someone else loves) - but it can definitely skew scores. I mean, Agarest War is a fun game in my opinion - but my aggregate score is somewhat low because the graphics and music were kind of meh. Hopefully though, that's why people read the actual comments as well - because they help to tell a more full picture of things. Good topic - seems to have garnered some feedback. And, now I have a new blog to look for - hadn't seen Nintendo Okie before. :)
I always appreciate a jab at Matt's review of Red Steel. Though the biggest thing for me isn't that he might not have finished it (<__<), it's that I'm positive he set the controls to the Advanced setting and never used the others, because he was just so sure the Red Steel team and the Metroid Prime 3 teams were working together.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, to an extent I agree. Reviewers, whether they intend to or not, have a great power over video game buyers, and making stats like you mentioned public information as part of the review would give the reviewers some much needed accountability.
I think a review standard would be outstanding. playtime seems like a difficult thing, but at least putting that in the review would give people an idea -- "he beat Mass Effect 2 in 20 hours, and complained about things being too difficult..." would indicate that they just rushed through underleveled.
ReplyDeleteReview scores suck. I like a 3 point system. Liked, Meh, or h8 it!
But it'll always come down to that individuals preference I think. So if you really even care to read reviews, find people who are more in tune with what you like, and read a lot of reviews!
Or don't and just play what looks interesting to you :P.
@Tony Miller:
ReplyDelete"I'm not a professional gamer, just a gamer and I try to do my reviews with a regular person in mind."
I think this is especially important with the new gamers the Wii has brought in this generation and the "casual" games.
@Keith:
It's interesting to read some of Kotaku's reviews, but they don't seem to do enough on a regular basis for me to keep up with.
@D3stiny_Sm4sher:
"Games like Wii Music score horribly yet sell well,. and it's NOT because they 'suck' necessarily, but because most of the people reviewing them just aren't the target audience and it doesn't mesh with them."
Yup, I would say Just Dance and Carnival Games fall into the "casual" category, that the "professional" reviewers don't seem to understand.
@Keith:
"Honesty = respect in due time"
It doesn't seem like much happens though, to the guys that aren't very honest or open in the way they currently review games.
@Tony Miller:
"I learned very quickly when I started doing this a little over a year ago that you can't please the internet and it's actually worse because it's the internet."
LOL...
@delawaregamer:
"CWG, dude I know that you have a soft spot for the first Red Steel game, but PLEASE don't use that as an example of a game being shafted. After playing that game for 20 minutes I decided to get rid of it. It is HORRIBLE."
LOL, I have a homework assignment for you, read/watch:
1) http://www.coffeewithgames.com/2010/01/part-1-what-red-steel-2-should-keep.html
2)http://www.coffeewithgames.com/2010/02/what-red-steel-2-should-keep-from.html
3) http://www.coffeewithgames.com/2010/02/what-red-steel-2-should-keep-from_13.html
I can understand how going BACK to Red Steel would be difficult adjusting to the controls; it's almost like going from more current Wii FPS games, to dual analog, but I still enjoyed Red Steel a lot.
@stalepie:
"I think with multiplayer games it is difficult for professional reviewers to meet their deadlines and have time to really try them out this way. Sometimes the servers are not even up yet or populated then because they are reviewing the game before it comes out."
Which I think was the case with The Conduit, because not one single review in the first month, mentioned the spawn bug/glitch, but it was being reporting by users I think within days of release.
@interactivemediareferencebureau:
"I am working on a media review/rating system based on learning and intellectual profiling."
Interesting. Here's hoping some good will come of it, and your efforts get noticed.
@Andrew Duryea:
"...however we have to remember that reviews are an opinion."
While true, I don't think that's the issue really. I think the issue is the lack of information, or incorrect information, provided by reviewers and there is not way for us to do anything about reviews that give false information and are never changed.
I still wonder what the point of an email address is for most of the "reviewers" when they don't even reply to emails sent to them.
@Chalgyr:
"...which means the review is coming out weeks after the release."
I think the "release day review" idea is part of the problem, as most publishers and sites usually want to have reviews up first, or early, for the games.
@WesFX:
"I'm positive he set the controls to the Advanced setting and never used the others"
I think you suggested to me, after seeing my Red Steel videos back in February, to switch my controls to the normal setting, because I had them on Advanced...because of Matt Casamassina saying that was the way to play!
@Den:
"Review scores suck. I like a 3 point system. Liked, Meh, or h8 it!"
I debated a few things when doing my Max and the Magic Marker review...one was similar to this, but I did end up giving the game a review score.
Thank you all very much for the comments and feedback!
ReplyDeleteYep, I definitely suggested that. Dunno if I was the only one.
ReplyDeleteThough, I think you said you had filmed everything already....so I don't know if any videos were made using the other settings. Did you think they controlled better that way?
@WesFX:
ReplyDeleteThe footage was filmed with the advanced controls, but I did go back and try it with the regular settings.
I didn't notice a huge difference, though I probably should play the entire game that way to see if I notice anything significant.
Thanks for the comment back!
i think honesty is the better policy. does that equate to full disclosure of every detail? not necessarily, but the more you say and say honestly, the more valuable and clout can be attached to the rest of the content.
ReplyDeleteit seems logical to have standards for something so wildly variable; between the subjective opinions of the individual readers, the voice of the publication and their intended audiences, the subject matter being covered, not to mention all the things about experiencing the subject matter (playing it in HD or 480p, full surround, quality of internet connection, skill of those playing, etc); but realistically that can and will never happen. it would require a governing authority over all media outlets that publish the content, a consensus about the whats, hows, etc to be included in the proposed standards, and all sorts of other red tape that exactly zero of the businesses who produce review content would likely ever actually participate in. sad, i know.
maybe that's an opportunity for some really driven, glutton for punishment....
i feel that the variety of publications available to those consumers looking for evaluations of products they're interested is the best and fairest way to provide quality information to them. anyone who seriously consults a review or something they are interested in is not likely to read just one... and it's the amalgamation of multiple sources that will provide the best resource; regardless of how well written, objective, or thorough anyone tries to make their articles.
that said, the whiny bitches who waste their life-clocks tapping out insulting responses are not to be minded... it's pretty much the first lesson in being a "public figure": you can't please everyone, so do your best and let the work speak for itself, and don't let the bastards grind you down. the rest of your audience will recognise your content as genuine and the blowhard nonsense for what it is.
the bottom line for me is that sort of like any moral issue (not to necessarily equate it with something like abortion, but..), each person and outlet needs to consider for themselves their: audience, voice, style, and everything else that comprises the relationship they have with their readers before publishing a single word of opinion. if you don't know how and what you want to say, nobody else will either.
ps... in other words, that makes a vote for standards, just not industry-wide.