Theory

[GnaM]

Mediocre and crap games would not appear on a list; the whole point is to avoid wasting the reader's time with them. When the game gets reviewed, it would show up under the "latest stories" for a few days, then once it was old, unless you searched for that game, you wouldn't find it.

If you pulled up a search for ALL reviews given for a specific system (who does that nowadays?) there could simply just be a star next to the recommended titles, and if necessary, the crap ones could just be greyed out or something.

Then again, it begs the question, why read the reviews of big sites anyway? If you're scouring IGN and 1up's 9-10 score reviews searching for the sacred game that will answer all your prayers and demonstrate that the industry hasn't really gone to shit, you will most likely end up either disappointed, or self-deluded.

[icycalm]

the whole point is to avoid wasting the reader's time with them.

Nope, it isn't. Some of the best times I've had reading Ebert's reviews were when he trashes crap movies.

If you pulled up a search for ALL reviews given for a specific system (who does that nowadays?) there could simply just be a star next to the recommended titles, and if necessary, the crap ones could just be greyed out or something.

Yes, or you could paint Penguins and Pink Cows next to the reviews. Come on. Can't you see that this is the same thing as star ratings? I explained how this works in this very thread. The rating is already in the text. Whether you choose to represent it with stars or Penguins or "best and worst lists" or "greyed out" markings or whatever is irrelevant. It all depends on how mature about it you want to be.

Then again, it begs the question, why read the reviews of big sites anyway?

See Ebert. Just because a site is big doesn't mean it has to be crap.

[Molloy]

I'd say reviewing movies or music is a different animal than reviewing games though Icy. Movies average at less than two hours. Music albums are generally about 40 minutes.

I'd like to see someone who's reviewed 500 games properly, nevermind 5,000. Maybe it's possible for an editor to have a decent grasp of what thousands of games should be worth, but I'd say it's pretty close to impossible. I used to play 50 a year (completing several many times on a single rental) back in the Mega Drive days. But now everything is 8+ hours long I probably only play 8 a year, and finish one or two.

[icycalm]

I'd say reviewing movies or music is a different animal than reviewing games though Icy.

oh, rly? Thanks for clearing that up.

Movies average at less than two hours. Music albums are generally about 40 minutes.

And books take 10 hours plus.

By the way, I can review most any game ever made within 2 hours. 1 hour 45 minutes to play, and 15 minutes to write the review. If this sounds crazy or stupid to you wait for my explanation in a future article.

I'd like to see someone who's reviewed 500 games properly, nevermind 5,000.

Bottom line is I have ALREADY reviewed a couple thousand games, though I have not yet had time to upload my reviews to the internets. I will though! I eventually will!

[GaijinPunch]

I know I'm the black sheep here, but I've never really read reviews of games (and very rarely for movies for that matter). Of course, I've not bought any "new" game in about a year either though. But even when I was, I generally eyed the upcoming titles I thought might be good and bought it. If it sucked, I sold it.

Fact is, a lot of these games are reviewed after only putting 2-3 hours in (usually 10% of the game). I can see how a preview or impressions can be given, but not a full review. If a 30 hour game doesn't stay as good or better in the last 10 hours, it's a piece of shit. For shorter games... well... they don't really come out that often.

[GnaM]

Nope, it isn't. Some of the best times I've had reading Ebert's reviews were when he trashes crap movies.

Most game reviewer aren't as clever as Ebert, unfortunately. If I wanted to read a hilarious scathing review, I'd go to Action Button, not IGN or Gamespot.

Yes, or you could paint Penguins and Pink Cows next to the reviews. Come on. Can't you see that this is the same thing as star ratings? I explained how this works in this very thread. The rating is already in the text. Whether you choose to represent it with stars or Penguins or "best and worst lists" or "greyed out" markings or whatever is irrelevant. It all depends on how mature about it you want to be.

Well whatever, you could put in stars or penguins, or simply use a 3 point numeric rating system...it'd still be more efficient than what the big sites use now. Why do we need to give the bad games 5-7 freebie points "for effort"?

I suppose my problem is that I rarely read reviews on these sites anymore, let alone search through a list for the high scoring games, so it's hard to see why any other experienced gamer would want to.

Also I suppose the overarching problem with big site reviews is not so much the scores themselves as the way they overshadow the actual text...because the writing quality is so poor. Once you've seen the score, the text is not going to illuminate the situation with any profound details, so whereas the 2 digits at the end of a review should serve as nothing more than a trite formality at the end of a few thousand words of text, the result is quite the opposite.

See Ebert. Just because a site is big doesn't mean it has to be crap.

I have to wonder which reviews you're reading, and on what site. Don't get me wrong, not all big site reviews are totally worthless writing, but I can't remember ever coming across a big site review that was actually an entertaining read as much as it was simply useful to get a basic idea of the game's production values.

[JoshF]

When you say "big" you mean "corporate" right? That could be the problem.

[icycalm]

Nope, it isn't. Some of the best times I've had reading Ebert's reviews were when he trashes crap movies.

Most game reviewer aren't as clever as Ebert, unfortunately. If I wanted to read a hilarious scathing review, I'd go to Action Button, not IGN or Gamespot.

Fair enough. But what the fuck does that have to do with this discussion? I mentioned Ebert's scathing reviews to point out that ratings are necessary not only to find reviews of great games more easily, but also of shitty ones.

I suppose my problem is that I rarely read reviews on these sites anymore, let alone search through a list for the high scoring games, so it's hard to see why any other experienced gamer would want to.

What do you mean by "these sites"? We are not talking about specific sites here. We are just discussing whether ratings are helpful or not. Ratings are helpful to everyone, regardless of whether they are experienced gamers, movie viewers, music lovers or whatever.

See Ebert. Just because a site is big doesn't mean it has to be crap.

I have to wonder which reviews you're reading, and on what site. Don't get me wrong, not all big site reviews are totally worthless writing, but I can't remember ever coming across a big site review that was actually an entertaining read as much as it was simply useful to get a basic idea of the game's production values.

Which big sites I am reading? I told you: Ebert's site. And I fuckin' NEED the ratings to navigate it.

[taidan]

Icy's example of Ebert's scathing reviews is something I think we lack in "mainstream" game reviewing. Every so often a buggy, unfinished game might get beat up on. More often than not, you will see the big corporate sites give a game a 4.0, and the review will try to tiptoe around this until the very end. They will state where it is competent, claim that a few things don't work, and call it a "disappointment" (or something similar).

These kind of reviews don't do much for anyone. I suppose it informs, in the sense that so many reviews these days all sound like they want to be a Consumer Report for gamers. But when a review rips into something truly bad, it interests me. I get a clearer sense from the writer about what they didn't like, and I might actually learn something from the game's failure.

Of course we know why these kinds of reviews aren't common, but it still bothers me.

[Bradford]

I really hate to see sequels derided for their failure to be "original," "inventive," or "new." Icy has already very comprehensively addressed many of the more important issues with reviewing sequels, but this issue particularly irks me for for its absurdity.

I recall specifically the case of Rainbow Six 3 (xbox), which was a great game, and received near 10s from all the big sites. But it was a bit buggy, and there were a few balance issues in the multiplayer, and one or more really serious exploits (e.g., invulnerability during crouch/stand-up animations). Then Rainbow Six 3: Black Arrow was released, and was essentially the identical game, with new maps and corrections to all the balance and exploit issues. It got significantly lower scores! You can tell me all you want that I shouldn't care about bullshit IGN review scores, but for a tactical FPS on a console, RS3:BA has yet to be matched to date, and the next game in the R6 series (Lockdown) was total crap and played more like Counter-Strike than R6.

Did lower review scores in the mainstream press cause that? Don't tell me they had no effect at all. Why did it get a lower review score? Because it took a great game and only changed it by fixing the flaws. Yeah, it always ruins a great game when they do that... two points off!

[DragonLordRyu]

Traditional game reviews today are getting to be more and more useless from a consumer's point of view, I think. I read an article on Kotaku that posits that pretty much all reviewers build up an "expertise bias" over time that disconnects them from the average gamer because of the sheer volume of games to which they are exposed. That alone, even without considering the possibility that some reviewers' checks may be dependent on advertising dollars from major game companies, makes it pretty hard to take game reviews into consideration when deciding whether or not to plunk down some of your cash on a game.

I've got a website called GameMagi that tries to address these issues and more. It's totally based on a specialized voting system that tries to take into account your gaming preferences and the preferences of everyone that's voted on a game before you. There's no way I could explain it all here, but you might wanna check the site out if you're curious.

[Evo]

Actually I think of that "expertise bias" in much the same way I think about 75 year old movie reviewers who have seen so many movies they know all the stupid stuff movie makers try to throw at people and pretend its new. They have no sympathy for a movie that recycles and rehashes and I think that's a good thing - just because it's new to you does not make it good or new at all.

Also literature, a reviewer that's been in on science fiction for 40 years is going to tell you when a cool book actually ripped off another story blatantly and lead you back to those original tales that innovated.

And so, in games reviews I want to hear that some old game did it first and better, I can go play that too and if its a good mechanic I might have some new fun I might have missed out on!

If you are arguing that more experienced gamers that review often see games as too simple and basic and dumbed down, well consider the awesome phrase RTFM or Read The Fucking Manual. Why can't games have a nice complexity about them that requires a little bit of manual reading before you start? I don't like this making sure Mrs and Mr Everyday has a nice tutorial to hand hold them through everything - if they are not the sort of people who want to think through the rules they are not likely to be the people that really want to play games...

No one argues that literature should all be written so that anyone with no experience in literature at all can just read and understand all - you are often expected to be familiar with centuries of history, literary conventions, archetypes and so on - why not games too?

[Volteccer_Jack]

I read an article on Kotaku that posits that pretty much all reviewers build up an "expertise bias" over time that disconnects them from the average gamer because of the sheer volume of games to which they are exposed.

That is bar none, the most ass-backwards argument I've ever heard.

So what, we should have a guy who's never played a strategy game before review Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, that way his opinion won't be biased by all the better turn-based strategy games out there?

[icycalm]

What the two people above me said and also:

I've got a website called GameMagi that tries to address these issues and more. It's totally based on a specialized voting system that tries to take into account your gaming preferences and the preferences of everyone that's voted on a game before you.

If you seriously think that some retarded "voting system" could ever possibly replace criticism you don't belong here. Just sayin'.

[JoshF]

Let's replace criticism with a GAMEFAQS CHARACTER BATTLE.

[DragonLordRyu]

Actually I think of that "expertise bias" in much the same way I think about 75 year old movie reviewers who have seen so many movies they know all the stupid stuff movie makers try to throw at people and pretend its new. They have no sympathy for a movie that recycles and rehashes and I think that's a good thing - just because it's new to you does not make it good or new at all.

I think we may have a fundamental misunderstanding here. I wholly agree that reviews from professional game reviewers do try to let you know how good a game is. However, I would argue that "good" and "fun" aren't the same thing. A large number of people will go to see a movie that generally rehashes a story that they like to see. A good film critic picks up on the fact that the story is recycled and gives the movie an unfavorable review. However, that fact obviously didn't make the movie less enjoyable to the people who liked it.

Let's go down the path of the Fire Emblem example that Volt suggested. In a professional reviewing environment, you certainly would not want someone who has no experience playing strategy games reviewing Fire Emblem because it's a single person trying to express how good or bad the game is to a large number of people. His review comes from the perspective of someone's who's played a whole lot of games and is useful to someone who has a similar level of gaming experience (assuming his opinion isn't being influenced by any unrelated, external factors such as his paycheck).

However, not everyone who might play Fire Emblem has in fact played a strategy game before. Let's say such a person does pick up the game. After playing it, she forms a definite opinion about it. Is that opinion invalid just because she's never played a strategy game before? I say no. There are many people out there who are just like that person and her opinion could be very valuable to such people.

The point is, GameMagi attempts to let you how much you'll enjoy a game (i.e. how much fun you'll have) using the opinions of all the gamers that come to the site, regardless of their experience playing games. It does not attempt to make any judgments about how good a game is from an artistic standpoint. In other words, GameMagi doesn't attempt to replace professional criticism. Instead, it attempts to take a new approach to game reviews that's more useful to a consumer deciding what game to buy next.

[icycalm]

Dude, your views are childish.

CHILDISH -- if not downright moronic!

I don't even know where to begin, and frankly I couldn't be bothered, so just read this:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/casual_re ... or_no_one/

and make sure you keep reading EVERYTHING posted on this website from now on, as well as go back and read every single previous commentary.

If you keep this up for a couple of years there's a decent chance you might grow out of this (admittedly very natural) childish phase you are in.

IN THE MEANTIME, I have no interest in whatever you might have to say on anything, so please refrain from posting in this forum (keep reading it though -- it'll be good for you).

And also: your website sucks. My sincere advice would be to cut your losses and put your time to more creative use.

[Bradford]

I don't know, that's a pretty sloppy argument you've laid out there. At the end of the day, isn't a person still better off having their game-choosing directed by an expert than a neophyte? They aren't much of an expert if they can't tell a person which games are most enjoyable at all levels of familiarity with a given genre.

Maybe you should think through your argument a little more thoroughly. You seem to make some pretty tenuous presuppositions.

edit: oops, Icy beat me to it.

[DragonLordRyu]

You're right that this was not the place to promote my ideas now, I see that. I've basically been running around trying to find people who might be interested in my views and I stumbled upon this thread in Google, but you all here are very much interested in pulling gaming culture up with sophisticated reviews. We have two divergent goals in the end. I respect what you're trying to do.

[Evo]

One thing.

It is nothing about 'sophisticated' reviews...

It is about good and bad reviews.

[Cpt. Coin-op]

This ties in with your arcade culture review, so this is doubly important to me.

Look up any mainstream review for, say, a Metal Slug game or any arcade-console port. In this case, let's say Metal Slug 4 & 5 for the PS2.
At least half the reviews will say something along the lines of "It's too shallow" or "The only reason to play this game more than once is to perfect your score because it's too easy when it gives you unlimited continues."

It makes me a sad man each time I read something like that.