Theory

[Molloy]

Just as a follow on from icycalm's value for money article I thought I might throw in another really widespread point that always gets on my tits.

That is finishing any review with "it's not very good and really only suitable for kids."

What the hell is that about? Kids like good games not bad games. They've got more time on their hands and less money so you'll generally find they put a hell of alot more thought into what games they want to play than the typical adult.

[NFG]

Depending on the age and sophistication of the kid, you'll probably find that the lack of money and excess time, results in a tendency to play just about anything for hours on end. Throw in their relative lack of experience with games and they're more likely to consider a crap game playable.

I know I played some tragic shit when I was a kid. Time is short now so I don't suffer the dross, but when you've got days and days of empty time during summer break, anything will do.

[AlphaONE]

Personally I just hate when someone says the are the best at a game when they are the reviewer. .......(not Icycalm) but the other dude who claimed he was the best player in the US on KOF Xl. WTF??!? There are tons of great players on both the west and east coast how can anyone ever make such an absurd statement?? :roll:


Other then that keep up the good work ;) :D

[icycalm]

No one on this website ever said that they are the best player in the US on KOF XI.

If you have trouble with reading comprehension I suggest remedial English classes.

[icycalm]

And please do something about the smilie situation, because it is annoying me.

[AlphaONE]

"Lukus LaDwonn Allen (aka Dark Geese) is among the top ten KOF XI players in the West, and reigning North American champion in several other fighters, including Samurai Spirits: Tenkaichi Kenkakuden, Ninja Master's and Waku Waku 7."

WAM, BAM, THANK YOU MA'AM!!!

Fine I am among the top ten RN's in the WEST!!
I am also one of the top ten French toast cook's on the planet.

Why aren't the smilies working?

[icycalm]

"Lukus LaDwonn Allen (aka Dark Geese) is among the top ten KOF XI players in the West, and reigning North American champion in several other fighters, including Samurai Spirits: Tenkaichi Kenkakuden, Ninja Master's and Waku Waku 7." IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THAT HE IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE US ON KOF XI.

WAM, BAM, THANK YOU MA'AM!!!

Do me a favor and stop posting. I don't have the time to teach people how to read, and certainly not for free.

[Volke]

Ratings, Scores, Grades, etc...

[Flying Omelette]

Not giving a score in a review is a cop-out. If someone isn't willing to commit to a set of standards, then they shouldn't be reviewing games.

With that said, I will say that I don't like it when reviewers use letter grades. I don't like the mental association of letter grades with school. What does it mean when a game gets an A+? That it did well on its homework and maybe threw in some extra credit work, too? Letter grades are for competency, but games should be beyond that level. Most of them are made by professionals, not high school students.

And if you grew up with "All-A's or you're punished" parents like mine, you can't help but think that anything that doesn't get an A must be crap.

[icycalm]

What fo said. Basically, if all you have is a shitty blog with three reviews and five readers then you can do without ratings. For professional sites with hundreds or thousands of reviews, ratings are essential. At the very least for indexing purposes, if for nothing else. This is another issue that needs to be cleared. Why does no one complain about ratings in movies, whereas so many people complain about ratings in games? Childishness.

Ratings force fangirls to face the fact that their favorite games suck, whereas a lack of ratings allows them to go on happily thinking that, whatever their favorite games' faults, they are still great because they enjoyed them.

[JoshF]

I don't use ratings on my site. I think criticism is best expressed in words rather than a graphic or number. If six solid and four transparent Mario heads tells you anything that the reader couldn't already discern from your writing than you wrote a bad review.

Saying that, I don't mind Insomnia's rating system, because it's reasonable and doesn't attempt to validate criticisms through pseudo-science. Just "hey, you might want to check this out" or something similar. I find percentage ratings to be the most humorous, especially when they use some odd number (basically anything that isn't a multiple of 5.)

73 percent? I can imagine the reviewer in a cramped lab they set up in their basement, diligently pouring brightly colored chemicals into various flasks, perhaps soaking a kitten in apple juice, but making sure to keep track of a steaming gauge in the corner of his eye. The needle starts waving madly.

"Seventy-five percent, NO WAIT...Seventy-three percent!"

[icycalm]

You do have ratings on your site, you just hide them, thus making life harder for your readers. It is physically impossible to write criticism without using ratings. Let me explain myself.

If you post ten reviews on your site, it should be apparent to the reader after reading them that some of the games are better than the others. This is, after all, what criticism is all about: making judgements. So, whether you like it or not, you have given some games a thumbs up and some a thumbs down. The only thing you've done is hide the thumbs, effectively forcing the reader to read ALL the reviews in order to get to your recommendations.

Things start getting more complicated the more reviews you post, because it eventually becomes apparent that some of the games receive praise from you, others are condemned, whereas others are judged to be simply mediocre -- neither exactly good nor bad, but somewhere in-between. You are thus unconsciously using a rating system of 1-3, but always hiding it from your readers, always in order to force them to read every single review you write, just so that they don't miss any of your recommendations.

Of course things get even more complicated once you have hundreds of reviews up, and it becomes clear that SOME of the games you review are not merely judged good or bad, but outstanding masterpieces or useless, offensive pieces of trash. At that point you are using my rating system, and you don't even know it.

My advice would be to do your readers a favor. It would take some extra effort on your side, but I am sure they'd appreciate it in the long run, even if some of them wouldn't realize it, let alone acknowledge it.

[Molloy]

Most book reviews don't have ratings. I'd like to see more websites try doing reviews/impressions without concentrating on ranking the game with stars or numbers. You said yourself Icy that you often like to wait a month and skim through competitive players forum posts to get a true impression of how good a beat em up is. You could republish the post on this website and throw a number on the end, but it's not really adding that much to the original post, other than hopefully ensuring more people see it.

In fact, I think alot of the poorer reviewers writing would be massively improved by not being able to fall back on ratings. They'd have to try and write a cohesive piece that made it eniterly clear what they meant, rather than sketching it out haphazardly and lazily slapping a number at the end.

If I was going to start a games review site i'd either do no ratings, or a rotten tomatoes style "hit" or "miss" system, just for the sake of change.

[icycalm]

Most book reviews don't have ratings.

Yeah, but they are in there. You just have to read the text to find out what they are.

On that note, most movie reviews do have ratings.

You said yourself Icy that you often like to wait a month and skim through competitive players forum posts to get a true impression of how good a beat em up is.

I don't see what this has to do with the present discussion. And I said fighting games not beat 'em ups. There is a rather huge difference.

You could republish the post on this website and throw a number on the end, but it's not really adding that much to the original post

That's what I am saying: you are adding nothing, the rating is already in the text, since the text is a judgement.

other than hopefully ensuring more people see it.

If it goes on the frontpage everyone will see it. It's just that not all people are interested to read a review of every game ever made. I mean I don't even read all of Ebert's reviews, and they are only a million times better than practically all game reviews ever written. I can't even count how many times I've browsed his archives reading four-star reviews to learn about good movies, or zero-star reviews to laugh with bad ones.

Without star ratings I'd be forced to read ALL of his 5,000+ reviews, dude.

In fact, I think alot of the poorer reviewers writing would be massively improved by not being able to fall back on ratings.

I agree. But this doesn't apply to me, Josh or fo, because we are not bad reviewers.

If I was going to start a games review site i'd either do no ratings, or a rotten tomatoes style "hit" or "miss" system, just for the sake of change.

There are only a billion amateur sites out there with no ratings. Not sure why you think yours would be a "change". As for the "hit" or "miss" system, it's the same as using thumbs up or thumbs down. It's a rating system of 1-2. Useful of course, but less nuanced than a system of 1 to 3 or 1 to 5.

[Flying Omelette]

Ha ha ha! I made that post before I even heard about this:

EGM (and 1up.com) has changed to an A to F format for reviews because there's no question that a C is average compared to a 5/10.

No question, eh? A "C" in graduate school is failing, not average. (And again, also in the eyes of parents like mine.)

I agree. But this doesn't apply to me, Josh or fo, because we are not bad reviewers.

Thanks, but dear God, I used to be. I think the newer ones are definitely better than the old crappagory shit, but I'm still noticing problem areas when I try to read through them.

[raphael]

Just as a follow on from Icycalms "value for money" article I thought I might throw in another really widespread point that always gets on my tits.

That is finishing any review with "it's not very good and really only suitable for kids."

What the hell is that about? Kids like good games not bad games. They've got more time on their hands and less money so you'll generally find they put a hell of alot more thought into what games they want to play than the typical adult.

Yes, the fact that these statements are so common and that nobody seems to be offended, troubles me A LOT.
This goes the same for movies, books, et caetera.

With the years I've finaly come to the point were I tend to trust kids tastes more that adult's... because they just like or dislike depending on the fun they get, while many adults tend to try to like what the society valuates and dislike what they think will put shame on them. (and this goes the same for thinking, people rarely say what they think, but more often what they believe they should think... and some actually tend to believe that's what thinking is all about).

Well anyway, children's tastes may be biased sometimes, and they sure may not appreciate some very good products clearly aimed at adults, but trying to sell them shit should not work well... and if you ask me... should be punished.

[icycalm]

Well anyway, children's tastes may be biased sometimes

Tastes are always biased. Because taste=bias.

[raphael]

Well anyway, children's tastes may be biased sometimes

Tastes are always biased. Because taste=bias.

Obviously i didn't use "real" thinking on that part. Oops.

[icycalm]

It's okay, the only reason I pointed that out is because I keep reading in other forums that "Kierkegaard is biased", as if it is possible for a reviewer to NOT be biased. Everyone is biased, towards what they think is better, which is what we call taste.

[Fei_Yen_Kn]

Annoys me? When a game receives a drastically lowered score because it isn't entirely "innovative". Even if it's---at its root---the same old song and dance (like a lot of J-RPGs/fighting games/platformers/first-person shooters), if it's enjoyable, and does what it does well, that should also be taken into account. To be fair, most sequels don't contain much more than a smattering of new weapons, better music and a thicker coat of paint---an improvement on an already existing formula. Most times, nothing particularly mind-blowing has happened, and most times, that's all we're (usually) asking for.

Of course developers need to push themselves, but innovation's like gasoline right now, and they're using it up pretty fast. We won't have another Portal or Wii-mote for a while yet, and right now, it's a waste of print space to cry so much about it. It's a bit unfair to ask to be "wowed" with every new release.

TL;DR: The word's been exhausted, and I'm just as tired of seeing it.

[GnaM]

I think ratings are unnecessary. In every review I write, I make sure to directly define the game's quality at some point or another. If I go out and say "This game is mediocre", do you really need a big stupid "7.0" at the bottom and a Gamepro frowny face to comprehend the article?

The other thing is that at least half, if not most of the rating system is entirely useless. Most people consider a 7.0 or below not really worth playing. Games which score a 6.0 or below are often considered not even worthy of a mention by many magazines. Then there are the decimal points, which imply both that the reviewers are scientific enough in their methods to narrow things down that precisely, and that those fine differences actually matter to the readers.

Despite the fact that you still see trolls bitching on big name sites when their favorite "AAA title" they haven't played yet receives a 9.2 instead of the 9.7, as far as most people are concerned, it really only matters whether the game got a 7, 8, or 9. Anything below that they're either not going to buy, or they're such a fanboy of the franchise that the review isn't really going to affect their buying decision or opinion. 10's are universally disputed because "no game is really perfect" and most games awarded 10's by the mainstream gaming media are shit anyway. So all you really need is a rating from 1-3. And that's assuming you need the ratings at all.

I suppose there's some use for ratings simply as an index tool, but there are ways around that. For example, reviews could be listed either as "staff recommendations" or "top picks of the month".

All in all though, the biggest problem with game reviews today is that the reviewers have shitty opinions, and don't even seem to actually give their true opinions anyway because they're so busy catering to industry politics. How else could titles like Halo 3, COD4 and Mario Galaxy receive 9's and 10's with GOTY nominations across the board? We're still basically in Gamepro Land where the write spends most of the review paraphrasing the story out of the front of the manual, yammering about "great graphics" and "tight controls", and if you're lucky, maybe slips some weak mention about the campaign being "a bit too short" or the challenge level being "a bit too easy".

[Topdrunkee]

"Lukus LaDwonn Allen (aka Dark Geese) is among the top ten KOF XI players in the West, and reigning North American champion in several other fighters, including Samurai Spirits: Tenkaichi Kenkakuden, Ninja Master's and Waku Waku 7."

WAM, BAM, THANK YOU MA'AM!!!

Fine I am among the top ten RN's in the WEST!!
I am also one of the top ten French toast cook's on the planet.

The funny thing is... Dark Geese actually is one of the top KOF XI players in the West. (Check up shoryuken.com)
http://darkgeese.blip.tv/#491376
You make it sound as if he were some self proclaimed champ or what not.
I'm guessing that you don't follow the tourney fighter scene much.

All in all though, the biggest problem with game reviews today is that the reviewers have shitty opinions, and don't even seem to actually give their true opinions anyway because they're so busy catering to industry politics. How else could titles like Halo 3, COD4 and Mario Galaxy receive 9's and 10's with GOTY nominations across the board? We're still basically in Gamepro Land where the write spends most of the review paraphrasing the story out of the front of the manual, yammering about "great graphics" and "tight controls", and if you're lucky, maybe slips some weak mention about the campaign being "a bit too short" or the challenge level being "a bit too easy".

Quoted for truth.

[icycalm]

I suppose there's some use for ratings simply as an index tool, but there are ways around that. For example, reviews could be listed either as "staff recommendations" or "top picks of the month".

And what about mediocre games, or completely crap ones? You'd make lists for those too?

Your solution is not helpful to someone who wants to wade through 5,000+ reviews. In the end, you'd end up having to make dozens of lists containing all 5,000 games. What would be the point in that?

A big site needs both ratings AND lists. A small one? Who cares.

[Molloy]

Having some sort of scoring isn't going to make 5,000 reviews more useful though. They're not going to all be reviewed by the same person so you're not going to get some sort of clever, clever indexed scoring system that mathematically works out what games are best. Plus, a games worth can shift over time depending on what other games have been released in the interim, or simply according to fashion. You'd have to rereview them every month.

A UK Magazine called PC Zone used to try and do a Top 10 for each genre every month and that sort of worked. Games would shuffle around over the years and dissapear eventually after they'd been superceded or become dated. But they didn't list them according to what the original review scores said. And they openly admitted to having gotten scores rather wrong in the past.

I'm not generally a fan of reviews anyway so I'm probably not a person who should be talking about this stuff. I generally know what I like before I play it. Whenever I'm swayed by enthusiastic reviews I'm invariably dissapointed.

[icycalm]

Having some sort of scoring isn't going to make 5,000 reviews more useful though.

Didn't you read where I said that without ratings I would have been practically unable to browse Ebert's archives? I'd have to just click on random movies.

They're not going to all be reviewed by the same person

See Ebert.

Plus, the way I have set up Insomnia -- that is to say with extremely tight editorial control -- I pretty much agree with every rating given to every game reviewed on this site. In other words, you can take it as if I personally reviewed and rated every game featured here.

Plus, a games worth can shift over time depending on what other games have been released in the interim

Same goes for movies. Ebert himself has said so. That doesn't make his ratings any less useful in wading through his archives.

or simply according to fashion.

Only on a shitty website.

A UK Magazine called PC Zone used to try and do a Top 10 for each genre every month and that sort of worked.

Not for those who are trying to find crap or mediocre games.

And they openly admitted to having gotten scores rather wrong in the past.

We are talking about websites here. I can adjust scores in seconds. In fact, I have already done so a couple of times, and will continue to do so as the need arises.