-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shawn Elliott's Video Game Symposium Begins, 1: Review Scores
- Thread starter BenjaminBirdie
- Start date
PowerSmell
Member
You should be part of the symposium. Why did you assume I was American? Please let me know, I will try to correct whatever gave you that impression.
Durandal said:
It's ALWAYS better to get opinions and learn about something from more than a single person.
As for your arguments about reviews being mostly pointless... For the most part, they are. That's why you need to find smaller, lesser known sites. I have seen plenty of small one or two man operations with reviews that are way better reads than anything IGN, 1UP, or GameSpot put out. Unfortunately, people don't read those unless the site becomes super popular or gets on MetaCritic. And if you're using an abstract scoring method (such as buy/rent/skip as opposed to 1-10), there's not a very high likelihood of being added to MetaCritic very easily.
Like I said somewhere at the beginning of this thread, talking about reviews is fun and a good time waster/way to better your own standards, but in terms of the entire industry it won't accomplish anything substantial. You can't regulate reviews, and no matter what any symposium points out big sites aren't going to drastically change their ways once they're on top.
I want to ramble more, but I've got the flu so it's time to get back to bed before I make myself pass out :lol
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
2: Review Policy, Practice and Ethics
http://shawnelliott.blogspot.com/2009/02/symposium-part-two-review-policy.html
http://shawnelliott.blogspot.com/2009/02/symposium-part-two-review-policy.html
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
If some kind soul could edit the Thread Title, that would be ill.
Apharmd Battler
Member
Not bad at all....
Cat in the Hat
Member
I really enjoy this, To hear in podcast form would be Amazing
So many good points brought up, but I don't think the industry or the audience is mature enough to appreciate good journalism yet. I mean check out the Killzone 2 thread when the reviews started coming in. I was getting ill listening to those assholes complain about a 9.5 for graphics and stuff like that.
So many good points brought up, but I don't think the industry or the audience is mature enough to appreciate good journalism yet. I mean check out the Killzone 2 thread when the reviews started coming in. I was getting ill listening to those assholes complain about a 9.5 for graphics and stuff like that.
RedNumberFive
Banned
I'm sorry but some of you guys care WAY too much about attaching numbers to video games.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Man, now I feel bad for calling all the Final Crisis reviews for CBR...
Thanks, Shawn.
Thanks, Shawn.
Cat in the Hat
Member
:lol You cleary read it huh.RedNumberFive said:
RedNumberFive
Banned
Cat in the Hat said:
I skimmed through it (I'm not reading all of that!!!), and I just don't get the weird emotional attachment to game reviews and scores. I don't need to read a novel sized approach to the "art" of game reviewing. I like the work that a lot of these guys put out, but really, at the end of the day, it's just some dude writing about his impressions of playing a game. You don't see Ebert and Gene Shalit starting podcast after podcast, and discussion after discussion, time and time again, about the nobility and importance of movie criticism. I'm not trying to be offending, but I'm getting bored of these conversations.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
LCfiner said:
I made the OP to hold all of them, as this looks like an ongoing conversation about reviewing. I thought it would be best served by an ongoing topic, especially since this installment refers to posts in this very thread.
The only thing that would help would be a change in Title with every new installment.
RedNumberFive
Banned
HK-47 said:
Fair enough.
Technosteve
Banned
John Davison
I miss cgw's and pc gamers strat section.
I miss cgw's and pc gamers strat section.
I finally got around to reading the entire thing recently. It was surprisingly good. Certainly the best piece I'd seen from Shawn and generally one of the best around (regardless of organizing site or editor).
I suppose that's a fine review if that's what you're after... but the line they drew between a critique and review definitely is in force here. It doesn't discuss any of the trade-offs of the game's design or any specifics of its strengths or flaws.
Wow. I enjoyed reading that, but my takeaway is that it's a remake of an old, good RPG. It has a couple minor enhancements. It's good too.Durandal said:
I suppose that's a fine review if that's what you're after... but the line they drew between a critique and review definitely is in force here. It doesn't discuss any of the trade-offs of the game's design or any specifics of its strengths or flaws.
HamPster PamPster
Member
I don't have anything insightful to say so I'll just point out that 99% of reviews I consume (and like 99.9999% of general videogame discussion) are about games I will never play
Basically reviews (to me) serve the same purpose as games - simply to waste time
So why not worry less about my expectations and worry more about making sure you're writing what you want to write? I think Jeff (and Giantbomb in general) got this point, and I think it comes thru in his site (and podcast!)
Thats my opinion at least
Oh, and I agree with Stephen 100%. Reviewers aren't me and they'll never understand why I love Dynasty Warriors or why DW: Strikefore will be GOTY (DW with superpowers, come on? How is that not progress!)
Basically reviews (to me) serve the same purpose as games - simply to waste time
So why not worry less about my expectations and worry more about making sure you're writing what you want to write? I think Jeff (and Giantbomb in general) got this point, and I think it comes thru in his site (and podcast!)
Thats my opinion at least
Oh, and I agree with Stephen 100%. Reviewers aren't me and they'll never understand why I love Dynasty Warriors or why DW: Strikefore will be GOTY (DW with superpowers, come on? How is that not progress!)
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I read the entire symposium and wrote a big old wall of text while I was banned and forgot to post it. I would normally spread stuff like this out over several posts but this thread is long dead. So here it is:
The core problem with game reviews:
The core problem with game reviews is that they must serve many purposes for their audience but they are not optimal for any of them. They are used as a buyer's guide, a critique, a recording of how a genre is advancing and how much the bar has been raised, a record of the impact a game had on the community when it was first released, a way to compare similar games, etc. But in the end they're just someone's opinion and they should only be judged and presented as such. That's why the "What you've been playing" segments on podcasts are so refreshing. They are honest and completely unpretentious. I think someone should explore better ways to take care of those other tasks (like a giant game wiki of some sort).
Why review scores do matter
I disagree with the idea that scores are only fodder for dirty, unwashed masses and forum goers, and that reviewers should aspire to rise above them. They can be a good summary of a reviewer's experience with a game. Sometimes that summary is all you want, and no site has come up with anything that is as pithy as a review score yet. I'm not going to read a wall of text if I only want to know if Cunt Kicker 2 lived up to the original before I buy it. Also, words alone are not always sufficient, because there are many aspects of the gaming experience that cannot be fully articulated. The review might even be better off without throwaway qualitative statements (i.e. this game is awesome/horrible). I just think the scores should be given context.
As it was mentioned before, the score can act as a centerpoint for discussion, and it can quickly give you a rough idea of whether a game is worth buying. But again, context is important. Budget games rarely get good scores, and if the premise sounds good enough you can ignore the score altogether. EDF 2017 is a good example of this. GTAIV is on the opposite end of this spectrum. That is why review score aggregating sites have the potential to paint a false picture of a game. The scores are being aggregated to give a result that is devoid of any context. My problem with meta-critic is that the context is just as important as the content (if not more so). A score by itself can lose a lot of its value. Background information on the review process would also help.
The Vanilla ice cream principle: Why popular things tend to be bland
Another thing I've noticed is that the blander something is the more potential it has to be popular. The most popular ice cream is vanilla because its flavor is rather inoffensive, so it will usually be in everyone's top 3. But individuals often move on to more personalized faire. So too with gaming. Tetris will always end up in the top 10 greatest of all time. It is a very safe choice. But most puzzle fans have other personal favorites (mine is Devil Dice). So people's favorites will often be less universally liked. For example, my favorite games usually get a 75%, which is the default score for a game that, while not ostensibly flawed, just didn't click with the reviewer. In a perfect world a game's potential for popularity won't affect the score but we all know what the reality is. You have to have your own filter when you are reading reviews, which is why I've had no problem buying games with low review scores.
The core problem with game reviews:
The core problem with game reviews is that they must serve many purposes for their audience but they are not optimal for any of them. They are used as a buyer's guide, a critique, a recording of how a genre is advancing and how much the bar has been raised, a record of the impact a game had on the community when it was first released, a way to compare similar games, etc. But in the end they're just someone's opinion and they should only be judged and presented as such. That's why the "What you've been playing" segments on podcasts are so refreshing. They are honest and completely unpretentious. I think someone should explore better ways to take care of those other tasks (like a giant game wiki of some sort).
Why review scores do matter
I disagree with the idea that scores are only fodder for dirty, unwashed masses and forum goers, and that reviewers should aspire to rise above them. They can be a good summary of a reviewer's experience with a game. Sometimes that summary is all you want, and no site has come up with anything that is as pithy as a review score yet. I'm not going to read a wall of text if I only want to know if Cunt Kicker 2 lived up to the original before I buy it. Also, words alone are not always sufficient, because there are many aspects of the gaming experience that cannot be fully articulated. The review might even be better off without throwaway qualitative statements (i.e. this game is awesome/horrible). I just think the scores should be given context.
As it was mentioned before, the score can act as a centerpoint for discussion, and it can quickly give you a rough idea of whether a game is worth buying. But again, context is important. Budget games rarely get good scores, and if the premise sounds good enough you can ignore the score altogether. EDF 2017 is a good example of this. GTAIV is on the opposite end of this spectrum. That is why review score aggregating sites have the potential to paint a false picture of a game. The scores are being aggregated to give a result that is devoid of any context. My problem with meta-critic is that the context is just as important as the content (if not more so). A score by itself can lose a lot of its value. Background information on the review process would also help.
The Vanilla ice cream principle: Why popular things tend to be bland
Another thing I've noticed is that the blander something is the more potential it has to be popular. The most popular ice cream is vanilla because its flavor is rather inoffensive, so it will usually be in everyone's top 3. But individuals often move on to more personalized faire. So too with gaming. Tetris will always end up in the top 10 greatest of all time. It is a very safe choice. But most puzzle fans have other personal favorites (mine is Devil Dice). So people's favorites will often be less universally liked. For example, my favorite games usually get a 75%, which is the default score for a game that, while not ostensibly flawed, just didn't click with the reviewer. In a perfect world a game's potential for popularity won't affect the score but we all know what the reality is. You have to have your own filter when you are reading reviews, which is why I've had no problem buying games with low review scores.
GhaleonQ
Member
Once again, I find myself agreeing with Alexander, Gerstmann, and Hsu, despite not caring for their opinions in games. *scratches head*
The benefits of this format are, among other things: 1) There are enough voices to provide a "choice" if one's thoughts aren't fully articulated. 2) I sometimes wonder why I like or dislike certain video games writers. The length of everyone's commentary lets me figure out how their minds work. Now, I know exactly why I hate ___!
So, yeah. Thanks again, Shawn. I wish that I could expound on something more.
The benefits of this format are, among other things: 1) There are enough voices to provide a "choice" if one's thoughts aren't fully articulated. 2) I sometimes wonder why I like or dislike certain video games writers. The length of everyone's commentary lets me figure out how their minds work. Now, I know exactly why I hate ___!
So, yeah. Thanks again, Shawn. I wish that I could expound on something more.
Similar threads
- Locked