Support NeoGAF

[Balb]

If people didn't think review scores helped, they wouldn't keep clamoring for them. Yes, gaming is subjective, but scores obviously provide meaning to enough people to warrant them. If I try out a game that was rated a 9.5/10 and feel ripped off, I simply won't trust the publication again. Obviously this isn't happening to many people. otherwise we would see a decrease in site traffic for certain sites.

 

[FartOfWar]

This is a very interesting read and I like the idea of continuing the discussion on this board as we can add a) reviewers who are not a part of the symposium and b) the intended audience of game reviews.

So my questions to the games journalists who care to answer is:

What is the purpose of your review of a game?

Who are you serving with your reviews?

There was a lot of talk about pressure regarding scores from PR people, publishers and devs. If the aforementioned groups, who have the most to gain or lose based on reviews, had their way, would they rather game reviews be scored or not scored?

I appreciate the symposium. Thanks.

Thank you. We're talking about ways to track and centralize commentary from people who aren't participating in the email string.

 

[FartOfWar]

But there's a little more to this compartmentalization. I think it sets up an extremely poor precedent for discourse. Sure, if you just want to argue scores or believe that game reviews shouldn't go beyond a consumer report, then you probably find very little wrong with reviews writing. However, if you want to critique an experience and discuss it with others, but your launching off point is a standard review then your talking points are mainly: a score (or some form of overall ranking) and descriptive sections about how a game functions and whether it's "fun" (a very malleable concept that we always throw around). That's about it. We could jump the gun here, but I see that Shawn has review vs. critique saved for the near-end of the symposium.
.

Totally. I tried to foreshadow that section with a few comments in the first one.

 

[Salazar]

http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/pep/pepdesc.cfm?id=4686

Don't know if you've checked this out, Shawn, but it's an excellent discussion. Might be useful - if not, interesting at least.

 

[Peronthious]

Then there are the reviews devoid of information about the game in question.

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3171581&p=4&sec=REVIEWS

The first stealth edited version of this review did not contain any information about the combat at all. I have no screenshot of the first review so if you want to take that as an theoretic example for all the other reviews out there that fail to inform you about the game they are actually reviewing go ahead. Like this one of CT DS:

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3171483

It does not tell you anything about the game. So it ends up with an A. And if i wouldnt have played the game i wouldnt even really know what it is about. How is this a review?

Games journalism is a mess. Its a convoluted little club of boys jerking each other off and producing very little helpful information. The poeple working in this industry now are self-centered pen pushers which were fair enough when gaming still was a niche hobby for teens and the odd grown up but underqualified to provide the mass with educated opinions and selected information. Like Fraggamemnon said, its better to go through a games forum with the bullshit filter on to learn about a game. Or watch a couple videos and check the demo.

True, but the writer has to also consider who will be reading the review in question. A reader of, say, Variety or The New York Times is much less likely to be familiar with the Prince of Persia series, so a review written in either of those publications would have a different sort of information. 1UP, on the other hand, is read by a largely "hardcore" audience. Reviews in other fields are similar; in depth publications will have more of an enthusiast slant than publications meant for the public.

 

[Shins]

 

[EviLore]

I have no intention of piling in on you, Dave, but re: the Battlefield/Frontlines argument it does come off like you don't have any experience with the BF games. A medic as part of a squad in BF2 will be healing and reviving people quite a bit, but revival is often pointless as long as the enemy who killed your squadmate is still alive. BF2 medics *have* to be able combatants to operate with their full potential, and with their great assault rifle options and self-healing they can actually be the most proficient (non-vehicle) infantry killers.

 

[Y2Kev]

Guh. The Chrono Trigger DS review above is useless to anyone seeking a knowledge of the game itself. I understand that its a port, and that the review states that nothing has drastically been altered, for better or worse from the original game, but if thats all thats going to be said, and the reader must then seek out old reviews of the original game... what is the point of doing what is presented/labeled as a full review in the first place?

It reads more like a news blurb than any kind of critique, and it doesn't even do the job of the consumer report, instead passing on those duties to other, older reviews of the game.

Yikes.

I find that you have to be incredibly sharp to really critique a game in the number of words that 1up tends to use in its online reviews. To communicate an extended experience effectively in less than 300 words is a challenge for a writer of any skill level, but that review is clearly an example of a review that did not accomplish anything.

 

[sonicmj1]

Guh. The Chrono Trigger DS review above is useless to anyone seeking a knowledge of the game itself. I understand that its a port, and that the review states that nothing has drastically been altered, for better or worse from the original game, but if thats all thats going to be said, and the reader must then seek out old reviews of the original game... what is the point of doing what is presented/labeled as a full review in the first place?

It reads more like a news blurb than any kind of critique, and it doesn't even do the job of the consumer report, instead passing on those duties to other, older reviews of the game.

Yikes.

I had the same problems with reviews of SSF2THDR. They basically read, "Well, this is a competent updating of the original SSF2T," and that does nothing for me as someone who has never played a significant amount of SF2. That, combined with a really terrible demo for someone unfamiliar with the series, made the purchase a dodgy prospect. I wound up buying it anyways (no regrets), but the reviews were little help.

I know video games and Roger Ebert don't have the best relationship, but he wrote a piece about tips for reviewing films, and some of them I find useful for video game reviews. Particularly important are:

We must tell the readers what we ourselves love or hate.

No matter what your opinion, every review should give some idea of what the reader would experience in actually seeing the film.

To me, reviews that fail to do either of these things are at best hardly informative, and at worst completely unhelpful.

 

[legend166]

I've talked about the shortness of 1up's reviews on here before. They've been shortened to a point where I don't even bother reading them because the chance of there being actual, real critique in so few words isn't likely.

I understand why they're doing it. They don't want to reach the level of bloat that IGN has achieved, basically explaining every single feature of a game, which is stupid, but I still think the word limits they impose are ridiculously constrictive.

 

[skip]

re: CT review

I wrote it for an EGM word count. I was going to write it up some more for 1UP, but got called away and couldn't.

 

[Flynn]

re: CT review

I wrote it for an EGM word count. I was going to write it up some more for 1UP, but got called away and couldn't.

Sometime you've got to pick your battles. With 200 words or so sometimes all you can say is, "it's good," in this case "it's faithful" and "yes, you should play it." The word "blurb" hurts, because it makes it sound like you're writing copy for the back of the box. I think it's possible, even in the short form to say something interesting, intrigue the reader and inspire them to play.

 

[hyduK]

Why do people hate so much on scores? These boards would be far worse if all we had was the text portion. At least giving it a numerical (or alphabetical) score clearly indicated where the reviewer stands on the game.

If we didn't have scores review threads might not be filled with AAA/Flop. However, instead it would be filled with excerpts from the review, interpreted however the poster wants to interpret it (90% of the time they'll take it out of context so that it fits their argument), followed by people arguing over what the game would have gotten on a 1-10 scale based on the impressions they receive from the text.

 

[EviLore]

These boards would be far worse if all we had was the text portion

Would we now.

 

[Durandal]

re: CT review

I wrote it for an EGM word count. I was going to write it up some more for 1UP, but got called away and couldn't.

But there was enough room to lose an entire paragraph on a personal anecdote no?

 

[Brobzoid]

Why do people hate so much on scores? These boards would be far worse if all we had was the text portion. At least giving it a numerical (or alphabetical) score clearly indicated where the reviewer stands on the game.

If we didn't have scores review threads might not be filled with AAA/Flop. However, instead it would be filled with excerpts from the review, interpreted however the poster wants to interpret it (90% of the time they'll take it out of context so that it fits their argument), followed by people arguing over what the game would have gotten on a 1-10 scale based on the impressions they receive from the text.

children will be children. Ain't no reason to give a shit what those people say anyway, we all have ignore lists.

 

[Puck]

Shawn. Make a book and i will buy a copy.
Thanks.

 

[Dina]

EG/RPG's Kieron got it down, but I actually liked Drinky/Shawn/Dave's comments in this thread better then the symposium. Keep it up, guys. This is the best reason to actually be here at GAF.

 

[alisdair]

I think one of the most important points was Gillen's:

For those less-prominent games, a high score is a direct tool to even make them read it - World of Goo and Braid getting a string of 10s is an obvious flare for ATTENTION! in a way which just giving them a glowing review isn't.

Scores are very useful for this, and that's about all. That's also the only defense for a ten-point scale: it gives room at the top for the exceptional.

Apart from this, I don't think scores are a very interesting topic. I hope the reviews vs criticism topic discusses the main problem with games coverage: the permanent focus on now and near-future, and the lack of reflection on games of the recent past. There are retro sites, for games older than five years or so, but no-one really does retrospectives on games of the past year, or couple of years.

I'd really like to read a well-researched, in-depth feature on Halo 3, or Bioshock, or Oblivion, or GTA:IV. I'd be happy with a look back over the year's games, if in more detail than the usual cursory "game X came out in January". Jeremy Parish is doing something a little like this in his 1up blog just now, (2008 Review Revue) and I think there should be more of it.

 

[skip]

But there was enough room to lose an entire paragraph on a personal anecdote no?

it was a sentence or two establishing the nostalgia factor / second chance at playing and owning an awesome game people may have missed out on -- the point I was trying to drive home.

 

[Flavius]

Six pages later and the discussion here (and in the symposium) reemphasizes the notion that standardization of reviews and review scores is ultimately futile.

Those that want to impose some regimented standard to be applied across the board can go eat a dick.

Ethical standards?

Sure.

Professional standards?

Absolutely.

I appreciate the introspection offered by those participating in the symposium, but I fear that, as is almost always the case on the internets, peeps aren't comfortable just listening to what others have to say, and instead, resort to picking sides and viewing the purpose of such an exercise as coming to some sort of denouement.

 

[FartOfWar]

EG/RPG's Kieron got it down, but I actually liked Drinky/Shawn/Dave's comments in this thread better then the symposium. Keep it up, guys. This is the best reason to actually be here at GAF.

We just brought Drinky in indirectly. Keep commenting and questioning. The only reason the email string is limited to the list of participants you see on my blog is that any more will make it unmanageable.

 

[Dave Long]

I have no intention of piling in on you, Dave, but re: the Battlefield/Frontlines argument it does come off like you don't have any experience with the BF games. A medic as part of a squad in BF2 will be healing and reviving people quite a bit, but revival is often pointless as long as the enemy who killed your squadmate is still alive. BF2 medics *have* to be able combatants to operate with their full potential, and with their great assault rifle options and self-healing they can actually be the most proficient (non-vehicle) infantry killers.

I played tons of Battlefield 1942, 2, 2142, etc. I understand the medic's role in the games, but I also think it's a role that detracts from the experience because it's not something most players really want to do. Hence the TF2 Medic being a guy with a gun... a health gun. It's another simple solution to the problem of people not wanting to be healers in these games (and any game really... how many times have you listened to Priests/Paladins bitching in WoW?), that fundamentally changes gameplay for the better.

I don't like the idea of making players babysit other players in these games because it's something people fundamentally don't like to do and often don't do very well. It almost always breaks down unless all you do is play with friends, and when I'm playing these games it's rarely with people I know, hence it's frustrating as hell to be hoping for a healbot to be around when I need him.

 

[Danne-Danger]

I played tons of Battlefield 1942, 2, 2142, etc. I understand the medic's role in the games, but I also think it's a role that detracts from the experience because it's not something most players really want to do. Hence the TF2 Medic being a guy with a gun... a health gun. It's another simple solution to the problem of people not wanting to be healers in these games (and any game really... how many times have you listened to Priests/Paladins bitching in WoW?), that fundamentally changes gameplay for the better.

I don't like the idea of making players babysit other players in these games because it's something people fundamentally don't like to do and often don't do very well. It almost always breaks down unless all you do is play with friends, and when I'm playing these games it's rarely with people I know, hence it's frustrating as hell to be hoping for a healbot to be around when I need him.

Works well enough in Quake Wars, the Medic/Technician role there is probably the most balls-to-the-wall action centric class in that game and yet you rarely run into one that won’t heal or revive you if you call for it, most of the time you won’t even need to send out a voice command to get aid.

 

[Foxtastical]

But there was enough room to lose an entire paragraph on a personal anecdote no?

Yeah, he should've used that paragraph to establish a bunch of stuff we could read on CT's Wiki page or even Square's Web site.

Why would he use that paragraph to further establish his perspective on the game?

 

[Dave Long]

Works well enough in Quake Wars, the Medic/Technician role there is probably the most balls-to-the-wall action centric class in that game and yet you rarely run into one that won’t heal or revive you if you call for it, most of the time you won’t even need to send out a voice command to get aid.

Quake Wars is a great design, and yes it does work better in that game. I love ET:QW and I wish more people had played it. You could easily say that's just one more game that got the short end of the stick from some reviewers.

 

[FartOfWar]

Shawn. Make a book and i will buy a copy.
Thanks.

 

[Flynn]

it was a sentence or two establishing the nostalgia factor / second chance at playing and owning an awesome game people may have missed out on -- the point I was trying to drive home.

We want none of your personal experiences, Reviewbot 5000. Just spit out your number and bullet points and move on to the next widget, please.

 

[Shins]

 

[Durandal]

Yeah, he should've used that paragraph to establish a bunch of stuff we could read on CT's Wiki page or even Square's Web site.

Why would he use that paragraph to further establish his perspective on the game?

Because its titled review. If you say that basically all the review needs is a score and a couple of links, why even bother reading it? And the Anecdote makes up almost a third of the article. Which makes it a column at best. The thing does not contain any information about the game at all. This review is just an example. A good one at that because it takes the editorial style of 1up to the extreme.

 

[Automatisch]

Why does there need to be a gist or a summary of a review?

Thankfully where I write they're optional, since I can never think of anything to say half the time that can summarize the last 800-1200 words I just wrote in a clear and concise manner. If you don't have time to read 5-10 paragraphs for a review, then you might need to take a look at your schedule and shave off a few minutes.

 

[neorej]

Dan Hsu is going to talk about how you can compare the AI of a finished product with a demo-version of a game that's in Alpha-phase?

 

[Mr.City]

Because its titled review. If you say that basically all the review needs is a score and a couple of links, why even bother reading it? And the Anecdote makes up almost a third of the article. Which makes it a column at best. The thing does not contain any information about the game at all. This review is just an example. A good one at that because it takes the editorial style of 1up to the extreme.

The problem with that review is that it was snipped from EGM. It wasn't meant to stand on its own. Rather, it was supposed to stand alongside the two other reviews. If you read EGM, you'll notice that the first of a three man review talks more about the basics than the other two. I guess Skip went second or three.

You bring up a good argument though. What better conveys the quality of a game: the details of the game or the reviewer's experience with it?

 

[skip]

The thing does not contain any information about the game at all.

just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true.

critical points gleaned from my (already admittedly short) review:

* each era is distinct and colorful
* the soundtrack is great
* there's teamwork in battle
* fun and charm of original game is preserved
* anime cut-scenes are (re)added to the game
* script is polished and changed
* touch screen functions are inessential, but...
* dual screen helps clean up the battlefield
* new fetch-questy dungeon content didn't make an impact
* CHRONO TRIGGER IS A JAPANESE ROLE-PLAYING GAME FROM 1995 WHEREIN YOU HAVE A PARTY OF CHARACTERS WHO TAKE TURNS SELECTING BATTLE COMMANDS BASED ON A TIMER SYSTEM, AND YOU DO THIS BY PRESSING VARIOUS BUTTONS ON YOUR DS HARDWARE. FOR EXAMPLE, PRESSING THE X BUTTON WILL...

I don't write instruction manuals as reviews, nor do I regurgitate information you can easily find one or two clicks away. you're on the fucking internet, where almost any piece of information you can possibly desire is easily accessible, free of charge.

ctrl + t. christ.

 

[ViperVisor]

I boil it down to this year when IGN gave out a couple 10s.

I can't see how the greatness of Ocarina of Time has been equaled.

 

[Durandal]

just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true.

critical points gleaned from my (already admittedly short) review:

* each era is distinct and colorful
* the soundtrack is great
* there's teamwork in battle
* fun and charm of original game is preserved
* anime cut-scenes are (re)added to the game
* script is polished and changed
* touch screen functions are inessential, but...
* dual screen helps clean up the battlefield
* new fetch-questy dungeon content didn't make an impact
* CHRONO TRIGGER IS A JAPANESE ROLE-PLAYING GAME FROM 1995 WHEREIN YOU HAVE A PARTY OF CHARACTERS WHO TAKE TURNS SELECTING BATTLE COMMANDS BASED ON A TIMER SYSTEM, AND YOU DO THIS BY PRESSING VARIOUS BUTTONS ON YOUR DS HARDWARE. FOR EXAMPLE, PRESSING THE X BUTTON WILL...

I don't write instruction manuals as reviews, nor do I regurgitate information you can easily find one or two clicks away. you're on the fucking internet, where almost any piece of information you can possibly desire is easily accessible, free of charge.

ctrl + t. christ.

This is a review:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/chrono-trigger-review

This is not:

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3171483&p=39&sec=REVIEWS

 

[skip]

fuck off, then.

 

[EviLore]

This is a review:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/chrono-trigger-review

This is not:

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3171483&p=39&sec=REVIEWS

Should've formatted your post like Crocodile Dundee.

 

[LCfiner]

I boil it down to this year when IGN gave out a couple 10s.

I can't see how the greatness of Ocarina of Time has been equaled.

that's not how tens work.

scores aren't meant to be compared against previous games in different genres. those comparisons are lunacy.

also, Durandal, you're coming across as a huuuuuge douche. There are more constructive ways to critique review practices.

 

[Flavius]

This is a review:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/chrono-trigger-review

This is not:

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3171483&p=39&sec=REVIEWS

This is a douchebag troll posting on the internets.

You were doing alright until this reply.

Giving up already?

 

[bistromathics]

I think Durandal is doin ok...

 

[Flynn]

You were doing alright until this reply.

Not really. He's got a very narrow idea of what a review should, can and ought to be.

Word count does not equal thoughtful criticism.

I'd argue that thoroughness doesn't either. You can hit every beat and miss the larger point of the game.

To me all a review needs to do is make one interesting, informative or entertaining argument. Note the "or." A review need not be the final word. Just one of the words.

 

[Flavius]

Not really. He's got a very narrow idea of what a review should, can and ought to be.

Point taken.

I was more referring to him not out and out trolling prior to that last post (although admittedly, I could have missed a few here or there).

 

[Flavius]

To me all a review needs to do is make one interesting, informative or entertaining argument. Note the "or." A review need not be the final word. Just one of the words.

I agree with you and have expressed such in this very thread. Sadly, I get the feeling we're in the minority (or perhaps, the silent majority).

 

[Peronthious]

Regardless of the importance of reviews, or lack thereof, I believe this is the topic that most deserves discussing.

 

[PowerSmell]

critical points gleaned from my (already admittedly short) review:

* each era is distinct and colorful
* the soundtrack is great
* there's teamwork in battle
* fun and charm of original game is preserved
* anime cut-scenes are (re)added to the game
* script is polished and changed
* touch screen functions are inessential, but...
* dual screen helps clean up the battlefield
* new fetch-questy dungeon content didn't make an impact

As if your review wasn't embarrassing enough. Those aren't critical points, those are the only points. That is literally the extent of your review without the horrid filler. Did you skim the gamefaqs board to get all that information? You actually went and wrote down those few points and wrote some bullshit around it, didn't you? You probably added the part about playing the original game after you reread the review to reassure us that you did in fact play the game.

Most of it's familiar: the character designs, the distinct and colorful backdrops of each era, the epic soundtrack, the teamwork-based Tech system

This is the only part that concerns the actual game, and not quality of the DS port of the game, which also corresponds to the bolded part above, and it really isn't any actual insight into the game. It reads like a review written for someone who's already played the previous version, but you didn't do that on purpose. I wouldn't expect a mainstream game reviewer to know this, but it's actually important to discuss the game's mechanics, but it looks like you think that means writing the game manual. If you feel it's too hard, you can look at how other people write good reviews to learn from them.

you're on the fucking internet, where almost any piece of information you can possibly desire is easily accessible, free of charge.

ctrl + t. christ.

This is the best piece of information I have ever read from anyone associated with 1up, why couldn't you have added that to your review? It should appear in place of that ad you have to skip (genius) when you visit the site. For a review like that, there is absolutely no reason to visit the site when I have the internet at my disposal. It's why print media is dying.

 

[skip]

A+ nerd rage. well done.

 

[PowerSmell]

You're on the fucking internet.

edit: Christ.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14117268#post14117268

 

[Punchy]

As if your review wasn't embarrassing enough. Those aren't critical points, those are the only points. That is literally the extent of your review without the horrid filler. Did you skim the gamefaqs board to get all that information? You actually went and wrote down those few points and wrote some bullshit around it, didn't you? You probably added the part about playing the original game after you reread the review to reassure us that you did in fact play the game.



This is the only part that concerns the actual game, and not quality of the DS port of the game, which also corresponds to the bolded part above, and it really isn't any actual insight into the game. It reads like a review written for someone who's already played the previous version, but you didn't do that on purpose. I wouldn't expect a mainstream game reviewer to know this, but it's actually important to discuss the game's mechanics, but it looks like you think that means writing the game manual. If you feel it's too hard, you can look at how other people write good reviews to learn from them.



This is the best piece of information I have ever read from anyone associated with 1up, why couldn't you have added that to your review? It should appear in place of that ad you have to skip (genius) when you visit the site. For a review like that, there is absolutely no reason to visit the site when I have the internet at my disposal. It's why print media is dying.

Wow, what a tool.

In a time with a massive economic downturn, multiple wars being fought by our countrymen, domestic surveillance, the increasingly technology-dependent nature of modern society, the slow death of our ecosystem, and the continuation of ruthless capitalism in our country, this is what you decide to flip out about?

You're part of the problem with the human race. You think that bitching about a review that assumes someone is either familiar with the game or willing to compare this new review with information or other reviews available on the internet, despite an explanation or two, is more important for you to do than anything else you could possibly be doing.

You put that video games reviewer in his place, dude. How fucking dare he. You couldn't just let it slide by not going to his website or his review in general. He deserved to get tore-the-fuck-up for his audacity. Thank God we have people like you, who know better and can smack down some education on the fucking plebians of the web.

Douchebag. Get over it, and get over yourself.

Basically...

And your contribution to society is...what?

(Aware of the hypocrisy)

PS The majority of your posts just reek of "paid-to-play-games" envy.

 

[Peronthious]

Wow, what a tool.

In a time with a massive economic downturn, multiple wars being fought by our countrymen, domestic surveillance, the increasingly technology-dependent nature of modern society, the slow death of our ecosystem, and the continuation of ruthless capitalism in our country, this is what you decide to flip out about?

You are aware what this thread is discussing, correct?