The review system that the vast majority of gaming websites use right now is broken. Attaching a number to a game is quick and easy, but too often it misses the mark. What does the "score" at the end of all these reviews mean for me? When a game gets a 90, should I construe that as an indication that the game in question is in the top 10 percent of titles in its genre? Or should I think of it as an A in a class or on a test, a standard of excellence that obtains regardless of percentile? In either case, is it worth playing a game rated 80? What about 75?
Game reviews can be hugely important to the sales of a title, since we usually have access to critics' opinions before most (or even any) of our friends have purchased and tried out a game. Take the case of Batman: Arkham Asylum. The game was not marketed or hyped as an AAA title until very close to its release date, when late previews and early reviews made it clear we had a phenomenal game on our hands. If Arkham Asylum had gotten a 75 average on Metacritic or Gamerankings, would it have sold 2 million copies? I sincerely doubt it.
The scoring scale has also led to an unhealthy obsession with reviews in some gamers (check out some of the System Wars threads on this board). Flagship titles that don't score 9.0 or above are "flops," even if they get solid scores like Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, which earned an 8.0 here on Gamespot. Right now, one of the big debates seems to be whether Uncharted 2: Among Thieves will outscore Halo 3: ODST. But does it really matter? By all accounts, owners of the Playstation 3 and the Xbox 360 are going to get two great exclusives this fall. How important is it that Metacritic deems the former superior to the latter?
Meanwhile, on the other side of the equation, games that are great fun but don't necessarily stand out from the pack often get 7's. Gamers reading sites like this might easily dismiss such titles as mediocre and elect not to buy them when they would otherwise enjoy playing them.
This brings me to my big question:
What do we want from game reviews?
It's a simple question, really. What does (or should) a gamer want to see in a review for a game? One way to get at the issue might be to explore what we don't get right now. Here are some glaring negatives in the current system:
1) Genre difference and preference usually vastly outweighs a game's score in terms of how much an individual gamer can enjoy a given game. People who hate racing games won't swoon after getting a chance to play Gran Turismo 5, despite the fact that it seems likely to attain a 9.0+ rating at almost all gaming sites. The score simply can't account for these different preferences.
2) How do you compare scores through time? A 9.0 shooter like Quake III in 1999 might be a 6.0 today, given how outdated some of the foundational gameplay mechanics of that decade seem to us. But then think about a game like Starcraft, which was rated around 9.0 at its release and yet is now considered to be the greatest real-time strategy game of all time. How is it that Starcraft, even today, would be rated by those playing it in the same range as its original review score?
3) False objectivity comes with review scores. When people give opinions, they normally don't attach numbers to them as an acknowledgment of their subjectivity. Yet bizarrely, the opinion of a game critic (or those in film) only seems official when a number or letter grade comes attached. And we take that number far too seriously at times. Super Mario Galaxy is the best game of this generation, people can argue, based on review scores. But can you really say that to a guy (or gal) whose favorite game is Gears of War? Does it make sense to say that these numbers represent an objective truth such that Super Mario Galaxy is 97/94 times better than Gears of War (based on Metacritic aggregate scores)?
Of course, it's pretty simple to discern what gamers want from their reviews. Fundamentally, we just want to know whether we'll like a game or not. Going off of review scores, I've bought at least a half-dozen games in the last few years that have just completely flopped in my eyes. I literally can't bring myself to play them to completion. These include Viva Pinata, Project Gotham Racing 3, and Grand Theft Auto IV – one of the highest-rated games of all time!
Beyond the score
Game reviews can never do away with subjectivity problems on both the part of the reviewer and the reader, so they're never going to be perfect. But they could be improved a lot if a few elements were included. Right now, reviews focus almost entirely on three major aspects: story, gameplay, and presentation. I'm not saying we shouldn't value these (see my previous blog), but there are a few more things I'd like to see.
First, all reviews should have a brief run-down of similar titles and the reviewer's take on how those games compare. Interestingly enough, Gamesradar did something like this in their Uncharted 2 review, which you can see here. It's called "Is it Better than…" and compares Uncharted 2 to Tomb Raider, Gears of War 2, and Batman: Arkham Asylum. I thought it was brilliant, but of course they aren't extending this to other reviews on the site.
Secondly, reviewers should have a section specifically evaluating the game's appeal. Halo, for instance, is a mass-appeal shooter in the sense that even non-twitch-trigger players can get into the franchise and enjoy it. It's a bit more forgiving than other first-person shooters in terms of aiming, movement, and even battlefield tactics – at least until you get to Legendary difficulty. On the other hand, a game like Gran Turismo 5 might only appeal to racing fans, even if it is the greatest racing simulation ever built.
These two sections are definitely present in some reviews, but they don't seem as obligatory as the holy trinity of story, gameplay, and presentation that I mentioned earlier. But this attitude should change, since comparability and appeal get us much closer to knowing whether we'll like a game.
As for scores…I admit I'm a bit reluctant to cut them out entirely. Numerical scores have their advantages as well, and I definitely don't want to assert that they are worthless. Here's a possible compromise going back to my point above: give us two scores, one for gamers in general and one for devoted fans of the genre.
This sounds a bit stupid at first, but it can be quite beneficial. Many of the epic Japanese RPGs released this generation have fizzled out with mediocre reviews in the 6.5-7.5 range. But I see a ton of people on the boards who claim that Lost Odyssey, or Infinite Undiscovery, or (fill in title here) is the most underrated title of this generation. To them this may well be true, but if you give an average gamer those titles, their opinion may be much more closely aligned with the professional reviewers. This gap seems to occur most frequently in specialized genres, where its fans might love a game that just doesn't have broad appeal.
Hopefully, we see more comprehensive game reviews in the future. And hopefully I don't trick myself (again) into buying a title that garners universal acclaim, only to remember after playing it for a few minutes that I don't really like racing games all that much. Ah, Project Gotham!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting read from a blog on gamespot - http://www.gamespot.com/users/masterpinky2000/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25734990&om_act=convert&om_clk=soapbox&tag=soapbox;subject;3
