DTG on 03 June 2008
| The Ghost of RubangB said: Yeah I trust film reviewers way more. At Metacritic right now, Indiana Jones is at 65. That's exactly where I expect a big budget rehash to be. I still haven't seen it and I'm still going to pretty soon, but the reviewers aren't all frothing and screaming "Indy's back baby!" and drowning each other in 9's and 10's. It's totally okay to enjoy a movie rated in the 60s on Metacritic, but if you enjoy games in the 60s, you're supposed to be nuts. I think a reviewer could give a game a bunch of scores, but instead of them being graphics, sound, gameplay... they could be... Controls Art Direction Technical Merits How Well it Delivers to Fans of the Genre How Well it Delivers to Non-Fans or New Fans of the Genre Personal Enjoyment And then NOT average them at all. Or give each score a little explanation next to the number. |
I find particularly the bolded ideas really interesting. The last 3 are really on to the point and useful for any gamers, whether fan or not that are interested. Technical merits needs a little clarification though I assume it mkeans graphics (down to the polygons), sound, music, VA's.
Art Direction is a tough one because 90% of the games out there give me no sense of artistry playing off the same images the 90 other carbon copies of the genre do. There are several exceptions, but it is typcally the niche and low budget titles that rely more on differentiating themselves and they often do so through great artistry. Most of the big budget games slap on the same high polygon realism and leave it at that.
