(From Destructoid, GDC)

Research firm EEDAR tracks just about every quantifiable attribute of videogames and then mines that data to help their clients, which includes developers and publishers. In a GDC session on how games get reviewed, Erik Brudvig, director of editorial insights, shared some universal traits of games that score well. The five points seem like obvious choices, but checking these points against some recent games seems to show that they're onto something.  

Gamers say that gameplay is everything, but EEDAR's data shows that visuals are key, and that games with good art and attractive visuals bring better review scores. Brudvig says that top-rated games also feature top-notch presentation. Menus and user interfaces in highly rated games are smooth and easy to use, and those that miss the mark won't score as well. 

On the play side, Brudvig says that fluid controls are arguably the most important trait of the five for a good game to possess. He also said that review scores go up for games that evoke a strong emotional response, like nostalgia or excitement. Finally, gamers respond to unique or innovative design, and positive reviews of games that feature these help drive the industry forward, encouraging developers to try new things.

Brudvig pointed to Nintendo as an example, saying that many of their top francise releases typically feature all five traits. He used Super Mario Galaxy 2 to make his point, as it still stands as one of the highest rated games, and is currently rated at 97 on Metacritic. It features visuals that take advantage of its platform, features great presentation, sports tight control, capitalizes on nostalgia, and implements little twists on platforming action. 

___________________________________

So, do you agree? Is there anything that they've missed (like Music, for example)? And which of these aspects, out of presentation, controls, nostalgia, innovative design and graphics do you think is most important? Personally, I believe the most important aspects are to have a tight control scheme, but, most importantly, to be bold and original. But do you agree?

Comment below!

Unfortunately graphics outweighs all of the other 4 options. If it looks good it'll get high review scores and the most important of the 5, gameplay, doesn't affect review scores as much as it should.

It's a bizzare coincidence, actually. 

And I never understood why NSMBWii got panned for no online play. It's a great game, and even better with a few friends. I don't think online would have been beneficial, because, like like with Goldeneye, you don't have that gratification of your friend menacingly staring at you as you throw him off the stage to pick up a bundle of coins right before the end. 

It certainly didn't deserve having so many deducted points. Not every game needs online multiplayer, instead, focus on the main adventure/ local multiplayer, especially if it just feels like a cheap add-on (*cough* The Last Story *cough*).

I don't want to be too polemic, even though I agree with Rol.
At the OP, I'd say imo there only 3 main dimensions to evaluate games:
-Gameplay: considers fun-factor, controls, depht, innovation, frame rate
-Presentation: contains graphics, sond and eventually story
-Value: contains longevity, re-play value, price/quality rate.

Rayman delivered more than Mario did in my opinion. Not just being a good platformer with lots of variety but art all the way, be it visuals or audio. I also finished NSMBWii just once, quitting before getting the last star on the profile select screen, while I'm on my 2nd 100% playthrough for Rayman (all on multiplayer).

@topic: I think they missed out on difficulty. To me it seems video games go the way of every media, striving for user experience and interaction design which is about the user never getting stuck, always finding help etc. This is bullcrap in games. Lots of games nowadays aren't a challenge. You simply run through the story while the game tells you where to go, which buttons to press and solves puzzles for you before you even could do anything (I remember playing games with nice puzzles, like something old written in stone, and the game just solves it for you a few seconds later by telling you what you could "try" to solve it ...).

This is what I dislike about modern games. It's all just entertainment and comfortable interactions instead of playing a game and being challenged. Games may have difficulty settings ranging from newbie/casual to hardcore (way to abandon (very) easy to (very) hard and support the casual/core crap) but you are only challenged by mass attacks then or better AI. Still no real control or thinking challenge.

rayman doesn't have any multiplayer so it's hard to complain about the lack of online capability for their no multiplayer.  Trine took a hit in reviews for having a multiplayer element and no support for online.  NSMB Wii took the critisism for having a half-assed implemented multiplayer not specifically for having no online.

also, rayman is a better platformer.

They missed two key factors - easy accessible gameplay which can be mastered by your grandma and lack of high quality competition.

Oh wow, time to get personal!? Well, at least I don't hang around on these forums all day like you, uh uh uh.

I've been playing platformers for 20 years and all the Mario ones and I loved them. If having an opinion that doesn't equal yours is a problem for you you shouldn't try to use that point to blame others' statements.

Funnily, Rayman got the best scores on the Wii while getting Mario-like scores on other systems. So your point is pretty off as well, not to say you show a clear lack of knowledge.

agreed

I say everything is equal in what makes games important.