Daily Filter: SSX, The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings
TERA pre-order and closed-beta plans revealed
Nintendo Zone to feature full episodes of Pokemon
Trials Evolution releases on Xbox 360 this Spring
Skyrim Creation Kit available Tuesday, comes with 'surprise'
AIAS President: 'Game Reviewers Are Lazy'
by Chris Faylor, Jul 30, 2008 2:58pm PDTSpeaking on the current state of video game journalism and criticism, Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences president Joseph Olin has expressed his belief that "game reviewers are lazy" due to a reliance on scores and the desire to review a game quickly.
"When I just see a score, whether it's a Metacritic score or 5 stars or 4 thumbs, that doesn't tell me anything," Olin told Shacknews during an extensive interview, to be published in full at a later date. "I am never surprised when there's as much as a 40% or 50% variance between Metacritic numbers and user numbers."
"My pet peeve is that game reviewers are lazy," he said. "Not all, but in terms of the reviews [something like] 'This game isn't as good because let's compare it to that game over there and that game was great.' Who gives a, you know, bleep?"
"How can you review a game, how can you give a comment about a game like Grand Theft Auto IV, that has 40-plus hours or more of gameplay, if you've only spent 2 1/2 to 3 hours playing it," Olin asked, describing his query as a "challenge" to the industry.
"It would be like reviewing a movie but only seeing the opening, first reel. I don't think that's fair, or is it accurate," he explained.
Prior to his appointment as AIAS president in 2004, Olin served as the vice president of marketing for publisher Eidos and in a position at Microprose. His official biography claims he was "instrumental in raising consumer awareness of well-known videogame publishers and properties from Nintendo to Sega Genesis."
Olin stressed his view that there are "a lot of game critics, but very little critical analysis," describing a "meaningful" review that one that gives "a point of view...good coverage as to what the game maker was trying to do, how they were trying to involve you."
In that instance, he explained, "it's only fair to also point out in the review that some things work better than others, there's some things that were disappointing or didn't live up to the premise or the promise."
However, Olin was clear that "some games obviously don't require [critics to complete the game]," listing Madden as one such example.
Comments
I personally write actual analysis on a critical level of many video games. Video games can be criticized on such a deeper level than what they are currently are. It's a shame that almost all video games reviews are basically "It's good buy it" or "It's crap, don't buy it". I write for an upcoming review site, and all they want is the basic review, but I manage to slip in actual criticism from time to time.
For instance, GTAIV is the absolute best critique of modern American media to date. It's a true work of art and it's sad how almost everyone is not aware of it. They just see it as crude humor, if it doesn't completely fly over their heads.
Even games like World of Warcraft have underlying subtexts which echoes far too greatly of the world during WWII, and the dangers of nationalism, war, industrialization, and even the holocaust, just to name a few.
Gamers are just too busy wielding a shotgun and blowing the heads of aliens to notice the texts of video games. Not that I blame them, but in a perfect world, it would be a lot more recognized.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 47 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 8 replies.
The scores are handy sometimes, and the aggregation of them on various sites is good for a glance, but it's also worth spending a few minutes at your favorite site to read the review. If we didn't think they were useful, we wouldn't bother to write them in the first place.
Also, this guy has no idea what he's talking about. Most reviews are not "graphics good game bad hurrrr 82%". Many reviews are a little devoid of real insight, but then again many games aren't worthy of putting effort into generating that insight. As someone in this thread pointed out, they're not Picasso's Guernica.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 6 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 17 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 8 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 3 replies.
Painting style 8/10
Abstractosityness 6/10 (MGS4 was better)
Art's reflection of war 9/10
Reference to the Spanish Civil War 10/10
Overall 8/10
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 8 replies.
It's no different from movies. Die Hard 4 getting 3 of 4 stars shouldn't be the same as Juno getting 3 of 4 from the same guy (hypothetical, relax).
It's about knowing the goal of the piece, and rating it based on how well it succeeds in that. Or maybe not, but that's how I do 'em.
They were the only site I turned to for reviews, because it focused more on the content of the review then a numeric score of greatness. The reviews were indepth and seemed to show that the individual reviewing it had actually played the game and not just turned it on and dismissed it.
I miss that site. Still have my Amano wallpaper that was offered to those who'd donate to help save the site during a server crash. Oh well, I have the Shack now.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 8 replies.
One would expect unbalanced views to be drowned out in the sea of the average, however the truth is that there are only a handful of people who tend to write good reviews. Many obviously read reviews and opinions of the same game before their own "independent" assessment, allowing some to poison the well early and frame the opinions of others before they play through a game. And social pressure from fans and anti-fans (often the most loud, not most numerous) leads to a biasing in the direction of reviews because of an unconscious desire to please those most interested and invested.
Any game that requires a modicum of skill, half the reviews will be noobs complaining that they didn't master the game in a few hours, and depth will be savaged as too complicated or bad design because there's an expectation that games should require zero investment. It's very difficult to do anything new when there's a expectation that the game mechanics carry over from every other game in the same genre.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 5 replies.
LOL
It's called advertisement. A game journalist's job is to sell the games. That is all.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 6 replies.
so as much as I don't trust the gamespot reviews i still do visit the site to go by user scores and average joes writeups of the games to gage wether i might rent/buy a game if no demo is available or if i'm undecided by a demo
and please, some major gaming site review Siren: Blood curse
Still, I personally decide what to pick up based on value. If I think a game is worth 30 bucks instead of 60, I'll wait for the price to drop. If I think it's a good buy at 10 dollars, so be it.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
There are critical reviews, which analyse a work and attempt to learn from it. If well-written, these can be a joy to read. They can also fall flat on their faces but hey. Then there are plain ole reviews. You'll see these on television, in magazines and on most websites. They simply let you know if something is worth checking out. They highlight strengths and might point out one or two flaws but mostly exist to say "Hey, play this! It's like Book or Film." Most video game reviews are plain ole reviews, mostly written by people who like games. Critical reviews are the product of writers who appreciate them.
I would like to see more critical reviews but we shouldn't outright scorn normal reviews - they are exactly what most people are looking for. They serve a definite purpose and, mostly, they serve it well. Both forms of games writing can - and indeed should - co-exist.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 5 replies.
(I am normally very good about playing through a game to completion or at least more than 90% before writing about it).
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 3 replies.
That being said, the big issue for many, nearly all, magazines and most game review sites are review space and time granted to reviewers. Too many media outlets fail to provide anywhere near enough space for their reviews, even web-site based reviews where space shouldn't even be an issue. The only remaining PC game magazine, PC Gamer, suffers badly from this issue - they simply don't provide anywhere near enough space (word count) for reviewers to really cover a game. That's not even mentioning the whole "you have to review this as quick as possible" issue that plagues reviewers, as well.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.