So something I've been considering and fighting for a long while around these parts has
been rating and reviewing games. Simply put I just have a distaste for how game reviews
out there go but I dont really have much of an idea of how I would do it any better.
(Certainly not like my movie reviews... *snicker*). But pondering things for a while I
think I've come across what I think bothers me most. The typical formula for game reviews
these days seems to be to give a score of "graphics, gameplay, innovation, value,
etc". Then pick through the game and give a few scenario examples of things that were
liked and disliked. More often than not these brief moments in games are given more
emphasis than they really should be given and many times can make or break a game in the
eyes of the reader unfairly. At any rate here's my issues with the categories/scoring that
are typically assigned in these game reviews:
Category scoring:
Gameplay - Why the hell is this only one category when there are so many
different elements/types of gameplay that appeal to different types of gamers?
Value - Entirely worthless, $40 is worth a heck of a lot more to some
people than it is to others. Maybe if we knew the game reviewers monthly salary? heh
Innovation - Who the hell cares except for game developers trying to
one-up each other and reviewers trying to schmooze developers telling them how cool and
original they are? If it's fun, then it's fun.
Graphic Interface: Usability of interface is certainly important, but
generally it's easy to understand or its not.
Control: Important to most everyone.
Graphics - Yeah that matters to a lot of gamers in pretty widely varying degrees.
Agreed...
etc...
or...
One combined score - [long winded explanation here] I dont agree with
this system. Different people weight different aspects of games differently.
So, what's my ideal game review format? A description of the game describing the plot
(if there is one), environment, controls, objectives, possibly tools/weapons at your
disposal, interface, and misc other things without getting in to particular scenario
examples unless really necessary for descriptive purposes. Then of course some sort of
scoring system. Done by 2-3 different independent reviewers with different basic tastes
ideally. My biggest trouble of course is the gameplay category... there needs to be more
of a break down, but how? How specific do those subcategories need to be? What should
those categories be? Is that really even a plausible solution?
Thinking about this even more as I write it, I am convinced there is no perfect system,
and certainly no perfect reviewer. I'm also betting people can come up with specific
examples of games that transcend any type of scoring system. I just have this nagging
feeling that there's gotta be a better way to review games than what is out there right
now. Anyone else?
This post like, really turned in to something totally different than I
thought it would be.
