Reviewing Reviews

Destructoid has been running a series this week on game reviews, focusing on how inflated (and therefore meaningless) they've become. You can find part 1 here and part 2 here.

Seeing these, and the direct vitriol heaped upon the concept of the academic rating model, has left me to ponder my rating system. When I created it, what I liked was the idea that I could recognize a game for significant contributions to the field by the inclusion of extra credit points in my model. I still like this idea, but in the face of the Destructoid Review Manifesto, how can I go forward in good conscience?

I had pondered another idea which included dollar amounts as the rating system. The more dollars a game got in a review, the more you'd be willing to pay to own it. The real trouble we face (as outlined in part 2) is that numerical systems cannot really capture the quality of a game, but we all crave a way to quantify games. The exact same problem exists in the realm of film criticism, with either 4 or 5 star systems. What if a film had great acting and plot, but suffered from poor production values and lighting? Or was gorgeous, but featured actors chewing scenery and a story that goes nowhere? Or, and here we reach the most valid parallel to gaming, what if a movie is "fun" to watch, despite lacking redeeming value or making any serious contribution to the genre or art form?

This is the point I think Rev. Anthony missed in his articles thus far. But no movie if free of flaws, nor is any game, no matter how good. Something like Gears of War is rated so highly because it achieved the two major things that ALL games strive towards.

• Does the game significantly improve, contribute to, or innovate within, the genre?


• Is the game truly and enduringly fun?

If the answer to both of these is yes, barring glaring errors, then that game has earned 5 star status, in my book. Now, when a game achieves both of those things and looks better than any game we've ever seen, I see no reason to rate that game lower than 9 out of 10. Shoe had is right in his EGM review of Gears:

You can always find reasons not to give a game a review score of 10. Control issues (Gears of War has that). A.I. problems (that, too). Bad dialogue or storytelling (yes on both). Linear levels, online lag, limited modes (yup, yup, and yup). But as I was playing through the game, I found one consistently good feature: It was constantly impressing the hell out of me.

I can go on and on, but you really need to play this visual and visceral masterpiece for yourself. When you do, you'll find plenty of minor problems, just like I did...but you can always find reasons not to give a game a 10.

And while I was playing Gears of War, all I kept running into was reasons to give it a 10.

When they give out the Nobel Prize, no one ever accuses the men and women who won of not doing enough. No one ever said "yes, while proving theory A, Dr. X has answered a question that has vexed scientists for decades -- but did he immediately post all of his notes online so that we could properly collaborate on his ideas? Did Dr. X make sure his documentation was of the highest visual standard? Was the report, and the earlier abstract as readable as it could have been? No, Dr. X did none of these things, and should have only been given a 6 by the Nobel committee."

Did that last paragraph sound a bit absurd to you? It should, and it's seems to be what Rev. Anthony is calling for. In the article, he comes off as angry, fuming at the game reviewing establishment. He already hit the nail on the head as to the real problem. People need to read the review. If people read the reviews, then they know if they want the game or not. It actually stuns me that Rev. Anthony thinks that we gamers all see a 9, or an 8, and charge off to buy the game the second we're done. Given the hype machines, leaked and released screenshots and videos, and, most importantly, demos, we are the best informer gamers that have ever lived. Do we really even care about reviews when we want to buy a game? I read reviews when I'm on the fence about a game, or when they're so amazing that I need to know what the game is like.

Gears literally moved the entire field of gaming forward, and reinvented 3rd Person Shooters. In my mind, not giving it the highest score available is disrespectful, given how much the game gave us, and will continue to give us as it influences games in the future.

Still, despite the fact that I disagree with his targets, and some of his methodology, I am wholly behind his purpose and message; make reviews more meaningful and accessible to gamers.

So, I'm rolling out a new rating schema, something that gives people a better idea of how much value games have. Dollars still have the same problems as a point system, quantifying without providing a true sense of value. The suggestion made by Rev. Anthony is a good one, of "Buy, Rent, Don't Bother" but quite crude. So, I've made a few adjustments, and here goes. They should all be self explanatory, but I'll put a note on each one.

Ratings:

• Buy The 360 / DS / PS3 / PSP / Wii - The game is so good that if you don't even own the system, you should go buy it now just to play it


• Preorder The Limited Edition - You're going to want all the behind the scenes and extras because you're never letting this game go


• Buy It Now - stop reading, go to the store, and purchase this game (apologies to eBay)


• Get It Used - check out your local Gamespot or EB, or cruise eBay or half to find it


• Rent It - visit your local Blockbuster or Hollywood, or try one of them new-fangled internet services


• Try It Out - download the demo, or head over to a friend's house who has it


• Avoid At All Costs - not even worth experiencing

I'm going to give a second metric as well, to attempt to give an idea of how novel / important the game is.

Legacy:

• Earthshaking


• Influential


• Significant


• Mild


• Negligible

So, hopefully I've given you a bit to chew on, and I'll get to rewriting all my review drafts. Until then.