Earth Defense Force 3 (360)

[Shifty Geezer]

Furthermore, I think the whole idea of coming to some sort of objective rating of a games' technology is equally suspect. How does level size trade off against lighting detail or animation?

Okay, I wasn't using the term 'technological' to mean a proper technological evaluation. The 'technological' ratings, partinioning a game into scores for different aspects, are covered by viceral experience, just like entertainment value. A game shouldn't be scored highly because it uses x,y,z technical features well, but because the technical competancy of the graphics add to the game's appeal. I was never arguing for a review system based on scientific performance metrics, and indeed no-one was. The complaint is a score that's solely 'how much I enjoyed the game' that doesn't consider the other aspects of quality. Taking this game as an example...

...graphics do contribute to a game's entertainment value, acting as a method of drawing the player into a game...

Rating graphics according to this metric helps developers make better games, rather than better tech demos, it helps them realise the role graphics play in rewarding the player - it makes them realise the importance of good art, of effective visual communication. Finally, it stops them from falling back entirely on graphics and ignoring the core of the experience - the gameplay. That can only be a good thing.

...Eurogamer have given it a high score regardless of the fact it's graphics aren't good. They haven't weighted in the way the graphics do or don't draw the player into the game. They haven't weighted in the audio, or the animation. It's just a gameplay score. That's different from a game score, which considers all the contributing factors and produces an 'I liked this game' response. It's just a 'I don't care what this game looks like, or what it sounds look, or how silly the animations are, I enjoyed it and so give it a 9/10.' If that reviewing method were the norm, where's the incentive for developers to push the graphics and audio to produce more immersive, involving experiences? All aspects have to be considered some way or other.

And you could equally argue, why have reviews to rate the technical aspects of a game when you can simply play the demo? The point however is that demos still don't allow you to experience the whole game, and not every game will be released in demo form

That's becoming very true these days. I think however reviews will stay with us for lots of reason, not least because you can't test every single game! And they are entertaining to read.

I can agree with using reviews to rate individual elements of a game like sound or technology, but at the end of the day the only way of combining those elements into a rating that makes sense is to ask 'how entertaining does this make the game'.

Absolutely. Which is what I was arguing, and TheChefO was arguing, and which the Eurogamer score isn't. We're talking about an entertaining score that doesn't comine the elements, and only says 'I thought it was fun'. It makes the game impossible to place into context. ie. If EDF3 score 9/10, what if there's another game that comes out that is just as much fun to play, yet looks better, sounds better, and is in fact in every way better. That can score a 10/10, yet only appear marginally better, and also it'll have a 10/10 score which suggests perfection, which shouldn't happen except in very, very rare circumstances (unless devs suddenly become very different to what they are now!). Eurogamer's score says the game was entertaining, but doesn't present a value that can be used comparatively, which is perhaps the main point to review scores. Do you get Game A or Game B? If they're both fun, what other distinguishing factors are there? Shouldn't those distinguishing factors be reflected in any single-unit scoring system? EDF3 is great fun, looks poor, sounds poor, and looks a bit ridiculous. Alien Invasion Repulsion is great fun in the same kind, looks incredible, sounds fantastic, and really grabs you. How much higher rated should AIR be than EDF3? Or should it get the same score because the review found it to be just as much fun and doesn't care about the other aspects?

 

[Subtlesnake]

...Eurogamer have given it a high score regardless of the fact it's graphics aren't good. They haven't weighted in the way the graphics do or don't draw the player into the game. They haven't weighted in the audio, or the animation. It's just a gameplay score. That's different from a game score, which considers all the contributing factors and produces an 'I liked this game' response. It's just a 'I don't care what this game looks like, or what it sounds look, or how silly the animations are, I enjoyed it and so give it a 9/10.' If that reviewing method were the norm, where's the incentive for developers to push the graphics and audio to produce more immersive, involving experiences? All aspects have to be considered some way or other.

And how do you know they didn't consider other factors? The overall score should simply be a measure of how entertaining the game is, so I think it's pretty strange to suggest that they got this wrong and forgot to take into account graphics or sound. Take this paragraph:

"You may believe that the Next Generation games demand AAA production values. Because, as mentioned in the last paragraph, this is a B-game. Animations and models are generally a little below par. Off an ant, and he'll grow stiff, and bounce around the landscape like a Buick-sized powerball. Technically speaking, there's fairly regular slowdown when things get too hectic. The latter is, actually, its saving grace. When EDF goes hectic, it really goes hectic. The models, individually, won't impress, but seeing a wave of insects crawling across the surface of a skyscraper is a visceral thrill."

Is that not an assessment of the technical aspects of the game and how the contribute to its appeal (slowdown being a good thing, the sheer scale of the action being a thrill)? In fact I think it's pretty clear that what the reviewer's saying is that each individual element of the game's graphics may not offer much 'reward' to the player, but when looking at each scene as a whole, the game can have a large visual impact.

Absolutely. Which is what I was arguing, and TheChefO was arguing, and which the Eurogamer score isn't. We're talking about an entertaining score that doesn't comine the elements, and only says 'I thought it was fun'.

I don't understand how you can claim that Eurogamer isn't rating how entertaining the game is to them. Why would they focus on one narrow part of the game and ignore the part of their brain telling them 'this is intense, this sounds great'? I mean take their Gears review for example - they praised the game precisely because of the visceral thrill the game gives the player. Here's a paragraph from that review:

"Of course, it's impossible not to be seduced by the sheer artistry of Gears of War's 'destroyed beauty'. Every now and then you have to stop and remind yourself that there was once a time when you could only imagine games looking this good. Sometimes the game does this for us, panning up towards a picture postcard view of an imposing cathedral standing proud among the ruins and affording us a few precious seconds to suck in the view. Other times, you're left agog by cut-scenes of such scale and ambition that they're worthy of Hollywood. On that level alone, there's no better game for demonstrating the wonders of widescreen high-definition gaming, and Epic deserves massive applause for taking gaming visuals to heady new heights.

For almost the entire game you'll get immense pleasure out of seeing where Epic can impress next, just as Valve did with Half-Life 2 two years ago. Whether it's creeping through the rain-splattered darkness or venturing into the Locust's murky subterranean stronghold, it's a feast for the eyes. Populate those environments with ridiculously detailed giant beasts and layer on top some of the most convincing lighting and particle effects and it's hard not to be blown away. The fact that Epic keeps on blowing you away with changing environments and new challenges merely reinforces the sense of gaming tourism. Just as Halo did five years ago, Gears of War comprehensively sets the next-gen agenda for visuals so impressively that it instantly makes most other games look old fashioned by comparison."

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=69696&page=2

It makes the game impossible to place into context. ie. If EDF3 score 9/10, what if there's another game that comes out that is just as much fun to play, yet looks better, sounds better, and is in fact in every way better.

So what you're saying is 'what if there is a game that is more fun to play' (or at least more entertaining). Well then that game needs a higher score for the difference to be apparent. That's a scoring issue, though. I would most certainly expect Eurogamer to give more praise to this hypothetical game. In fact if EDF3 had incredible graphics, the review probably wouldn't be structured as an apology! It would have a whole new section on how the game pushed the bar in terms of visual appeal.

Eurogamer's score says the game was entertaining, but doesn't present a value that can be used comparatively, which is perhaps the main point to review scores. Do you get Game A or Game B? If they're both fun, what other distinguishing factors are there? Shouldn't those distinguishing factors be reflected in any single-unit scoring system? EDF3 is great fun, looks poor, sounds poor, and looks a bit ridiculous. Alien Invasion Repulsion is great fun in the same kind, looks incredible, sounds fantastic, and really grabs you. How much higher rated should AIR be than EDF3? Or should it get the same score because the review found it to be just as much fun and doesn't care about the other aspects?

Again, I don't like the use of the word fun. I prefer the broader concept of entertainment and I believe that Eurogamer already rates games using this concept. A game with better graphics (in the sense that they make the game entertaining), everything else being equal, will therefore get a more positive review, and a higher score, if the scoring system is granular enough. When you have only 3 commonly used ratings (7, 8 and 9) then more often than not you're going to have to rely on the review text to prise out the differences. But in every Eurogamer review I've read, these elements are taken into account.

 

[Graham]

It is interesting looking at the Shivering Isles expansion.

eurogamer summary: (7/10)

And so to the conclusion. I can't see anyone who enjoyed Oblivion enough to get through the main quest not buying this. There's lashings of new fighting and exploring, and it's more gorgeous than ever before. But maybe it was just the artist's turn to smoke the hookah of inspiration. There were plenty of people for whom the easily-broken game mechanics and problematic levelling system of Oblivion was too tortuous to contend with. This expansion does nothing to fix any problems these folk might have had - it's just the same game as it ever was, only this time with a slightly weirder backdrop, and less interesting questing.

gamespot summary: (8.6/10)

It will take you a good 20 hours to complete the major quest line, but there's plenty more to do afterward. With all the side quests to complete and territory to explore, you could easily spend 30 or 40 hours or more losing your mind in Shivering Isles, and you'll find that your time there is well spent. The quests, characters, and world in Shivering Isles are all as creative and intriguing as in the rest of the game. Oblivion was huge before, but now it's bigger and better than ever.

It's interesting looking at the style of review and conclusion. Maybe it's just me but I've found eurogamer are very good at giving you the information needed to decide for yourself if you will like the game being reviewed. Gamespot on the other hand can get quite wrapped up in their own little feature obsessions or nit picking. It's more clinical I guess.

The gist of the EDF review is if you like shooters, you will really like EDF. The message is pretty clear.

You might not like shooters. Because if you don't like shooters, really, you're in the wrong place

It also says if you are into deep narative, you may not enjoy the game. It goes on to make it very clear who the target audience of the game is. And if you are in that target audience, then the game is very highly recommended.