*spin-off* Activision's Call of Review Hero: Controversy: Spin-Off

[Love_In_Rio]

sure but do you think its up to game reviewres to do go as deep as that? is it not better to leave it to community involved in 3d gfx, they can surely appreciate value of that cause they have the knowledge to understand what takes to do it.
IMO most of ppl dont care about how they do that they just want to end result be as good as possible. After all tech is for geeks .
Sure they can mention some new cool technics used in game but going as deep as tech rewiev with separate score for gfx dunno.

The same as film reviewers base their opinion also in the directors technical level. Otherwise John Ford wouldn´t be so well considered.Videogame reviewers must know about technical details, or anyone could be one ( in fact i think that´s precissely the problem ). If i buy a videogames magazine i don´t want to read the same that could tell me my gamer friends or any anonymous forum poster. I want to read something elaborated and with added value.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Why are you guys getting so bent out of shape about a review score? It isn't a conspiracy. Sure, relative scoring sometimes seems inconsistent, but who cares?

For all the arguing about objectivity in reviewing, it is completely impossible anyway. You can try to come up with some scientific method, but it won't work. You'll never be able to separate the art from the technology. And if you have two games with check lists of graphical features and effects, how do you judge which is "better" than the other? How do you judge which game has made the best technical trade offs? How do you judge which game has the best implementation of the same feature? How do you weigh frame rate into the discussion? Is a game with more check list features at 30fps better than a game with fewer features but at 60fps? Explain to me how there is any objective way to do this? What about huge world games like GTA vs narrow corridor single player games? Does the vast scope of a game world weigh heavier than a more focussed effort?

If you want to see a list of technical features with some kind of technical score, what you'll get is a number and a list that don't have any meaning on their own.

To be honest, I think this whole thread is sour grapes about MW2 getting a higher score than game 'x'. Maybe it shouldn't have a higher score, but why do you even care? The content of the actual reviews I've read seems reasonable. There is definitely dishonesty in reviewing, but if you're going to be complaining about anything it should be about disclosures. The actual numbers in any kind of entertainment review will never be perfectly accurate relative to each other. Your review could be influenced by how you were feeling that day as much as anything else.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I still can't comprehend why video game reviewers are so overwhelmed by an innate compulsion to compare game 'X' against game 'Y'.

When it comes to game reviews, that's the bit I have the most trouble with!!!!!

Why can't a game like COD:MW or KZ2 or Halo or Assassin's Creed be reviewed in isolation, based on it's own merits, its own pros and cons, without being continually compared against the next best game in that genre.

I get that sometimes certain games set a particularly high bar in terms of their presentation, gameplay or features, but every game is created to stand alone as its own unique product with its own unique scope.

It's this thinking, a fundamental travesty of the modern day gaming industry that spoils the reception of certain excellent games because it's simply, "not like game 'X'"... It's BS!!!!

Maybe if the gaming public and press weren't so quick to compare and label every game under the sun, those hidden gems would be able to truly shine on their own.

/ rant.

 

[Prophecy2k]

For all the arguing about objectivity in reviewing, it is completely impossible anyway.

I'm inclined to strongly disagree!

What a player sees in a video game is not purely an artist's work, but rather a programmer's interpretation (through various rendering and graphical technologies) of an artists concept and 3D modelled art.

A game can have amazing concept art, but then what is seen in the game is an entirely mashed up version of it.

If a game has interesting art design, yet a myriad of serious tech issues, e.g. low quality textures, no texture filtering, mashed up specular and normal maps, low poly models etc it will to all intents and purposes look really bad... very much objectively bad.

Again, if a game in its attempts to render human characters, messes up the proportions of the models and combines that with terrible animation, some low quality textures and generally horrible IQ, the end result is... bad graphics.... objectively bad.

I agree that it's silly to try and compare the arbitrary awarding of a graphical review score between two different games, even by the same publication. I truly believe that each game, when it comes to graphics should be reviewed on its own merits by how well it achieves what it sets out to by the games overall art design.

If a reviewer asks the question, "based on what the game is trying to achieve, how well does it do so?" then I believe that for each game reviewed, a game's graphics can be evaluated objectively to a "good enough" degree.

 

[Neb]

Why can't a game like COD:MW or KZ2 or Halo or Assassin's Creed be reviewed in isolation, based on it's own merits, its own pros and cons, without being continually compared against the next best game in that genre.

Exactly. Or should reviewers base it also on tech, amount of tech used. Becouse then Crysis is 10 and everything else 5 or less which would be ridicolous. Games visuals should be judged by art + graphic + execution. People drooled over CE3 techdemo "Island" as it stood out mainly on artwork. People would really be surprised what actually was done techwise and how much the artwork influenced (TOD). Maybe an article will come with such stuff and people will see how far artwork can go to make something look great with far less tech used.

 

[Scott_Arm]

You can't review in a vacuum. If you don't rely on past experience, how else are you supposed to be informed? No one can pretend they've never played another game before, especially a reviewer. Whether they mention other titles in their reviews or not, they are still going to use other games they enjoyed as a frame of reference. I actually don't see why it is a bad thing either. It can be informative for the person reading the review.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I'm inclined to strongly disagree!

What a player sees in a video game is not purely an artist's work, but rather a programmer's interpretation (through various rendering and graphical technologies) of an artists concept and 3D modelled art.

A game can have amazing concept art, but then what is seen in the game is an entirely mashed up version of it.

If a game has interesting art design, yet a myriad of serious tech issues, e.g. low quality textures, no texture filtering, mashed up specular and normal maps, low poly models etc it will to all intents and purposes look really bad... very much objectively bad.

Again, if a game in its attempts to render human characters, messes up the proportions of the models and combines that with terrible animation, some low quality textures and generally horrible IQ, the end result is... bad graphics.... objectively bad.

I agree that it's silly to try and compare the arbitrary awarding of a graphical review score between two different games, even by the same publication. I truly believe that each game, when it comes to graphics should be reviewed on its own merits by how well it achieves what it sets out to by the games overall art design.

If a reviewer asks the question, "based on what the game is trying to achieve, how well does it do so?" then I believe that for each game reviewed, a game's graphics can be evaluated objectively to a "good enough" degree.

Honestly, I think you're wrong. Revisit the old Doom3 vs Half-Life 2 graphics debate. Those games made very different tradeoffs, and I don't think there is any objective way to say which has better graphics than the other. It's all subjective. Sure, I think you'd find that most people wouldn't enjoy a game that looked like it was made for the Playstation 1 at this point, but it's still subjective. How about a 2D game like Braid. Does Braid have bad graphics? It's pretty much entirely artwork and little technology, so where does that sit on the objective scale? Sorry, but this whole argument about objectively reviewing graphics is bullshit.

You cannot see the technology separate from the art. You cannot see the art separate from the technology. They are one together in graphics. You can run down a check list of graphics features, but it's a pretty useless exercise.

How do you rate Geometry Wars, graphically. To me, it's nearly perfect, but technology wise, I understand it isn't exactly cutting edge. I'm sure many others would disagree. Oh, and Alien Hominid and Castle Crashers. You see where I'm going with this ...

 

[Neb]

Well as a general guideline but one game having more tech or perhaps different tech and vice versa shouldn't prevent the other game to surpass the score of the other game. Kinda hard to judge tech used as most devs dont brag/promote the tech they used yet implement some heavy tech. And it would make it hard for reviewers to note.

 

[obonicus]

Why are you guys getting so bent out of shape about a review score? It isn't a conspiracy. Sure, relative scoring sometimes seems inconsistent, but who cares?

Again, why are you guys mischaracterizing the arguments here? To crib an argument tactic from you and Joshua, it seems that people keep coming into threads without actually having read the discussion at hand and cast aspersions.

No one's talking about a conspiracy. And who cares? Well, anyone who's reading reviews and isn't an idiot should care. Just because games reviewing is absolutely terrible, just because the only way to approach it is to take forum impressions tempered by reviews as published by various sites because no single one is a reliable source of information doesn't mean that it's the way it should be. It's not some rule of the universe that product reviews have to be bad. In fact, the way they sorta started was that they weren't.

For all the arguing about objectivity in reviewing, it is completely impossible anyway. You can try to come up with some scientific method, but it won't work. You'll never be able to separate the art from the technology. And if you have two games with check lists of graphical features and effects, how do you judge which is "better" than the other? How do you judge which game has made the best technical trade offs? How do you judge which game has the best implementation of the same feature? How do you weigh frame rate into the discussion? Is a game with more check list features at 30fps better than a game with fewer features but at 60fps? Explain to me how there is any objective way to do this? What about huge world games like GTA vs narrow corridor single player games? Does the vast scope of a game world weigh heavier than a more focussed effort?

Read the thread. I've addressed this multiple times. MULTIPLE times. I'm not calling for total objectivity. I am saying that all issues should be pointed out, and if they're worth overlooking, well, fine, as long as the writer can come up with a cogent argument to overlook them.

If you want to see a list of technical features with some kind of technical score, what you'll get is a number and a list that don't have any meaning on their own.

Why are you repeating the same arguments I already said were false when Joshua brought them up? This is a strawman. Please argue against what's actually being said, not what you think people are saying.

To be honest, I think this whole thread is sour grapes about MW2 getting a higher score than game 'x'.

To be honest, I think you should actually read the discussion at hand before making a blanket statement.

Some people are upset about Killzone 2. I'm not. I have a much bigger issue with how IW gets a free pass on things Treyarch because the enthusiast press are a bunch of unabashed fanboys. IGN could give CoD6 a perfect 10 and I'd have no problem with it. The problem is that they give the score they do and omit a bunch of things that are issues. Not because they're dishonest (a claim I haven't actually made), but because their fanboy goggles filter those things out. My point all along has been that we're taking for granted that reviewers are no better than your average forum fanboy. Considering they do this professionally, I find it unacceptable.

Maybe it shouldn't have a higher score, but why do you even care? The content of the actual reviews I've read seems reasonable. There is definitely dishonesty in reviewing, but if you're going to be complaining about anything it should be about disclosures. The actual numbers in any kind of entertainment review will never be perfectly accurate relative to each other. Your review could be influenced by how you were feeling that day as much as anything else.

There should still be an attempt. I've outlined the way this attempt could be made. I've even conceded that consistency across different games' reviews is far too much to ask. I've conceded that even the attempt to analyze 'gameplay' objectively is too much to ask. I've thrown up graphics because, for heavens' sakes, we're on a forum where people actually have fleshed-out discussions about graphics, on various levels of detail. Going 'I like it, 10' is also fine, as long as you openly talk about issues and explain why you don't consider them to be important! No one's saying they have to count pixels. An analysis along the eyes of what The Lens of Truth does, but less console-warry would be fine.

But honestly, don't come in threads you haven't read and start casting aspersions. It's really, really rude.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Say you have two games with normal mapping. One game normal maps every textured surface. The other game uses normal maps on select surfaces. Which is better, objectively. The question comes down to, "Do all surfaces need to be normal mapped?" Find an answer that is objective, please.

I could come up with examples as to why this concept of objective reviews is entirely impossible and meaningless.

 

[obonicus]

Say you have two games with normal mapping. One game normal maps every textured surface. The other game uses normal maps on select surfaces. Which is better, objectively. The question comes down to, "Do all surfaces need to be normal mapped?" Find an answer that is objective, please.

We are all talking about reviewing the product, not the tech. If the tech is superior in ways that are obvious in the game, I think the reviewer should have the language to be able to analyze this. If they don't, they should forgo discussion of graphics entirely, or disclaim their lack of knowledge. Don't try and establish a false dichotomy; a game review isn't purely objective or purely subjective. There's a lot of room for objectivity in game reviews. I think that what grandmaster and Lens of Truth do are great leaps forwards, I just wish they were used more generally and less with a focus on platform comparison.

I could come up with examples as to why this concept of objective reviews is entirely impossible and meaningless.

So could I. And I actually came up with a real example (GTA4) where reviewers' lack of know-how and therefore reliance on pure subjectivity produced laughable results. Both are bad.

 

[Scott_Arm]

But honestly, don't come in threads you haven't read and start casting aspersions. It's really, really rude.

I have read the thread, and not all of my comments were directed at you. They are comments in general addressing the entire thread.

I understand that we're talking about objectively reviewing a subset of what we call graphics, in the area of technology. Even then, I think it's impossible to have any objectivity, unless you somehow narrowed the focus so small that you were talking about something entirely meaningless. Already, speaking of the technology is largely irrelevant, unless you are a person that needs to know to do their job, or you are a person that has an interest.

The idea that reviewing has gotten worse is not really valid either. Reviews have always been opinion pieces, and they've always been plagued by the same problems. The video game industry is not the only one. I had the same problem when I was shopping for a car. It isn't easy to write reviews. Sure, they is inherent fanboyism in the game industry, and I'm sure there are forum goers that write better reviews than some of the published guys. But I can't think of many other subjects where it would be different.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Honestly, I think you're wrong. Revisit the old Doom3 vs Half-Life 2 graphics debate. Those games made very different tradeoffs, and I don't think there is any objective way to say which has better graphics than the other. It's all subjective. Sure, I think you'd find that most people wouldn't enjoy a game that looked like it was made for the Playstation 1 at this point, but it's still subjective. How about a 2D game like Braid. Does Braid have bad graphics? It's pretty much entirely artwork and little technology, so where does that sit on the objective scale? Sorry, but this whole argument about objectively reviewing graphics is bullshit.

You cannot see the technology separate from the art. You cannot see the art separate from the technology. They are one together in graphics. You can run down a check list of graphics features, but it's a pretty useless exercise.

How do you rate Geometry Wars, graphically. To me, it's nearly perfect, but technology wise, I understand it isn't exactly cutting edge. I'm sure many others would disagree. Oh, and Alien Hominid and Castle Crashers. You see where I'm going with this ...

You just missed the point of what I was trying to say almost entirely!

"Revisit the old Doom3 vs Half-Life 2 graphics debate. Those games made very different tradeoffs, and I don't think there is any objective way to say which has better graphics than the other." - that's my point!!! In a game review you're not evaluating a game's graphics by how good it looks compared to other games... you're evaluating it by how well good it looks on its own.

I'm entirely talking about graphics and so can completely say that a reviewer can review a game in a vacuum, as aside from game sequels or additions within the same franchise, no game is INTENDED to look the same as another

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying... I'm speaking primarily about graphics and for that one can surely be objective.

If Braid had sub HD sprites in 2008/9 then it would ostensibly have bad graphics. If you were reviewing the game then you wouldn't be comparing its graphics in your review to a 3D plaformer like Mario for example (you also SHOULDN'T be comparing it to any other 2D platformer's graphics either). You should be asking yourself, "how well do this game's visuals realise it's art design"... it's a pretty simple question and would grant a pretty simple answer... hence my current problem with the current system of rating video game graphics on a sliding scale of 1-10.

I think it's almost entirely trivial to look at a game and evaluate how well the combination of it's art and tech fits it's intended art design. Another example has already been mentioned; Valkirya Chronicles on the PS3. The game's only visual flaw (as far as i observed) was it's jaggies, which for that game and what it was trying to achieve, were too distracting even though the game's art was beautiful. Had the game managed some good AA, it would have looked perfect and by my review philosophy would score a 10. Hence an evaluation of a game's graphics based on the games ability to realise its intended artistic style effectively.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Read the thread. I've addressed this multiple times. MULTIPLE times. I'm not calling for total objectivity. I am saying that all issues should be pointed out, and if they're worth overlooking, well, fine, as long as the writer can come up with a cogent argument to overlook them.

What is partial objectivity? What is an issue to you may not be an issue to me. Why would a reviewer waste time mentioning what they perceive as a non-issue? If they think something is a significant issue, they should mention it. If you read a review and find it lacks comments on what you perceive as an issue, maybe the review just doesn't agree.

I just don't see where this is going.

I certainly wouldn't be giving MW2 a 10 for graphics from what I've seen so far, but it is better than MW. If someone thinks it's a 10, then I have no problem with that.

 

[Scott_Arm]

You just missed the point of what I was trying to say almost entirely!

"Revisit the old Doom3 vs Half-Life 2 graphics debate. Those games made very different tradeoffs, and I don't think there is any objective way to say which has better graphics than the other." - that's my point!!! In a game review you're not evaluating a game's graphics by how good it looks compared to other games... you're evaluating it by how well good it looks on its own.

I'm entirely talking about graphics and so can completely say that a reviewer can review a game in a vacuum, as aside from game sequels or additions within the same franchise, no game is INTENDED to look the same as another

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying... I'm speaking primarily about graphics and for that one can surely be objective.

If Braid had sub HD sprites in 2008/9 then it would ostensibly have bad graphics. If you were reviewing the game then you wouldn't be comparing its graphics in your review to a 3D plaformer like Mario for example (you also SHOULDN'T be comparing it to any other 2D platformer's graphics either). You should be asking yourself, "how well do this game's visuals realise it's art design"... it's a pretty simple question and would grant a pretty simple answer... hence my current problem with the current system of rating video game graphics on a sliding scale of 1-10.

I think it's almost entirely trivial to look at a game and evaluate how well the combination of it's art and tech fits it's intended art design. Another example has already been mentioned; Valkirya Chronicles on the PS3. The game's only visual flaw (as far as i observed) was it's jaggies, which for that game and what it was trying to achieve, were too distracting even though the game's art was beautiful. Had the game managed some good AA, it would have looked perfect and by my review philosophy would score a 10. Hence an evaluation of a game's graphics based on the games ability to realise its intended artistic style effectively.

So you think your graphics review of Valkirya Chronicles is not subjective?

I understand what you were saying about reviewing a game on it's own merits, but I'm saying it's impossible. You are informed by the games you play before. Unless you find a way to erase past memories, or disable your subconscious, there is no way you'll ever be able to review a game in a vacuum. And I also think comparisons are sometimes useful and valid.

 

[Prophecy2k]

What is partial objectivity? What is an issue to you may not be an issue to me. Why would a reviewer waste time mentioning what they perceive as a non-issue? If they think something is a significant issue, they should mention it. If you read a review and find it lacks comments on what you perceive as an issue, maybe the review just doesn't agree.

I just don't see where this is going.

I certainly wouldn't be giving MW2 a 10 for graphics from what I've seen so far, but it is better than MW. If someone thinks it's a 10, then I have no problem with that.

Surely you've answered your own question there?!?!?!

A game reviewer's job is to inform ALL of it's readers (e.g. those who see things like framerate hiccups and tearing as issues, and equally those who don't).

By at least mentioning those issues the reviewer sees as non-issues based on his/her opinion, isn't he or she better informing their readers?... including those who might in fact see those things as issues?

I'd thought that was pretty obvious what Obonicus was saying...

 

[obonicus]

I have read the thread, and not all of my comments were directed at you. They are comments in general addressing the entire thread.

I apologize then, I may have overreacted, but casting aspersions in general shouldn't be done -- calling someone a fanboy is against the board rules and in general it just doesn't help the discussion.

I understand that we're talking about objectively reviewing a subset of what we call graphics, in the area of technology. Even then, I think it's impossible to have any objectivity, unless you somehow narrowed the focus so small that you were talking about something entirely meaningless. Already, speaking of the technology is largely irrelevant, unless you are a person that needs to know to do their job, or you are a person that has an interest.

Any objectivity? Every criteria would be analyzed subjectively, but right now we're going from a single criteria: the like-o-meter. Say, FPS. A reviewer could describe what FPS he got and decide, say, if he thinks that 30 FPS vs. 60FPS affected his enjoyment of the graphics, or if hitches had any impact. He can complain about how things look in the distance because of lack of AF. He can try and gauge AA more accurately and again mention how it affected his experience. Taking it all as a 'I liked it' is, as I said, useless, because now I have to look at, say, what other titles he reviewed that I might have played and try and determine where his tastes lie. Again, if it's the dude who thinks that DS 3d is 'just fine', would his opinion mean anything to your B3D graphics snob? If it's a PC graphics snob slumming it on console, what would his opinion mean to someone who only plays console games? What I'm saying is that the points are there, things to talk about, to analyze, to write about are all there. People who are simple enthusiasts, not professionals do a fair job deconstructing graphics here on B3D. I'd like to see similar deconstruction; an effort to decouple different aspects of the review. Again, if you want to give it a 10, fine, but the reasoning for it shouldn't 'it's awesome', because as Cornsnake mentioned, you might actually be speaking about your enjoyment of the game as opposed to your actual experience with the game graphics. If it's impossible to decouple graphics from your overall experience, then maybe you shouldn't be talking about graphics as separate from the whole.

The idea that reviewing has gotten worse is not really valid either. Reviews have always been opinion pieces, and they've always been plagued by the same problems. The video game industry is not the only one. I had the same problem when I was shopping for a car. It isn't easy to write reviews. Sure, they is inherent fanboyism in the game industry, and I'm sure there are forum goers that write better reviews than some of the published guys. But I can't think of many other subjects where it would be different.

Game reviews may always have been bad, but at some point publications like Consumer Reports were actually thorough and well-researched. They were intended to inform customers, rather than what is effectively a mouthpiece (again, not suggesting actual dishonesty).

 

[Prophecy2k]

So you think your graphics review of Valkirya Chronicles is not subjective?

Partially subjective, but also partially objective. I'm not saying that it's possible to be 100% objective about visuals in a game review... but you should afford some degree of objectivity by pointing out every observable flaw, rather than simply slapping on a very arbitrary number and saying only, "the graphics are impressive".

Surely you can see there's some room for improvement in this regard?

If not... then you can stick a fork in me... I'm done.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Surely you've answered your own question there?!?!?!

A game reviewer's job is to inform ALL of it's readers (e.g. those who see things like framerate hiccups and tearing as issues, and equally those who don't).

By at least mentioning those issues the reviewer sees as non-issues based on his/her opinion, isn't he or she better informing their readers?... including those who might in fact see those things as issues?

I'd thought that was pretty obvious what Obonicus was saying...

What I mean is, and maybe you're misunderstanding me, is that someone might read a review and say, "They did not mention issue x." The reviewer may have played the game, and they may not have even perceived x as an issue, so why would they write about it? Obviously if they perceive something as an issue they should write about it. How do you know they are ignoring an issue, or choosing not to write about it, when they may not have even noticed it at all? Somethings like atrocious screen tearing or atrocious frame rate are more obvious problems, and you would expect them to notice it and make mention of it. I think you'll generally see that reviewers do notice those things. Now if you're talking about whether 20-30fps range is good enough for title x, then you're back into subjective territory.

 

[obonicus]

What is partial objectivity? What is an issue to you may not be an issue to me. Why would a reviewer waste time mentioning what they perceive as a non-issue?

Because it may not be a non-issue to everyone else. By highlighting issues that are objectively true and then drawing their own conclusion they give readers the possibility of disagreeing with the reviewer. Let's take it to the extreme: let's say a game crashes every 30 minutes. The reviewer, however, loves the game immensely, so much that the crashing isn't an issue for him. Should he then not mention that the game crashes every 30 minutes? Or should he say 'even though this game crashes every 30 minutes, I still love it and heartily recommend it. Score: 10'.

For some people, the fact it crashes every 30 minutes would be absolutely unacceptable. They'd disagree with the reviewer and come to their own conclusion. The purpose of the review is to inform us; by being unable (or unwilling) to highlight issues, they're doing their readers a disservice.

If they think something is a significant issue, they should mention it. If you read a review and find it lacks comments on what you perceive as an issue, maybe the review just doesn't agree.

And that doesn't mean they shouldn't mention it. Unless they didn't find the issue they should mention it. And if it's a big issue and they didn't find it, then they just didn't do a good review.