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

[Acert93]

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.

Boo hoo. As if crying repeatedly about something you think we did makes it any more true. Wait for it ...

You're just mad because we pointed out how flawed your assumptions are and we have no desire to confine reviews (or aspects thereof, like graphics) to some artificial and superfluous "metric" that has no meaning or relevance to the product.

Maybe when "reviewers" start handing out scores for "technology" instead of "graphics" your points will have a grain of relevance (have fun inventing a method that determines when a certain technique is "superior" to others in the conext of game design). Until then these are game reviews that weigh in on the visual impact of the entire image.

We have already gave examples of games that show how the only relevant technical issue for reviewing graphics is simply: Did the technology serve the art and create a compelling visual experience?

You can have the best shadowing techniques, top tier lighting, amazing poly counts and even more amazing source art fidelity, have the best direct and indirect realtime lighting models with bleeding edge AO and SSGI, have the most advanced texture streaming model available and 4096x4096 texture maps on character models, object based motion blur, fully lit and shadowed persistent particle systems, rendering at 16xAF 4xMSAA and every other buzz word the neophytes here think make them "in the know" -- and yet none of this creates a visually compelling game. You can still get a graphics score of "0" if your art direction is discombobulated, your asset quality has high fidelity but poor quality, and the visual cohesiveness looks like a mess of coder art.

Reviewers aren't reviewing technology, they are reviewing the graphics on screen. Any coder will tell you the best technology is the one that does the job elegantly (more detailed and more accurate than what needed is NOT better, especially if it costs time and resources and won't be functionally relevant in the shipping product).

Your entire presupposition is flawed. We aren't mischaracterizing your position, we think your entire complaint is flawed at the core--and wrong.

The fact is you cannot even come up with a review system that would be functional to rate technology. Have fun trying to figure out performance and functionality abstracted from the total technological package and absolutely divorced from art direction and asset quality. It will even be more interesting how that is even relevant to the visuals on screen and whether it is visually pleasing ...

 

[Prophecy2k]

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.

Well if the reviewer isn't sensitive enough to notice, or hasn't had enough time with the game, or generally has "any of the above" excuses why a present graphical flaw in a game isn't noticed, then I'm not sure such a person is qualified or should be being paid to review games proffessionally.

If the average gamer can spend time with a game and notice flaws that the reviewer doesn't then the reviewers account, for the sake of informing the gaming consumer, is pretty worthless isn't it?

On the other hand if the reviewer does notice and choses not to mention it, then his review is equally flawed.

Whatever the reason why the flaw isn't mentioned, at the end of the day... that's the reviewer job... to spot flaws and inform how they might possibly affect a gamers experience of a gaming product.

 

[Acert93]

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.

So lets start seing your amazingly exceptional reviews of games in the "graphics" department.

Don't forget to hit every single issue that may be an issue for every user anywhere and everyone and delve into every technical decision and how it may be relevant. We look forward to this model review that discerns art, asset quality, and technology and where it is better or worse, and how you can objectively balance all these issues and give a concrete score that is objectively, and convincingly, correct based on a fair, unbiased, informed, educated, and factually unshakable. Because, you know, graphics can be distilled like that and they should inform.

So lets see your MW2 graphics review.

 

[Acert93]

On the other hand if the reviewer does notice and choses not to mention it, then his review is equally flawed.

I can link to a couple recent games where even comments from posters in these regards were called trolling.

Picking a recent game (and visually stunning) like UC2 I could spend 10 pages ripping it apart graphically in regards to flaws and issues. How does that make a good review or even relevent?

 

[Scott_Arm]

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.



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.

Well, if you go to an extreme like that, then yes, you'd expect a reviewer to pick up on it. But the vast majority of the time we're talking about things that are more subjective, to keep dragging out the term, and subtle. Frame rate is one of the simpler issues, because it directly affects gameplay, but you'll still find disagreement about whether drops to 20fps are acceptable.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Well if the reviewer isn't sensitive enough to notice, or hasn't had enough time with the game, or generally has "any of the above" excuses why a present graphical flaw in a game isn't noticed, then I'm not sure such a person is qualified or should be being paid to review games proffessionally.

If the average gamer can spend time with a game and notice flaws that the reviewer doesn't then the reviewers account, for the sake of informing the gaming consumer, is pretty worthless isn't it?

On the other hand if the reviewer does notice and choses not to mention it, then his review is equally flawed.

Whatever the reason why the flaw isn't mentioned, at the end of the day... that's the reviewer job... to spot flaws and inform how they might possibly affect a gamers experience of a gaming product.

Reviewers will do their best to mention what they feel is important. You may think they should have mentioned a perceived issue, but they might disagree. Who's right? If they have to address everything that someone else might perceive as an issue, then we're going to end up with thirty page reviews for every game, and no one wants to read that. If you really sit down and try to break down a game into it's parts, you'll find there are easily thousands upon thousands of parts you could address. How is it convenient, relevant or informative to address all of those things. Reviewers have to make decisions, and you might feel they made the wrong decision, but it will always be that way, because you can't make a rule on what is important and what is not. Addressing everything, just in case, isn't practical. And even if they did, you might feel that there assertions are wrong, so where does that leave you?

Some products just lend themselves to metrics better than games do. Games are entertainment, and music, movies, literature and more artful things do not lend themselves well to metrics.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I can link to a couple recent games where even comments from posters in these regards were called trolling.

Picking a recent game (and visually stunning) like UC2 I could spend 10 pages ripping it apart graphically in regards to flaws and issues. How does that make a good review or even relevent?

Maybe you should. I for one would be certainly interested to read that

I think it's pointless trying to argue the point becuase there are a number of notorious issues present in games that internet forum goers bang on about continually on their forums. Even if they don't all agree on the same things.

As a reviewer you should mention those major things that, even though they might not be a pet peve for you, some gaming consumers might have an issue with. Again, obonicus already mentioned that articles like the DF ones do a great job of this (albeit with their platform comparisons of multiplat titles).

If Uncharted 2 was released with the same tearing issues of U1... as a reviwer shouldn't you have a responsibility to mention it, even though to you it doesn't make the game any less visually stunning (but it would to others).

That's the point being made.

 

[obonicus]

Boo hoo. As if crying repeatedly about something you think we did makes it any more true. Wait for it ...

Really, Joshua? Is this the level of discourse you're bringing?

You're just mad because we pointed out how flawed your assumptions are and we have no desire to confine reviews (or aspects thereof, like graphics) to some artificial and superfluous "metric" that has no meaning or relevance to the product.

But you didn't, Joshua. You keep saying 'neener-neener, reviews have to stay subjective'. You commit fallacy after fallacy and you never acknowledge them. You can't argue coherently that now you're actually claiming 'victory' when you're not even arguing against the point I actually made!

Maybe when "reviewers" start handing out scores for "technology" instead of "graphics" your points will have a grain of relevance (have fun inventing a method that determines when a certain technique is "superior" to others in the conext of game design). Until then these are game reviews that weigh in on the visual impact of the entire image.

I've addressed this multiple times, but you seem either unwilling or unable to actually rebut what I'm saying.

We have already gave examples of games that show how the only relevant technical issue for reviewing graphics is simply: Did the technology serve the art and create a compelling visual experience?

I've said this to Scott, but clearly I have to hammer it in. The effort should be to deconstruct the graphics, to bring a greater level of discourse beyond the pure subjectivity you keep advocating. I'm not even saying it should be exceptionally deep? I'm calling for the level of analysis you see in the game forums, not the level of analysis you see in the tech forum! If I don't care about screen tearing, should I not mention it because I don't think it's important? Someone else might disagree and would be really bummed that I didn't even mention it once they pick up the game! I should have the framework to be able to at least mention such things. If I think the game looks great despite screen tearing, well, it's up to me to justify it.

Your entire presupposition is flawed. We aren't mischaracterizing your position, we think your entire complaint is flawed at the core--and wrong.

Then point out why it's flawed, Joshua. You can't do so by drawing up a strawman argument and arguing against that. That's how arguments work. Otherwise you're just creating noise. Read what I said about using objective arguments to support your subjective evaluation.

The fact is you cannot even come up with a review system that would be functional to rate technology. Have fun trying to figure out performance and functionality abstracted from the total technological package and absolutely divorced from art direction and asset quality. It will even be more interesting how that is even relevant to the visuals on screen and whether it is visually pleasing ...

And this is you mischaracterizing the argument. You clearly are unable to actually even read what I'm saying, so why are you even responding to me? I've answered you multiple times. I've responded to Scott with my same points. He's actually debating with me, to a degree. You just argue something else.

 

[obonicus]

Well, if you go to an extreme like that, then yes, you'd expect a reviewer to pick up on it. But the vast majority of the time we're talking about things that are more subjective, to keep dragging out the term, and subtle. Frame rate is one of the simpler issues, because it directly affects gameplay, but you'll still find disagreement about whether drops to 20fps are acceptable.

Yes, I did pick an extreme example, one where everyone will find it unacceptable. But that's not the point; should it be mentioned? If a game spends most of the time at 20fps, but the reviewer doesn't mind, should it be mentioned? What if it's a 60fps game that really runs mostly at 55? I can't think of a single reason why not. The reviewer should be aware of what they're reviewing and should disclose these things. If they think it's unimportant, well, that's what they can argue in the review. Reviews will be subjective, of course. That doesn't mean that a subjective conclusion can't be drawn from objective points.

 

[Acert93]

Maybe you should. I for one would be certainly interested to read that

It would be deleted as a troll. But anyone who has spent time on high end PCs, CGI, or studied photography and art could tear apart any game. Just start breaking down techniques and asset quality. Pick a baseline (reality or sureal) and hack away.

mentioned that articles like the DF ones do a great job of this (albeit with their platform comparisons of multiplat titles).

I am all for articles like DF. But those aren't "graphic reviews of released games in the context of a game review." Those are a technical anaylsis of a games technologies and performance metrics that, while very very interesting, don't necessarily relate to "graphics." e.g. Team Fortress 2. You could analyze the games technology and performance and still give no relevant feedback on the graphics. Hence DF is not a review of game graphics--it is a technology overview and insight.

This would be no difference than pawning off a technological overview of AI designs and implimentations as a review of gameplay. AI is relevant in the context of the game design and whether it works. The issue is whether the AI is compelling within the context of the game.

If Uncharted 2 was released with the same tearing issues of U1... as a reviwer shouldn't you have a responsibility to mention it, even though to you it doesn't make the game any less visually stunning (but it would to others).

If the issue impacts gameplay, yes. But not all tearing is equal; likewise even framerate isn't an equal concern across all genres. Some games may play exceptionally well with a rough 30fps whereas others may struggle if they don't have a fluid 60fps.

Btw, there is a reason some sites have short 1 page reviews (Gamespy frequently) and others have 4-5 page reviews. Different markets and consumer concerns.

I think one of the biggest problems here is B3D gets hung up at 'looking at games' instead of the 'visual impact of the gaming experience.' A reviewer is reviewing the graphics in the context of a gaming experience. And if a more involved discussion of graphics is to follow the issue most pressing in this context outside of "graphical issues that destroy gameplay" is "how does the visual package serve the gameplay." This discussion cannot divorce technology from art and gameplay design principles.

Very, very few consumers actually "review" games apart from the game/gameplay. Expecting a "game review" to be a "technology review" doesn't serve the majority of the audience and is asinine.

That's the point being made.

Actually the original point being made was, "OMG! KZ2 was a 91 and MW2 a 100! BIAS!" And the initial arguement that graphics = technology and reviews should "unbiasly" dminish subjects like the appeal of the art and focus on technology.

 

[obonicus]

So lets see your MW2 graphics review.

What? Joshua, what are you talking about? I've given examples of what I mean multiple times. Aside from that, I'm not a game reviewer. I don't write reviews.

Are you trying to make a point that I shouldn't comment on reviews if I'm unwilling/unable to write one? Wouldn't that be an absolutely hilarious comment to make in considering the context of the thread is game reviews?

 

[Love_In_Rio]

I still keep on not understanding why COD WAW has worst art than MW2. Is the 2nd World War less visual appeling ? is better done the White house than the Reistag ?.

 

[Acert93]

Really, Joshua? Is this the level of discourse you're bringing?

When you flippantly dismiss points, call arguements "strawmen" as if that actually addresses the point sufficiently, move the ball, and cast dispersions on people, that is lowering the level of discourse. The funny part is you don't even realize it--and are dancing around my point to P2K: I was addressing the initial posts. I don't care to follow the rabbit trail based on the initial false premise, especially when no coherent, logical, or sensible concept of "graphics" can even be agreed upon.

I've given examples of what I mean multiple times. Aside from that, I'm not a game reviewer. I don't write reviews.

On more more charitable note: My point is if you tried to do what you claim is possible you would see that it would be an abject failure. Your premise is one that would fail in execution.

Theory versus Reality.

So my challenge is simple: Write a review demonstrating that your Theory/Concept is superior and that all these reviews fail for the very reasons your theory states.

The reason I give you this challenge is because you are not seeing the "holes we are driving semi-trucls through" in your position. You just don't see it--and you won't see it until you do a number of reviews and then see how we criticize your review for failing to prove your theory. As noted we have already mentioned a number of games that discussing the technology (or lack of) doesn't have any strong relation to the visuals because the games are more stylized or artistic.

I am not, and have never been, against discussions of technology. And I think references to techniques (or issues) is very relevant to reviews. But the premise originally deposited (as noted to P2K) at the beginning of this thread is wrongheaded and their is no way to objectively quantify as if art and technology can be divorced and quantified as having any relevence to visual impact (graphics) of a game, which is the entire position of a game review that engages the relevance of graphics to the game product.

 

[Delta9]

MW2 getting higher graphic score than KZ2 is a crime!

MW2 art wise is maxed out and can really do no better as its all just a straight up copy of the real world with soldiers weapons and all, nothing really original to make me say good art.

 

[obonicus]

When you flippantly dismiss points, call arguements "strawmen" as if that actually addresses the point sufficiently, move the ball, and cast dispersions on people, that is lowering the level of discourse.

Joshua, I'm open to correction. I'll give you the strawman again:

Me: There's a good body of technical know-how employed even by laymen that could be picked up by professional game reviewers to analyze graphics.
You: No one wants to count pixels, talk about framebuffers and EDRAM.

That's a strawman. I never said the things you argue against. You built up an argument no one could defend and very resoundingly defeated it.

Here's the false dichotomy:

Me: I want more objectivity when graphics are being analyzed.
You: Reviews are always going to be subjective, they can never be purely objective.

'Purely subjective' and 'purely objective' are not the only possibilities. There's in fact a gradient between these two points. I've conceded (in fact, it wasn't even a concession as it wasn't something I said in the first place) that subjectivity is a part of reviews, but there's no reason to believe it has to be the only part.

The funny part is you don't even realize it--and are dancing around my point to P2K: I was addressing the initial posts. I don't care to follow the rabbit trail based on the initial false premise, especially when no coherent, logical, or sensible concept of "graphics" can even be agreed upon.

But there are, Joshua. I've posted them in this thread. Follow the discussion and argue against the points that are actually made, and you'll see them. If you don't want to read my arguments, read Scott's, he's actually discussing this with me.

On more more charitable note: My point is if you tried to do what you claim is possible you would see that it would be an abject failure. Your premise is one that would fail in execution.

But it doesn't. If you want an example of more objective points being made to support a subjective conclusion, look at grandmaster's faceoffs for Eurogamer. Every little comparison is followed with a subjective little 'based on the facts above I think x is better' comment. Look at Lens of Truth's comparisons. That's what I'm talking about. These are framed in a more 'console war' point of view, but nothing prevents that detail, or maybe more detail being used in actual game reviews.

The reason I give you this challenge is because you are not seeing the "holes we are driving semi-trucls through" in your position. You just don't see it--and you won't see it until you do a number of reviews and then see how we criticize your review for failing to prove your theory. As noted we have already mentioned a number of games that discussing the technology (or lack of) doesn't have any strong relation to the visuals because the games are more stylized or artistic.

That doesn't prove anything. I don't write reviews. I've never written a game review. I might also fail trying to write a purely subjective review, trying to put my thoughts onto paper. I just play games, I don't even have the interest in graphics most people in B3D do. I think that just because I don't care doesn't mean that the information should be overlooked. If I thought it should be overlooked, I wouldn't hang out on B3D, where people do exactly the opposite.

I am not, and have never been, against discussions of technology. And I think references to techniques (or issues) is very relevant to reviews. But the premise originally deposited (as noted to P2K) at the beginning of this thread is wrongheaded and their is no way to objectively quantify as if art and technology can be divorced and quantified as having any relevence to visual impact (graphics) of a game, which is the entire position of a game review that engages the relevance of graphics to the game product.

Again, that's not my point. My point has been made over and over (and over and over and over). You're having a parallel discussion with P2K.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Yes, I did pick an extreme example, one where everyone will find it unacceptable. But that's not the point; should it be mentioned? If a game spends most of the time at 20fps, but the reviewer doesn't mind, should it be mentioned? What if it's a 60fps game that really runs mostly at 55? I can't think of a single reason why not. The reviewer should be aware of what they're reviewing and should disclose these things. If they think it's unimportant, well, that's what they can argue in the review. Reviews will be subjective, of course. That doesn't mean that a subjective conclusion can't be drawn from objective points.

To be honest, if a game ran at 55fps instead of locked 60fps, I don't think that information would be useful to almost anyone. It might be interesting in a technical discussion, but in terms of a game review where the point is to recommend if a game is worth playing, I think it is entirely useless. Even a discussion of 20 vs 30fps might not be useful. And if you burden every game review with that level of discussion about frame rate, where does it stop on the other aspects of the game. Someone will always be unhappy that something was glossed over. If you have a limited number of words for your review by an editor, would you rather spend the time talking about frame rates, texture quality, shadow aliasing, dynamic vs baked shadows, dynamic lighting, or would you rather discuss gameplay design choices, presentation, audio, length of game, multiplayer features etc. To be honest, general impressions of graphics, to me, are for the most part sufficient, because the vast of majority of people that play games do not know what they're looking at anyway. For people like us that are interested in knowing more, we can go to Digital Foundry, or the Beyond3D forums to get more.

And in all seriousness most reviews will mention if they feel the frame rate for a particular game is not sufficient, and they will mention distracting screen tearing. They may not give you metrics, but they will give you the impression that it is bad. Mass Effect was panned for both, even though the overall impression was very good. So I'm not sure what you're getting is really that much different than what you're asking for. Load times, screen tearing and frame rate are usually discussed, even if highly glossed over in one or two sentences.

 

[obonicus]

To be honest, if a game ran at 55fps instead of locked 60fps, I don't think that information would be useful to almost anyone. It might be interesting in a technical discussion, but in terms of a game review where the point is to recommend if a game is worth playing, I think it is entirely useless. Even a discussion of 20 vs 30fps might not be useful. And if you burden every game review with that level of discussion about frame rate, where does it stop on the other aspects of the game. Someone will always be unhappy that something was glossed over. If you have a limited number of words for your review by an editor, would you rather spend the time talking about frame rates, texture quality, shadow aliasing, dynamic vs baked shadows, dynamic lighting, or would you rather discuss gameplay design choices, presentation, audio, length of game, multiplayer features etc. To be honest, general impressions of graphics, to me, are for the most part sufficient, because the vast of majority of people that play games do not know what they're looking at anyway. For people like us that are interested in knowing more, we can go to Digital Foundry, or the Beyond3D forums to get more.

And in all seriousness most reviews will mention if they feel the frame rate for a particular game is not sufficient, and they will mention distracting screen tearing. They may not give you metrics, but they will give you the impression that it is bad. Mass Effect was panned for both, even though the overall impression was very good. So I'm not sure what you're getting is really that much different than what you're asking for. Load times, screen tearing and frame rate are usually discussed, even if highly glossed over in one or two sentences.

I'm not sure that there are a limited number of words. If we're talking about the 2 or 3 physical magazines on the market, I'll actually give them a pass. Big review sets don't use paper, though, there's no such limit.

As to where we stop, well, we could use a set of consistent criteria. Is AA important? Is AF? Framerate? Texture quality? General image-quality (a catch-all that would catch blur filters and resolution, since pixel counting may in fact be too much to ask). None of these seem particularly controversial. There could be more. And as to people actually bringing it up, this is where objectivity is important: fanboy gloss gets in the way of an accurate analysis. GTA4 was not panned for its framerate, which as grandmaster has found out, was very very janky (especially on PS3). People didn't see it because of that fanboy gloss.

If all reviews were written by completely reasonable people then okay, maybe objectivity wouldn't be such a big deal. But very often, especially for really hyped games, reviewers just overlook issues. And again, not because they're dishonest, but because their enthusiasm for the game makes them overlook these things. And so when people aren't behaving rationally, that's when a set of objective criteria to discuss around helps matters. It would help ground the reviewer (hopefully) and it would allow the buyer to make a more informed decision. Not everyone who cares deeply about graphics is on B3D -- a lot of people are actually thankful about Lens of Truth or Eurogamer's analysis, even though they show up well after the game's release.

For people who don't care about such things, well, they can gloss over the numbers and just get the conclusion. It's like saying that reviews shouldn't have text because most people just want the score.

 

[specwarGP2]

MW2 getting higher graphic score than KZ2 is a crime!

MW2 art wise is maxed out and can really do no better as its all just a straight up copy of the real world with soldiers weapons and all, nothing really original to make me say good art.

It's not right that MW2 is getting better scores for graphics than KZ2. Sure it's subjective, but cmon... really? Maybe if there was a technical component for graphics scores like obonicus suggests, then MW2 wouldnt be getting 10s for graphics. KZ2 looks like its doing a lot more which enhances the visuals (better particles, animation etc).

 

[ShadowWolf64]

It's not right that MW2 is getting better scores for graphics than KZ2. Sure it's subjective, but cmon... really? Maybe if there was a technical component for graphics scores like obonicus suggests, then MW2 wouldnt be getting 10s for graphics. KZ2 looks like its doing a lot more which enhances the visuals (better particles, animation etc).

MW2 looks nice but its nowhear near as good looking overall as KZ2 is...And this is coming from a person who isn't the biggest KZ2 fan.

 

[obonicus]

To be clear, I'm not even addressing scores in my posts. I'm trying to limit myself to the text.