What do we want from game reviews?

[Deleted member 11852]

You people are obsessed with bloody pies.

 

[BRiT]

You people are obsessed with bloody pies.

I thought that was pudding only, but you're saying they have bloody pies now? Silly Europeans.

 

[Davros]

You pick that one point out of an entire post? The point is, if I ask someone for a recommendation, I want to know if they like it.

Not at all, here is a game review for you "the game is fantastic" there you go you know i like it but you have no idea what type of game it is. You need both a subjective opinion and an objective description.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

You are wrong. Red Dead Redemption is making an intentional political statement from political themes. You don't need to look at it "through a political lens." It is pretty overt, without being heavy-handed. Many western movies are political, as they intentionally explore themes like justice, social order, the nature of right vs wrong, personal duty, personal responsibility, the power of the state etc. If you think those movies didn't (and still don't) intentionally explore social ideas and morality, you're kidding yourself.

So, I asked originally what the political viewpoints being promoted by Red Dead Redemption were and you couldn't remember any, falling back to the standard "Every western anything is political".

So your opinion is that nothing can be made in any historical time period without necessarily making a political statement.

And not everything is political. Geometry Wars is not a political game. You'd be hard pressed to make that argument. Candles are not political. Balloons are not political. Eating carrots is not political. As for violence, it is almost always political. Mortal Kombat X is a political statement, whether the people that make it choose to express it as political. Violence, especially extreme violence and gore as entertainment is a political statement in itself. You're actively saying that it's harmless and that it's ok. That is undeniably political. I'm not choosing to use some weird definition of politics.

No, what you are doing is saying that any game (or other form of entertainment) that contains people or anthropomorphic characters is now an inherently political game that is making intentional political, social, and cultural commentary and is therefore well within the rights of the "journalist" to spend their review discussing.

I think that's completely silly. Making a video game that takes place in the Old West does not mean you are intentionally making political statements about that time period. It could very well just mean you want to show how your game can include horseback riding and make it entertaining.

You are apparently riding an interesting line where you state that you don't approach everything in life through a political filter, yet then you make the largest sweeping generalizations to allow politics and social commentary to "rightfully" be included in any review of any form of entertainment.

This is, of course, a thread about personal opinions. So if your standard is that any game with people or anthropomorphic characters should be reviewed according to the individual "journalist"'s political, cultural, and sociological leans - then that is what you want out of reviews.

I don't. I want to know if the graphics are good (and compared to what), I want to know if the game is well done, I want to know if the story is well told - regardless of what that story is, I want to know if the voice actors are good, etc.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Where did I say someone couldn't make a western game without it being political? I said Western movies were in general very political and that Red Dead Redemption specifically is. And I have no idea where you think I said any game with anthropomorphic character is inherently political. Mario Brothers is not a political game in any way that I can think of.

I think any games subject matter is fair game. That's includes, the plot, the themes and the content (violence, humor, language, music, artwork). Whatever you choose to put in your game is something that can be written about. I don't have to agree with the conclusions of anyone, but I'd rather reviewers write how they feel about things than not. It's useful information. You just find the reviewers that you like, and work from that.

 

[Scott_Arm]

As for Red Dead Redemption,

Spoiler

it's the story of a man who is coerced by the government (a government that is universally portrayed as invasive and oppressive) to hunt down his former compatriots. On the Mexican side of the border, he finds himself caught between a brutal government that is killing dissidents, and a revolutionary group that is attempting to reclaim the liberty of the individual from the tyrannical government. In the end, Marston fulfills his promise, duty to his government and state, yet they betray him by killing him and attempting to kill his family.

How the hell could that be political? All of those hours of exposition must have been in the game for no reason.

 

[MrFox]

Where did I say someone couldn't make a western game without it being political? I said Western movies were in general very political and that Red Dead Redemption specifically is. And I have no idea where you think I said any game with anthropomorphic character is inherently political. Mario Brothers is not a political game in any way that I can think of.

The Politics of Super Mario Bros
http://kohenari.net/post/47551401528/mario-politics

Mushroom World contains at least 202 separate zones or jurisdictions. These include (but are not limited to) examples of:

• Imperia, e.g.The Linguine Empire
• Oligarchies, e.g.Mekanos
• City-States,e.g.Syrup Castle
• Proletariat Collectivism, e.g.Robo Land
• Theocracies e.g.Yoshi’s Island. Although NB: you could also argue that Yoshi’s Island is a:
• Necroarchy, or “rule by the dead”, e.g.Boo Woods, which itself is a sub-type of an:
• Absolute Monarchy, e.g. theMushroom Kingdom,Banana Fairy Island and the Beanbean Kingdom. Monarchies are the most common form of political organisation on Mushroom World, with the Mushroom Kingdom representing the main superpower currently, in much the same way that the US fulfills this role on Earth, and with the same precarious dominant status.
• Areas with no political organisationat all, and contested by various warlords, e.g. Big Island.

A variegated planet therefore, analogous to Earth in medieval times with an equivalent variety of types of rule and organisation: think of the kingdoms of feudal Europe with contemporaneous empires in China, Japan, Mezoamerica and theocracies, city states (e.g. Venice) etc.

Of all these jurisdictions, the Mushroom Kingdom is by far the most significant, although it’s prime position is under constant threat.

p.s. : I'm just joking here, not to be taken seriously.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

People are going off on an impossible to debate sidetrack here, where the connotations of terms being used are very subjective and open to personal interpretation. Does 'political game' mean 'contains aspects of politics in its backstory/universe' or 'conveys a political message about how a real-life political structure is good/bad' or 'revolves around the activities of politicians or political activists within the plot' or whatever other interpretations there are.

A reviewer may or may not read political interpretations into a game, and may discuss their political views either regards the game's political aspects, or real life politics revolving around the game's content, intentionally political or not. For those who want analytical reviews, discussion of politics should be limited to political observations of game content. For those who want personal opinion reviews, discussion can extend to political observations of the games placement in society.

Other than that, the subject is best dropped (and will be forcibly so to prevent unnecessary forum noise as people start arguing over the definition of political and we get more dictionary quotes...).

 

[dobwal]

Pfft. For the vast majority of games I consider "must have", I go through all the pre launch hype like impressions, previews, dev interviews and a host of other resources. So at launch, all I need to see for those titles are the range of scores that they are producing.

The only times I bother to actually read the reviews are for my highly anticipated titles that launched to horrible reviews. Who doesn't want to know why that game you been waiting for the last 2-3 years turned into a turd? Also I tend to read reviews when I am hunting for titles that ran beneath my radar but are critically heralded but I lacked pertinent information about the game like genre and gameplay mechanics.

There are enough review sites out there that you can readily extract the type of information you prefer while allowing you to ignore the irrelevant noise. All it takes is some time and effort.

There is no need for strict standards of structure or composition of reviews. Buying a game is not like buying a home, car or a costly appliance. A bad purchase isn't going to leave you with months/years of disappointment.

In my opinion the current state of reviews are fine because for every bad review filled with everything that irks your sensibilities, there are insightful ones that will really give you a good ideal of whether a game will be enjoyable to you or not.

 

[Arwin]

Eurogamer is dropping review scores now as well, and reviewing online games only after they've launched. Interesting. If this becomes the new thing, I'm already thinking (for my own aggregate site that is based on tracking game's individual features per released version) about how to catalog the information. I could already review each individual feature implementation per game per version, but now perhaps I need to somehow be able to capture something at a less accurate level (positive, neutral, negative) as well to cater for that. This could work well, as a list of plusses and minusses has existed for a long time already anyway. Now you could have a critics aggregate of plusses and minusses (as well as a user's), which is probably more informative.

I think I'll do this, shouldn't take too much time now that I've got a good foundation.

It's clear that the review sites are still not really ready to deal with games as a service after all this time.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Eurogamer is dropping review scores now as well, and reviewing online games only after they've launched.
...snip

In some ways VG media outlets dropping review scores is a good thing. In others however I think it can also hurt consumers. Ratings however meaningless as a numerical value (of what? Fun?) can be useful to quickly gain a broad understanding of how a breadth of different people's opinions on a game differ. It's useful for understanding consensus, aka the evil that is "metacritic".

As much as I understand why devs and publishers hate/love metacritic, I think overall it has been useful in providing gamers with a snapshot of the overall public reception to a game. So long as it's used correctly; which it ostensibly hasn't been.

In all honesty, I'd be happier if reviewers just broke a game down into various categories and gave a 5-point rating for each one, then summarising their impressions of the overall package in a short paragraph at the end of their multi-page review. It would satisfy those who don't want to have to read hundreds of pages of review prose on different websites to know if a game is good or not; those who's own gaming values might differ from the person they are reading (since they have the itemised scores); and the fanboys who want to used metacritic scores as flamebait in their perpetual crusades, since MC would probably just take an artithmetic mean rating of the various scores given (wouldn't make MC any less meaningless than they are today).

Maybe then I'd actually be stomach reading a Eurogamer review

 

[Cyan]

Considering how many people couldn't give a shit whether a game runs at 60fps or not, calling it essential is really stretching it. Console gaming has been fine without it for decades. What you are looking for is obviously a product description and not a review.
And nowhere did I say gameplay wasn't important. I totally agree that a lot of sites tend to treat gaming's prime differentiating factor like an unwantend, red-headed step child now these days. That's why I brought up Tom Chick. Sure, you get the juicy prose, but you also get entire paragraphs dedicated to the thrill of taking the perfect corner in Mario Kart 8.

I'd love to read some Tom Chick reviews. Do you have a link where I can read his reviews?

It's obvious most people don't mind whether a game runs at 60 fps or not. But console games were born "forced" to run games at 60fps to match the TV input (I remember @joker454 mentioning it time ago).

Still, the 60 fps are important to me because I never knew at which framerate Sega Racing All-Stars ran at and I know it wasn't 60 fps when I played it on the Xbox 360. I mean..., there is a factor to the thrill of taking the perfect corner in Mario Kart 8. And it's the 60 fps.

I remember feeling confused on Sonic Sega All-Star Racing when I played it, especially in some tracks, and it was because the game run mostly at 30 fps.

 

[Cyan]

You see, I think this is essentially nonsensical. Eurogamer reviewed the game on its own merits. If the gameplay hasn't aged well as far as they were concerned then they'd mark it down accordingly. You seem to want them to give the game concessions simply because it's a remake.

And the definition you use above doesn't even help your point. Movies are "remade" all the time and the finished product is vastly different to the original. Using your logic the only remake ever made was Psycho by Gus Van Sant.

I wouldn't define movies as remakes. I mean...I consider a remake to be something different.

Generally, the remakes are made from games that leave a mark. Not from games that have gone unceremoniously unnoticed. Something which is not a remake is a port. :smile2:

Well then if those are a remake. then I go and say that Resident Evil Remake is NOT a remake because it just adds further improved graphics.

But it makes no sense because it would be a Port. A Port adds new features on a playable level and maps, which no longer makes the game a Remake but something different, more like a scheduled port for the new consoles harnessing the power of the Xbox One/PS4.

This is different for games like Metal Gear Twin Snakes *remake*... which as a remake has nothing that adds new playable, the first-person perspective, new situations, etc, etc.. That's an irony. I mean, MGTS is a Port. :smile2:

I think a remake would be one of those games like Super Mario All Stars SNES or also Super Mario Bros Deluxe for the Gameboy Color. Those would be Remakes ... the other one cited, Metal Gear Twin Snakes ... not at all. :smile2:

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Great article over at Techraptor titled: "IMO: What's in a Review".

I'll just quote a few key points I think the writer hits spot-on:

In every review, the measurable aspects of a game should be reported as matters of fact. Here’s an example: with a given hardware configuration—simultaneously a means of providing context for the facts as well as a barrier to entry for any PC game reviewer—a game can run at some number of Frames Per Second at such and such resolution. Similar should be done for art style, animation, sound, mechanics, controls, story, as well as the options in the various menus.

The point of all this is to drive toward the answer to a single question: should a consumer buy this game? That’s it; that’s the reviewer’s job in a single sentence. What the reviewer shouldn’t do is wield his/her personal politics as a weapon to find fault with the game, or its presentation to the player.

(...)

Just to emphasize the point, I want to put 2 statements side by side, as a “Dos and Don’ts” for what should be in a review and what has no place in a review:

----- Do: The camera in Bayonetta 2 shows the main character from the perspective of down-shirts and up-skirts.

----- Don’t: The camera in Bayonetta 2 shows the main character from the perspective of down-shirts and up-skirts, and that’s sexist.

The goal of the reviewer should be to provide agency to the consumer through the dissemination of information, not to remove agency from the consumer by letting personal politics get in the way of disseminating information. Or, put another way, the job of the reviewer and review is to inform, not to persuade.

(...)

For whatever reason, it’s been misconstrued in several places that “objective review” means a review devoid of personal opinions. I suspect this comes from people cherry picking the words of others who don’t always express themselves perfectly. It’s intuitively obvious that personal opinion is going to come in to play when reviewing a game.

That opinion can take several forms, all of which are acceptable in the context of a review. In the case of clones and sequels, making a statement of a game being better or worse than its sequel/clone is an acceptable form of personal opinion that might be expressed in a review. Making a statement of personal preference about graphics, sound, art style, etc. is also a reasonable personal opinion to appear in a review.

 

[Arwin]

I think splitting a personal from a political opinion conceptually is like splitting hairs: pointless. Any invididual opinion is not separate from the environment around him/her.

Splitting opinion from factual information is another matter. I'll just casually refer to my signature here, where I'm trying to do exactly that. My site setup, I think, solves all current review issues at once and add various additional cool features in the process.

 

[Sigfried1977]

@Cyan:
Here you go:

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2014/05/28/mario-kart-8-just-darn-irresistable/

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2014/07/02/dead-rising-3-worst-dead-rising/

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2014/07/24/spintires-going-dont-need-roads/

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/20...-bad-game-still-cant-quite-get-starting-line/

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I think splitting a personal from a political opinion conceptually is like splitting hairs: pointless. Any invididual opinion is not separate from the environment around him/her.

IMO that's sidestepping the criticism aimed at the current crop of reviewers from "mainstream gaming sites" through a very broad generalization. And that generalization is obviously very convenient to the ones being criticized.

Of course you can't completely separate personal opinion from political opinion. Of course you can't isolate a person from the world while he/she is reviewing a game or anything else.
But it's pretty obvious that this is not what people are complaining about. People are complaining about extremes.
It's one thing to slip a comment that shows a political/social inclination in a review. It's another thing to make blatant use a position of power, writing for a publication with millions of hits a week dedicated to a $100 billion industry, to push a social and/or political agenda.

Imagine a reviewer who writes for a publication that gives him about 2 million views and publishes something like this:

In Super Mario, the player embodies a character whose single purpose in his adventures is to save another another person. While saving a person may seem right, this character is a "Princess" who lives in her own castle with servants (perhaps slaves?) and rules over a country surrounded by wealth for the single fact of being born the queen's daughter. Mario's purpose is to save the Princess a Monarchy so she can rule over the kingdom again, surrounded by richness again, while stopping the kingdom's citizens from choosing their leader through elections.
The game serves to perpetuate the erroneous idea that a Monarchy is the rightful form of government. Mario tells us that governments shouldn't be elected by a voting system and merit, but through a twisted form of racial preference.
This is problematic. Gamers and developers should grow up and recognize that supporting governments who idolize "bloodlines" shouldn't be allowed in their favorite medium. Monarchist games are driving the good people away, and we all know the good people are the Democrats from the Obama administration.

Is this something you'd find acceptable in a review? Is the author's opinion on "how Super Mario enables Monarchy" (and recurrent emphasis throughout said review) what you want to see in the review of a videogame (or any other form of art)?

Take a look at some parts of Polygon's take on Bayonetta 2:

It's also the kind of game that left me asking how many times and how many different ways developer Platinum could run a camera up the main character's spread legs and cleavage.
(...)
On the other, the deliberate sexualization and objectification on display serves as a jarring distraction from the creativity and design smarts elsewhere.
(...)
Less positive is the same exaggerated sexualization that hung heavy around the last game's neck. I'll forgive the high heels and the exaggerated proportions, if only because there's so many other things to criticize. Bayonetta's new outfit delivers bold new developments in revealing clothing with the introduction of diamond cutouts on the ass of her jumpsuit, creating what I can only refer to as "under-butt" cleavage. When standing in place her shoulders are bent back to point her chest at ... whatever.

But even this is minor compared to the game's camera, which zooms in on Bayonetta's parts like they're products being sold in a commercial. There are enough gratuitous ass-shots, cleavage jokes and spread legs to fill an hours long super cut. The camera doesn't look at Bayonetta — it leers at her.
(...)
It's sexist, gross pandering, and it's totally unnecessary.
(...)
every time I'd feel on a roll, enjoying my time with Bayonetta 2 immensely, I'd be broken out of it by another cheap shot of T&A.
(...)
I won't guess why the blatant over-sexualization is still there, often more intensely than before. But it causes an otherwise great game to require a much bigger mental compromise to enjoy.

Is it impossible to completely separate "personal from political" opinions? Yes.
But is this political indoctrination what you want from a videogame review?

 

[Arwin]

It matters little. It's opinion. I read tonnes of reviews that I find objectionable for a large variety of reasons. Your problem is that the more you object to a person's opinion, the more it interferes with your hunger to glean information about the game. So your hunger for factual information makes you go through some (to you) horrible personal opinions. It's very similar to a game that makes you do stupid QTEs or watch unskippable, badly acted cutscenes, or forces you to return to a story arch when you are enjoying the open world aspects of a game much more (a common criticism I've heard about the recently released Evolve). So you go elsewhere if you can.

As said, in my site I propose to split the facts from the opinion completely. That takes some work though. Hopefully one day it will become popular enough that people will contribute.

 

[3dilettante]

But it's pretty obvious that this is not what people are complaining about. People are complaining about extremes.

When we're talking about something as general as undefined as people: said entity can say anything.
Some people are not complaining about extremes, or are those who are not doing so not people?
Some people are complaining about very little.

It's one thing to slip a comment that shows a political/social inclination in a review. It's another thing to make blatant use a position of power, writing for a publication with millions of hits a week dedicated to a $100 billion industry, to push a social and/or political agenda.

So pretty much every new outlet with known editorial slants, or even the dedicated outlets for organizations or political groups. I don't get why the size of the targeted industry matters. There are blogs discussing international arms manufacturers, but they don't control gun shipments.

Imagine a reviewer who writes for a publication that gives him about 2 million views and publishes something like this:

I'd laugh, and maybe read more. The amount of mental gymnastics that goes into something like that can make such a review a work of art in and of itself.
I'd want to see if it delved into the racial connotations of the hammer brother baddies, or whether the differing behavior of the green and red shelled Koopa Troopas is some kind of implicit support for eugenics.

Is it impossible to completely separate "personal from political" opinions? Yes.
But is this political indoctrination what you want from a videogame review?

Are you saying the Polygon reviewer didn't honestly find those elements focused on jarring or eye-rolling? If that reviewer did, why wouldn't some of the readers as well?

 

[deathindustrial]

Is it impossible to completely separate "personal from political" opinions? Yes.
But is this political indoctrination what you want from a videogame review?

Removing the "political indoctrination" would make it the equivalent of reviewing a "Hooters" restaurant and not bothering to mention there was anything unusual about the setting.

Cheers