What do we want from game reviews?

[dobwal]

Reviews are personal opinions. How is a reviewer complaining about an aspect of a game thats political in a nature any different than say complaining about a gameplay mechanic.

If the reviewer hates QTEs and incessantly complains the mechanic being presented in the game being reviewed, how is that any different than a reviewer incessantly complaining about the objectification of women in the game thats being reviewed.

Either way, if you don't identify with the complaints being made, it becomes useless and distracting information. The more the review centers around those complaints the more the review becomes useless to you.

In either case, the simple choice is to move on and find a reviewer that presents a critique of the game in a more desirable fashion.

Because it all boils down to the point that a reviewer with very overt political views may be serving an audience where the reviewer's outlook matters. Just because you want apolitical reviews doesn't mean everyone does.

 

[3dilettante]

There are also reviewers that might come from the focus of being child-friendly, or a religious point of view. Even if the heavy emphasis of sexual attributes didn't trip their alarms, the series does appropriate elements of religious tradition for its own ends, which some find objectionable and could ruin the experience. After all, a family-friendly or religious review outlet can get a lot of web hits and it's covering a multi-billion dollar industry.
I haven't looked, but I'm sure I could find some review system out there that could rate the quality of characters' breasts as a major score component.

I may not care much for those items as criteria, but I do want a world where reviewers can honestly have them and say as much.

 

[Davros]

or a religious point of view

He's not kidding
https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/

 

[Deleted member 13524]

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.

There's this indie game that's 2 hours long, a first-person "explorer" set inside a single house with no interaction with other characters (there are none).
It sold hundreds of thousands at 20€ in Steam because it got over-the-top reviews from the most prominent websites, with Polygon giving it a 10/10 review and "game of the year" award (and conveniently forgetting to mention the game's longevity and that the reviewer used to do podcasts with the game's dev team). And the "professional" reviews clearly don't fit with the user reviews.
I'm not saying the game is bad (it's probably quite good) or that the devs don't deserve to get a proper amount of money for it.
But isn't it a bit naive to think the game's sales weren't heavily influenced by the propaganda it got from its reviews?

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.

Why thank you. I did my best to keep it really stupid.
But you'd laugh and read maybe the first 3 or 4 reviews like this. After these I think you'd start getting bored hearing the same "This game is bad because LONG LIVE THE DEMOCRATS!" narrative over and over, and stop going to my website.

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?

I'm saying the reviewer has an agenda of this new-found puritanism on games where women must be treated as untouchable goddesses wearing Burkas and he's using his position of power (massive audience) to convince others to think like he does.
Of course, this works at the beginning because there's all the rage in the comments and more clicks and stuff. But in the mid-long term it's mostly failing because people will just flock to other websites and youtubers. And like other websites Polygon is likely to go down because of this.

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.

Of course it would. This "reviewer" is a terrible writer and his observation skills are null.
Take away his "offense" over "sexist material" and all you get is the observation and description capabilities of a gallinaceous.

 

[Arwin]

I think the way you are letting your personal agenda influence discussion is a lot like the problem you are so much against.

As for Gone Home, which I'm guessing you are referring to without even clicking the link, the praise for that game comes from both journalists and game designers who all have seen way too many games for their own good and are naturally more inclined to favor games that do something new. The big titles get (or buy) enough attention anyway. I haven't actually tried Gone Home myself yet, but I did also think it sounded really interesting. I also think criticism of that aspect of Bayonetta 2 (and many other games) is completely valid. The game seems great, but that aspect of it is just outright silly to me.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I think the way you are letting your personal agenda influence discussion is a lot like the problem you are so much against.

I'm a mere user in a forum, with the same "voice" as all users here. My post will be seen by how many people? 5? 10? How is this a position of power?
How is this even remotely close to the problems I'm addressing?

As for Gone Home, which I'm guessing you are referring to without even clicking the link, the praise for that game comes from both journalists and game designers who all have seen way too many games for their own good and are naturally more inclined to favor games that do something new.

It wasn't a criticism towards Gone Home. I even did say the game is probably quite good.
3dilettante suggested that these media outlets make little impact on game sales. I was just making an argument with an opposite opinion.
I guess they make less impact on the sales of games with huge marketing numbers like Destiny. But for smaller devs and indies? These guys are immensely important to them.

I confess I did take an intentional jab at Polygon. The website is terrible and it's severely hurting the industry and the social acceptance of people who play videogames.
Gamers are being being dragged through the mud by the mainstream media nowadays thanks to Polygon (and a few others) and we're back to the 90s where GTA was narrated as the cause for violent kids, criminality and cancer. That never really changed how much GTA sold, but it sure changed how people looked at me whenever I'd say I played videogames as a hobby.
The only take I can do regarding the subject at hand is:
What do I want from a videogame review? Look at Polygon and do the opposite.
Alas, this is my last mention of Polygon. Sorry for the mini-derail.

I also think criticism of that aspect of Bayonetta 2 (and many other games) is completely valid. The game seems great, but that aspect of it is just outright silly to me.

You have every right to find it silly and distracting, obviously. And any good reviewer is completely free to mention it in a review IMO.
But then there's how much of a political/social agenda you choose to embed in that comment.
Take the following two examples:

1 - The game focuses a lot on Bayonetta's sexuality, as the camera often focuses on her breasts and buttocks during cutscenes. I personally found that distracting and a bit silly. I think this part of the game does it a disservice as a whole.

2 - This game is sexist and gross. Bayonetta is treated as a sex doll designed exclusively for the male gaze. The whole game this character is deliberately objectified so it can gratuitously pander to stupid teenagers and virgin fat neck-beards who live in their mother's basement. The game represents a huge problem in a misogynist industry that is keeping women away from it.


Option 1 describes what happens in the game and shows your subjective opinion over it. However, it still leaves the reader to make his own social/political conclusions about it.
Option 2 tries to negate any possible conclusion to be taken by the reader, and tries to make you feel bad for enjoying the game.

 

[London Geezer]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-02-10-eurogamer-has-dropped-review-scores

 

[Cjail]

In my opinion EG just replaced a subjective scale of values with another.

 

[London Geezer]

In my opinion just replaced a subjective scale of values with another.

True, but at least no more of this "it's an 8?!?! No it's a 9!! No a 7!!" nonsense. Now it's basically between good, very good and not good. With no comment in between for the ones that they don't feel like recommending, but not bad enough to avoid completely.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Most importantly, EG have replaced the numeric summary with a sound-bite that encapsulates the game and its pros/cons. Instead of looking at a score and trying to work out if this 7/10 is one you'd like, the few words are a far better description.

 

[Exophase]

Most importantly, EG have replaced the numeric summary with a sound-bite that encapsulates the game and its pros/cons. Instead of looking at a score and trying to work out if this 7/10 is one you'd like, the few words are a far better description.

And they got off Metacritic. Maybe if enough reviewers do this the Metacritic bonuses can stop.

 

[FarticusMaximus]

In my opinion EG just replaced a subjective scale of values with another.

It's good that they dropped scores and will no longer be feeding the Metacritic monster, but I agree that they needed to do a proper job and drop any kind of rating.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's good that they dropped scores and will no longer be feeding the Metacritic monster, but I agree that they needed to do a proper job and drop any kind of rating.

I'm sure the bulk of readers on most mainstream gaming sites what a specific steer on each game reviewed. If Eurogamer doesn't provide this then users will go elsewhere.

It's easier for people who don't care about ratings to ignore an overall assessment but harder to derive an assessment that isn't there because it requires reading the entire review carefully. My experience from comments on sites like Eurogamer, IGN, C&VG, EDGE and Game Informer are that lots of people clearly do not read reviews in full. VideoGamer.com posts the most insanely small reviews (in terms of the number of words) and still has the same problem.

 

[Sigfried1977]

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

Mentioning it is fine. Downrating it according to what bothers you is fine too. I'm just tired of the slut shaming and the Holier-than-thou mentality. It's especially funny because I'm constantly being told how I'm basically exempt from ever getting attacked as a gamer thanks to being white, male and straight. Truth is that just about every male nerd more than likely has a long ass history of being ridiculed.

 

[3dilettante]

Is it not possible to find an outlet whose staff are also disaffected by what you've experienced? There are tons of sites out there to cover the range.

 

[MrFox]

The quick soundbite is a great idea, but Recommended, Essential and Avoid is similar to ArsTechnica's Rent, Buy and Pass. Or a 3 star system.

- everybody must buy it
- nobody should buy it
- we recommend you to buy it

When they simplify it with buy it or not, it's building the same group-think issue as a rating. Over time, the reviewer will end up filtering his audience to only those who have the same tastes. The size of that audience is almost directly proportional to the amount of money the publication gets. So the editor in chief gets an implied pressured to hire reviewers with the same tastes as the largest pool of gamers, regardless of their true expertise. (the same crap happens with film reviews)

I think there are many reviewers who are incredibly knowledgeable about games, they have played thousands of games for dozens of years, and their opinion is very useful regardless of their personal tastes. They have amazing insights to give because they have precise points of comparison, and they understand how to present their opinion to a large and varied audience. They can give their opinions while being rational critics. Their reviews are interesting to every gamers, including those with completely different tastes.

When I'm asked if this or that IPA beer is good, I will say something like "I love it, it's my favorite beer, because there's a huge amount of hops, be careful it's a strong 9%". I'm implying "You'll love it if you love hops". My audience can determine for themselves if they like a really bitter strong beer or not. Regardless of their different tastes, they appreciate being informed that it is much more bitter than the norm. My "review" is useful to them because I can describe the beer quality, and I know enough about beer to give a point or reference about it's bitterness. This requires knowledge, expertise, and a good understanding of what specific aspect of the beer tends to be good or bad depending on tastes. What's the most important thing to say about it? The incredible bitterness is the defining quality of that beer, and this is probably what my audience needs to know. However if the beer tastes like piss, I can safely say "It's horrible, don't buy it" without taking into consideration that some people might like drinking piss. If it doesn't taste like piss at all, it definitely exposed my bias, and it exposed me as bad reviewer. Etc...

 

[Xmas]

There's this indie game that's 2 hours long, a first-person "explorer" set inside a single house with no interaction with other characters (there are none).
It sold hundreds of thousands at 20€ in Steam because it got over-the-top reviews from the most prominent websites, with Polygon giving it a 10/10 review and "game of the year" award (and conveniently forgetting to mention the game's longevity and that the reviewer used to do podcasts with the game's dev team). And the "professional" reviews clearly don't fit with the user reviews.

A high rating in a review doesn't mean everyone will like the game, it means the reviewer liked it very much. It's not unusual for works that stray from the mainstream to have a split reception.

In that light, I'm not sure what method you'd use to measure how well professional reviews fit user reviews, but let's say there is a good method. In what way, then, would professional reviews trying to stay away from strongly held personal/political beliefs bring them more in line with user reviews, not less? Clearly users do not try to objectively review games, their opinions will directly influence how much they enjoy certain games. If professional reviewers are to review games very differently from users, then their average score will be different.

 

[deathindustrial]

Option 1 describes what happens in the game and shows your subjective opinion over it. However, it still leaves the reader to make his own social/political conclusions about it. Option 2 tries to negate any possible conclusion to be taken by the reader, and tries to make you feel bad for enjoying the game.

Option 1 downplays the obvious sexism or the author just isn't as offended by it. In option 2 they are upset about it and make that clear. You left out option 3 where the sexualization / fan service is played up as positive a feature of the game (Joe Bob Briggs style) which would be the other extreme.

Personally, options 2 or option 3 are probably going to be more useful for sussing out whether a game is any good as there is less filter present.

Cheers

 

[deathindustrial]

double post (fat fingers, sorry)

 

[deathindustrial]

It's especially funny because I'm constantly being told how I'm basically exempt from ever getting attacked as a gamer thanks to being white, male and straight. Truth is that just about every male nerd more than likely has a long ass history of being ridiculed.

That applies equally though to every nerd on the planet, it's not specific to race or gender (humans are a mean bunch). Truth is that the other nerds outside that demographic got it just as bad or likely worse.

I wish "Torrente 3: El Protector" for the PS2 had gotten more reviews as it would be interesting to see how it was handled.

Cheers