What do we want from game reviews?

[Shifty Geezer]

Above you said "What if the early video looks good but the game really starts to grind part-way through? That's more readily conveyed in a review" which I took as you preferring a written review over a video.

Did you not read the paragraph immediately under it?!

It genuinely surprised me that others were so surprised when they tried it. Things like this are quite evident to me and why I really do like watching some non-spoiler video of games in play.

It was the inertia that was surprising, that you end up jumping lower heights from certain situations. This was completely contrary to every other platformer. Watching vids, it looked more like the player lacked timing, but it was actually the game mechanics.

There's a lot you can take from videos if you're looking for it, anthropologists discern much from observation rather than participation. And because reviews talk so little about the moment-to-moment gameplay these days, I've got used to paying attention to videos. It's not a substitute for playing a game, but it's also much better than a written review for me.

As I say, they all have pros and cons, notably for the different audiences too. Nowt wrong with that!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Did you not read the paragraph immediately under it?!

Yes, you also think is also is value in videos but you led with your written review point. I favour videos then written reviews, I took the construct of your sentence to be your favour written reviews then videos.

It was the inertia that was surprising, that you end up jumping lower heights from certain situations. This was completely contrary to every other platformer. Watching vids, it looked more like the player lacked timing, but it was actually the game mechanics.

But it shouldn't have been surprising because it was evident from the very first video of Little Big Planet at GDC in March 2007. The demo showed the low-gravity and exaggerated inertia as Sackboys ran and changed direction and dragged cushions around.

Maybe I'm blessed (or cursed) to just see what's there!

 

[Cjail]

If you're considering buying a cake, you can look at the recipe and decide if you think you'd like it, and/or ask people's opinions if they like the cake, and/or watch a video of the cake and someone munching down showing what it's like to eat. Each provides a different POV to gauge whether you yourself should invest in this particular baked good.

Well I would much like to find a review in which they tell me what are the ingredients of the game and how they are combined but It's really rare.
Most reviewers are incapable of telling you that.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, you also think is also is value in videos but you led with your written review point. I favour videos then written reviews, I took the construct of your sentence to be your favour written reviews then videos.

*shrug*. Counterpoint first line. Viewpoint, second. Even original posts..."Written descriptions and videos offer different insights. A truly informed opinion would take them all on board, although there are obviously time and sanity constraints. " I see no mention of preferring anything!

But it shouldn't have been surprising because it was evident from the very first video of Little Big Planet at GDC in March 2007. The demo showed the low-gravity and exaggerated inertia as Sackboys ran and changed direction and dragged cushions around.

At 7:50, the lion boy jumps off the wedge. He jumps lower than the other three. Is that because the physics prevented him jumping higher, or did he jump earlier? How can you tell?

That video also shows early gameplay, I reckon, because there's no downwards inertia being applied to the jumps on the see-saw. That is, in the real game when the platform you're standing on is dropping, you don't get the same height in your jumps. It was a quality of particular impact when you had a ledge that dropped away rather than cut-away, and making your jump a fraction of a second later meant failure. Watching the vids, which I watched a lot of, I never got the impression that the game was 'unresponsive' and 'inconsistent'. And it's worth noting that many, many LBP buyers were caught unawares by the physics (read the reviews of LBP on this forum!). Maybe you can discern the subtle details of gameplay and controllability from videos, but I expect most people only gain an overall impression from vids and benefit greatly from user feedback to clarify some details of a game.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

At 7:50, the lion boy jumps off the wedge. He jumps lower than the other three. Is that because the physics prevented him jumping higher, or did he jump earlier? How can you tell?

If by 'lion boy' you mean the one with the three feathers on his headband, you can see he jumps from halfway up the wedge whereas the others jump from further up. You can tell by looking at it the video because you watch it happen.

And it's worth noting that many, many LBP buyers were caught unawares by the physics (read the reviews of LBP on this forum!). Maybe you can discern the subtle details of gameplay and controllability from videos, but I expect most people only gain an overall impression from vids and benefit greatly from user feedback to clarify some details of a game.

I know and this still perplexes me. You can see the characters and environment have inertia and weight, even if the gravity is toned down. It's evident from the video that the game isn't going to control like Mario. Original 2D Mario can change direction in single a frame and while modern Mario games are slower, it's nothing like LBP were characters who, from if wanting to change direction while running, have to reduce inertia from forward momentum of the run and come to a stop. Run -> slow -> stop - turn -> increase speed, over many frames.

The physics should not have surprised anybody. Listen to the video above and watch and listen to the demo they did at E3 2007. They talk about the physics a lot. The only thing they talk about a much as the physics-based gameplay is the customisation and creation tools

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I know and this still perplexes me. You can see the characters and environment have inertia and weight, even if the gravity is toned down. It's evident from the video that the game isn't going to control like Mario.

It's not about the game not playing like Mario. It obviously wouldn't because we can see that. But you can't see the details of the gameplay engine in the video. Truth is the same physical gameplay could have worked quite differently with a different implementation, and been a lot more fun. The same basic video of physical platforming across two different games could have been accompanied by written reviews saying one is weighty and sluggish and difficult to control and you die a lot, and the other is weighty and physical but never compromises the platform experience and at no point do you feel control has slipped away from you.

The physics should not have surprised anybody.

It's the specifics of the implementation, lost in the video and only apparent to people playing the game.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's not about the game not playing like Mario. It obviously wouldn't because we can see that. But you can't see the details of the gameplay engine in the video. Truth is the same physical gameplay could have worked quite differently with a different implementation, and been a lot more fun.

If you're going to build an engine with relational physics, including weight, inertia and momentum, then the gameplay will be subject to that. If you want the characters to react different then you need change the physics and you can't do that without changing the fundamental gameplay.

Media Molecule obviously wanted the in-game items to act similarly (slightly exagerated) to their real world counterparts because that's what they do. The only way to do it differently is to change the constants of the physics or you 'fiddle' the physics, i.e. give your characters different physical properties or make then subject to different physics laws, but if the physics aren't consistent it will both look and feel wrong. I think it's a very bold statement to claim the game could have been more fun with a different physical implementation. Having done a vast amount of physics simulation myself, I know that even slight changes to a model can have have a mammoth impact on the simulated world.

But let's agree to disagree

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm not arguing about MM's physics choice. I'm saying there are aspects to games that cannot be determined watching a video, LBP's physics gameplay being an example (it would have been possible to 'cheat' the physics and kept a physics based game with responsive, predictable jumping). That's why videos alone aren't enough. They provide some information. Personal views provide other info. The two together provide the most comprehensive view of what a game is and how it feels to play. With 'feels' being subjective, a range of written material provides an overview from which one can hopefully determine where one's own tastes will lie.

That's with reviews having the purpose of a buying guide. For reviews as entertainment, anything goes!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm not arguing about MM's physics choice. I'm saying there are aspects to games that cannot be determined watching a video, LBP's physics gameplay being an example (it would have been possible to 'cheat' the physics and kept a physics based game with responsive, predictable jumping).

I agree with the first statement but not the second. For example you can tell from watching Killzone 2 that your avatar moves, turns and reacts slower than any avatar in any COD game but there's no way to get any sense of the 167ms lag. But physics is something which you can determine by observation because it's based around logically consistent laws. LBP's two plane physics looks highly predictable to me.

It's one thing to say that this is beyond your observational skills but quite another to claim it's beyond everybody else.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

LBP's two plane physics looks highly predictable to me.

It looks it, but it wasn't. The difference between making a jump and not was an infinitesimal amount.

It's one thing to say that this is beyond your observational skills but quite another to claim it's beyond everybody else.

Look at the player reviews of LBP to see if gamers by and large were surprised at the controls or not.

Besides, that's not the only example I call upon. Take Lair for example. Watching a video, it looks like many other Panza Dragoon/Warhawk/other TP flight games. What evidence is there in the videos that the implementation has you not in direct control of the dragon but in control of the rider who issues instructions to a 'living', weighty dragon? Complaints around that game were about the awkward controls which the devs had to explain. Either 1) no-one watched any pre-release videos and was taken aback by the obvious information therein; 2) people watched the videos but couldn't discern the separation between input and action because there's zero visual evidence of that.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It looks it, but it wasn't. The difference between making a jump and not was an infinitesimal amount. Look at the player reviews of LBP to see if gamers by and large were surprised at the controls or not.

Look I don't know what to tell you, I found the controls and fine and while some players (and some reviewers) mentioned the controls were not as tight as they'd like the game canvassed 9/10 and 10/10 across the board. I don't think there's a game I've played that couldn't be with some tweaking based on my personal preferences but games aren't designed just for me.

Besides, that's not the only example I call upon. Take Lair for example. Watching a video, it looks like many other Panza Dragoon/Warhawk/other TP flight games. What evidence is there in the videos that the implementation has you not in direct control of the dragon but in control of the rider who issues instructions to a 'living', weighty dragon?

Lair wasn't my type of game but I thought the fact that you controlled the rider was well known? I seem to recall videos of the rider being shown solo on the ground as well as leaping off the dragon to attack other dragon riders. How is that fact that you control the rider and not the dragon not evident from that?

What next, you saw a video of GTA and thought you were a car?

edit: Shifty goes Bananas!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Look I don't know what to tell you...

It's not about whether the controls were good or not. I'm talking solely about what information is discernible from a gameplay video.

Lair wasn't my type of game but I thought the fact that you controlled the rider was well known? I seem to recall videos of the rider being shown solo on the ground as well as leaping off the dragon to attack other dragon riders. How is that fact that you control the rider and not the dragon not evident from that?

In a computer game where you ride a dragon, the developers have two (more, here are examples) options to implement that.

• One - when you mount the dragon, you take direct control of the dragon. When the player presses 'up', the dragon immediately starts climbing, and when the player presses 'right', the dragon immediately starts banking right. This is how Warhawk operates when you transition from soldier to plane, and probably what a lot of Lair players were expecting as convention.
  
• Two - when you mount the dragon, the input is turned into instructions to the dragon's AI. When the player presses 'up', the dragon is told you want to head up but it'll make whatever moves it feels like according to its AI.

How is it possible to tell which system is in operation from a gameplay video with the dragon flying around? It looks the same for either control scheme. A review (commentary in a vid) would describe the direct control as snappy and responsive, and the AI method as sluggish/weighty control, maybe realistic.

edit: Shifty goes Bananas!

I guess you're not able to see the argument. Never mind. If video's are all your thing, no worries. As long as personal reviews are still present for those who find value them in, and we aren't all forced to rely solely on gameplay clips, there's no harm in it.

 

[Arwin]

I think video and text both have their places. Videos can definitely be more efficient, especially when accompanied with someone talking over the video explaining stuff. Then you get the best of both worlds really. You see how you fly a dragon in the game, and the voice over tells you how the controls actually work. However, right now, you can't really search videos very well yet, which is a bit of a downside. And you can't skim them as easily as text, though admittedly that's getting easier and easier, but you generally lose the talking if you skip through quickly.

Comparing everything, I think a video actually generally wins, and that's a clear trend we're seeing. But we should be aware of what we're losing.

I've found out that with Yosemite on my ancient Mac Mini, I can still record my iPad's screen very well, much cleaner actually than I've been able to find free software for doing that on the PC even with a regular browser (but that could be my own inexperience). So I'll start making more and more videos of what my site is all about and also try to explain how the site could solve some of these problems in video, so people don't have to read and don't have to read stuff in a site with a bad layout (will keep gradually improving though, I like the change I just made to the front page).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yeah, reading is slow. Having someone voicing their views is an easier sell to folk. Gameplay + review commentary is probably the most efficient informative method. There's still room for written pieces as an art-form, but the financial stability of those is questionable. Will you be looking to differentiate between review styles? Somethnig like Zero Punctuation is straddling entertainment and information, and perhaps shouldn't be valued the same in an average evaluation where opinions may be deliberately exaggerated for comic effect.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's not about whether the controls were good or not. I'm talking solely about what information is discernible from a gameplay video.

Well you started there then you shifted to a if-the-controls-were-better-it-would-be-more-fun which is something else entirely. Having never played any demo, LBP's controls did not surprise me as they seemed to surprise some other people. Why do I see some things that over overlook? Who knows. You mentioned 'lion boy' jumping lower and not understanding how to tell why that was. I explained that it was clearly because 'lion boy' jumped from a lower height. Perhaps I'm more observant in this respect? I have zero doubt you are infinitely better skilled at determining specific graphical techniques as I really struggle there. People are different.

How is it possible to tell which system is in operation from a gameplay video with the dragon flying around? It looks the same for either control scheme. A review (commentary in a vid) would describe the direct control as snappy and responsive, and the AI method as sluggish/weighty control, maybe realistic.

But in Lair, as I understand it, there was only one mechanic in play. Misconceptions about people assuming direct control of a dragon is new to me but eight years ago it's wasn't really on my radar so I wasn't paying a huge amount of attention. I recall there was discussion about whether Lair was inspired by Christopher Paolini's Inheritance books so had I bothered to look I'd likely have started from the point of view that the rider, rather than the dragon, was the focus for gameplay and control.

I guess you're not able to see the argument. Never mind. If video's are all your thing, no worries. As long as personal reviews are still present for those who find value them in, and we aren't all forced to rely solely on gameplay clips, there's no harm in it.

No, I get it. But it seems to boil down to some people discerning more from observation than others. I'll repeat what I said above because I tend to read a whole bunch of reviews to get a feel for the overall package of any game. For moment-to-moment gameplay I turn to videos because I can discern more unless reviews are specific, which is rarely the case these days.

 

[Arwin]

Here's a first test-video by the way:

Have to make a better one first when not logged on, and then showing what you can do when you are logged on afterwards, show a game that has multiple versions, etc. Will do more later. I think I may cut them up in small feature videos that I can then update whenever I change something.

 

[Sigfried1977]

You know very well this isn't about negative reviews. It's about reviews with contradictory arguments about whether or not the game is good, and how far away those arguments stand from all the other reviewers (which is not an absolute evaluation but certainly a raised flag)

Contradictory arguments? Oh please, who are you trying to kid here. 99 out of a 100 times this never-ending reviews debate can be summed up by butthurt fanboys refuse to understand the concept of opinions.

You should be reviewing videogame genres that you don't enjoy as much as I should be reviewing different types of broccoli. Which is none.

Weird, here I thought Vice City and GTA5 were among the best open world game I've ever played. I also really enjoy Saints Row games. You do know that liking, shall we say, shooters, doesn't mean you have to like all of them, right?

And look how well that went.

We have tons of different opinions on one and the same movie, and people don't dismiss movies because they scored less than 8/10 on sites like Metacritic. Movies enjoy healthy critical debates. So I'd say everything went perfectly well.

Citation needed.

I'd love to elaborate, but unfortunately I simply can't.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Contradictory arguments? Oh please, who are you trying to kid here. 99 out of a 100 times this never-ending reviews debate can be summed up by butthurt fanboys refuse to understand the concept of opinions.

Is this self acknowledgment or insult towards other people?
Their opinion about opinions is different than mine, therefore they must all be butthurt fanboys.

Weird, here I thought Vice City and GTA5 were among the best open world game I've ever played. I also really enjoy Saints Row games. You do know that liking, shall we say, shooters, doesn't mean you have to like all of them, right?

Vice City & GTA V: Best games I've ever played! Roxxorzz!
GTA IV: So bad! Terrible! 4/10 at best! Blheargh..

Yes. This is the kind of extremely polarized and contradictory opinion that makes a reviewer a bad one. I don't enjoy this particular tiny bit of this game, burn it to the ground!

We have tons of different opinions on one and the same movie, and people don't dismiss movies because they scored less than 8/10 on sites like Metacritic.

Of course not. People don't give a crap about movie reviews. Movie criticism found in mainstream media has been completely taken over by predictable and arrogant intellectualoids who consider every Drama as a masterpiece and every Comedy/SciFi/Fantasy flick as the spawn of satan that shouldn't be viewed by anyone. They brought themselves into irrelevance.
If that's what you want for game reviews then good riddance.

I'd love to elaborate, but unfortunately I simply can't.

You can't cite because you have nothing to cite.

 

[Sigfried1977]

Is this self acknowledgment or insult towards other people?
Their opinion about opinions is different than mine, therefore they must all be butthurt fanboys.

The problem isn't that someone's opinion is different from mine. The problem is when said opinion gets discarded and labeled as categorically wrong click bait every single time the new hot shit game on the market doesn't meet some arbitrary numerical standards. And yes, I'd absolutely call those crybabies butthurt fanboys.

Vice City & GTA V: Best games I've ever played! Roxxorzz!
GTA IV: So bad! Terrible! 4/10 at best! Blheargh..

Yes. This is the kind of extremely polarized and contradictory opinion that makes a reviewer a bad one. I don't enjoy this particular tiny bit of this game, burn it to the ground!

Said no-one ever, but please keep on conjuring up arguments out of thin air.

Of course not. People don't give a crap about movie reviews. Movie criticism found in mainstream media has been completely taken over by predictable and arrogant intellectualoids who consider every Drama as a masterpiece and every Comedy/SciFi/Fantasy flick as the spawn of satan that shouldn't be viewed by anyone. They brought themselves into irrelevance.
If that's what you want for game reviews then good riddance.

Hence the universal praise for just about every single one of the Marvel movies, Avatar, Gravity, The Raid 2, Hunger Games, Planet of the Apes, etc. ... The likes of Transformers or Grown Ups get shit reviews because they are shit movies.

 

[MrFox]

Okay we have reached the legendary "crybabies butthurt fanboys" argument... coming up next is a Hitler reference.