Slashdot Mirror
Game Reviews are Broken?
Kotaku is running an opinion piece looking at the process of reviewing videogames, and comes to the conclusion that the whole system is entirely broken. Author Mark Wilson takes potshots at the concept of assigning a numerical valuation to a game, and the emphasis on product reviews rather than content reviews. "If there is no such thing as a perfect game, when why the hell are you scoring out of 100? It's not just PC Gamer that thinks this way--most publications, even those who do give out 'perfect' scores, do so begrudgingly. It's as if the developer has somehow cheated and broken their system. The movie reviewers solved this problem a long time ago. That's why most adopted a simpler rating system in which a 4-star movie didn't imply 'perfection' but supreme excellence. In most cases, games are penalized through being divided by a sum that they can never possibly reach."
Am I the only one who finds that comment just odd? While I can agree with you that the system is broken because there's no such thing at a "zero" rated game, but I do not see the difference between 100 points and 4 stars, besides it being simply "divided by 25". Then, of course, that's not good enough, so they start assigning 0.5 stars.
Also, I never considered "100/100" to be perfection, but as "supreme excellence" as noted. After, WTF is the difference between "supreme excellence" and "perfection"? Someone is just trying to argue semantics.
Of course, I don't even like the "four star" or 100 point numerical system. When I ask/tell people about a movie I simply say "Is it worth seeing in the theater?", "Is it worth a theater matinée?", "Is it a rental?" or "not worth your time, period".
In this sense, I saw the "Number 23" in the theater and I recommended that it was worth seeing in the theater. While "28 Weeks Later" was easily worth waiting for a rental (despite being a fan of "28 Days Later" and zombie films in general).
In that regards, I would say games should be rated as "buy it!", "rent it/demo it!", "stay away". (rent for console / Demo for PC games). Guitar Hero games are "buy it" games while something like Zelda:Twilight Princesses might be a "rent it" kind of game (I bought it, I'm a fan of Zelda, but still feel money better spent on a rental. I would not have given it 100/100 as some reviews did). World of Warcraft? "Buy it".
Of course, such a system needs a context. I'm not going to tell a FPS fan to buy an RPG, it's in the context of RPG fans.
Cheers,
Fozzy
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
The solution would be to have a "Consumer Reports" of gaming where people unaffiliated with the publishers, buy the game at a retail outlet like anyone else at launch, play it, write the review, and then do this consistently for all games that are released.
The disadvantages:
-You wouldn't see the review until after launch. (Probably a week for some games.)
-It doesn't seem to have a viable revenue model, unless someone knows a counterexample?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.