Gamers and the "BAD" Video Game Review

[JFo]

(I was going to post these comments in the Jade Empire thread, but in the interest of not derailing that discussion from its intended purpose of talking about Jade Empire I decided to start up a new topic.)

 

Okay, let me see if I understand this correctly. Please, bear with me, because I'm a little slow in the head.

 

Some guy over at GameSpot, writes a review of Jade Empire, and gives it a score of 8.4 out of 10. According to GameSpot's meter, a score such as this is presented to a game that could be described as "great." Because of this, people are suggesting he's an attention-grabbing monster, and complaining about the low score.

 

Now, I'm not exactly sure when the meaning of the word "great" changed from that which is of exceptional quality to complete and utter crap, but I obviously didn't receive that memo. I was under the impression that when I used the word great as an adjective to describe a game, I was paying it a handsome compliment, and in doing so, gave the impression that it was worth playing or even buying.

 

Okay, so they guy had a few issues with the combat system or the simplified inventory system (or non-system as it were). So what? At the very least he managed to articulate specifically what he didn't like in a manner that was reasonable and well written. In fact, he managed to do the same for what he liked about Jade Empire. He even finished the review with these remarks:

 

You'll probably enjoy Jade Empire a great deal if you approach it with reasonable expectations. Namely, you shouldn't expect a game that's hands-down superior to what you may have experienced from BioWare in the past. Instead, you can look forward to a game whose strengths ultimately outweigh its weaknesses by a long shot.

 

Seems like a pretty positive endorsement to me. I honestly don't see what all the huffing is about. I've joked about this in the past, but maybe these video game review sites actually should change their scoring system from 1-10 to 7-10. People seem to think that anything less than a 9 means the game will suck. They might as well have a scoring system that reflects that attitude.

 

On a more personal note, I do want to say that as a staff writer here at LCVG, I'm very pleased that I'm not obligated to quantify my satisfaction of a game with some arbitrary score that ultimately doesn't mean anything. It ultimately means that readers are paying attention to the words I write, and their comments are based on the merit of what they say.

[Ryan FB]

There's been some discussion of Gamerankings in the past, but I find that in general it tends to be a good indicator of a game's quality at a glance.

 

90%-100%: Fantastic

80%-90%: Great

60%-80%: Good

40%-60%: Has some issues

0%-40%: Most likely junk

 

IIRC, not many games break the 90% barrier. So going by those qualifications, I don't think that an 8.4 being factored in is at all a bad review, in fact I consider it to be pretty good. Of course, any reviews should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, considering I usually enjoy Bioware games, and find the setting of Jade Empire interesting, I doubt even a 60% or lower average score would keep me from giving it a shot. Also, as you pointed out, attaching numbers to games has the tendency to encourage a viewpoint that oversimplifies things. Saying "game x has a score of y, while game q has a score of r" forces you into explicitly placing the games at some location on a finite scale (which is ultimately arbitrary), which advocates comparison between them based on that number alone.

 

I used to take place in one of the yearly movie threads over at HTF, where numerical/star/whatever ratings were used by almost everyone on the list. The one thing it made me realize while composing mine and attempting to assign a discrete rating of x.x/10 to each movie was just how difficult and arbitrary such ratings can be, especially when you have a chance to look over what reviews you've given in the past. Just as an example, it looks like I gave Adaptation. an 8.9 and Citizen Kane an 8.2. While you can probably infer that I found one more enjoyable than the other, that doesn't really mean that one is better, or that you should avoid Citizen Kane. I'd also wager that if I went back over every movie I watched then, and attempted to assign a number to it now, it would probably be different. With any entertainment medium, tastes change, and how you experience and enjoy that medium changes with time, experience, and other conditions as well.

[Big Daddy Bling Bling]

Wow....just wow. Because someone gets so far in life as to attain the position of Gamespot reviewer, they morph into a godlike entity beyond criticism or reproach? Pretty lame that some people disagreeing with a review offends you enough to start a whole thread about it. Everyone is going to have opinions and they might not be exactly the same as yours.

 

I don't even really care about Jade Empire, I'm just a bit sick of Kasavin's attempts to cause controversy by down-rating games a grade or two in an effort to get a bit of extra site traffic. He's been doing it for years and it's getting pretty old. He will ignore a flaw in one game (framerate for example), then totally skewer another game for the exact same thing if said game is hyped enough that criticizing it will create a buzz. Or were you suggesting that reviewers at sites like Gamespot adhere to the strictest of journalistic ethics, devoid of silly little concerns like getting paid?

 

But wait.....a whole new thread about this garbage, generating even more attention? Looks like Kasavin outsmarted us all. Truly a God among men.

[Mark E]

But wait.....a whole new thread about this garbage, generating even more attention? Looks like Kasavin outsmarted us all.

 

Actually, I think it's more like Jeff trying to start an actual dialogue on something. If it offends you that much, then you can easily just avoid the thread, it's not that hard, there's still plenty of other good discussion going on in the forum.

 

And, no offense, but for somebody who thinks Greg Kasavin is some sort of attention grabbing whore, you're the one who name-dropped him in this thread. Negative attention is still attention.

 

Anyway, I think Jeff raises some good points, and Ryan too. For some reason there's this perception that any given game should achieve a certain score and if it goes above or below that then there is some plot afoot to skew ratings or cause controversy.

 

But it's subjective! I've been playing the Chaos Theory demo the last couple of days and I can safely tell you that if the finished product is like the demo (which I intend to play and find out) then there's no way in hell I'd give it anything more than an "8". I doubt many people here would agree with me, but I have my reasons.

 

It's laughable that by being a member of any given website or publication you suddenly have an obligation to give a review you don't agree with or risk being labelled as some sort of reviewing deviant who doesn't have their head on straight. He raises valid points and it's firmly possible that framerate issues don't bother somebody in one game and bother them in another, I've had it happen myself.

 

I really don't see how all that leads to the need to rant about this and take shots at Jeff for actually doing his job as moderator and splitting off a topic that is quickly becoming merely peripheral to the discussion of Jade Empire itself. My two bits.

[iainl]

I don't even really care about Jade Empire, I'm just a bit sick of Kasavin's attempts to cause controversy by down-rating games a grade or two in an effort to get a bit of extra site traffic.

 

No, the thread is about how utterly fucked the "marks out of ten" reviewing scheme is if 8.4 is considered "down-rating". God only knows what would happen if these people got to read Edge every month, or bothered reading NTSC-UK, both of which work to a proper "5=average" system where "average" doesn't mean "complete and utter shite that no right-thinking individual should touch with a barge pole".

[Romier S]

Because someone gets so far in life as to attain the position of Gamespot reviewer, they morph into a godlike entity beyond criticism or reproach?

Oh please, no person is beyond *reasonable* criticism. Snakefish brought up some reasonable criticism in the Jade Empire thread concerning his perception that Kasavin is robotic in his "check list" way of dealing with his reviews. That puts Joe (Snakefish) off. So be it, at least there is something real there. I do, however, see a problem when gamers in general run around having a coniption fit about a reviewer supposedly "underrating" (an 8.4 is now somehow shit) a game they haven't even put in thier damn console yet! To those people I'd gladly say have a nice warm glass of STFU and move along. Go play the game, then come back and tell me what you agreed or disagreed with. In the meantime, thier opinions are utterly worthless to me, and thier critiscims of what a reviewer found problematic in a game are laughable since they have no basis for thier argument.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how much power gamers give a little meaningless (and most times, downright arbitrary) number. I've asked this a hundred times before, but do people actually read the review? Do they even bother with that process? Take away the scores in both the IGN and Gamespot review and would we even be having this discussion?

 

Everyone is going to have opinions and they might not be exactly the same as yours.

Great logic! it's too bad most people can't apply it when they see an 8.4, 8.5,or for that matter a 9.9 on a website.

 

While you can probably infer that I found one more enjoyable than the other, that doesn't really mean that one is better, or that you should avoid Citizen Kane. I'd also wager that if I went back over every movie I watched then, and attempted to assign a number to it now, it would probably be different. With any entertainment medium, tastes change, and how you experience and enjoy that medium changes with time, experience, and other conditions as well.

 

Excellent thoughts there, Ryan.

[iainl]

Just thought I'd give some example scores from recent Edge issues to demonstrate what I mean about what happens when you use the range for scoring:

 

Devil May Cry 3 - 8

Star Wars Republic Commando - 5

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - 8

Mercenaries (PS2/Xbox, LucasArts) - 7

KOTOR2 - 7

 

Getting even a 9 in Edge means you've got something pretty spectacular, and an 8 is regularly the highest score of the month.

[JoeyN]

I rarely buy a game based on a review score, as most of the time reviews are out after the games release. Im too impatient to wait anyway. There are a lot of fun games out there that people pass over because of sub 9 scores. Games like Carve, Sphinx, Metal Arms, spikeout and so on

 

capt

[PoisonJam]

I do, however, see a problem when gamers in general run around having a coniption fit about a reviewer supposedly "underrating" (an 8.4 is now somehow shit) a game they haven't even put in thier damn console yet!

 

That's a good point, but if a reviewer has a history of ranking well-regarded games a few notches below everyone else, and that reviewer then ranks a new, well-regarded game a few notches below everyone else again, then I don't think one needs to play the game oneself to question that reviewer's motive, which is what I think BDBB was doing.

 

It makes no difference to me, as I have the game in my hands as we speak (well I had to put it down to type this), but I confess I'm not a huge Kasavin fan and I do think he has an annoying habit of writing up a game in glowing terms and then throwing a number on the top a few ticks below what you would think it should be based on the writeup, just to ensure people read it.

 

And yes, I do think it's laughable that people read a review of a game that got an 8.4 to find out "what's wrong with it."

[Romier S]

That's a good point, but if a reviewer has a history of ranking well-regarded games a few notches below everyone else, and that reviewer then ranks a new, well-regarded game a few notches below everyone else again, then I don't think one needs to play the game oneself to question that reviewer's motive, which is what I think BDBB was doing.

 

So because 95% of every other website/magazine gives a game a 9+, other reviewers are suddenly forced to do the same to satisfy some nonsense imaginary, uniformity rule? Hogwash and bullshit Dave.

 

I'm not into looking for conspiracy theories. I want to read a well written review that details the good and bad about a game. Something that was more than done in Jade review if you ask me. Dislike the guys writing style, disagree with him on his points after having played the game, hell even criticize the fact that he appears wearing Ninja garb in some Gamespot vid reviews, but honestly are we actually concocting conspiracy theories to justify an 8.4? Gimme a break.

[PoisonJam]

That's not what I said. I said that if a reviewer consistently gives games lower scores than everyone else, then it's justified to question why even if you haven't played the game yourself.

 

I want to read a well written review that details the good and bad about a game. Something that was more than done in Jade review if you ask me.

 

I don't disagree with that.

[Josh]

Writing game reviews as a job is not an easy task. While it sounds like the greatest gig in the world, it's anything but. I did it for a couple years in the 90s, and while the perks were great (free games, playing games all the time, getting phone calls from developers, etc.), the work itself was kind of dreadful. Today I refuse any game review writing gig - I simply can't do it anymore.

 

When gaming became a job for me, I looked at games as just that: my job. I had to finish games by a particular deadline; I had to pay attention to certain things I knew readers would care about while playing (rather than just chill and enjoying the experience); I had to take notes. I many occasions, I had to use developer-supplied walkthroughs (sometimes just to work me around open bugs) just to finish the games.

 

When writing the reviews, I had to follow a particular methodology, not only to assure that the review was as objective as possible, but also to keep my own sanity. At a certain point, they became quantitative exercises rather than qualitative experience-driven editorial. I knew there was no way I could accurately portray a real-world impression of the immersion a game offers - I was doing this shit for work and under rushed conditions. I wasn't playing these games on a cold Saturday afternoon in my PJs. I was working on reviewing anywhere between 3-10 titles per week. They were things that had to be tackled and dissected, not thoroughly enjoyed.

 

I'm not defending Kasavin - I think his work is crap - but I don't envy him either and can understand what he's trying to do. His work isn't as glamorous as it may seem.

[Romier S]

I said that if a reviewer consistently gives games lower scores than everyone else

 

Maybe he's looking to knock the hype down a level or two. Perhaps give people a reasonable expectation of what to expect of the game? Why are motives even being called into question? I ask again, if these reviews had no scores, would we even be having this conversation right now?

 

EDIT: Apologies for seeming heated here Dave. These kinds of discussions really bring out the worst in me and irk me to no extent.

[PoisonJam]

Maybe he's looking to knock the hype down a level or two. Perhaps give people a reasonable expectation of what to expect of the game?

 

And you are answering those questions with perfectly reasonable answers. That's fine, and you might well be right. The point I am trying to make is the question was justifed in being asked, that's all. I am arguing against your response to BDBB that in order to criticize a review one has to have played the game first. I'm saying if a reviewer rates games lower than everyone else on a consistent basis then it's fair to question why without having played every one of those titles. But really the point isn't important enough to keep arguing about.

 

[edit]No apology necessary, Romier, but it is appreciated. I'm not so thin-skinned as to take offense at what is merely spirited discussion.

[Romier S]

I'm saying if a reviewer rates games lower than everyone else on a consistent basis then it's fair to question why without having played every one of those titles.

 

...and I'm saying what does the score matter? I don't find it to be a fair question because who gives a flying Robot Monkey's butt about the score if the review itself does it's job to inform you of the game's good and bad points (from the perspective of the reviewer). So he scores games lower than other sites? Be it for attention, be it for more site traffic, or perhaps because his momma taught him to do that at a young age. Why give that such importance? The one area I agree with Bling about is the level of attention gamers give that little number which as Jeff noted in his first post, is so DAMNED arbitrary. It's ludicrous!

[PoisonJam]

You are right and I agree with you that an arbitrary number is just that, and the text of a review is what really counts. But oftentimes that number is what draws people (albeit lazy people) in to read a review, either to find out what's so good about a game or what's not so good. And while it's a joke that an 8.4 could be considered "not so good", that is the reality when a game as hyped as Jade Empire comes out and I think Greg knows that and exploits it to get more people to read and discuss his review.

 

Smart guy, that Greg. :lmfao

[Romier S]

He's a god amongst men according to Bling. :lmfao

[iainl]

A positive review text followed by an 8.4 doesn't say "attention seeker" to me though, just that he's got a slightly (and frankly if he's not overwhelmingly positive, only slightly) more sensible idea of what a 0-10 scale means. So what if the rest of the US media have defined 7.5 to be average? If he's consistent about it (and your comments suggest he is; I don't read the site myself) then you just read the score while bearing that in mind.

[Tranquility]

Gamespot generally (not just GregK) probably does on average give games on average lower scores than most other publications. But who gives a shit? A review is subjective, and it reflects the reviewer's opinion and should never be taken as the be-all and end-all factor that decides whether you want to buy a game or not. Don't just take as gospel a number that a reviewer usually just pulls out of his ass at the end of the review. Who cares if it's an 8.9 and not a 9.0? You should have been around the gamespot forums when Gran Turismo 4 was given an 8.9. Fanboys crying all over the board that their pet game was not considered AAA material by Gamespot because some reviewer called Brian Ekberg gave it an 8.9 instead of a 9.0. Or when Half-life 2 got a score that was 0.2 points lower than Halo 2. What's pissing off is that all those complaining about the 0.2 points (unreasonable as that is) HADN'T played the game yet.

 

Incidentally, Greg Kasavin did hand out a sizeable portion of Gamespot's editor's choice awards to games over the last few months, giving Lumines a 9.0, Resident Evil 4 a 9.6, Chronicles of Riddick a 9.3 on the Xbox and PC, 9.5 to World of Warcraft, 9.4 to Halo 2, 9.2 to Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, 9.1 to Pandora Tomorrow PC and Xbox, 9.4 for Ninja Gaiden, etc. Or the editor's choice awards to Call of Duty, Sands of Time and Max Payne 2.

 

Need I go on?

 

That being said, I like the fact that GregK is more demanding of games in his review. He was one of the few people to see through Doom 3's hype soon after its release, and called Doom 3 on its repetitive and derivative gameplay style. Not to say I didn't enjoy Doom 3, nor that the 8.5 Kasavin gave it wasn't pretty good, but it was given the score it deserved, IMHO, not the inflated 10/10s. Frankly I find his scores quite close to the mark in most games I play that he reviewed.

[JFo]

Wow....just wow. Because someone gets so far in life as to attain the position of Gamespot reviewer, they morph into a godlike entity beyond criticism or reproach? Pretty lame that some people disagreeing with a review offends you enough to start a whole thread about it.

 

No, he's certainly not some god-like entity above criticism of any sort, but when you consider that the man is being lambasted because he gives a game a positive review that isn't quite positive enough, I think you start to see my point.

 

So because 95% of every other website/magazine gives a game a 9+, other reviewers are suddenly forced to do the same to satisfy some nonsense imaginary, uniformity rule? Hogwash and bullshit.

 

Agreed 100% Romier. I think it's amazing that many gamers expect every reviewer for every website and magazine to have the exact same reaction to every game released. What ever happened to the right to a dissenting opinion? I sometimes wonder what people might have said about me had I been a professional reviewer giving my thoughts on Devil May Cry. It's a widely loved game, but I would have been very critical of it. The score would no doubt reflect my own feelings and be nowhere near the 9s and 10s it got upon its release. Does that mean I'm some moron who can't write a decent review or doesn't deserve to play games anymore? Of course not. It just means that my opinion of that particular game isn't as high as it is for others. We don't expect every movie, music, or art critic to agree; why do we demand the same from video

[Romier S]

To followup on Iain's thoughts on Edge. Here are the scores in thier May issue:

 

God of War: 8

Wipeout Pure: 8

Tekken 5: 8

Haunting Ground: 7

Red Ninja: 5

Lego Star Wars: 7

Enthusia Professional Racing: 5

Close Combat: First to Fight: 4

Kessen 3: 7

Trackmania Sunrise: 7

Freedom Force vs Third Reich: 7

Unreal Champioship 2: 8

Meteos:8

The Rumble Fish: 6

Ape Escape: On The Loose:6

 

For those interested, this is thier review process explanation:

 

Every month, Edge evaluates the best, most interesting, hyped, innovative or promising games on a scale of ten, where five naturally represents the middle value. Edge's rating system is fair, progressive and balanced. An average game deserves an average mark - not, as many believe, seven out of ten. Scores broadly correspond to these sentiments:

 

Zero: Nothing

One: Disastrous

Two: Appalling

Three: Severely Flawed

Four: Disappointing

Five: Average

Six: Competent

Seven: Distinguished

Eight: Excellent

Nine: Astounding

Ten: Revolutionary

[foogledricks]

I'd like to say you all have good points, but you're all wrong (hate me, not each other)

 

A score is not meaningless. Reviewers put thought into their scores. Probably the most significant component of that is how the game compares to other comparable games. This fact is what prompted IGN to say this:

 

I almost feel like going back and lowering the scores of every other RPG on Xbox.

-IGN

So everyone laughing at the petty people who are reacting to the 8.4 score, remember that they are reacting to that score relative to the score of other comparable games given by the same reviewer. I think that is legitimate.

 

Saying that the score is meaningless, then turning right around and referring to the scoring legend (8.4="great") as a way of trivializing people's opinions is hippocritical. I think the score is relevant and the legend is not...but I won't get into that because it might become a tangent debate.

 

I also think that whether someone has played the game or not is irrelevant given the debate. We're debating the quality of these reviews (reviewing the reviews), not the quality of the games (that is totally subjective). It isn't a matter of whether the reviewer likes the Jade Empire fighting system, and whether you agree... it is whether you think the reviewer is being fair and balanced when presenting his review. Watch The O'Reilly Factor to see what I'm talking about.

[Chris The Rock]

I'm going to sound crazy...but when I think of a review, I think of counting backwards from 10. (or 100, because they use a decimal place)

 

When I read IGN's review of Jade Empire, I think "wow, they liked it so much, that all the negative things in the game only added up to take away 1 percent from the perfect game experience."

 

Transferring that logic to Gamespot's review (which is a flawed prospect, I realize), I think "Wow. They thought that Jade Empire's negatives took away 16% from the perfect game experience. There must be some things about the game that I won't enjoy."

 

My point of reference is skewed, I understand.

 

Another reason for my point of view: I got straight A's in school, and when I brought home a grade of 84%, I got in trouble, because I could do better.

I think this "grading scale" approach from academia has transferred over, and that's why the American video game media considers a 7.5 to be Average, because a 75% is a "C" in school.

[Robot Monkey]

Well, I disagree with you on this, Keith. I think the numeric score worthless.

 

Here's my problem with those numeric ratings -- what is with the very human fetish for quantifying the unquantifiable? God knows, I'm as guilty of this as others.

 

I mean suppose, I review a game and it's single-player campaign is average at best. So I'm thinking "5" on a scale of ten. But the multiplayer kicks ass, so I give it a "7" overall. What does the score tell a prospective game buyer? That the game is above average. This doesn't help the person who strictly likes single-player story or the player who buys games to play online with friends.

 

A game like Galactic Civilizations II might earn an "8" from me, but have a point taken off for its dated graphics. That "7" rating -- merely above average, but not "good," doesn't help a fan of the turn-based strategy genre who is willing to overlook such a deficiency.

 

In other words, rating games on a scale of ten obscures useful information in the desire to quantify everything to a single number. Why bother when a single sentence placed as a sub-head can provide a much better summary for people? For example:

 

"Galactic Civilizations II is a home-run for fans of turn-based strategy."

 

"Such-and-such's deep combat system is hampered by a confusing interface."

 

"Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow makes up for its more-of-the-same single-player campaign with an innovative new multiplayer mode."

 

-j

[General Zot]

I still wonder why game reviewers even use numeric grades for games at all. A number x/100 gives the illusion that there is a mathematical process to generating these grades. Much like in school, when you take a physics test you add up all the points you received per problem to get x/100 score.

 

But games for most of us are a qualitative experience, not quantitative. I don't care how the graphics are 10/10, sound is 10/10, seven other areas are 10/10, when gameplay is 1/10. Sure, the score adds up to 91/100, but that game is going to suck ass most likely.

 

Games are more like essays or reports in school. Sure you can quantify the spelling, grammar, structure, and so forth, but it's the overall effectiveness that gets the grade not the sum of the parts. For the 91/100 game above, it might get a 'D+' (pretty but totally unplayable.) Whereas Tetris with it's dreadful graphics and sound would still get an 'A' because it is awesome to play.

 

In short, I've always liked the A-F system compared to the 0-10 scale most places use. It's a rating scale everyone (who has been through school) can instantly recognize and understand the weight of the grade. I don't have to look for some obscure table that tells me 8.0-9.0 is a 'great' score, I know by experience what an A- compared to a B+ means, it's as common as knowledge can get.

 

At the end of the day, how a game feels as you play it is 10x more important than how it looks (or the framerate, whatever.) I'd like to see games rated to reflect that sentiment.

 

 

 

PS - Kasavin is an ass, I agree with Bling. He shafts games just to get bad PR and he's been doing it for years.