Game criticism needs a great big slap in the face (and is holding back our medium to a degree)

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

An 8/10 SHOULD be a great rating. Not an "ok" rating. But a great rating. A game with a 6/10 should be, perhaps, an average game or a game with some major flaws. A game that scores a perfect 10/10 better damned well give me goosebumps in the way the first Baldur's Gate did with its dialog, or Dragon Age I did with its sheer awesomeness, or Mass Effect for those who prefer that genre. (And I realize some people would disagree with me there.)

I'm playing Skyrim right now. I'd give it an 8/10, probably. It IS a great game but the computer interface feels like it was ported right over from a console game, which I hate; and the characters don't feel alive or interesting to me like ones from, say, Bioware games feel. It's just a big sandbox - which can be a lot of fun - but a perfect "10" sandbox game, to me, would have an interface I like using that feels like it was made for the PC; not a console... and it would include characters as diverse and as memorable as characters from the very best Bioware games.

The last game I would have given a 10 to that I played would be perhaps Dragon Age or The Witcher or Mass Effect 2 - and I realize some people would disagree with me on that.

I obviously agree. I don't think it matters if people agree or disagree with what games you give 10/10 to unless you're just handing them out like candy. Where it matters is that the reader clearly knows that once you get into 9+ territory that the game for you has reached that "special" territory. There are very few games that I would give a 8.5/10 or higher. It's been a weekly event in the last month+ of games getting 9+/10s, that makes those scores seem commonplace instead of special. With movies, there are a few reviewers that I've found really have similar tastes as I do and when they really praise a movie, it definitely means it's a movie I should definitely check out because I'll probably love it as well. I don't have any game reviewer that I follow because game reviewers don't have specific tastes for the most part, almost every game gets very similar scores from just about everyone, game reviewers have no individuality. Jim Sterling is one of the very few that do but his tastes don't match up enough with mine that I take his word on games.

 

[The Gnome King]

I obviously agree. I don't think it matters if people agree or disagree with what games you give 10/10 to unless you're just handing them out like candy. Where it matters is that the reader clearly knows that once you get into 9+ territory that the game for you has reached that "special" territory. There are very few games that I would give a 8.5/10 or higher. It's been a weekly event in the last month+ of games getting 9+/10s, that makes those scores seem commonplace instead of special.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. People give out perfect ratings for games like candy now; all I want are individual reviews with different opinions. Hell, I would have given Dragon Age 2 a decent rating because I honestly liked the game; but I would expect many people wouldn't.

I also loved The Witcher and there is perhaps a better example - I'd give it a 9 or even 10 out of 10 but I'd expect a lot of different opinions on that. If you give a game a 9 or 10 out of 10 let me know why it reached that "special" territory for you, that "now THIS is why I game!" spot.

 

[veloper]

There can be alot said about the lack of professionalism and integrity in game reviews, but attacking the scoring system itself makes no sense.

All there is to the system, is knowing what the scores represent.

A logarithmic scale or [0; pi] or [-3.3; 2345.9] to would be just as valid as the scales in use now, if less intuitive.

So nowadays the big online gaming mags grade something like this:
0 to 6 mean varying degrees of crap, all not worth your time.
7 = mediocre/average
8 = above average
9 = good
10 = great

You can disagree with a reviewer on a game being crap or not, or one game being worse than another, but redefining their scale is pointless.

I don't understand why half of the scale should be wasted on bad games. With a scale like that, reviewers have the ability to actually differentiate the bad games more than the good games.

I suppose it could make sense in that there is alot of difference between Big Rigs-bad and a poor-but-points-for-effort project, such as Elemental.

There's so many ways to make a game fail and some games fail in more areas than other bad games.

In any case it's not a problem, because most mags use decimals, so a reviewer can still grade all above average games with enough steps between.

No other medium uses a scale like that. Are you trying to say that literature, movie, music, etc. review scales that have been around much longer are basically wrong and the gaming scale is right?

I'm saying BOTH scales are right.

The only way to get it wrong, is to mix them up.

One could end up wasting money on crap if you're going to say "5/10 should mean average in MY book, so a game with a 50% metacritic is by all means an average game."

Or coming from the other direction, a reviewer like Jim Sterling gets alot of crap from readers who don't realise Jim's scale doesn't correspond with the common inflated scale.

Neither Jim or the guys at metacritic use wrong scales. They can pick whatever scale they want. Only the readers can be wrong.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I honestly believe that reviews should be more about the content of a game rather than its brand or association with other titles. A reviewer should play the game, analyze all the parts of a game in a particular genre, explain the good and bad fundamentals, note any issues or features that standout, and give their opinion as to whether: a) if someone who enjoys playing video games would like this game, and b)if someone who enjoys playing this type of genre, series, title, etc. would enjoy this game.

It's as simple as that. Whether the reviewer likes the title or found it enjoyable is completely subjective. Some gamers will like bad or broken titles, and some will hate the latest AAA titles, but they cannot deny the fact that some titles are indeed bad or broken, and that some AAA titles sell well for a reason.

 

[AD-Stu]

In the 1st game, Sovereign could've made Saren just waltz in and activate the Citadel. This could be explained in the 3rd game, but I really see no reason for the Reapers needing to make that human reaper in the 2nd game. I figured when I was playing, it was so a Reaper could then be there quite a bit before the rest of the Reapers got there. But with the Arrival DLC, the rest of the Reapers were real close and there was really no point in even trying to make that human reaper, and that really only allowed access to Reaper technology and a possible means to defeat the Reapers if you ask me.

Sorry but I linked to the wrong thread as I searched the game forum. The thread I did read through and I agreed with a few of the plot issues is this thread (which was in the review forum actually instead the game forum):
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.274711-Mass-Effect-2-Arrival-DLC-contains-spoilers#10635053

I don't have huge issues with Mass Effect like I do Bioshock but the plot could definitely be tighter.

*shrugs*

The reality is you can nitpick holes in pretty much any movie, book or game if you're so inclined, even the really good ones - I can come up with a bunch for Mass Effect alone off the top of my head, and not ones that have been mentioned in either of the quoted threads. But that's beside the point, because it's successful suspension of disbelief that should be the measuring stick, IMO. On that count, I think most people would agree that Mass Effect did a better job than most.

 

[TheCowman]

In the 1st game, Sovereign could've made Saren just waltz in and activate the Citadel.

I've heard this argument more than once in discussions about Mass Effect, and I've always found it to be a rather silly idea. Sure, Spectres have near autonomy, but they still answer to the Council. In order to fix the problem with the Citadel, Sovereign has to dock with it and do it himself.

So, the idea is that Saren walks in to the main Council meeting area, and;

Council: "Saren, you seem to be activating some sort of control system that nobody knew even existed before."

Saren: "Yeah, yeah. Don't worry about it. Oh, and that huge ship that's unlike anything anyone's ever seen? Yeah, I'm gonna need you to drop the defenses and let it dock and have full access to all the Citadel's most vital systems."

Council: "Guards; shoot Saren. Citadel control; close the station's arms."

Sovereign: "Well poo."

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The reality is you can nitpick holes in pretty much any movie, book or game if you're so inclined, even the really good ones - I can come up with a bunch for Mass Effect alone off the top of my head, and not ones that have been mentioned in either of the quoted threads. But that's beside the point, because it's successful suspension of disbelief that should be the measuring stick, IMO. On that count, I think most people would agree that Mass Effect did a better job than most.

I don't go looking for plot holes, but if I notice them, then my "suspension of disbelief" has been compromised. Bioshock had huge issues that I noticed 5 minutes after the twist. I saw a bunch of Heavy Rain plot hole threads but I didn't go into those threads looking for plot holes because I didn't notice anything playing the game myself. I went into that Mass Effect thread because I noticed a plot issue with the Arrival storyline, not to go looking for stuff.

In the 1st game, Sovereign could've made Saren just waltz in and activate the Citadel.

I've heard this argument more than once in discussions about Mass Effect, and I've always found it to be a rather silly idea. Sure, Spectres have near autonomy, but they still answer to the Council. In order to fix the problem with the Citadel, Sovereign has to dock with it and do it himself.

So, the idea is that Saren walks in to the main Council meeting area, and;

Council: "Saren, you seem to be activating some sort of control system that nobody knew even existed before."

Saren: "Yeah, yeah. Don't worry about it. Oh, and that huge ship that's unlike anything anyone's ever seen? Yeah, I'm gonna need you to drop the defenses and let it dock and have full access to all the Citadel's most vital systems."

Council: "Guards; shoot Saren. Citadel control; close the station's arms."

Sovereign: "Well poo."

I really didn't catch the Saren thing, but I went into that thread because I had issue with the Arrival story parts; about the human reaper being made, which doesn't make sense to me.

 

[TheCowman]

I really didn't catch the Saren thing, but I went into that thread because I had issue with the Arrival story parts; about the human reaper being made, which doesn't make sense to me.

Well, admittedly I haven't read through all the codex entries, but from what I understood, it was something like this:


Reapers are chilling in Dark Space waiting for Sovereign to get the Citadel working again. Sovereign screws the pooch, so the rest of the Reapers have to think of something else.

So they dial up their Collector drones. Now apparently, Reapers use the genetic material from previous races they've destroyed/idoctrinated to reproduce. And since a human was instrumental in pooing all over their routine, they instruct the Collectors to use humans to make a new Reaper, presumably to try and get the rest of them back from Dark Space.

EDI postulates that the genetic material used to create a Reaper effects it's appearance. Of course, most of the Reapers looked pretty much like lobsters or ticks. Why this is, I'm not sure. Maybe they don't really have to make Reapers that often, so most of them are from one stock of genetic material?

Nothing seemed to stick out as a major plot hole, but then, I'm a bit easier going than some on those kinda things. I don't know whether that's a good thing or not, but it's worked for me so far.

 

[AD-Stu]

I don't go looking for plot holes, but if I notice them, then my "suspension of disbelief" has been compromised. Bioshock had huge issues that I noticed 5 minutes after the twist. I saw a bunch of Heavy Rain plot hole threads but I didn't go into those threads looking for plot holes because I didn't notice anything playing the game myself. I went into that Mass Effect thread because I noticed a plot issue with the Arrival storyline, not to go looking for stuff.

*shrugs again*

While I'm happy to nerd up and talk about Mass Effect canon all day if you're so inclined, I'm not really sure how this addresses the original topic.

So back to it: do you have reason to believe that critics are deliberately overlooking massive plot holes in games when they review them, and that this is a major contributing factor in games getting much higher average scores than other forms of media? Personally I've never really noticed it being an issue: for some games it's a non-issue since story was never the point to begin with, and I've read / seen plenty of other reviews that call out a story for being stupid or having holes when it's applicable.

I can't help but think this isn't the root of the problem, or even really part of the problem at all...

 

[The Wooster]

Op, you appear to believe that review scores are an objective, mathematical measure of a game's absolute quality. Review scores, outside of the context of the individual reviewer, mean absolutely fucking squat. And you dismissing the entirety of video game journalism because of them is absurd.

 

[Mr.Lucifer]

To be fair, most movies are are given scores that are higher then what they really deserve.

 

[Saltyk]

I think they just need to use the full review scale. The whole thing. Also, stop the stupid X.Y scores. Can anyone tell me the difference between a 9.1 and a 9.2 score? Or even an 8.8 and a 9.3? No? Didn't think so.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

So back to it: do you have reason to believe that critics are deliberately overlooking massive plot holes in games when they review them, and that this is a major contributing factor in games getting much higher average scores than other forms of media? Personally I've never really noticed it being an issue: for some games it's a non-issue since story was never the point to begin with, and I've read / seen plenty of other reviews that call out a story for being stupid or having holes when it's applicable.

I can't help but think this isn't the root of the problem, or even really part of the problem at all...

Barely any reviews knock points off for bad writing, and then Bioshock is kinda put on a pedestal for how games should tell stories and that games can have good stories. I'm sorry, but I don't think every reviewer could've missed the massive plot holes in Bioshock.

Op, you appear to believe that review scores are an objective, mathematical measure of a game's absolute quality. Review scores, outside of the context of the individual reviewer, mean absolutely fucking squat. And you dismissing the entirety of video game journalism because of them is absurd.

One of my points is that it seems game reviews aren't subjective. You go to Gamespot, IGN, GameTrailers, etc. and pretty much every game is rated within a 0.5 range; IGN will give the game a 9.5, Gamespot 9.0, GameTrailers 9.2 or something along those lines. WHERE IS THE SUBJECTIVITY? That's what I'm asking for. Jim Sterling is one of very few reviewers that gives you subjectivity is his reviews, I don't always agree with him (and that's perfectly fine) but his reviews are opinionated; if he gives a game an 8.5+, you know he really fucking loved it. That is all I want.

Just look at the Final Fantasy XIII reviews [http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/final-fantasy-xiii/critic-reviews]; 73 positive reviews, only 9 mixed reviews, and 1 negative review. Final Fantasy XIII is the type of game that should have a lot of different scores as it's a love/hate type of game. Not only will some reviewers not like the story and characters, the game features lots of controversial design and gameplay choices. Final Fantasy XIII is a game that should've been reviewed all over the spectrum, the only thing that everyone agrees on is that it has great graphics and that's it.

And lastly, I never said I'm dismissing video game journalism as a whole.

 

[zehydra]

The reason the current scoring system is still in place and still be used is because it serves a function similar to language. It's not really used to objectively judge the game for the sake of judgement, as a proper scoring system would be, but rather it is used to communicate a score that ordinary people (non-critics) will be able to understand.

 

[AD-Stu]

So back to it: do you have reason to believe that critics are deliberately overlooking massive plot holes in games when they review them, and that this is a major contributing factor in games getting much higher average scores than other forms of media? Personally I've never really noticed it being an issue: for some games it's a non-issue since story was never the point to begin with, and I've read / seen plenty of other reviews that call out a story for being stupid or having holes when it's applicable.

I can't help but think this isn't the root of the problem, or even really part of the problem at all...

Barely any reviews knock points off for bad writing, and then Bioshock is kinda put on a pedestal for how games should tell stories and that games can have good stories. I'm sorry, but I don't think every reviewer could've missed the massive plot holes in Bioshock.

I have to admit to never having finished Bioshock (I'm not a huge FPS fan, and once I got over how pretty the game was I found it kinda boring) so I'm not really up on its plot holes. And having just done a quick search for some reviews of the game it's true, pretty much every reviewer has praised its writing without mentioning any plot holes.

If these holes indeed exist it's quite possible the reviewers avoided mentioning them because it would have introduced spoilers to the review... but let's ignore that point and move onto the more important one, which is this: plot holes don't happen in a vacuum.

Even if these reviewers had taken the plot holes into consideration in their score (not all of the reviews even gave a score, BTW) I doubt it would have affected it much because the plot was actually a pretty minor point in each review: a lot more time was spent talking about the gameplay, visual design, sound design and atmosphere: none of which are really affected by the plot. Even if the plot did have gigantic gaping holes in it, it still would have had excellent visuals and sound, atmosphere and everything else to prop up its score.

A plot hole in a movie or a book is a big deal because movies and books have a lot less variables: they're linear, passive experiences. Games have a lot more facets that need to be reviewed.

Anywho, my point: I don't disagree with the point that there's something wrong in an industry where even mediocre game scores highly and people think eight or nine out of ten is a "low" score. I just don't think a lack of emphasis on plot holes in reviews is anything other than a minor side issue.

 

[Bostur]

Op, you appear to believe that review scores are an objective, mathematical measure of a game's absolute quality. Review scores, outside of the context of the individual reviewer, mean absolutely fucking squat. And you dismissing the entirety of video game journalism because of them is absurd.

I think review scores work well outside the gaming press. Traditional media are able to use them to good effect, and independent game reviewers are able to put scores to good use as well.
When a movie in my local newspaper gets 3/5 stars I know exactly what to expect, a good movie that isn't spectacular in any way. And when they review games the score is just as descriptive.
In the gaming press a game like that would get at least 8/10, that leaves very little room for the truly extraordinary or the extremely well polished.

The uselessnes of review scores in the gaming press is a symptom of lack of criticism in general. It's not a flaw with the scoring system. Very few reviews focus on the technicalities of the games, but mainly focus on first impressions. Part of the problem may be that professional reviewers don't have enough time to review a game, it does take a while to get enough feeling for a game to give it a proper review.

Scores aren't needed and they are not accurate. But they are still a useful metric and often close to the general impression of the written review. When the scores are off the mark, its usually because the written review is as well.

Mainstream games don't experiment much, so there really isn't that much room for subjectiveness. It has become a poor excuse in the mainstream gaming media more than anything else.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I have to admit to never having finished Bioshock (I'm not a huge FPS fan, and once I got over how pretty the game was I found it kinda boring) so I'm not really up on its plot holes. And having just done a quick search for some reviews of the game it's true, pretty much every reviewer has praised its writing without mentioning any plot holes.

If these holes indeed exist it's quite possible the reviewers avoided mentioning them because it would have introduced spoilers to the review... but let's ignore that point and move onto the more important one, which is this: plot holes don't happen in a vacuum.

Even if these reviewers had taken the plot holes into consideration in their score (not all of the reviews even gave a score, BTW) I doubt it would have affected it much because the plot was actually a pretty minor point in each review: a lot more time was spent talking about the gameplay, visual design, sound design and atmosphere: none of which are really affected by the plot. Even if the plot did have gigantic gaping holes in it, it still would have had excellent visuals and sound, atmosphere and everything else to prop up its score.

A plot hole in a movie or a book is a big deal because movies and books have a lot less variables: they're linear, passive experiences. Games have a lot more facets that need to be reviewed.

Anywho, my point: I don't disagree with the point that there's something wrong in an industry where even mediocre game scores highly and people think eight or nine out of ten is a "low" score. I just don't think a lack of emphasis on plot holes in reviews is anything other than a minor side issue.

I'm not merely talking about plot holes only, just writing in general. There are lots of games that try for good stories and characters (like RPGs), and if the story and characters are weak, then that really hurts the game in my opinion. Bioshock was trying to be much deeper than most games with the heavy references to Objectivism and the story was one of the main reasons to keep you playing, to find out the mysteries it established. Bioshock was kinda like a movie or TV show that had built up interesting mysteries but then those answers ended up being very disappointing. Then, you kind of feel like you wasted your time getting invested into the movie, TV show, game, etc.

I realize games have gameplay to make up for disappointing stories, and I wouldn't say the bad writing makes Bioshock a bad game, but it does make Bioshock not quite as good as it could've been. I'd rate Bioshock somewhere around the 6-7/10 area, and if the story delivered, I would've gave it an 8-8.5/10. Now if Bioshock was a movie, I would've have given it like a 3-4/10 because of the bad writing. Of course, a game like Call of Duty would take much less of a hit if the writing is bad as half (probably more than half) of the game is about the multiplayer, nor does the writing carry the campaign either, it's about keeping a great pace with a bunch of set-pieces.

And, you're right Bioshock does get kinda boring in the middle sections because the gameplay isn't that great (it's good and solid) and the game sends you on these quests that take you off the main story path to do these side things that could've easily been left out. The Sandra Cohen side quest is when the game picks up again because Sandra Cohen was an interesting character and the stuff you do is interesting. Bioshock does builds up some great atmosphere no doubt, but a few hours in and it kinda gives up on that. The game starts with a kind of a horror feel to it with the ghosts, that one part where the lights go out and splicers converge on you, and many other things like that. Then, the game totally gives up on trying to scare you or make you feel uneasy until the Sandra Cohen section. It took me 3 years of off and on playing to finally get through Bioshock.

 

[AD-Stu]

So... Bioshock should be marked down because it tried to have an excellent story and maybe fell a little short, but Call of Duty gets to keep its higher score because it never really tried to have a story in the first place? Ouch.

Here's the simple reality: there will never be a standard formula for reviewing and scoring video games. Reviewers will continue to give pretty much every game 8/10 regardless of plot issues and award meaningless scores like 6/5, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Instead, it's up to us as consumers to learn for ourselves to read between the lines of reviews, and decide for ourselves which reviewers we can trust and which we can't. At the end of the day, what does it matter if the number at the end of a review is a four or an eight, if we come away knowing what we need to know about a game?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

So... Bioshock should be marked down because it tried to have an excellent story and maybe fell a little short, but Call of Duty gets to keep its higher score because it never really tried to have a story in the first place? Ouch.

I don't see what's wrong with that. If you are going to see a action movie (like The Transporter or a martial arts movie), what you mainly want is good action and a decent enough plot to carry the action, that's all. With a thriller about a murder mystery, you are going in expecting a well written plot with maybe a good twist or two and some good characters. If you get a weak plot with obvious twists, then the movie is not much of a thriller now is it. Just like you're not going to mark down a funny comedy much for having poor dramatic scenes because it's not trying to be a drama.