Game Reviews: Useless, or just stupid?

[Chovexani]

I got to talking with some nerds earlier about game reviews and the general consensus was that they were useless AND stupid. I think most reviewers can't really be trusted because the game industry is so incestuous. Magazines/websites are such an integral part of the hype machine surrounding so many games that it is hard to take them seriously when they decry a particular game as overrated when it finally comes out (MGS 2, I'm looking at you.). Hell, most of the "news" sections on a lot of gaming sites are basically just regurgitated press releases from developers' PR departments.

For instance, IGN (a site I really, really hate) recently posted a review of Killzone that got the writer truckloads of hatemail from knuckledragging 13 yr old fanboys accusing him of being an X-Box and/or Halo whore because he gave the game a 7.5 instead of a 10. The thing is, while I agree with the gist of the review, I did think he was being a bit of a hypocrite when he noted that the intense amount of hype surrounding the game lead to unrealistic expectations. I mean, his bosses were some of the people pimping it so bad.

Among RPG fans I see way too much emphasis put on how high a score a particular game gets in Famitsu. If their particular pet game gets less than a perfect score they will whine and cry about it on boards for weeks.

Reviews do serve a purpose sometimes, I think. If a game is universally panned by the critics it will make me think twice about picking it up. OTOH, there are quite a few games that I picked up and enjoyed despite popular opinion (recently, Castlevania: Lament of Innocence). On the whole I think people place far too much weight on reviews.

[DrWeird]

1. I used to read Electronic Gaming Monthly a lot.

Generally, they were pretty accurate. If they said a game sucks, they were usually right. If they said it rocks, they were usually right. Like with any reviews, like movie reviews, there's always differences of opinion.

[NuttyFluffers]

2. useful, but you have to pick your sources. just like all of life.

would you believe one person 100% if they told you something and then ignore the rest of the world? no.

would you listen to someone who vastly differs from your sense of taste? no.

would you respect the opinion of someone who knows nothing about a particular subject, but is forced anyways to write about it? no.

so how can all criticism and opinion be viewed the same? only if they are viewed equally the same in value can they deserve the equally blanketed condemnation of being worthless. all critics and their critiques are not the same. that's where an active reader with good critical thinking comes in.

sure, some of it is slag propaganda. i don't like it, i don't relegate their opinions with much importance, and i don't encourage advertisers to taint reviewers. it's bad for the whole process. but does that mean the very nature of the process is inherently flawed just because it got tainted along the way?

we need better readers/thinkers in the community -- too often nuance blows past them and everything is responded to in a violent gut reaction. funny, but so often now that it is starting to be a problem. how can we communicate if we are saturated with people who can only express themselves in extremes and hyperbole? where's dialogue if there's no perspective? where's critical thinking when there's only fanaticism? it's a community problem that needs to be addressed. (and for the love of god people this isn't a "video games leads to violence!" comment -- grow up if that's all you could read from this!)

also we also need to discourage the hype, gossip, and ad department from mingling with the review department. you are quite right, how can you hold trust with someone when the analysts have been tampered with. a similar problem faced the technology stock market during our recent "dot.com" bubble. such erasing of borders shouldn't be encouraged. without trust and faith in an untampered pool of reviewers we are left with nothing.

also we need to learn to deal with subjectivity, which relates to the communities' problem with critical thinking. too often people complain about bias and are trying to find this ideal extreme of "objectivity." we're humans, we can *never* be wholly objective, get over it, learn to grow a spine and deal with personal tastes that differ from yours. there's far too much overemphasis on specs and lack of qualitative analysis on art when we deprive ourselves the power to criticize and express our personal tastes. it will only make the market worse if we ignore this. we also need to be educated as consumers of art/entertainment that there are words to use to discuss aesthetic ideas and a historical record/tradition to compare and contrast with. essentially, cultured consumers educated in video games.

[Chovexani]

7. I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

This is a big reason why I miss the old GIA site. Their reviews were pretty much the only ones I cared about because they approached them with intelligence, and the mission statement of the site as a whole (even if it was never stated explicitly) was to elevate the discussion about games and gaming in general.

You made an excellent point about nuance. This is part of why I found the reaction to IGN's Killzone review so funny. They gave it a 7.5, which is still a very respectable rating. It's not like they gave it a 1 or anything. But anything less than a 10 was seen as unacceptable to them. It's what I like to call the fanboy mentality; go on any site that accepts user-reviews of games (Gamespot, Gamefaqs, etc.) and upwards of 90% of the ratings are at either extreme: 10s, or 1s. For the same game. If no numerical value is attached to the review it falls in to the "sucks" or "rocks" categories.

For instance, the Tomb Raider sequels got lukewarm and sometimes outright hostile reviews from a lot of people, and probably the number one reason was because they were seen as being too formulaic (I include in this complaints about the game "engine" being outdated). As a Tomb Raider fan, this didn't bother me...I LIKED the formula. So I took the complaints in stride and just enjoyed the games (well, except Angel of Darkness...what a wasted opportunity that one was). OTOH, I hate the Dragon Quest games because they are forumlaic and boring. Go figure. "Formulaic" in that case is a bad thing, because I don't like that particular formula. Lots of people do, more power to them. No one can be perfectly objective about everything; when I "review" games on my LJ, they are not so much reviews, but stream-of-consciousness type of things. I don't even pretend to be objective about, say, Final Fantasy. I don't think objectivity among reviewers is the problem so much as transparency is. If someone doesn't like a particular genre and is forced to review a game from that genre, I think he/she owes the reader a bit of disclosure up front so they can contextualize the review better. Not that you can't do that without disclosure; I've read enough RPG reviews (particularly reviews of Japanese RPGs) in my time to know when I can merely take one with a huge grain of salt, or just dismiss it out of hand. (Clue #1 is when they complain about there being "too much talking" in the game).

I think gaming journalism as a whole is in trouble, and the problems with game reviews are just symptomatic of a deeper problem. This is a really phenomenal roundtable discussion that pretty much goes into a lot of what we've been talking about.

What really bothers me though is the scary number of people who won't even try a game because "so-and-so said it sucked". It's almost as if we've forgotten that, well, the whole point of this hobby is to have fun. People really do lack critical thinking skills; it seems that with certain games, once the talking points are out there, that's it. That's why I played Xenogears in its entirety at least one time despite having misgivings about it. Too often I find myself arguing with people who can't debate the merits of a particular game beyond the popular talking points (Final Fantasy 8, anyone? "Squall's an asshole." "Did you play through to Disc 3?" "Uh, no." "Come back after you have, and then tell me he's an asshole.").

[NEOBuckeye]

3. I don't really care about reviews. I skim over them for entertainment.

Often after I've already purchased a game and played pretty well into it, I'll actually read a few, like in EGM and some of the fan-operated webzines like RPGFan. But I rarely base any meaningful decision upon them (that's where previews and word of mouth come in for me). And I usually have more important things to worry about than whether or not Final Fantasy XII scored a perfect 40 in Famitsu. As if a lesser score would somehow stop me from picking it up and enjoying the game. Does a few points really make that much of a difference in inflated scoring?

[Khephra]

4. Reviews are often quite helpful for me

For one thing, I refuse to play PC games with save points. You won't often find out about features like that until a game is reviewed.

[realisticphish]

18. played halo2 yet?

try it on legendary, without saving :evilgrin:

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[0rganism]

5. User reviews can be *very* useful

Several sites, e.g. gamefaqs.com, have excellent open user review sections. If I'm considering getting a game, I'll head right over there and see if others think it's worth the time and money. Not only can one often tell what the prevailing opinion is, but what sorts of folk enjoyed or disliked the games -- at least insofar as personality is conveyed through writing. The obvious idiots will give themselves away with their crappy prose.

That said, reviews tend to follow an inverse bell curve distribution. People seem more inclined to write unsolicited reviews for games they really liked or really hated, but the middle ground is a bit harder to sample.

I would be intrinsically distrustful of any industry-organ reviews, as there is a definite conflict of interest in reviewing products from companies who advertise with those same magazines and websites and television channels.

[Forkboy]

6. I have mixed feelings on reviews for anything

For me to trust a review I have to trust the reviewer first.With music there's only two people whose opinion seems to jibe with mine (both in the magazine Terrorizer...I listen to strange stuff :) ).So when I see those two praise something or rip into something I can get a good sense of where they're coming from.With games it's the same thing,and right now I dont buy any game mags or really even visit game sites anymore,so there's no reviewers I listen to for games.I'd trust reviews from people here because with us there's an idea of what you prefer that I can draw on.

Someone who hates strategy games trashing a strategy game doesn't really help me.It's like me reviewing a Myst style game...I hate them so why would anyone take my review of them seriously? :)

[NewHampshireDem]

8. I like GameSpot's reviews ...

they post their own, along with a rating on a 10-point scale, which also gives information about the average reader's review rating as well. I generally find their reviews to be useful (because of information that Khepra pointed out) and generally avoid a game they give a low score to.

[ibegurpard]

9. I usually like their reviews as well

Although sometimes I wonder how thoroughly they've played some of them. They gave a great review to SimCity 4 that, in my opinion, wasn't deserved because of lots of problems with the game that weren't fixed until several patches game out.
I just decided to buy World of Warcraft because of their review even though I tend to not like MMORPGs.

As for Gamespot in general, I have found that now that they are a semi-premium site, they seem to have LESS updates and content (at least in terms of information) than they did when they were totally free. For that reason, I will never subscribe to them.

[NewHampshireDem]

10. They are actually the only on-line site I subscribe to except for DU

I'm not sure if their updates are just for the premium content, but IMHO they seem to have quite a bit. I get daily e-mails from them with new news, reviews, downloads. Of course, I don't visit many other game sites so I don't have a point of comparison. :shrug:

[ibegurpard]

11. My comparison is between how they USED to be

and how they are now that they charge for a lot of their content.

[NewHampshireDem]

12. Sorry ... I forgot your point when I was writing my post.

:)

I was a charter subscriber, so I never really noticed a difference, I guess.

[Khephra]

13. Gamespot is my favorite too

[DrGonzoLives]

14. I'll check out GameSpy

My number one problem with reviewers is that some of them will totally pan an otherwise good game simply because you can't play it online. Silly reason to shit on a game, in my opinion.

[TroubleMan]

15. Gamespot is okay, and the GameFAQs player reviews are okay

The thing about the GameFAQs reviews is that you have to read a low one, a medium one, and a high one. You can usually get a good feel for the game reading a few of those.

[slestak]

16. Rotten Tomatoes

Rotten Tomatoes has a game section on their site:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/games/

For those who don't know, RT is a site that gathers reviews from across the web, determines if they're good or bad, and presents a average rating that's measured on their "tomato-meter". It gives a percentage of good reviews too, so you can tell which games are overwhelmingly considered good, and which games are marginal.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

17. The big mags (CGW, PCG) are shameless whores pimped out by the industry.

The biggest case in point I can think of recently is Doom 3, pimped as badly as the Iraq invasion was by shrubco, and I'm not seeing any contrition from these folks as the crappiness of the game is apparent upon release.

Also, all Star Wars related games have gotten a zillion cover stories no matter how worthless making me think there's a lot of graft coming from LucasArts their way.

I still get the mags sometimes for tech/hardware articles but I really should stop subsidizing them at all since I think they are wholly owned by the industry.