Missing the Point

Its such a shame that in this day and age that you have to write an article like this to justify yourself for writing honest reviews. But I guess thats what the internet has given us, a way of anonymously abusing others and never having to face the consequence of getting a crack in the teeth.

One of the problems I have faced in the past is writing constuctive comments or legitimate questions on forums that get lost in the tirade of abusive comments, because the reviewer seems to thrive on the negative comments and is too busy arguing with the abusive idiots.

I have tried to write a few reviews myself so can fully appreciate the difficulties that reviewers go through to write down why you like or dislike a game when you just can't put your finger on why you like/dislike it.

For me, metacritc and gamerankings.com are invaluable for catalouguing review score. But instead of looking for high scores, or to justify a purchase, I actually look out the lowest scores and read the reviews. I do this because I get alot more from an overly critical review than one that does nothing but gush over a game, and if I'm still excited about a title after reading all the negative points about it, then chances are its a game I will enjoy.

I do likewise, look at the lowest scores and see what is 'wrong' with them. However, negative as well as positive bias exists, so just take every review you read with a pinch of salt.

You list some reasons why people hate on reviews/reviewers, but there are some much more important elements as to why someone like me finds this topic infuriating.

The problem with most reviews is that, quite simply, they aren't being done properly. There are so many various ways a "reviewer" will review a game without actually realising what the main goal is - to give an informative, unbiased and helpful guide on whether a game is good or not.

Now, the most common type of reviewer is from the IGN school of reviewers - people who constantly look past massive flaws in a game and praise it for having elements that personally appeals to them (more often than not, shooting sh*t in the face). It is possible for games to overcome flaws to still be great, but when there are numerous and obvious flaws in design it needs to be highlighted and weighed against the game properly.

Of course, the worst type of reviewers are those that will ignore certain flaws in their best games, but yet will highlight those flaws in games they clearly dislike. Unfortunately, reviewers like that pretty much cover the majority of reviews I see listed on Metacritic and the like.

What's most damaging about inaccurate reviews though, is that they - I assume - have an impact on gaming development. If a reviewer is constantly overrating a game the developers will look at it and think that means that they have succeeded in making a fantastic game, when it is the opposite that is more likely true. Developers need to know where they're going wrong, else how do their games improve?

Also, by overrating games it harms the status of genuinely superb games, which should be regarded with the utmost honour. When I look at Metacritic's top rated games and see flawed games like Fallout 3, or BioShock actually ranking alongside genuinely excellent games like Half-Life 2 or Okami it makes me feel annoyed at the lack of professionalism these reviewers are supposed to display.

In essence, the points you make about "not caring" about fanboy wars are all well and good, but there's much more being damaged by bad reviewing, and that needs to be highlighted until a time when reviews can be more reliable and accurate.

I've only one consideration to make: a critic is more than an opinion.

Critic is a tool to knowledge, it’s a necessary step of dialectic confrontation. Opinions are not grounded like a critic must be. In example, criticize is essential to the constitution of the art; every work of art needs a interpretation to give life to its dormant content. But only a critic can surpass the interpretation and give the adequate valor to that work; also, it is the only path to make a work better.

A example of the difference is:
I think that alien’s are a poor subject because usually they are retreated as little slimy things (that’s a opinion). Crysis ruined its narrative by taking a simplistic turn, it’s an poor plot that puts aside complexities and resumes itself in the powerful (American) hero who salve’s the world from the evil and greedy villain (North-Korean) and some aliens that just showed up for you to shoot (that’s a simple critics).

So, game critics should not just play a lot, but equally read about ludology, game theory, art theory, narrative, semiology, etc. They should know the area which games step on and contribute with text that push the line… with that, maybe, we can dream in have very great games in a future.

Ps: sorry the bad English, I’m Brazilian.

I completely agree with you Mr Skerritt. I myself read game reviews (from various sites) not purely for the score but for every section and area a particular game encompasses. When i read a review i do take in everything the reviewer writes about; sound, graphics, controls, story (if relevant) and despite the score, i walk away with more of an educated view of the game i wish to purchase. I personally have my initial opinion of the game i'm about to purchase, sometimes i need a bit more of a heads up before i commit.

Reviews are what they are, opinions of the individual who's played the game in question, it can't get anymore simpler than that. For others to trash talk of other's opinions really does show the nature of their personality. I do believe too that if people were to disagree with reviews and are to discuss about it, people should at least have the decency to stop getting into trashy literary (or verbal) dog fights and simply be composed about it.

I really do commend you on the issue of this ongoing thing about console wars so to speak. I absolutely cringe whenever i've come across comments from "so called gamers" who smack talk other gamers. Everything from "halo is f-ing better than killzone", "ps3 kicks xbox's a**" etc. Sure there's different consoles and then there's console exclusive games, but why should that change people to resort to dropping a console company's support when they've been blessed with plenty other games too?

It begs the question too, "why do people play/purchase video games then?". Is it purely because they want to be the best online so they can brag to the entire online gaming world? Is it because they just want to show off how many console exclusive games their preferred console has? Seems like the individuals who give "gamers" a bad name have an ego problem.

I love all systems, i love all types of games. Heck, reviewing games for a living would be my dream job. I play games because i enjoy what the game itself is trying to portray. Sure, a game may have clunky controls, the graphics may not necessarily be visually orgasmic and the voice acting may leave much to be desired but if you let all those blind you to what the game is really trying to sell, then you might not be able to see what you really paid for.

It really is a shame that just those few individuals (of all aspects of occupations and contributions) who rely on ego boosts tend to put genuine gamers in a bad light. There are many games out there that cater/suit to different people so why should that be anything that would warrant abuse and redicule just because it's "different" to yours? I say more "F..K.. in my coffee"!

Thanks to all of you for reading and commenting on this piece.

I do want to touch on a common theme that Crofto and Aron put out there, and that's about objectivity in reviews.

Simply put: There's no such thing as a completely objective review. Reviews always have and continue to be points of realistic debate. Saying that Tetris is a good game is opinion, not fact. The trick is to back up that opinion with factual evidence in order to support the opinion. It's up to each individual reader to determine whether the reviewer has made a solid and convincing case.

I'll agree with Crofto that there are some inflated scores out there. Video game reviewing is, indeed, an inexact and inconsistent science. What we should be doing, as consumers, is using reviews as guidelines in helping us make good buying decisions. Read a decent sampling of reviews on both the high and low ends of Metacritic's scoring spectrum and you'll inevitably come across a game's true worth.

Yes, game reviews are as you put. But the fundation of my point (opinions are simplier than critics) goes deeper than that: its all about the ancient tension between subjectivity and objectivity.

Is commonly thought that the science supported by math, empiric observation (sensitive), or that our machines can perceive (like a telescope, or X-ray, etc.) is exact, is unquestionable. As for the sciences supported by arguments, logic and history, they are inexact and full of unsolved questions.

That's a faith of Enlightenment, defended since Descartes phylosophy, passing through Hume and Kant. I could easily speak of this subject for hours, to show how thin the line between the sciences are (and, in deep, they are all speeches of forms of human knowledge).

So, to finish, what I defend is that game critics should be more that opinions. Game critics should study games, to contribuate to the language (virtual games) and to its development (in order to improve).

That's where I desagree with you. There are moments of opinion on critics? Always. But, in general, they must be more than just opinions.

I agree 100% that criticism is the balance between subjectivity and objectivity and I think that's what Peter is getting at when he says that critics have to make a solid and convincing case to backup their opinions for the criticism to be of any value. But in the end, aren't they still opinions? If they should be more than opinions as you say, what would you call that?

If critics write a review giving "more than opinions" then we would end up having 50-60 reviews that are all based on the same robotic scoring system and all written in the same way. At the end of the day all gamers perceive games in a different way which is why we have such a diverse choice of games to buy. As such we need a variation of opinions.
A good example of this is Chi's recent trip to see THQ's new UFC game. After listening to the podcast its obvious that there is a passion for MMA and enjoyment of the game and although I respect the opinion, I will never buy the game because I just don't have any interest in it. Does this make his opinion wrong? Of course not, just because its of a different opinion than mine does not make it incorrect.

My other problem is Metacritic. Not being a fan of the site (I prefer looking at gamerankings.com) I don't know much about the scoring system. But looking at the top rated movies recently the have Superman 2 as the 2nd best film ever with an average score of 99%. This score is made up from the following scores:- 100, 100, 100, 100, 90, 88, 88. Which is an average of 95.14%.
The other thing I learned is that in cases where a critic has not given a score, they make one up themselves based on the opinions of the review. So why is it that people get so caught up in Metacritics average scores when they dont add up are are not always the score given by a critic?