Five Problems with Game Journalism, Solved
Recently Firing Squad’s Alan Dang took the time to write an article on five problems he sees with video game journalism. This article struck home with me because many of the points Alan makes are the very same reasons Seth originally started The Game Chair.
I agree with most of the five points in Alan’s article with the exception of innovation bias. Alan postulates here that reviewers place exceptional value on innovation simply because we play so many games and are easily bored by repetition. I agree that we do write about games differently after having played every other game in the series, or even having played a few games in the genre. However, this is not a bad thing. I doubt that a movie or book critic is hired by a newspaper or other publication without having watched or read many works in each genre. I also feel that one of the most important aspects of game journalism is knowing what has come before. If I can insightfully compare and contrast between Project Gotham Racing 3 and Mario Kart DS in an article it’s going to add a lot of useful perspective for the reader. Ditto for contrasting between DOA3 on the Xbox and DOA4 on the 360.
I’d also like to wholeheartedly agree with Alan’s second and third points on playing through a game too quickly and rushing out the final copy of the review. However, Alan, there is an easy solution for this. Quit playing through the games so fast. You can still get an article out on release day for the fan-boys, but don’t let that be the final word on the game. Write two or even three follow-ups, so your audience can see how your feelings evolve as you play through the game. For instance, there is a big difference between a game like Starcraft, which I still play regularly, and a game like God of War, which I played through twice. Both are excellent titles, but a longer form review process would bring out the differences in the extended value between the two games. I never understood the similarities between movie reviews and game reviews with respect to length. A single game is an endeavor you could easily spend 100+ hours on. I can’t think of any movies that offer that kind of replay value.
Right here at The Game Chair, we are actively combating most of the issues mentioned by Alan’s article, and we’re not the only ones. Progressive game journalism sites are sprouting up all over the net. I’d venture to guess that this has something to do with the aging gamers out there who are starting to take their childhood hobby more seriously, even expecting it to grow up with them. So do not fear if the major review sites aren’t giving you the kind of coverage you’d like. Thoughtful, relaxed, and progressive game coverage is the new black.
none
27. January 2006 at 20:42
The problems Alan raises are all fair points. I’m down to buying very few games at all these days, because I simply can’t afford the cost. If a game comes to you for free, you tend to be less forgiving of any flaws (well, I certainly do!) than if you’ve paid top price for it (SW:KotorII is the last time I preorder ANY PC game - a year on from release and it’s as good as abandonware). I think the traditional way of reviewing games has been flawed for a long time, because there are some games that get better (or worse) the more you play them - how can a game be at all evaluated when it’s been played for the fraction of the time a normal person might play it? The idea of a progressive review at least gives the reviewer time to really get to grips with a game, but really, it’s only a practical idea on the web, rather than in print. People want a game scored and rated as soon as it’s available to buy, which is understandable of course, but this is what leads to the majority of the problems Alan mentions.
28. January 2006 at 01:33
I think there’s a growing number of people that don’t pick up games as soon as they’re released, anyway. There’s enough games now that you can afford to lag a year or two behind and keep plenty busy… and speaking of afford, you end up paying less than half the price. I caught a holiday sale at EB the other week and ended up with Prince of Persia 2, Shadow Hearts 2, Sphinx and the Cursed Mummy, and Driver 3 for about $30-$40 total, which are quality games at near-rental prices. Last week with no sale I picked up Myst IV for $20 and Dawn of War with Winter Assault for $40.
Personally, I’ve bought maybe one or two games within a month of their release in the past couple years. The ones I pick up immediately, I’ve either played in beta or are entries in a series I’ve been following forever (Suikoden, basically, is the only one now). Delayed reviews, as such, are perfect for me.
Print magazines… well, the news isn’t very timely, and they’re often scooped by the Internet, which can include streaming audio and video. Video game magazines are going to have to come up with some pretty compelling content to justify their existence, or else they’re going to go the way of the dodo.
28. January 2006 at 03:15
While I agree most of the points raised, I bristle a bit at the introductory stance that video game reviews aren’t measuring up to movie/music reviews (part of me wants to say that if music critics are doing such a great job of improving the quality of music, how did we wind up with a whole bunch of pre-packaged pop music at the top of the charts? ;)). I don’t think gaming has the expansive platform for & modes of reviewing (or the formalized discipline(s)) that books and movies do, which is why I think the whole idea that game reviews ought to be like book/movie reviews is a bit faulty. I think there’s a pretty clear chain of reviewing books/movies in a critical way (ie, being more than a “Here’s what it’s about, here’s what I liked and what I didn’t” type review - I mean offering a real critique of the subject): you have academic journals, you have “high brow” magazines/publications, you have well-respected newspapers and the like, then you get to really widely disseminated print forms (be they via internet or print or whatever). Going from narrowest audience to broadest, and generally most critical (has a thesis and is arguing something, often placing the work in a broader context of whatever is going on in X field at Y time period) to most general (thumbs up or thumbs down; wait for it to hit Netflix or go out and spend the cash to see it in theatres). Many of the great movie or book reviews I’ve read have been very light on the “here’s my general opinion of X” and VERY heavy on the academic side of things.
I always like to point towards the movie Hero for this - there was a firestorm that surrounded that movie that most of the viewing public was unaware of. I saw a lot of references to it in academic debate, a lot of references in “high brow” mags,etc., some references in good papers, and practically none in really popular media. Does the average person who picks up People magazine really care about whether or not the movie was an apologia for Mao? No. They want to know if it is a film that is worth shelling out money for in the theatres, or if they should wait til it comes out on DVD, or if they should bother seeing it at all. Just like the average person browsing for game reviews just wants a fairly general impression.
Does the average person perusing a game site really care about the Neitzchian origins of the Xenosaga series? I doubt it. They want to know if it’s something they want to drop $50 on, which is a pretty basic “want” out of a review. It’d make a fascinating article, but I’m not sure it’s appropriate for gaming reviews, considering the rather infantile state of the industry right now in comparison to books and film.
Gaming is a developing art form. It seems to be developing as a multi-discipline academic field, as well. However, we haven’t hit the point where the vast majority of people (hell, even a small minority) want the equivalent of serious book and film reviews. Obviously, I like the idea of a review being spaced out over a period of time (I wouldn’t be a part of TGC otherwise!), but I think there’s definitely an element of “I’m going down to the game store today, is this game worth buying or not?” that takes precedence over anything else when people are looking at reviews.
I have a feeling as the primary set of gamers ages & more people grow up with & continue gaming into adulthood, we’ll see more “mature” reviews. I just don’t think we’re there yet, and I’m not sure there’s even a demand for the equivalent of what *I’d* consider a true book or film “review.” I like the fact that there are sites popping up that give a more complete picture of the gaming experience, but we’re still not at the level of “serious” book & movie reviews. And I’m not sure we should be there right now.
28. January 2006 at 09:36
I don’t think the games exist to support “serious” review yet.
Even for entries in the Xeno series, which have attracted the most “serious” attention, I am not convinced that such depth exists. In Xenogears specifically, there are certainly obvious symbols and you could get into the portrayal of religion and such, but a huge part of the game’s “depth” was simply a heavily obfuscated plot littered with biblical names and references. If you drop enough names and references in 60+ hours, something’s going to stick.
I can envision successful reviews placing games within their contexts, examining them as part of larger trends within the industry, or picking out and expounding upon specific quirks vis-a-vis Japanese society. That takes someone pretty familiar with Japanese culture and willing to devote some time to it. It could be done with American games as well, but even fewer of them have innovations except in graphics and gameplay. I suppose you could discuss the art style in Max Payne or something, but that seems to be reaching.
Actually, hell, who am I kidding, you can conjure an academic paper out of anything. My point is that, for games to be a viable platform for “serious” academic discussion, they need to give back a bit. If the reviewer is providing 99% of the content of the review from their own experience and knowledge, was the game really necessary to the review? Serious discussion has to take place within the context of the game world, or the game needs to reference the outside knowledge meaningfully.
I don’t think you can have a working knowledge of Chinese history and miss the comparison between Hero’s emperor and Mao, or at least the Communist regime. I came out of the theater awed by its cinematography but questioning whether I’d just seen some pretty heavy government propaganda. As another example, I watched Angels With Dirty Faces last week, and left the movie wondering about the motivations of certain characters and whether that even mattered for their redemption, among other things.
I’ve yet to experience a game where, as the credits roll, I was left thinking about anything beyond a cliffhanger, a plot point I missed, or what’s for dinner. And it’s not entirely from lack of looking.
28. January 2006 at 11:45
Sage, given your comments. I’d be curious what you think of our Progressive Review structure that Jake referenced in his story. Send me a note at thechairman -at - thegamechair.com.
28. January 2006 at 13:22
“I don’t think you can have a working knowledge of Chinese history and miss the comparison between Hero’s emperor and Mao”
You’d be astonished how many people don’t even have a basic working knowledge of Chinese history. ;) I agree with you that the types of games that would support serious academic conversation aren’t really extant, depending on what sort of serious discussion we’re trying to acheive. But I guess, as someone who on ocassion gets to read & watch some really, really fun “pop culture” for historical things I’m working on, I don’t necessarily expect a game to go out on a limb and be … purposeful? since I’m often interested in them as modern expressions of cultural relics, things that happened a hundred years ago or more, or evidence of some process going on. I’m also not sure the current audience would be able to support “games with a really deep point,” unless it went totally over their head. I wrote a piece on here a while back & I suggested that perhaps some video games with more point/meaning wouldn’t be such a bad thing - the overwhelming response was that “I don’t play video games to have to think, it’s a fun escape from ‘real life’.”
This doesn’t have to do with content, but I was pretty PO’d when I did a progressive review of the short Genji: Dawn of the Samurai & starting nosing around for some “official” information on the game. Now, before I got my hands on it, I was going “Genji? How in the hell are they going to make The Tale of Genji into a non-MA rated game?” As soon as I got it & watched the first 15 minutes, I figured out it wasn’t based on The Tale of Genji (despite what the NA PR people would have you believe), it was based on The Tale of the Heike - and surprisingly, followed the story pretty faithfully in basic setup & even with characters (ok, so there were some demons thrown in for good measure that aren’t in the original). I’m not saying the game had some deep point, but it was neat to see a modern interpretation (fairly faithful, too) on an old work of literature. But the industry doesn’t even seem to care when they really get it right (I read several press releases that referenced Murasaki’s book, when anyone who had READ the damn thing would know perfectly well that it had absolutely nothing in common with their actual source material, with the exception of being set in Heian-period Japan), probably because they know the vast majority of people purchasing the game aren’t going to know that Genji from this Genji.
I’m curious about the Nietzsche in the Xenosaga series less from a “What are the game designers trying to say” and more from a general “Where is all this COMING from?” when it comes to funky representations of Western religion in Japanese RPGs. Now, I would never put any of that into a review, but I do sit and bat around the subject with a few friends, and I have gone scrambling for citations.
“I can envision successful reviews placing games within their contexts, examining them as part of larger trends within the industry, or picking out and expounding upon specific quirks vis-a-vis Japanese society. ”
That is pretty much exactly what I’m talking about, even when I talk about “academic” book reviews - after all, a lot of effort is spent on placing books into some sort of broader historiography (even in book reviews, and let’s not venture into lit review territory!). But I’m not sure the majority of review-seeking people WANT to read that sort of thing in a video game review. It’s the sort of thing I love to discuss with friends and my heart would skip a beat if I read a great review of a video game that included things in your above list, but I’ve never even considered smushing into a review, because I just don’t think there’s a real desire for reading that sort of thing. People want to know if it’s a good game or a bad game and whether or not they should pick it up now, or wait until the price drops.
28. January 2006 at 15:39
I disagree that no one wants to hear high-brow (read as elitist) criticism of video games. It’s probably a very small group to be sure; however, I don’t see any harm in slipping an occasional reference into the causal review. If it goes over a few heads than so be it. Even X-Play has done this few times, using references and connections that 99.9 percent of their audience hasn’t got a clue about, including Tom Waits references of all things. I think it works best as a joke, functioning on two levels; however, I’m sure it could me done in seriousness as well.
Having been to academia as a literature major, I’m no fan of literary criticism either. After you’ve been forced to write a 15 page paper on Ezra Pound’s two line poem, “In a Station of the Metro,” you start to get a better feel for what percentage of high-brow criticism is made up on the spot. That said, I found the biblical Tower of Babel references in “Shadow of the Colossus” to be quite apparent, causing me to do more research on the subject and learn a lot more about Nimrod than I previously did. I would certainly mention this in a progressive review of the game. At the least, a passing mention of the Nietzchian references in Xenosaga might inspire a couple of your audience members to learn more. The real trick is to not sound like your trying to sound smart ;)
28. January 2006 at 16:54
Jake, I agree that lit crit is a field unto itself ;), and I’m not really talking about literature, per se (believe me, I read more than enough off-the-wall lit crit when I was a Latin major), when I’m referencing book reviews (I’m a historian, what do you expect? :)). I mean picking up so-and-so’s new work on X subject and writing a “review”: source material? placing it in historiographical context? How does it relate/respond to/critique other arguments on the same subject? How well integrated is everything? How well-argued? Naturally, the subject(s), intent, and purpose of games are generally vastly different from an academic book - but I’m still not sure that there’s a market for that sort of “high-brow” criticism in gaming reviews at the present, nor am I entirely sure that there are a lot of games out there that could support that sort of review. I’m not even sure where an appropriate place would be for that sort of thing.
I get genuinely excited when I see things in games that hit on issues of cross-cultural exchange, historical trends, etc. It’s been driven into me to turn over stones and look really closely at things, that even pop culture has some real historical value (and that it’s often unintentional & buried in the entertainment aspect of whatever medium we’re talking about). I’d love to read about that sort of stuff in relation to games, lord knows it’s a topic that I love to bat around in casual conversation. I really would love to see a more formal examination of some of the big trends in gaming (subject matter et al), and I have read some fascinating articles on various gaming subjects that have been “high-brow”, but they definitely weren’t reviews.
Maybe I’m splitting hairs, I suppose I just see movie/book criticism and video game reviews as two *really* seperate fields. The idea of “video game criticism” is sort of … I don’t know, I just can’t see it. I can see articles and discussion, I just have a really tough time envisioning the “criticism” aspect becoming standard “high brow” review practice with the industry being what it is at the present, and the primary audience being what it is.
28. January 2006 at 17:53
Maggie, I think Jake’s point was simply that it may add to the flavor of a review if there is an comment or comparison made that may be more “intellectual”, thought provoking, or insightful that might not be for the average reader. As an example the current approach of so many “kid’s” cartoons on Nickelodeon or even in film with Pixar and such is that they weave in intellectual references and criticisms that make them as entertaining for adults as kids. SImilarly in reviews it might be interesting to have more thoughtful and “intellectual” types of references made as an extra to make them more interesting and enjoyabel to a more intellectual reader. A little chocolate chip of knowledge in the cookie if you know what I mean.
Anyway, are we hijacking the comments here? Seams like we are getting onto a whole other topic relating to reviews from the article.
29. January 2006 at 06:31
Until recently I’d have introduced myself as a devotee of gaming “journalism/criticism” who could tolerate, with some hesitation, the conflation of review with critique. However unsettling it was to observe affective reaction doubling as analytical commentary, the effort required to separate one from the other (sucking “next level” thought from language like “compelling story and stunning graphics,” for example) kept the practice thereof from being very attractive. Over the last year, though, I’ve gotten into formal game criticism, and just today I happily stumbled into your site and this discussion. Reading your comments has been invigorating and fun.
I think tracing lamentable qualities of review writing to abundances of repetitive “graphics,” “sound,” and “gameplay” observations and shortages of analytical commentary does just what you describe—point out the lack of a “critical” market for more stimulating evaluations. The academic issue isn’t applicability (when it comes to analyzing games, we can dispense with authorial intent; what’s in the game is what we’ll take from the game with sound “readings,” independent of what was intended), rather, it’s economic feasibility. As you’ve said, gamers read to hear about good hit detection, not good philosophy.
I want to write “which is fine,”—but which, of course, is actually troubling… there’s a “what’s at stake” here. “Turning off” for one’s entertainment is a recipe with which we cook a great deal of intelligent and creative thought out of our responses to multiple media. Sure, movie and book reviews (and criticism) suggest a small proportion of the population isn’t ready for the general reflective flattening levied by, say, the host of mainstream DOA4 reviews, but judging by the muted interest I watched play across the faces of my fellow theatre-goers over Christmas vacation (hand to popcorn tub; chew; hand to soda; slurp; hand to popcorn tub) while previews for flicks like “When a Stranger Calls” flash predictably across the screen (“It’s… it’s coming from inside the house!”), I’d say even cinema and lit have failed to popularize critical reflection.
What we need, then, are more progressive/innovative reviews and review sites (cheers to The Game Chair) and a magazine/online industry willing to support writers with longer deadlines/lighter workloads—maybe then we’ll be able to drop enough of those cookie chips, so to say, to create the economic demand for new modes of game reception.
In short, I couldn’t agree more!
29. January 2006 at 18:03
Hm, I think there is still some aspect of the “time crunch” that simply cannot be mitigated, even in alternative forms of reviewing (like TGC). I try very hard to pick out new games that I’m dying to play, but since I focus heavily on RPGs, my gaming “style” definitely changes depending on whether I am doing a PR of that game or not. Because even though our particular style of review WANTS a game to be assessed over a longer period of time, Seth wouldn’t be too happy if a review stretched out over eons ;) (which, in truth, would reflect my gaming style), nor would our readers in all likelihood. I’ve been lucky since my schedule has permitted me a massive amount of time to devote to gaming over the past few months, but that’s about to change. I do have to wonder if I’m still going to be able to do justice to the longer games & still be able to produce my ratings in a timely manner.
29. January 2006 at 19:07
Y’know, come to think of it, setting down a game can really be a great indication of quality, especially for someone on an limited timeframe.
For example, my copy of Suikoden IV has been sitting idle for over half a year now, and I love the Suikoden series. I await Suikoden V with baited breath. But I just can’t deal with the hour-long ocean treks that the game wants me to make. I’ll sit down every couple weeks, pick the game up for fifteen minutes, look at how little headway I’ve made on the map, and set it down. And this is a voyage directly after the game introduced me to the actual Scholtenheim Reinbach III, which got me pretty excited. I actually considered taping down the X button and setting the ship to autopilot, because I really do want to see the rest of the game (in case you’re wondering, I never quite got up the motivation).
Had I been pressured to chug through this portion of the game, I guess I probably would have finished the game already, but I get the sense that I would start to become a bitter reviewer. Or perhaps, treating the game as a job instead of expecting the game to entertain me, I would overlook the drudgework and focus more on the good points. I can only imagine that some of the reviewers either didn’t play much of the game or have rapid-fire controllers, because there were a couple reviews that didn’t even mention the encounter rate or movement speed, and several more that played it down.
I really wouldn’t mind if some reviews were paced out or halted indefinitely for just this reason, though it would be nice if there were some indication. Perhaps a page you could go to that lists all the games currently being reviewed, the time since last review, and a space for the reviewer to write a brief summary if there’s a delay (i.e., the game became too tedious, there was a fatal glitch, I’m having real-life issues, or I just haven’t gotten around to writing it up yet).
29. January 2006 at 22:01
Well, even games that I love - I have a tendency to leave around the 40 hr. mark, pick it up later, generally start over again, and then play all the way through. Now, I’ve galloped through RPGs that I’ve done PRs for & absolutely swooned over - Dragon Quest VIII springs to mind. I think my strong positive feelings on that game really shone through in my PRs, and I don’t think my review was shortchanged because I was working on a schedule. I FLEW through that game. Still, it’s fairly rare for me to (on my own time) play through a game in one straight shot (I also had unusual amounts of free time to devote to sitting in front of my TV for hours while doing DQVIII). Having lots of “extras” in a game is something that I’m generally very fond of, and can positively impact my play experience - I liked trying to get all the people in Suikoden III & it positively impacted my feelings on the game. However, if I were doing a review of Suikoden III, I’m not sure I’d have time to explore all that stuff.
I’ve done one PR on a game that was so awful I found absolutely no redeeming value in it (which was a huge disappointment, as I was really looking forward to it) - I was ready to gouge my eyes out after the first 6 hours. Talk about a bitter review experience! If I saved one person from buying that game, I can die happy. I did complete my set of ratings, though. Not without much cursing and threatening to throw my PS2 out the window, but I finished it. ;) After that experience, I changed my system a bit - I usually try to get a moderate feel for a game. If I hate it 2 hours in (or can’t GET two hours in), I go back to the drawing board & don’t do a rating for that particular game. I realize that we generally have the flexibility to do that here at TGC, though - I would assume that the bigger, more mainstream review sites (Gamespot et al) don’t have that option.
On an unrelated note, I found Suikoden IV to be very disappointing - I adored Suikoden III & was very much looking forward to IV. The whole naval battle thing drove me nuts - if I wanted to play Battleship, I’d play Battleship, not a member of the Suikoden series. I thought III was a pretty strong game, and IV just fell flat on its face for me.
30. January 2006 at 18:44
“A single game is an endeavor you could easily spend 100+ hours on. I can’t think of any movies that offer that kind of replay value.”
A film, however, can have inherent artistic value usually not found in video games. If the best films reflect disparate qualities of human life, games have yet to achieve a level of natural truthfulness anywhere close to that of film. Just as the Xeno series’ “epic” plot is a combination of hollow arcana arranged simply for the sake of creating artificial depth, I would say no game yet created has come close to earning the true artistic value of a great novel or fine film.
1. February 2006 at 12:54
As a fellow film buff, I largely agree with you. Games don’t usually incite an emotional reaction much more complex than, “wow cool explosion.” And certainly no game has yet been created with an artistic value approaching that of classic film or literature. However, where I disagree is that I feel like games actually have a larger potential than movies. Both as an artistic medium, and as a vehicle for human emotion.
It took a very long time for the cutting edge technology of moving picture film to be considered an acceptable medium for the creation of literary works. The first motion picture cameras were developed in the early 1880’s; however, the medium did not develop its own complex language, syntax, and genres for another 40 years. Of course, the point at which new technology becomes a medium for art is subjective and endlessly debatable, but I mention the 40 year gap because the first video game known to recorded history was Space War, created at MIT in 1963.
As film entertainment evolved a lot of the learning process concerned discovering what the medium was. The very first films treated the camera as a static object, merely using the moving picture to recreate the entertainment of the past. The camera represented the audience while the actors put on a play in exactly the same way they had for thousands of years. Acting continued on using the exaggerated caricature of the stage because the subtle expression made possible by the close-up was yet unrealized. The camera as a participant in the story appeared slowly and the familiar language of cuts, camera moves, focus pulls, and angles came with it.
Video games suffer from a similar predicament today, again recreating the entertainment of the past, except this time it’s “the film” that’s being recreated. The players often find themselves ignored, control of the game wrenched from them so that a recalculated “camera move” can be carried out. Game engines are designed from the ground up with a movie-making process in mind. Some modern games even have a depth-of-field feature, simulating the limitations of the previous medium by allowing designers to shoot things out of focus with their virtual cameras.
I mention all of these things because I think “Shadow of the Colossus” (despite all its shortcomings) is one of the first games to approach competency in the reflection of “disparate qualities of human life.” I feel like we are currently approaching a golden age of game design, after 40 years of evolution in the medium, and perhaps it will be possible to find a few diamonds among the endless EA sports titles and other such drivel.
Another point often over-looked with gaming is its skill-based nature, causing a lot of gaming experiences which are 180 degrees different than other media-based entertainment. Perhaps certain games should be compared with other pastimes, like amateur sports for instance. Take a masterpiece like Ikaruga for example. Although its doesn’t create an emotional experience on the same lines as a Ginsberg, a Shakespeare, or a Akira Kurosawa, it does create a slew of emotional involvement, including a Zen-like concentration (chop wood, carry water, blow up space-ships) and a genuine appreciation of the beauty inherent in the continuous sea of carefully algorithmic projectiles.
3. February 2006 at 10:14
[…] I mention all of these things because I think Shadow of the Colossus (despite all its shortcomings) is one of the first games to approach competency in the reflection of “disparate qualities of human life.” (Quoted from Andrew’s comment on the Game Journalism short) I feel like we are currently approaching a golden age of game design, after 40 years of evolution in the medium. Perhaps it will soon be possible to find a few diamonds among the endless EA sports titles and other such drivel. […]
8. February 2006 at 23:09
I have a complaint about the scoring system used. 1-4 isn’t a very diverse system of scoring. I rarely see a 1, and 2/3 feels and reads essentially the same, while sometimes, due to context, even a high 4 feels only a little better than a 3.
9. February 2006 at 12:10
Shushu
A lot of the reason you probably won’t see any ones on our score sheets anytime soon is that most of us hand picked the games we are going to review. Consequently, since avid gamers don’t like to play bad games, we often select titles we know are going to appeal to us. While this is definitely not the approach taken by the conventional gaming media, we feel that it better represents the way gamers actually play and select games.
As far as the subtle differences between scores, this is a limitation inherent when attaching a numbering system to any objective process. Scores on The Game Chair serve as a reminder of how the play experience with a game changes over time, and are not intended to be the absolute boiled down essence of a play experience. :)
9. February 2006 at 14:28
To add to Jake’s comments - The numbers are truly secondary to our words. They’re a distant second at that.
10. February 2006 at 23:28
Maybe consider losing the grade system altogether? If the numerical grade is that unreliable compared to the writing, put the spotlight on the writing, like they do at onion.com with their movie reviews. No grade system at all. It can turn off people who don’t like to read so much, but at least it is more accurate and honest.
10. February 2006 at 23:55
While I have given ones (see my Arc the Lad reviews to see just how many ones), I must concur with my fellow TGCers on the reason that you’ll not often see terrible reviews of games - I hand pick mine carefully with the hope of actually enjoying my game experience. I would assume that reviewers for more “traditional” review sites don’t have that luxury. If I sit down with a game and hate it, I don’t review it - why would I want to play through an entire game I really didn’t enjoy? It’s a heckuva lot easier to chronicle your experiences of a game in-depth when you actually are enjoying it to at least some degree - I hated Arc the Lad so much that I wanted to toss my PS2 out a window and/or have my dogs eat the game disc and/or gouge my eyes out so I’d have a good excuse NOT to have to play it anymore and NOT have to finish my PR series. I did none of the above, finished it, and gave the game a pretty scathing review. The overall average was 2/4, I believe, but if you read the first paragraph of any of my ratings for that game, you’ll quickly understand that I really, really, really didn’t recommend the game.
The scores are just a very brief roundup of our overall impressions (broad ones at that), but I think it’s still nice to see the *general* impressions someone had of a game over time without necessarily reading the full review. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that our reviews are somehow less honest because we have a simplified rating rubric - I don’t pussyfoot around issues I don’t like in a game (I also don’t spare the praise when I absolutely adore something), but you have to read my ratings. Even the most comprehensive rubric or rating system has its limitations, and that’s not our focus at TGC.
11. February 2006 at 01:20
Shushu,
We always appreciate feedback and specifically the time you have taken to share yours with us. In an effort to not derail the comments too far from the story, If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to send them to me directly at thechairman -at- thegamechair.com.