Reviews

I have always taken reviews with a pinch of salt, especially if written by a magazine.  One of the first video game magazines I got every month was Sega Mega Advanced Gaming. Before the rise of the internet, magazines were way to get reliable information – Friends often made stuff up or just miss-informed you.

Thinking back there is an obvious marketing partnership between the magazines and the game publishers.  The magazine itself wants to sell and will of course be biased to doing whatever it is to make money.  One thing I noticed is the ratings, you get a score out of 10 or 100, and only the very worst games would never hit 70%.  You would sometimes get a stinker getting around 40% but this was rare.  My point is that reviews were scaled disproportionately; often promoting what they believed would sell.  I did not read a single review back then which gave a fair comparison between Sonic the Hedgehog and Mario.

Today we have the internet, which I think gives a more varied look at a game.  Often a site supports member’s reviews which I personally go off.  That could possibly be the best thing about the internet – It gives everyone a voice, for better and for worse.  Quite simply, the more reviews you can read or watch the better your understanding of the product.

Example:

I’m a fan of the Final Fantasy series and I recently got a high-end PC… I heard that Final Fantasy 14 (XIV) was out so gave it a quick look… GameFAQS link Reading a couple of reviews and seeing its low (still above the 50% average mind) score put me right off.  Square- Enix obviously fucked up again and put there their top title to a crap game… again and tried to sweep it under the carpet.

I read the article How To Use And Abuse The Gaming Press And How The Gaming Press Wants To Use and Abuse You.  This article was very interesting, while it was not strictly a review it is insightful of how the reviewing business works with the industry.  I like the language used as it seems very frank while still portraying the writer as knowledgeable yet professional.  Maybe this comes from his credentials which he mentions – I believe it may be more to do with his own self-promotion through this article, which not only illustrates the fact he has played an important role for an independent company but has the power to do so and is sharing that power with the reader.

The article The New Games Journalism was pretty interesting also.  I think it was stating information which is more general knowledge however.  I like the idea that of following Wolfe’s lead in the seventies, give the reviews opinion, show the reader you care, show them why they should care too.  Here’s an example of a modern youtube review, similar to magazine reviews these guys have to sell/want hits – They have to entertain the viewer.  There is a formula of impersonal language, humorous presentation, and passion.  I actually found the points he was making on game design very interesting… Maybe I was empathising with him, the passion he portrayed is similar to how I feel about some games and I agreed with a lot of the points.

If I was any part of creating a game I would probably want to review it… What If I didn’t like the game though?  Would I rip it apart?  Would I be cool help create a game I don’t actually like?  Would I even have the power to choose what I work on?  Would I be more valuable somewhere else in the process if I can recognise why a game doesn’t work?

There is no such thing as a perfect game, or even a good game.  These are all relative to personal opinion, however there is a standard expected.  If the game fundamentals (presentation, conveyance, playability, purpose) don’t fit the desired vision and market then it is “bad”...  There is no way I could give a fair review of Barbie game aimed at ten-year old girls… I am totally different and have different expectations from a game; I wouldn’t care if it has the latest Malibu model in it and would judge it to totally different credentials.

Last week we compared Pac Man and F.E.A.R, Pac Man is retro and relatively primitive, yet it is still a “good” game and is infinitely more important to video gaming history.  There is a standard people expect when buying a modern retail game, if you asked £40 today for a game with graphics similar to Pac Man you just wouldn’t get it.  As the technology has evolved so has the market and ways to find information and even acquire and play games.  

The video games industry akin to all entertainments; TV, music, and film and is prone to cycles or fads – As it evolves it also recycles regurgitates previous fashions leaning towards whatever they calculate will sell.  The main market has, and always will be about one thing, making money.