We take a behind-the-scenes look at a subject close to our collective hearts - the challenges that surround games reviews and game reviewing.
Game reviewers have it tough; at least, we seem to have it tougher than reviewers of other things. This particular opinion piece has been brewing for quite some time as I’m constantly fascinated at how different the experience of reviewing games is when compared to everything else.
While I can’t claim that I’ve dabbled in every form of reviewing under the sun, I’ve done my fair share across the geek-osphere. For the last few years I’ve reviewed various types of computer software, a plethora of home and automobile gadgets, DVDs and Blu-rays, music, TV shows, an increasing amount of theatrical movie releases, as well as gaming hardware and, of course, games.
For me, it’s easy to work through this list and make sense of how the former items are simpler to review than the latter item in question. Computer software tends to revolve around usability and practicality, gadgets become easier to review once you have previous review examples to compare them with and computer hardware is much the same. Movies and TV shows are perhaps the closest reviewing example to games, but their passive viewing and fixed running times make them quicker to critically dissect.
Interaction in games is the biggest curveball when it comes to reviewing. Release the prettiest game with the most amazing sound design, developed by a AAA team, a story developed by an Academy Award-winning writer with Hollywood voice talent and it will still be a turd if the controls are broken. But then there’s a whole lot more than that to take into consideration, such as how to appropriately review a new addition in a long running series.
Let’s take Call of Duty, for instance. Every November a new Call of Duty title graces gaming screens around the globe and, generally, scores in the 80-percent+ range. Because Activision is onto a winning formula, understandably, they don’t want to deviate too far from the recipe that millions of fans enjoy every year, so the games feel and play very similarly across single-player and multiplayer modes. Whether you love or hate that is irrelevant for the purposes of this article, but what’s important is that Call of Duty reviews can be approached in multiple ways. When Modern Warfare 3 hits in November, journalists can review it in the following ways:
On top of this, points may be allocated, deducted or forgiven because Modern Warfare 3 is part of a long-running series that has certain accepted conventions (e.g. comparatively short campaign lengths) that, arguably, can be overlooked or ignored.
As that list hopefully highlights, things can become tricky when searching for the right reviewing angle and even more potentially frustrating when you take into account that none of them are necessarily wrong or even more right than others. Speaking from personal experience, I’ve reviewed franchise entries as standalone games, dissected games in terms of what they bring to a certain genre or gaming in general, while other times I’ve divvied out higher marks because a game can be flawed but still engaging and intensely fun.
Fun is that all-important underlying factor that can make or break the score potentiality of any given game. A technically tainted experience may still score the big marks if the game maintains player interest throughout, such as with The Force Unleashed. But then, as highlighted by The Force Unleashed II, focussing on the smoothing out of the technical side at the behest of crucial factors such as story and campaign length—particularly when the preceding title nailed these—can result in harsher scores when the burden of expectations marries with the reality of disappointment.
And then there’s the greatest pressure of all: the external variety. Between the rabid abuse that reviews can garner from militant fanboys (look no further than Duke Nukem Forever reviews) to the epic arsenal of persuasive techniques that can be employed by developers, publishers and PR companies, it’s a small wonder that more of us aren’t applying for less stressful jobs as air traffic controllers.
Just to clarify, the point of this piece is not to inspire a candlelight vigil for the plight of the downtrodden games journalist. Instead, my intent is to provide a bit of a behind-the-scenes insight into the mind of a games reviewer.
But that’s just my 10 cents. What do you think?
Issue: 137 | June, 2012