Game Reviewers Will Never Win

Gameumentary: Every few weeks there’s some new drama in the games industry, usually revolving around review scores. The latest centers around Dan Stapleton’s review of Prey; he gave the game a less than desirable four out of ten. His reason? Well, for him, the game was literally broken.

[VideoChums]

If you're a game reviewer but you can't handle people's criticisms of your reviews then you should do something else with your time.

[Wingsfan24]

Not what the article is about, at all. It's about people's unrealistic expectations of reviewers and how scores dilute what has been written.

[Summons75]

I agree. Which is why review scores need to go.

[Imalwaysright]

@ Summons75

Why? Because people that are themselves biased can't stand that a reviewer gave game A or B a score they didn't like? People need to grow up. That's what needs to happen.

[VideoChums]

Understandable although the title "Game Reviewers Will Never Win" and the examples presented in the article lead me to believe otherwise.

[thorstein]

@Imalwayssomething

If you can give a definitive score for the Mona Lisa, The Scream, or The Starry Night then you have an argument for scores. Otherwise, scores are useless.

[thorstein]

@Pocky...

Poor critic can't take criticism? Poor, poor baby. Here's a tissue.

And here's two blogs that prove my point about critics:

http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...

http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...

And remember, "Those who can, DO. Those who CAN'T, criticize."

EDIT: I almost forgot: What are the criterion for becoming a critic? A) The ability to have bowel movements and B) The ability to think they smell better than anyone else's.

[Imalwaysright]

@ thorstein

Definitive? Reviews aren't meant to be some sort of universal truth. They are nothing more than a personal opinion and if people can't respect someone else's opinion even if they don't agree, then they need to grow up.

[Wingsfan24]

@Thorstein

Really have no clue what you're going on about. Did you even read the article?

I criticized Stapleton's intentions of using a score to signal a technical issue with Prey, when their own breakdown of the number doesn't even align with what his review said about the game, which was also his defense of using the score. The article isn't about critics being criticized, like at all...I'm not even really defending critics with the piece, more pointing out that people want them to hold off on posting reviews for patches, worry about a developers pay with their scores..etc

You seem pretty cynical towards critics and have all the advice laid out in your blogposts to be a "better one". If you can do the job better, why not do it? The industry could sure use better, less biased, critics.

[rainslacker]

Isn't that a problem for those who don't read the review though...and I guess those of us who have to listen to those people on forums.

If a reviewer can't accept that many people won't read their reviews, then that's on them. If people rely only on a score, as opposed what that score consists of, then realistically, they are only doing themselves a disservice, because how can one make an informed decision without being informed? Such things may be bad for the industry itself because of this, but it's the way it is. I doubt tons of people are going to start reading reviews if they didn't before. The reviews on N4G which don't have a score attached are pretty barren of comments, and almost never make it into the top of the lists. Kotaku reviews may be the only exception outside the stray review here or there.

Given that Kotaku's readership is down, it would appear that not attributing review scores isn't helping their readership. While there are other issues at play there, good reviews can bring clicks, and that click typically comes from the score and people wondering what it's about. While many may only focus on the score, and use it for any arguments pro or con they want to make....typically for agenda based discussion....there are those who may want to see the reasons behind the score. If a game is getting high scores all around, like 9-10, I may be more apt to read an 8 score to see what other reviews aren't telling me. But, I also generally won't go to a 6 or less review of that same game, because that just seems out of place, since most games tend to be pretty close in their review scores across sites.

The only problem with reviews scores is metacritic. If all these scores weren't compiled, and the games final quality being judged on a meta score, then it would pretty much mean that one would have to read the content to become informed. Meta allows for people to wait a bit and see the general vote on the game, and I find that 99% of the time, meta is within a point or two of how I would score a game. If I want to know specifics though, I read reviews.

Review scores have existed for decades now. They were never a problem. The actual problem is that we just have too many people who can't actually write a proper review, or there being so few sites which have review score criteria which is transparent and consistent.

[picillopaige]

@ VideoChums

I took the title of the article to be more sarcastic than anything else.

[Wingsfan24]

That was my intention :)

[AspiringProGenji]

Someone who can't beat the first boss in any game, more specifically Bloodborne in this case, is an instant blacklist to me.

Not sure why I see some IGN folks say they trus this guy, but that trust might as well gone to the drain by now. I mean they still said such thing after he gave it a 4 because of a bug, and now the guy has backtracked lol. Amusing

[Yui_Suzumiya]

Well I hope he also back tracks the score once it's patched

[lex-1020]

Not everyone needs to like your same games to be a valid reviewer.

[AspiringProGenji]

Not liking the same game as I is fine. Not being able to beat the first boss then writing an essay about how the "the game lost me" is not.

[rainslacker]

True, but they need to be able to at least try to remain objective, and present a review that explains what they didn't like, as well as what was good in a way that puts aside personal feelings in order to inform the reader.

Ultimately, a review is a service for the reader to become informed on the game itself, not a podium for people to express whether they liked a game or not. When the review itself becomes more about the reviewer not liking it, then it's a problem. But if that same review can be done to say how what they didn't like would affect those reading the review should they play it, then it's a proper review. There are other things in this same vein when it comes to good reviews, but essentially, a review is to say what works, what doesn't, and explain it in a way that lets the reader decide if it's an issue for them.

The scores themselves are just to give a quick and easy way to tell the overall quality of the game, and that can be subjective to the reviewer, or the review standards set by their publication(if they exist). But the content of that review has to back up that score, all while making it relevant to the reader.

Key word is....Reader. They are the audience of reviews. The reader is the most important person to consider when writing a review...not one's own ego or personal preferences.

For instance, if one is reviewing a niche Japanese fan service title, the reviewer has to be able to judge the game's worth on who the intended target audience is. If they just judge it based on their own preferences, and all they like is action adventure games in the vein of UC or GeOW with heavy western influences and lots of gunplay, then they do a disservice to the reader who is more likely to be the target audience of that game. This was a big thing last gen when lots of Japanese games started getting pigeonholed into the "too cute" or "too much fan service" category, and that was used to give it low scores...or in quite a few cases start tirades on the sexism that was running rampant in the industry....which would mean that in those reviews, they were more political agenda than actual reviews....but that's another topic IMO.

[BlakHavoc]

Nope sure won't. Lets use Horizon as an example, if it scored a 10 fanboys would claim they were paid off. If it scored a 7 then ppl claimed they're trying to downplay an exclusive from a rival console. Either way no matter what u score a game ppl are going to be critical of your review, just part of the territory.

[MetalNCarnet]

There are some games that certain reviewers should not review. If the reviewer mainly plays shooters and multi player games, he has no business giving an opinion (that's representing a publication) about a JRPG. The reviewer should have some good knowledge, interest, and skill in the game genre he is reviewing. Jeff Gertsmann of Giant Bomb hates Naruto games (and anime in general), should I listen to him about Ultimate Ninja Storm 4?

[VideoChums]

Amen.

[TheOttomatic91]

I'm sorry but criticism comes with the territory of being a game reviewer if you can't handle perhaps you should find a new job.

[Wingsfan24]

Good thing the article isn't about that :) It's about people's unrealistic expectations of reviewers and how scores dilute what people write.

[TheOttomatic91]

There's nothing really "unrealistic" about our expectations it's just that reviewers need thicker skin and get used to criticism if they don't I can't see them lasting long in this business. I'm not referring to the article obviously just what needs to be done, stop bellyaching and get on with the job.

[lex-1020]

Pro tip. Stop defending your article. People are either going to read it or their not, but either way they're going to have an opinion on it. If you keep trying to defend it you just come off whiny.

Imagine everyone only has 5 seconds to read your article. Make your summary the point you want them to get in those 5 seconds. Right now your 5 seconds says nothing about "people's unrealistic expectations of reviewers and how scores dilute what people write."

[Wingsfan24]

How is it coming off as whiny that I'm asking people actually read the context of the article rather than just make an irrelevant statement off of the title?

The summary was used as an introduction to tell readers the relevance of the topic, as it should be, otherwise it might as well be a TL;DR and nobody would read it anyways.

[lex-1020]

PockyKing. Look man I get it. You wrote this great opinion piece and you want people to read it but that's not the way things work. People will read only what catches their interest. If they think they already know what your article is going to say then it doesn't matter what it does say. Perception is reality.

In my time in the military I wrote assessments and analysis for Generals, and currently I write analysis and assessments for CTOs of Fortune 500 companies. I have met very few that will actually read through an entire assessment. That's why we use a BLUF: Bottom Line Up Front. You need to treat your audiance like they're a General or a CEO. Give them the BLUF right at the beginning and if it's interesting enough they'll read the rest.

[Imalwaysright]

Reviews are someone else's opinion which means that they are subjective so what exactly would you be criticizing?

[lex-1020]

PockyKing. Look man I get it. You wrote this great opinion piece and you want people to read it but that's not the way things work. People will read only what catches their interest. If they think they already know what your article is going to say then it doesn't matter what it does say. Perception is reality.

In my time in the military I wrote assessments and analysis for Generals, and currently I write analysis and assessments for CTOs of Fortune 500 companies. I have met very few that will actually read through an entire assessment. That's why we use a BLUF: Bottom Line Up Front. You need to treat your audiance like they're a General or a CEO. Give them the BLUF right at the beginning and if it's interesting enough they'll read the rest.

[Muadiib]

Dan's original Prey review was vindictive and came across like a child's tantrum, if he'd waited a couple of days the patch would've released and fixed things, but no he had to vent his frustration instead of act in a professional manner. We give these people a hard time because they are journalists and journalists are lowest on the list of professions people trust nowadays (fact), with very good reason. There's little to no integrity in that profession anymore. They are literally worse than lawyers now.

[TheColbertinator]

Gaming media is full of bribery,cowardice towards greedy companies and lack of respect from reviewers towards gamers.

Youtube is full of sensationalism,obnoxious whining and subpar understanding of gaming technology.

At the same time,gaming has stalled in making progress because publishers are rarely called out for their atrocious practices.

I am glad Persona 5 came out at last. Awesome game.

[CrimsonWing69]

Game reviews are beyond busted. Just stop calling them reviews and start calling them, "My opinion and why you should base your purchasing decision on what I think of the game."

A review is NOT just an Opinion nor should it ever be. It should have facts based on juxtaposition on similar games that have objectively raised the bar in its given genre. It should also have Opinion to enrich the review and give it depth or another perspective.

It's ok to hate a game, but removing your bias and preference from the review score is an important part of being a reviewer especially since your entire audience will not agree with you.

I mean Prey literally has reviews from 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9's. No longer can someone go up to a friend and say, "Hey man such and such game is getting good scores," because someone can go around and say, "No it isn't, this game reviewer I agree with gave it a really low score and since I only trust his opinion any review that is different from his is utter garbage and doesn't count."

I do believe different opinions are necessary since everyone has different degrees of liking particular mechanics and design, but it's important to maintain a level of fact for those who don't share the same sentiment or preference that the reviewer has.

Since the majority of the industry literally just writes their impression of the game like a damn journal entry and calls it a day I think reviews and reviewers need to go.

Just start calling it an Opinion so we can now say, "Oh, Joe Blow really liked this game and I'm going to get it because I need his approval before I make my decision." And then your friend can reply, "Dick Harry from IGN's opinion is the game is a dumpster fire, so you have fun wasting your money while I miss out because I can't figure out how to make a purchasing decision without this guy's opinion."

[Tankbusta40]

I think gaming sites need to have multiple people review the same game. I don't know why this isn't done, oh and a company policy for review sites should be put in to keep personal politics out of the review score process.

Also reviewers need to realize that they are not Rockstars, athletes or celebrities. They play video games and write their opinions, some of these people at the bigger sites think they contribute something special to the world when they don't.

[VideoChums]

Agreed 100%. There was a Canadian game review TV show called Reviews on the Run where 2 people would review each game. Although they agreed most of the time, sometimes their scores would be very different.

[MetalNCarnet]

That's why I go on metacritic. To see multiple reviews at once and to get a average consensus on how the game is.

[kindkinesis]

so true but scores are easier ways of looking at reviews and i dont see a problem with it, most mediums have them so i dont agree about not having scores.

[LoveSpuds]

There is only one reviewer I trust, that's myself. I have disliked plenty of well received games and enjoyed plenty of poorly received games over the years. I didn't like The Witcher 3 all that much for example, but really enjoyed games like Evil Within, The Order and Thief.

I tend to watch some game play videos and if it looks like my bag, I will buy it, I don't need validation from someone who more often than not, operates from a Mickey mouse website and believes themselves to be some kind of expert on video games.

I think it is useful to look at a particular reviewers track record if you want to try and assess how there opinions stack up against your own if you really do need some steer on whether to buy a game but otherwise, just buy the titles that interest you.

[Max-Zorin]

That's the gaming community for you. Hell, they don't even respect each others preferences, it's only natural they act like Saiyans, when a certain game don't get a high score.