Shawn Elliot put forward a bunch of questions regarding videogame review and criticism. Mitch Krpata and Michael Woolbridge have answered these and I thought “Screw it, so shall I”. As Michael notes, Mitch has probably been more “professional” in his approach to game reviews where as I tend to be a lot more casual, one might also use the term “lazy” and occasionally “drunk”. Regardless, my opinion, for those who care, below.

Question 1: How much is on our minds before we begin playing any given game for review purposes? Will we imagine a range of probable scores that a heavily marketed, highly budgeted, and hugely anticipated game will get? What when the game is branded “budget” or is the work of a lesser-known, less-storied studio? If so, how closely have actual scores correlated with our assumptions?
I try to approach every game, for review or not, from the same perspective and that’s simply “Hey look, a new game! Wonder if it’s going to be fun or not?” From the outset, I have one goal in mind and that’s to complete the story campaign if there is one, however I’ll play through the game in a way that feels natural for me. In other words, if the story mode begins to bore me, rather than slug through it in one burst, I might deviate and try the multiplayer or level editor or what not. I never pre-imagine a score and the studio the game has come from and whose publishing it doesn’t factor in — I judge based on MY enjoyment of the game as I play it .
Question 2: Ought reviewers settle on a score before, during, or after writing a review? How consistent are our practices with our prescriptions? Have we, for instance, revised a score after writing our reviews, even though we advocate against it, and if so, why?
As long as you’ve come to a score after having played the game thoroughly, it shouldn’t matter when a score has been provided. I score by gut and, sometimes, the written text doesn’t always mesh with the score but no matter what, it always feels natural to me. If people then argue the review doesn’t match the score or whatever, thank fuck they’ve at least read the review text!
Question 3: When possible, do we look at the scores that other critics give to the games that we’re reviewing, as we review them? If so, are groupthink or iconoclasty potential problems?
I only ever read reviews and other critique after I’ve written my own review. I feel that’s the best way to get across my opinion of the game undiluted. However, I do tend to enter into fierce discussion and debate with another reviewer friend of mine regarding some games, which does tend to affect my interpretation of the game. I feel that these external interactions, however, are necessary in playing the game in a more natural way — discussing views and needing to defend the game in person or over the phone or rip it to shreds helps me articulate the way I feel about it.
Question 4: Often times we will have repeatedly played and/or previewed games in development prior to reviewing them. Does this familiarity with a particular game’s developmental process influence the scores that we assign to the final product in the way that a professor will take into consideration her students’ limitations and proven potential when she evaluates papers at the end of the semester?
Yes, I have followed the development of some games and on the occasion my expectations haven’t been met with the final product. Does this affect the score? No. Like I said previously, I play a game and review it as it is there and then. Typically, I find that if I provide a score based on gut feeling, that will be a truer indication of the fun I’ve had with the game and the review text may end up delving deeper into the experience I’ve had with the game. Does that make sense?
Question 5: Review writing carries real consequence, especially among members of the enthusiast press. Once-warm PR people and game producers can become cold upon our publication of undesirable review scores, diminishing or eliminating our ability to secure subsequent interviews and access. Postmortem discussions and exclusive looks at the publisher and/or developer’s forthcoming products are less likely. Conversely, a few publishers will permit us to post reviews before competitors, provided our review scores are favorable. Do such pressures produce a subliminal background or even enter our thoughts as we write reviews and assign scores?
There’s not pressure at my site from anyone. In fact, I doubt that many PR reps even bother checking us for review scores considering that we sometimes don’t publish reviews or even cover at all some games that have been sent to us! If we were to be blacklisted we’d get less free games! Oh noes! After effects have NEVER factored into any equation, though, as we’ve never relied on advertising dollars and probably never will.
Question 6: Is grade inflation an ongoing problem?
Hmmm. No. We use a five star system and generally most games fall at three stars, or average. There have been times I’ve scored a game a five then thought better of it post game and I do believe we could be a little more critical in assigning scores, however if a game is fun despite it’s flaws and my gut reaction says “this is so friggin’ awesome, FIVE STARS!” then dammit, that’s what the game will get.
Question 7: Do scores determine our tone? Can a “3” encourage us to explain an aspect of a game in clearly negative terms where our attitude is actually less decided? Example: Game X’s camera obscures the action, combat is irritatingly difficult, and “save” stations are few and far between. In our reviews, is Game X’s plot, which we’re still thinking through, more likely to become miserable than plain?
Nope. I write the review then give the score most times but I don’t score based on the review but the gut. Again, this can cause an at odds between score and review text. That said, I try to detail exactly how I feel about a game in the copy in more general terms which does, at times, result in a back-handed slap / compliment with a “this is really annoying but it doesn’t affect play because of this…”
Question 8: Do scores encourage our readers to conduct a sort of text-to-number calculus where the two obviously negative statements in an otherwise positive-sounding review necessarily translate into every point deducted from the “10” that the game didn’t get? Does this make reviews with high marks more likely to overlook fault, and reviews with low marks less likely to celebrate accomplishment?
We use a five star system, no halves. Using stars, I believe, invokes different feelings towards the score and rank of a game as opposed to numerals. Point in case, if you look at a one star film you might say “wow, that didn’t score very well” but the review might tell you “it’s a fun action romp but the plot and acting is horrendous”. It’s not saying “this sucks” but rather “it’s not good but you may still enjoy it”. A 2/10, however, says “fail” as anything in school scoring under 5/10 tends to be.
If I don’t mention something in a review, even if I find it slightly irritating, that’s because I’ve judged that it doesn’t adversely affect the gameplay or my enjoyment on the whole. Score doesn’t equate to that.
Question 9: Which is more important to us, our scores or our copy? If the latter, have our responses revealed any inconsistencies between our attitudes and actions? Are we still convinced of the importance and power of scores?
Copy of course. Scores are still important for some people and when reading other reviews I do in fact tend to check out what score the game has been assigned. Again, we use a star system, though, which I believe equates more to the level of enjoyment I’ve had playing that game than the overall quality. Does this cause some disparity between text and score? As I’ve said, yes but I don’t care.
Related suggestions for Ethics section:
Have we ever submitted review scores to publishers prior to their publication? If so, why?
Have we ever submitted review copy to publishers prior to its publication. If so, why?
Have PR people suggested that specific critics review specific games? Have we complied with their suggestions?
No to all of the above.
Reviews Vs Criticism
Question 1: What is the object of a review? What are the review writer’s obligations?
We should be true to our audience, with the object to provide a considered approach as to how enjoyable the game is, how long it’s likely to entertain, what will frustrate and to some degree what the target audience is and who will enjoy it. The writer’s obligations are to the audience.
I am, however, guilty of not particularly caring about any of the above and describing instead the enjoyment I’ve had with the game and the type of experience the game offers. There are places for both, however, and as I believe all reviews and critique are purely subjective experiences, then none of the above really matters. Your perspective and audience will differ depending on the site and as such it’s best to consult the mission statement or review policy for each individual media outlet.
Question 2: If the purpose of a review is to suggest to consumers how they should spend their time and money, why do we avoid less-granular grading scales such as Buy, Try, or Avoid? Example: Giant Bomb founder and former Gamespot editorial director Jeff Gerstmann told MTV’s Multiplayer blog that “’How can I save people money today?’ is basically the kind of mentality that I tackle this stuff with.” Under Gerstmann’s directorship, Gamespot reviewed games on a hundred-point scale. Is a 9.6 different than a 9.7 when the wisdom of a purchase is what the reviewer wants to communicate?
Anything more than a ten point scale is utterly useless. In fact, most ten point scales are useless to a consumer. Most reviews are probably useless to a consumer given how subjective each gamer’s experience is. The only way for a customer to truly understand whether they will or will not enjoy a title before they purchase is to rent a game for a weekend and give it a good play.
Most games offer single-player experiences that are more than six or seven hours in length, incorporating a wide variety of mechanics and modes. Is it really possible to summarise all that in a point scale of any type? Hell no. That’s covered by the text.
As to why reviews don’t use scales such as Buy, Try, or Avoid, well that’s easy — Metacritic. Isn’t it true that sites like being aggregated on Metacritic and Gamerankings? I know of one particular site whose whole ambition was to be incorporated into the scoring list on Gamerankings because that’s where more pageviews could be got. In a commercial environment, losing pageviews can be equated to losing advertising dollars. It’s not smart business. (That said, I don’t work for a commercial outlet, at all, so I might just be full of shit.)
(Disclosure: I provide some words and layout for Pixel Hunt as of edition 5)
I think www.PixelHunt.com.au has got it right with it’s Brilliant, Impressive, Try-Hard, Stinker “scores” and so has Crispy Gamer with it’s Try It, Buy It and Fry It ratings system. However, it’s already been proven that such ratings don’t reflect the greater opinion, considering Crispy Gamer ran two conflicting reviews of Silent Hill: Homecoming — one giving Fry It, the response giving it no score but a rather glowing re-appraisal.
Question 3: Actual sales rarely correlate with review scores in cases where games are not also heavily hyped and marketed. Increasingly, gamers pre-order games prior to the publication of reviews. Interactive demos allow our audiences to decide for themselves whether or not a game will be worth their dollars. In addition, word of mouth and message board discussions inform our potential audiences’ purchasing decisions with an intimacy and directness that we cannot provide. Finally, review aggregation sites such as Metacritic mute the bias of individual reviewers and provide a bigger picture. Do these circumstances suggest that our self-perception is, well, delusional – a throwback to a time when magazines and websites were gaming’s gatekeepers? If our audiences believe this, even if we do not, what are they really reading for?
To improve my own review writing, I once sought the advice of Susan Arendt of Escapist Magazine and she revealed to me the greatest secret of professional games writing;
“A game journo friend of mine put it best, I think, when he said that people read about games at work because they can’t actually play the game at work. The review has to act as the game surrogate, and therefore needs to be its own form of entertainment.”
Going further, I believe that we write to provide just one opinion of a game, providing one glimpse of the variety of experiences games have to offer. When I used to save for months to purchase a game, I’d read every review of that game in every magazine I could get my hands on to colour my overall perception. That’s the same today — to think that a gamer only visits one website to read one review of game they are considering spending lots of money on is ludicrous. As a single writer, as a single website, you are part of a greater whole.
EGMs multiple opinion reviews are a good start, though I don’t feel they ever provide a good, well-rounded representation of the game as a whole — usually picking apart the game and focussing on one or two good or bad areas without providing a general overview. Pixel Hunt will publish two separate reviews of Saints Row 2 in Edition 5; one providing a rather cynical perspective and the other from someone who thoroughly enjoyed it as an action-romp that need offer no more. Crispy Gamers aforementioned Silent Hill: Homecoming reviews also offer vastly differing opinions and these I think are better at providing a rounded set of experiences for consumers to read.
Question 4: Can criticism (concerned with telling our audiences what they’re spending time and/or money playing as opposed to whether or not a game is worth spending time and/or money to play) coexist with reviews? Is a competent review also a critique — as is so often the case where lit, movies, and music are concerned — or should we separate the two?
To be quite frank, I’d rather not use the term “review” to describe anything that I write personally. In fact, I’m looking at moving away from that when GamingSA gets redressed. I actually prefer the idea of New Games Journalism, encapsulating the personal experience of each gamer, which can serve to provide both a general description of the game for review purposes whilst critiquing and drawing attention to those aspects of the game which best define the act of playing.
Question 5: What can (or should) such criticism take into account? [Note: I don’t want to jump the gun on the Evolving Reviews section here, so bear with me if you’re wondering why I’m not yet asking certain obvious questions about the shape and challenges of videogame criticism.]
Criticism should take into account any aspect of the game that colours the experience, for better or worse, and how these areas could be improved. In some situations, criticism may also explore what relevance the game has on the culture of videogames and in broader society, whether it is a step forward for the industry, whether it challenges us in any way. Essentially, anything in the game deemed worthy by an individual for further exploration — even if that equates a game to sex.
Digg, Face, Hit, Spread me!

