There is something horribly wrong with professional video game analysis. The problem is multi-faceted, deeply rooted, and all-important, but yet it still exists and muddies the waters of critical understanding.
I’m talking about video game reviews. Not how these exposes of assumed-value are written, but rather the numeric score attached to them.
I feel it is a fraudulent enterprise to place a percent-value on a game based on its merits in the eyes of the reviewer alone.
There are many problems with the current review system every publication from popular gaming Web destination IGN.com to the GameInformer magazine uses, but I’m disheartened to know and truly believe it won’t change.
The main problem with associating a game with a numeric score is that the adjectives connected with each number are not equivalent across the ever-growing avenues of analysis both on the Web and in print.
For example, a 9.0 on IGN’s scale yields the adjective “Outstanding,” while Blast Magazine, the publication I write for, uses “Excellent” to describe that same value.
Where do I draw the line between outstanding and excellent? Are these words equal? More importantly, when readers jump from publication to publication, to amass enough knowledge to warrant what they deem a justified purchase, is the game’s actual value lost in translation due to these differing declarations?
Additionally, I believe reviewers, no matter who you are, who you write for, or how much experience, knowledge or wisdom you have, should not be the one to decide why the game’s score vaulted to a 9.5 simply because “the game’s multiplayer component” pushed it there.
Game-play elements of a particular game matter to some and not to others, so I don’t believe it’s fair to generalize the issue.
The main reason why numeric review scores will likely never disappear entirely however is due to pressure from publishers. Global video game publishers like Electronic Arts, Activision and Square Enix thirst for these scores to slap on the back of the game’s box or tout in a television or print advertisement.
With the help of a number score, in just one glimpse, a reader, marketer, parent, or publisher can get an idea of how “good” the game is, and can do so, and often do, without reading a single line of text.
Is this where we are today? Do we seek the easy way out and not challenge ourselves to dig deep and discern the true merit of a game (or anything else in life for that matter)?
Thankfully, the games journalism field is an evolving beast, and many well-read blogs have bucked that trend and offered an entirely new structure of analysis.
Take for example mega- gaming-themed blog Kotaku. The daily readership of this establishment eclipses the multi-million mark and its review process is far from normal.
Instead of affixing a number score to each review written, the journalistic team at Kotaku forms their prose in a series of “Loved” and “Hated” statements.
In doing this, readers are not force-fed an analysis they may not agree with and can thankfully form their own conclusions about the merit of the game in question.
Whereas IGN seems to appeal to its corporate sponsors, reviews I’ve read on Kotaku, and the general sense I get from perusing through comments on its pages, is that of a significant weight and importance placed upon what the reader thinks. Crazy concept huh?
Video game reviews are important. These essays are often what compels or dissuades us from spending $60 on that “Halo 3” or “Modern Warfare 2,” so ultimately, shouldn’t it be your decision?
My brother would be amazed this blog post. We were just discussing about this. lol