Game review rant

[HealthyGarrett]

<DIV class=post id=msg_17224>I'm sick of game reviewers who give high marks to games that have a compelling single player campaign, but lack any sort of multiplayer, but on the other hand if a game is mostly focused on multiplayer and lacks a deep single player campaign, then the game is a bit of a let down. I call BS on these hypocritical game reviewers. The problem with these guys is that because they play so many games, they can only see the surface of what the game offers (shiney graphics, booming audio) and off they go to thier next game. It's a very shallow way of evaluating a game IMO.

I'm going to use Bioshock and Shadowrun as prime examples of what i'm talking about. Bioshock is single player only, while Shadowrun is multiplayer only. According to 1up.com game reviewers, they felt the need to give it sort of a warning:

"First and foremost, Shadowrun is a game of ifs. If you can justify paying full price for a multiplayer-only game ($60 on 360, $50 on PC), if you have a Live gold subscription (360 requires it, PC only requires it to play cross-platform), if you can set aside preconceived notions about the pacing and complexity of first-person shooters, and if you can find a cooperative and communicative group of regulars to play with...you'll have a hell of a lot of fun." -1up reviewer

Now don't get me wrong, it's good that they mentioned that it does not have a single player campaign as it shoudl be noted, but was it really neccessary to say "If you can justify paying full price for a multiplayer game". The multiplayer part of the game is usually the funnest part of any game and where you get the most longevity out of it.

Do the reviewers at 1up extend the same courtesy to Bioshock as they did with Shadowrun? HELL NO! Let's just give them an A+ rating and give them FPS game of the year honors even though it lacks multiplayer.

As gamers we are fools for falling for the shiney graphics and putting so much stock in game reviews that treat multiplayer gaming as cousin Oliver from the Brady Bunch, so we end up buying games that is visually stunning like Bioshock, Mass Effect, Army of 2, only to trade them in a month or so for the next overly hyped game.

If your the type that likes single player gaming more so than multiplayer gaming then that's fine, my rant is because both game types are not percieved as being on equal ground in the eyes of the "expert" game reviewers.</DIV>
<P mce_keep="true">

[Toothcake]

<P mce_keep="true">I agree with what you're saying to a large extent, but that's the problem with taking numeric based reviews at face value. My purchases are reinforced by high review scores -- I think everyone wants confidence in what they're buying, but if i'm interested in a game i'm at least going to give it a rent. My suggestion? Pay less attention to the actual score and more on the body of the review; specifically the pros and cons of the game. I visit Gamespot and Gametrailers strictly because they include a short list of the good and bads in addition to the score. I also hit up Kotaku where they throw out a numeric score all together.
<P mce_keep="true">At the end of the day they're all opinions anyway.

[Wendig1630]

<P mce_keep="true">I whould never trade in Mass Effect or Bioshock. Two of the best games I ever played. Neither of those games need multiplayer they have so much more than "shiny graphics". Playing Bioshock in the dark still creeps the shit out me.

[tammy55]

<P mce_keep="true">Personally I ignore game reviews completely. If I'm interested, then I rent it and decide for myself if it is a buy or not. I could give a flying flip about a game having multiplayer to be honest, the lack thereof isn't a determining factor for me. However, the lack of a single player campaign is a determining factor for me -- but that's just me. :-)

[Mr Rad]

I agree with the reviewers in the cases you mentioned.



I really want to know if there is no single player (or if it feels tacked on) like with Shadowrun. Likewise, I also want to be notified if there is no multiplayer (or if it feels tacked on) like with Mass Effect. I did see notices in reviews indicating the lack of multiplayer on both Bioshock and Mass Effect.



An A+ game doesn't need to have multiplayer but it needs to be a damn good single player game - such as Bioshock or Mass Effect.

Likewise,

An A+ game doesn't need to have single player but it needs to be a damn good multiplayer game - such as ....., sorry I can't fill in the blank here.



COD4 and Halo 3 are the only games that I've seen that did a great job on both single and multiplayer fronts, but I may have missed a few.



Shadowrun got the reviews it deserved. I participated in the beta testing of that game and they didn't improve it nearly enough to get my $60.

I played the hell out of Mass Effect and am eagerly awaiting the next DLC for it.

[Nitereaver]

<P mce_keep="true">The only way to rate a game properly in today's case with multiplayer being a big issue would be to rate it as a two rating scale. Have one rating for the Single Player Aspect and one for the Multiplayer.
<P mce_keep="true">Example: Call of Duty 4 would get IMO a high score for single player and a high score for multiplayer. Now a game like Bioshock would get a high score for single player but a big goose egg for multiplayer.
<P mce_keep="true">This kind of reviewing would allow the readers to see exactly what they are getting for the money. For me personally multiplayer isnt that big of an issue anymore like it used to be. So a game that scored really good on the single player front would more than likely earn my money. While a game (like shadowrun) that scores really good on multiplayer but crap on single player I would not purchase it. People who love multiplayer however would swarm to the games that score really high in that category.
<P mce_keep="true">There are many games out there that have awesome single player and the multiplayer is crap (condemned 2). If they would score both aspects people would know right of the bat, "hey this game will give me a good play through by myself, but wont stick around for multiplayer." Alot of people had high hopes for multiplayer on Condemned 2 and were pissed when they bought it.
<P mce_keep="true">So there's my thought/idea on how they SHOULD review games. Todays reviews are pretty much crap..

[Sharky]

he only way to rate a game properly in today's case with multiplayer being a big issue would be to rate it as a two rating scale. Have one rating for the Single Player Aspect and one for the Multiplayer.

I totally agree. There really is no way to give games one sigle score any more.

[Downsideup]

Review scores are terribly flawed, I think gamers everywhere feel that's the case. There are just too many things to gripe about:



- The Scale. Be it 1-10 or 1-100 reviewers use their grading system as if they were doing just that grading. This isn't highschool, when you use a rating scale 5's and 6's shouldn't be considered crap, that's the middle of the scale, by going down this direction the scale is off, there is more room to represent failure than success. It's why if you search the internet for a few minutes you can find graphs that represent review sites like IGN rating 90% of games in the 6-10 range. The only scale that is used properly is the 1-5, but that's because it's so simplistic that it's impossible for a competant mind to fuck up. Secondly, just as a nit pick with these scales, what's with the arbitrary tenth of a point differences? 8.5 ok between 8 and 9, I get that, but 8.3 what the fuck does that mean, don't overcomplicate things if you are going to rate on such a small margin I hope you can explain what the difference between an 8.3 and an 8.4 are.



- Singleplayer/Multiplayer. These experiences are often dramatcially different and even reach to different types of gamers, so why not split the scores. AAA titles of today spend just as much time creating their singleplayer experience as their multiplayer so why not acknowledge that and allow for the two to stand alone. Why open yourself up to criticism of bias towards one style over the other and just grade them separately. That way Warhawk/Shadowrun fans aren't mad that their titles get discounted as less than worthy to singleplayer games.



- Score v. Word. Often times I come across reviews that send complete mix messages, either the score is average, but the written review seems raving, or vice versa. Now I've always in this case, or in any case really judged based on word, because it takes actual time and thought to express oneself over the course of a 2 page article, and it takes a few seconds to try and summarize that work with a number. However, it is quite annoying to read a review that seemingly pumps that game up to great lengths yet leaves the game with an average score.



- Subjectivity. This is the seemingly least logical of all the flaws, and first I must credit that this criticism I first heard from Geoff Keighley(sp?). That is that unlike the music industry, gaming reviews don't seem to get treated as what they are, opinions. Unlike the music and movie industry it seems as if videogame reviews are taken at an almost factual state. I'm not sure if this is a fault of the gamers reporting and using said reviews in said way or if it's a product of just how little separation there is among reviews of games among major review outlets. Whichever it is or whether it be both, the problem exists in the videogame industry much more evidently than I see it in the music/movie/tv industry.

[Maclintok]

<P mce_keep="true">

- Score v. Word. Often times I come across reviews that send complete mix messages, either the score is average, but the written review seems raving, or vice versa. Now I've always in this case, or in any case really judged based on word, because it takes actual time and thought to express oneself over the course of a 2 page article, and it takes a few seconds to try and summarize that work with a number. However, it is quite annoying to read a review that seemingly pumps that game up to great lengths yet leaves the game with an average score.

Game review scores are fun to have as talking points but I'm a HUGE proponent of score-less reviews. However scores will never go away because we live in a Metacritic age. Additionally a review that only has words introduces more ambiguity and subjectivity, sometimes forciing the reader to form more of their own opinion and people can be uncomfortable with that. Some peeps just want to have an absolute verdict from a credible source... they don't want to anaylze the pros and cons for themselves.

[Motown5150]

<P mce_keep="true">I don't really care about actual scores as I do about consistant comments good or bad.
<P mce_keep="true">Unfortunately, you almost have to find reviewers you trust based on your opinion of previous reviews they did and your personal tastes. I used to trust some of the Gamespot guys (Greg K and a few others) until they either got canned or left because their buddies got canned. lol.
<P mce_keep="true">Honestly, game tastes are so varied, you really have to try them yourself and see what they're really like. Some of the games I've liked the best this gen were mostlyones that scored in the high 7's, I believe, and I could care less what they metered on the popularity scale. I only care what they do for me. No need to let it bother you, asthey are gonna be released regardless of score and you can enjoy them all the same.