Topic: The role of the modern game review (With a large helping of nostalgia)

[K-man]

We touched on this in IRC the other day and I thought the topic deserved a thread.

We were reminiscing, as we are wont to do, when we started talking about how we used to try games.  Tossing consoles aside for a minute (I'll revisit that shortly), I want to talk about my early PC gaming days for a sec.

We were poor.  Not dirt poor, but there was no way my parents could have ever afforded to purchase a PC for me.  Luckily back in 1994 or so some of my mother's friends were attempting to donate a 386 IBM compatible PC to the local school.  They school could not take it, so they asked my mother if I wanted it.  I couldn't say "YES!" fast enough.  Suddenly along with being able to do new things with schoolwork, I suddenly had a world of PC gaming at my disposal that I literally knew nothing about.

I got about 5-6 different magazine demo discs with the computer.  It's how I discovered Doom (after spending countless hours on the Wolf 3d demo).  These demo discs were treasure chests.  Given that I did not purchase or subscribe to any computer gaming print, this and name recognition was how I tried games.  I was able to experience the awesomeness that was Return to Zork, despite never knowing there were prior text-based adventures.  Games like X-wing and Rebel Assault came about because I was a huge Star Wars nerd at the time.  I brought Justice City from humble town beginnings to a population of millions in Sim City 2000.  All of these games I bought on my own volition.  Not because I read a review that said they were worth buying.  I tried demos and made a decision from there.  It may be the nostalgia talking, but I really remember demos back in the day being much more representative of the final product than demos today.  For example, the demo for Uncharted really turned me off to the game.  It wasn't until I finally gave in to everyone's praise of the game that I bought and enjoyed it immensely. 

I realize I'm rambling so I will bring it back around.  One holiday season I had some money to burn and went Christmas shopping with my mother.  We stopped into Wal-Mart who at the time had an insane amount of shelf space dedicated to PC software and games.  They had a few bargain titles.  Despite having rented it for the SNES and being sort of 'meh' about it, I came home with Ultima VI that day.  I had never really played the series before.  I played a little bit of Exodus on the NES but wasn't 'really impressed.  VI is buggy as shit.  There were a lot of things that essentially broke the game and required a restart of your save file.  Granted these were annoying, but I literally spent years off and on in that game world before finally finishing the game (in a way the developers obviously did not intend).  This is probably one of the most memorable gaming experiences of my life.  Between the large map to explore, novel conversation system (especially for the day), and lore contained in the game, it was a very satisfying experience...one that would get killed in a modern game review.  It would get massacred. 

If a AAA has one small flaw today, forget it.  Reviews are going to really point that out and assign an arbitrary score.  One that will influence millions of people's decision on whether to purchase a game.  A score of 8.0 is a death knell.  Not that I hate games like CoD, them continually getting near-perfect scores is BS.  If there's one thing Gerstmann ever did right, it was give Zelda:  TP the score he did.  People are missing out on these "fringe" gaming experiences.  Those that might not be 100% polished to a sheen and without bugs, but still have something wonderful to offer the end user.

I subscribed to Nintendo Power for a number of years, so I always had a review source for NES/SNES games.  Although looking back through those old mags, the reviews were biased as hell.  My first ever gaming magazine was "Video Games and Computer Entertainment" that had a walkthrough for the first part of Zelda II:  The Adventure of Link.  I read that thing like it was the bible.  Anyhow, my point being is that I had a lot more avenues to getting game reviews for console titles than PC titles.  But you know how I decided on purchasing a game or not?  I rented them.  Renting was a huge reason why I was able to play a lot of games as a child.  Our children will never have that experience.  Going into a store and seeing a huge wall of games ripe for the picking.  Now we are able to log into Xbox Live, browse titles, see user-reviews, and download them.

Now we look at scores.  And despite my thoughts on them I still automatically want to shy away from something that's got a 79 or lower on metacritic. 

[sirean_syan]

It's funny. I thought the IRC conversation on this was kind of short but I thought about it for a bit of time afterwards as well.

Shareware and old school demos played a large role in exposing me to a lot of the games I grew up on as well. However, the other side of it was I would just follow certain publishers. If LucasArts was putting something out, I had to find the money to buy it. If Microprose put something out, I would look into it. It seemed like a publisher would tend to release a certain type of game or games with a certain feel. You can't trust that so much anymore with the exception of maybe Atlus.

The thing that gets me is how easily it is to dismiss a game now (and this isn't limited to games, but also movies, TV, books... anything really). If a games scores an 80 or something people assume it's crap. If it gets too high like a Call of Duty or Mass Effect people assume it's overrated. Either way, it's like nobody is really allowed to just enjoy a game anymore. You have to be critical of it in some point until most everybody hates it. Even things that come out with generally universal praise will have the internet turn on it at some point. Skyrim is the best recent example I can think of. It seemed like everyone enjoyed it when it was first launched but within weeks there were tons of threads about that would go into how someone became bored with it (after many many hours), the game didn't do one particular thing well, or they didn't like the color scheme so therefore the game must suck. I know I've been guilty of this and I think I started doing it because writing about something in a forum made me feel like I was a game reviewer or something (especially earlier last decade... you know, when a lot of us decided we could be game reviewers for real). That being the case, I had to be critical or I had to analyze every game. It wasn't just about having the experience anymore and then talking about how cool it was with friends afterwards. I'm not sure if we feel we have to be this way because we are trying to make our hobbies more important than they are, if we are trying to sound smart, if we or some combination but I've just grown sick of it lately. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy an interesting review or some analysis of a game anymore, but I think a lot of people just take it too far into the critical zone. I wonder if we'll ever find some balance because it seems like people have only more outlets to make them think their opinions are super important than they did before.

[idolminds]

Demo discs back in ye olden days were great, not just because it saved you from trying to download demos for hours (back when it was like that for everyone), but because it exposed you to demos you may not have looked at before. It was just right there, ready for you to install and try...already beat the 3 demos you really wanted, might as well give them a spin. Then game demos got much larger so fewer fit on a disc and now you only get one or 2 big name ones and some popcap demos. Yes, the availability of high speed internet made cover discs kind of useless but now demos are something you have to seek out, something you have to spend your own time downloading. You look at 2 screenshots and decide to skip it entirely. I wonder how many gamers would end up liking some of these games. Not even lesser known titles but games in genres they think they don't like. I didn't care for RPGs until I played WoW because my main exposure was JRPGs and I didn't like them. It was pressure from you guys here that made me try something else and now I play a fair number of RPGs.

[MysterD]

Oh, yeah - back in the day, Demo Discs were sweet. I got a whole box of nothing but those old demo discs from PC gaming mags, laying around on my shelf.

I still play a fair amount of Demos, these day and age. That's probably b/c I have what I feel is a decent enough Internet connection and have no real problem w/ testing out demos for games I want to see how well they run [or don't run]; or if I really am anticipating the game (ME3 Demo; KOA: Reckoning demo); or if I'm just not so sure about a game that I might have interest in (Civ 5 demo).

For reviews, I actually do read the review or watch it. Score isn't the most important thing for me. There's certain things I look for, when it comes to reviews...
Technical Stuff - Does the game have technical issues? Stability issues? Broken quests? Game-breaking bugs?
Longevity - How long or short is the game? Is the game replayable? How much will the game cost at full price upon release?
Most games, I refuse to buy upon release until they've on sale and/or dropped in price a bit b/c of so many annoying factors that make it a better idea to just wait it out - i.e. annoying DRM; any DLC plans; company is known for releasing lots of DLC; company is known for re-releasing game w/ Ultimate Editions later; etc etc.
Very few exceptions to that above rule include they're long-winded RPG or some other few rare cares.

[Pugnate]

When video games cost $60 a pop it is fair you only want to play the best of the best. If you can afford a game a month then you do want to play that one game that scores in the 90s. It makes sense.

[idolminds]

True, which sort of leads back to why don't more games have good demos? Its a tough market but you give people a little slice of fun and you greatly increase your chances of making a sale. I guess the fear is making a bad demo turns people off...so stop making bad demos?

[TheOtherBelmont]

I fucking HATE Metacritic and wish it would die.  I hate how a good developer that puts out a good game can get completely fucked over because their Metacritic is in the 70-80 range.  Why should video game review sites determine how much a developer gets paid (bonuses) and if they get future projects?  It's a completely broken system.  Video game reviews have their place to educate people and I am not against them, but the way it works with Metacritic right now is completely fucked.  That is not entirely the fault of video game reviewers though and unfortunately I don't see it changing.  What Sy touched upon about how easily games get dismissed these days due to what the industry calls mediocre scores in the 80s is exactly what I hate about the system.

I personally don't base my purchase decisions enitrely on reviews.  I do look at them, but I mainly look at them to gauge how well a game I like or have already purchased is doing so I can get a sense of what the future is for that game and its developers.  I wouldn't have to do that though if it weren't for the completely fucked Metacritic system we have in place though.  I do like to read reviews sometimes though for the actual review and for the most part completely ignore the score.  If I start to see a trend where multiple reviewers start to point out a similar flaw then that can set off a flag for me and I will keep that in mind.  Then there are cases where multiple reviewers completely miss a mechanic or something a game has to offer or they nitpick and bash on a game for its style and art which is a completely subjective thing so I have to take everything they have to say with a grain of salt because a style the reviewer may not like is a style I could love.

[idolminds]

The sad part is Metacritic wasn't a bad idea to begin with. I still use it because its handy to get a sort of "overall" score and easy links to many reviews. If theres a game Im interested in I'll hit up MC and read some of the positive and negative reviews (user reviews are mostly worthless) and decide from there.

The whole using the MC score to dole out bonuses is bullshit from publishers. I don't know why they do that crap.

[MysterD]

True, which sort of leads back to why don't more games have good demos? Its a tough market but you give people a little slice of fun and you greatly increase your chances of making a sale. I guess the fear is making a bad demo turns people off...so stop making bad demos?

Yeah, I've had cases where a DEMO has turned me to actually buying a game I probably wouldn't have bought otherwise - i.e. Sins of a Solar Empire.

[sirean_syan]

Somewhere along the line the demo became the carrot instead of the stick. There's probably some line of thought that if you give someone something free they won't need the rest. Dumb, but that's how it seems to work the people who make these decisions now.

[K-man]

When video games cost $60 a pop it is fair you only want to play the best of the best. If you can afford a game a month then you do want to play that one game that scores in the 90s. It makes sense.

It does, I suppose, to a point.

But then you're making the assumption that the given scores are fair.  Go back to my CoD example:  I have played Modern Warfare 1 and 2.  I can only assume the other games released after those were markedly similar and really didn't do anything remarkable.  It doesn't push the genre forward and still garners 9.0+ review scores.   Meanwhile some lesser known developer puts out a game not quite as polished.  But it takes a chance and has something genuinely innovative to offer.  It scores an 8.0 average and is largely ignored.  Happens all the time.

[scottws]

Like you I haven't played COD:MW3, but I've played the first two and would rate them even.  I don't care if they don't move the genre forward, the quality of the games are absolutely fantastic.  Do you really want points to be docked if an otherwise amazing game doesn't do anything new in comparison to its predecessor?  In this particular case, I would disagree with you if you said yes.

That said, videogame review scores are completely out of whack.  I looked for but was unable to dig up the image of how games get scored.  Basically it showed that 7.0 was below average and anything 6.0 and lower was complete crap, which is of course stupid.  That needs to be fixed.  The whole scale needs to be used.

[K-man]

We'll have to agree to disagree there, Scott.  Going back to my Twilight Princess example.  A game can be good, but if in the end its just more of the same and doesn't do anything to move the genre forward, it deserves a lower score.

COD4 was magnificent and raised the bar for shooters (and story).  Some of the set pieces were fantastic.  MW2 was also good, but wasn't anywhere near the jump COD4 was.  It's the same reason I dock Uncharted 3.  It was a good game for sure and certainly worth playing through.  But it didn't raise the bar like 2 did.  Maybe the bar couldn't be raised any more, I don't know.

[MysterD]

COD4 was magnificent and raised the bar for shooters (and story).  Some of the set pieces were fantastic.  MW2 was also good, but wasn't anywhere near the jump COD4 was.

I agree w/ this 100%.

[scottws]

Who cares if MW2 wasn't a big jump? It was a fantastic game, better than its predecessor, and the best FPS game on the market at the time. Yet you think it needs to be scored lower? I can't say I understand your position here and very much disagree with it.

Now if Civ 2 just came out today I could get behind your argument because, while a great game and better that the original in many ways, it can't gracefully stand next to other modern games. Even with your TP example you are talking about like the fourth game in a row to follow the exacy same formula (and to share a little too much in common with Okami). But that is not the type of thing that was going on with the first two MW games.

[Pugnate]

I agree with both of you. I think releasing the exact same product with better graphics and a different campaign shouldn't be enough to let a game earn the same reviewer score. But it also depends on how fresh the game feels. You could have Diablo 2 follow Diablo 1 and feel fresher if there are no Diablo clones in the middle.

I think a game can feel quite fresh without a lot of innovation in game mechanics. And sometimes the innovation in gameplay takes a while to see, like in the Civilization games.

For MW2, a lot of the greatness is in the cinematic aspect of it. So it is a bit like watching a sequel. If it feels just as entertaining without feeling like a rehash, then good.

I actually haven't played MW2 so I can't contribute fully to this discussion, though MW1 was awesome. If MW2 was a completely different spin than MW1, and but offered even slightly improved game mechanics, I would have been happy to have it earn the same score as its predecessor.

I do have a classic example for this argument though, and that is the Left 4 Dead series.

As fun as L4D2 was, I do not think it deserved the same score as L4D1, purely because of the argument K-Man is making. You can make things feel fresh in a game's single player campaign too by doing something different, and that just didn't have one, and for multiplayer, it didn't do enough.

[K-man]

MW2 was fun, but it was more of the exact same.  Aside from some different maps/perks nothing was really improved upon, despite coming out a few years after Modern Warfare.  That's my problem.  The game was entertaining, I couldn't put it down, but it didn't do anything new.  I believe it should be docked for not moving the series forward.  Same goes for any other series.  Uncharted, Halo, Gears, etc etc.  All series I enjoy, but the sequels feel like more of a continuation of the first games in the series rather than a significant improvement (Uncharted 1 to 2 being an obvious exception). 

And as much as Nintendo rehashes their franchises, they've done Mario right.  They've always added just enough newness to the tried and true to make every game feel fresh.  Wish they'd get the memo on Zelda...

And FYI Scott, there are some Civ-heads that believe Civ 2 is better than the series' subsequent releases