Game Reviews & Research

[lobotomy42]

Okay, this thread is basically about a pet peeve I have with game

reviews. It's not well thought-out, since I'm just going to go stream of consciousness and see who agrees with me.

It really bugs me when game reviewers have clearly not done much

research about a game before writing a review. What do I mean by

research? To my mind, before writing substantively about a game, one

should all or most of the following:

1) Played the game, somewhat extensively

2) Played all or most of the game's "influences" enough to be

acquanted with them. I don't mean that they have to have beaten them

all or even played them all, but one should have a rough idea of how

this game to be the way it is. Influences may or may not include:

a) Prior games in the series, developed by anyone

Non-series games by the same development studio / director /

creative leads

c) Games in the same genre by competing studios with similar --

or maybe even very different -- features / themes / ideas

3) Viewed / Read relevant non-gaming influences, if these exist

a) For franchise (movie/tv/etc) games, know something about the

damn franchise.

If it was "inspired" (or "stolen") from some other idea, know

something about that idea

Why is all this shit important? Because they are the game's

CONTEXT. The game you are reviewing does not exist in the ether, by

its lonesome self. There other important questions to answer about a

game than "Was it boring after ten minutes?" and most of those

questions can only properly be answered with CONTEXT. For example:

Does this game have a great new feature? Well, we can see if a feature

is "great" by playing the game and seeing. But new? The only way to

know if a feature is "new" is to know, even if only approximately,

what similar features have existed in the series/genre/world

beforehand. Nothing pisses me off than when a triple-A developer gets

credit for introducing a Great New Feature that was clearly inspired

from some smaller studio's game years before that no one played. It's

not just that this is unfair (though it is,) but also that it means

the review of the game is not placing the Great New Game in proper

context. Perhaps the real reason the Great New Game is Great has more

to do with a brilliant or clever execution of an old concept. Or

perhaps its more in presentation. Or perhaps part of why its

appealing is that it has callbacks to other media - movies, older

games, Ulysses, whatever. The point is that this CONTEXT matters and

if you're a games media writer you should get some. (If I read one

more review that is "Well, it's like this other game, which we rated

well, so we'll rate it the same but dock a few points cause its old" I

will punch someone. Seriously, that is not informative. What is

similar about the games? What is different? How do the changes affect

the experience? PLEASE GIVE ME SOME CONTEXT.

Also, I wish there were easier-to-find writing about games that was

more descriptive and less qualitative.

</rant>

[thorn]

I agree.

I still have a copy of a review for Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee that referred to Abe as a 'Lizard man' and Munch as a 'Fish', despite the later having a foot and walking on land.

[miffy495]

I somewhat agree, but wonder if it isn't equally important to have a review for someone who is unaware of the context. If it is likely that the person reviewing the game is inexperienced with the literary or otherwise influences that a game may have, I would argue it is equally if not more likely that the average person playing the game will be ignorant of this as well. If what you propose was adopted as the standard, I think that reviewers would be in great danger of constantly talking over the heads of their audience. While it is always a pleasure to see that a reviewer is well read and has a breadth of experience with games, the mass appeal is not something we can overlook so easily. Is Bioshock improved by a knowledge of political philosophy? Sure! Is it still a very good game without that? You bet! Do we need every single review of the game to explore the depths of its implications? Hell no! Do I need to have played SWAT 4 and Freedom Force to appreciate it? Don't even need to know they exist.

History of your media of choice is of course important to know if you're going to be reviewing said media, but it should not be expected that every reviewer be well versed in what they are reviewing. I found it very refreshing, for example, to see Ryan Davis on Giant Bomb recently become enamoured with Civilization V while coming to the genre and series mostly cold. As someone who also has been vaguely aware of 4X games but never gotten into them, it has encouraged me that when I find the time I may really enjoy it. For a gamer who doesn't play that genre, it's nice to see a review by a person who is just like me in that respect. It's not like there's a lack of reviews by the strategy afficionados anyway for those that would like one, but don't discount the value of a review from an outsider's perspective.

[vimes]

If you're doing an analysis, all your points are very important.

But in the case of a review - as in, what the writer think of the game"- only 1) is mandatory, because the value and uniqueness of the review comes from the writer's 'natural' knowledge or lack of knowledge in 2) and 3).

In some case, if 2) and 3) are done solely the sake of the review, I think it can really hurt its validity, since it's a completely artificial process. It's like watching all the Kubrick's movies and reading all the interviews and analysis before watching The Shining and going "Well, this is a movie about Indians". For me it would have no value at all.

Edited October 29, 2010 by vimes

[Lu]

Well said, Miffy.

It would seem that the need for context would depend on the audience you're writing for. In the case Civ5 of it would seem that an outsiders perspective and one who can see the game in context of the rest of the series would be equally useful.

And I agree with you too, Vimes, that if you're doing an analysis, all that stuff would be important.

So why don't we ever see critical analyses of games after games have been released? I'd be super interested to read things something like that. Or maybe it is being done but I'm not looking in the right places?

[Squid Division]

I agree and disagree. I come from a classical civilation-literature background where, like all art, influences and context are HEAVILY emphasized. But at the same time, I think something has to stand up on its own.

An example I was thinking of recently was watching the GiantBomb quicklook of the new Force Unleashed game. I thought, if this was the EXACT same game as the first one, I wouldn't know, and it could be great for me. On the other hand, for someone else it'd be the exact same game as a game they already played, and therefore totally boring and repetitive.

Neither is wrong, and both are valid, but one is technically more informed about the product.

I'd side more with the context-informed view for better analysis of the game, but it could easily overlook things that are taken for granted by an analysis that addresses its influences.

[miffy495]

So why don't we ever see critical analyses of games after games have been released? I'd be super interested to read things something like that.

Totally. I hope I didn't give the impression that I wouldn't love to see more writing of the nature that Lobotomy is describing. I just personally feel that it would be better suited to a features section than a reviews one. We could certainly do with more interesting post-mortems and analyses.

[lobotomy42]

Yeah, thinking about it now, I think more what I was getting at is that I'd like to see fewer consumer-targeted reviews and more critical analysis. The consumer reviews just don't seem as useful to me. But I can see why an audience who wants those would benefit from coming at something from a clean slate.