To review critiques
Well, it’s been a little too long, again, but not nearly as bad as the last gap.
There was a recent post on Kotaku about Journalism versus Criticism, which refers to a comment by someone during a roundtable on the issue of reviews, and how to write them. In that comment, the person notices that, when most sites review a game, they’re actually trying to critique it, even though that isn’t the purpose of reviews.
The point, of course, is that reviews are, as he puts it, “consumer reports on the elements of a game that advise the person of what they’re buying”. In other words, they’re intended to inform the reader on what they’re buying, rather than to work out how artistic and innovative a game is.
The difference between a review and what most sites have been doing can easily be seen by looking at instances such as Wii Fit. When they review it, they focus more on what Nintendo could have done to make the game better, more artistic. They then rate the game according to the same set of rules that would apply to a game such as GTA IV or MGS 4 – two games that are clearly a world apart from Wii Fit.
Review ratings, at this point in time, seem to focus on trying to identify which games are most innovative and/or “artistic”. This is why Super Mario Galaxy is one of the highest-rated games of all time, along with GTA IV – both games aim to be innovative and artistic. Meanwhile, Super Smash Bros Brawl and Mario Kart Wii, although of greater value to most gamers than Super Mario Galaxy, get lower ratings, because they’re less innovative and less artistic.
So, it’s time to change all that. We can still have our “critiques” of games, we can have people who play the game specifically to identify flaws and ways to improve the game, work out just how innovative and artistic the game is… but we should return the “review” to what it should be – a summary of the game, and talk of its value to the consumer.
For a while, I’ve had an idea for a scheme by which games could get a “review rating”, which actually fits this idea perfectly. Instead of rating a game according to how good the graphics, the sound, the controls, or the presentation of the game are, rate according to how much the game should be worth to different types of gamer. For instance, Wii Fit wouldn’t be of that great a value to someone who specifically prefers FPS games, but it would be much more valuable to those who like to use their body more. As such, perhaps the former would be willing to pay AU$50 for the game, while the latter would be willing to pay AU$150 for it. Thus, if we define the value based on the assumption that a game worth AU$100 is precisely equal to 10 points, then the rating would be 5 for the former, and 15 for the latter.
Why is this a good system? Suppose that, tomorrow, Nintendo dropped the price of the game from AU$150 to AU$50 – now, the game would be worth getting for the average FPS fan. For most of the time that Wii Fit has been available, it has been available for about AU$120 or so, if you shop in the right place. Suppose that some particular group gets a rating of 11 for the game – now, if the game goes on sale for only AU$110, it would be worth getting, but not at the current best-price of AU$120. Therefore, the rating tells people how much they should pay for the game, rather than trying to tell them how artistic it is. Another good example is Wii Play – it’s not that great a game, really, but for $10 in combination with a controller, it’s worth it. Sure, the game is really only worth maybe a 1 or a 1.5, but that’s how much it costs, so it’s as good a deal as, say, Sonic Unleashed, which is worth about a 6, and is currently selling for about AU$60.
Why have the points set to an arbitrary number, rather than the actual price? Because different countries have different prices, and different people have different standards for how much a game is worth. Therefore, while the reviewers might be using 10 = AU$100, someone in America may interpret 10 to equate to US$45, even though AU$100 games tend to cost US$50. In this way, the rating becomes region and personally agnostic.
But of course, as I pointed out before, different groups of people would have different standards – some would pay more for an FPS game, and less for a party game. Others might prefer violent games, and dislike games with a lot of colour. Still others may absolutely love offline multiplayer, or online modes, or pick-up-and-play gaming. Where relevant, the value to each of these groups should be accounted for.
And this is why each game would get more than one value – usually four or five. For instance, MySims might get a rating for casual gamers, hardcore gamers, Sims fans, and fans of games that involve creativity – each of these are significant for this game, and thus ratings should be given for these groups. On the other hand, FPS-lovers probably don’t need to be told that MySims isn’t really for them – and they fall neatly into the “hardcore gamer” category.
Of course, the specific implementation is up to the particular site hosting the reviews. Perhaps it would be effective to have categories by which games are given values – for instance, “creativity”, “challenge”, “violence”, etc, would all get values. And then, the user can choose what typethey fall into, and that type would give weightings to each of the categories. Or perhaps a manual system is better.
Suffice it to say, an approach like this would be more informative to gamers – it would tell them just how much the game is worth to them (to the best of the reviewer’s ability), and the value of the rating wouldn’t be in any way dependent on the current price of the game.
And of course, if a game is one that people should immediately buy, the value can be well above the recommended retail price – for instance, a game that costs AU$100 could very well be given a 20 – meaning, even if some place is charging double price, it’s still worth it.
