Seeing as game reviews are the major foundation of video game journalism right now, I want to take a lot of time to ensure that I can ensure a strong and consistent system to follow. In a market where games are increasing to 60$ for a new title, people are relying more and more on reviews to determine a purchase. Before I can even get to some of the greater intricacies in reviewing, however, let’s start with the basics:
What should a review be?
A game review should be a fair and methodical assessment of a game’s ability to deliver quality, entertainment, and fun. It should allow for the reader to understand the writer’s opinion by the end of the piece, regardless of whether or not there is a numerical score at the end. Likewise, if there is a score, the piece alone should be worded well enough to defend it.
A game review should be an opinion piece. Too often I read about how game reviews are “just the reviewer’s opinions and not a true representation of the game’s merits”. I detest this line of thinking. Game reviews shouldn’t be a hive mind operation where the entire Earth agrees on what an accepted universal score should be. The number of times I have seen someone bashed for the score they have given just bothers me. I have a lot to write about surrounding this topic in the future, but in simple terms for the reviewer: the reviewer should never fear awarding a game with the score that matches what they have written.
A game review should be more than just a description of what you can find within the game. I’ve found several modern-day reviews that simply list all of the features that are available within the game, then suddenly hit me with a numerical score at the end. A review should be able to include this information while also actively evaluating it in a meaningful way.
A game review also shouldn’t appear as the case study of an individual work in a closed environment. A review should be able to openly refer to other works inside the medium of games in order to help better describe a game’s modern significance. For example, you shouldn’t review Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword without taking notice at elements from past Zelda titles, as well as making comparisons to other action-adventure games on the market. I’m not saying this part is absolutely necessary to reviewing games (even the biggest gamers only have so much knowledge of the full medium), but I also don’t think that reviewers should go out of their way to not include other titles in their evaluation of a single work.
That’s about all I’ve got for what I think my reviews should look like. I doubt that I’ll be able to meet all this criteria for every single review that I write, but I hope that I’ll continue to improve until it becomes second nature to me.
Now that we know what I think my reviews should be, here is my simple review process:
1) Play the game until completion, or until a considerable effort has been made to complete the game. I like to think that I’m pretty “good” at videogames. I regularly compete in all sorts of genres, and tend to finish “challenging” games before my friends do. Despite that, if I can’t finish a game in considerable time due to poor communication or absurd/unfair difficulty, I might not finish the game completely (and you’ll be sure that it’ll be reflected in my review one way or another). I take a lot of notes during this stage.
2) Review notes and write. Ideally I like to write as soon as I’ve completed a game and everything is fresh in my head, but that’s what the notes are for if I have to sleep a night before coming back to the keyboard. I start by writing everything that I want to say about the game, followed by editing for clarity, brevity, and grammar. I do not award a score at this stage of the review. While it’s really hard to not think “this game feels like a 7″ time to time, I try really hard to convey my feelings on the game alone before I reach the arbitrary score.
3) Award a score based on what was written. Finally, when all is said and done, I find a score that most appropriately matches what I’ve written. If you haven’t noticed already, I’m a big advocate for finding ways to encourage readers to read the full review of a game before scrolling straight to the bottom and looking at a number to determine what the review means to them. Regardless, the score is still a valuable tool at a reviewer’s disposal for helping convey their opinion. Once I’ve finished writing, I’ll look at my review scale below and attempt to match the tone of my piece with one of the corresponding scores.
4) Take a nap. At this point I’m likely experiencing burnout from constantly looking at screens. I’ll likely crawl into a ball, sob a little, and then wake up to work on the next project.
My Review Scale
In a perfect world, review scales would be more simple. Ideally, I’d be using a 4-star scale to review games, with nine total increments of reviews if we include half stars and zero stars. Even more simple is the scale that Giant Bomb uses, with a simple 5-star scale that forgoes half stars. I think that the more minimized the score of a game is, the more people will pay attention to the actual review.
HOWEVER, I’m not going to pretend that a dominant scale doesn’t exist. Many of the major game review outlets, such as IGN, Gamespot, Destructoid, and GameInformer all use a 10-point scale with .5 increments. While having 20 different scores to choose from seems like it could be daunting (I have no idea what criteria specifically separates a 4.0 from a 4.5), I feel like I’ll get to learn it better if I work at it. My goal is to eventually become a freelance writer, or better yet work for one of the aforementioned review outlets. I might as well play by the popular system and hone my craft using it as opposed to something else.
All that said, here is my personal explanation of what I consider to correspond with each number on the 1-10 scale:
10: The all-elusive ten. Some people believe a ten should never be rewarded, because there’s no such thing as a “perfect” game. Others feel like not enough tens are given out for their favorite game. Some believe a ten should be awarded to a game with flawless execution and zero room for improvement. While I’m closest to this last group, my major criteria for the ten is this: I’ll know it once the game is over. Truly something remarkable and extraordinary in the medium, I have only played a very small handful of what I believe to be are “10″ titles. A “must buy” by all accounts.
9.0-9.5: Fantastic. Am astounding execution of every expectation in this game’s respected genre, often going above and beyond in the realm of creativity. The only thing keeping these games from a ten is usually minor. Maybe it was a small problem with controls. Maybe the pacing was poor in one section. Maybe the sound wasn’t anything special. Either way, I recommend a nine for purchase regardless of what your favorite genre is.
8.0-8.5: Great. The eight is not a score to be feared, despite what everyone seems to think these days. Many of my favorite games of all time deserve an eight. Eights have solid execution, and aren’t plagued by anything major. They might lack the creativity, ambition, or outstanding execution that you could find in a nine title, but that doesn’t stop them from being a great display for what videogames can do. I recommend eights for purchase almost all of the time, but might clarify that certain fans would be better suited to buy the title on launch day for full price than others.
7.0-7.5: Good. By the time we’ve reached this point of the scale, some readers begin to shudder. Do not think of a 7.5 as a “C” grade on a high school project, a seven is not just “average”. Sevens are still well-executed, but their problems are visible even to those who are die-hard fans of the genre. It’s not a deal breaker, but you might find yourself having an occasional frustrating moment. Beyond their flaws, sevens are still fun and exciting. I recommend a full-price purchase of a seven to die hard fans of this kind of game, but occasional fan is better off waiting for a price drop.
6.0-6.5: Decent. Most people see a six and think “this game must really be bad”, but they really aren’t. They might be plagued with a more serious problem that hinders your gameplay, but the overal experience is still fun in its high parts. There might be sections of this game that clearly need improvement, but you still likely won’t be able to play it without enjoying it in spots. I do not recommend the purchase of a six title new, but they still might make a decent purchase once its price has dropped.
5.0-5.5: Okay. This is the barrier where games stop being fun and begin to be an exercise in patience. Their design is likely flawed, and their execution is passable at best. The biggest problem with the five is that nothing shines out that makes it special in any way. It’s either been done before (and done better), or could be done better with a complete rebuild. I do not recommend a five for purchase, but keep in mind that I’m just one reviewer with one opinion. Read the full review of other sites and see what they had to say about the game, and see what they agree and disagree on compared to what I had to say and judge for yourself if the game is still worth buying.
4.0-4.5: Poor. A game with a four is flawed to the point where it is more frustrating to play than fun. It likely had a good concept somewhere along the line, but the final product just isn’t recomendable. There is a game out there that is better in every way than what this game aspires to be, and I’ll likely recommend you to that instead. I do not recommend the purchase of a four title.
3.0-3.5: Very poor. Includes all the prerequisites of being a four, but fails on some other level that makes it especially bad. Maybe it’s an unnecessarily high price. Maybe it’s a strong departure from what the company producing the game promised. Maybe it has some gameplay flaw so strong that it’s worth documenting on Youtube. Regardless of circumstance, a three title did something special to be “that” bad. I do not recommend the purchase of a three title for any reason.
2.0-2.5: Awful. Not just bad, but bad to the point where it will cause mental pain if played. A true disappointment that something this poorly-executed was cleared for production in this industry. Do not buy this game; make sure the developer’s are aware that they did not create something that was worth purchase.
1.0-1.5: Horrible. Goes beyond the threshold of mental pain caused by the two, and begins to cause physical pain. The visuals will likely strain your eyes, the sound will damage your ears, the controls will cause your hands to ache. I’m embarrassed to call myself a gamer when this type of title exists. Luckily, I don’t have to tell you to not buy it, because it is not going to sell. Whoever made this game wasted their time, and is likely either still learning how to make games or in the wrong career path.
0-0.5: Not a video game. I can’t think of any reason for something to receive a zero, other than it simply not being a form of electronic entertainment. I’ll give a point five to a DVD menu because it at least qualifies as something that requires your input. If it plays in a game console and is sold in stores, it’ll at least get a one.
Well, that’s everything, right? Unfortunately, there’s still just a little bit more for me to say. To inevitably deal with questions that I’ll receive later anyways, here are my thoughts on a few more subjects when it comes to reviewing. I might expand on this section as the medium changes, but here are the big things I can think of right now:
I review games by genre. I’m not going to somehow be able to compare a puzzle game like Pushmo to a shooter like Call of Duty. There’s nothing to compare between the two, other than that they are both video games. I’ll grade a puzzle game on elements that make it a strong puzzle game.
I take price and length into account. We live in an age where a brand new triple-A title will run you 60$. Most of the time price alone will not play a dire role in a game’s score. I pay 10$ to watch a ninety minute film in the theatres, and I’ll happily pay 60$ for a 7-8 hour single-player campaign. Games are a high-end medium of entertainment and I understand that. However, if a new, 60$ game truly falls short of this 7-8 hour barrier and offers no other content to make up for it, we might have a problem. How you judge a game’s price compared to its length is up to you, but I’ll try my best to include how long a game took me at the end of my review. On the inverse, if a game is significantly inexpensive and offers a great deal for a low price, I will likely commend the title for this.
I take creativity into account. If a game truly tries to be innovative on a level that hasn’t been attempted before in gaming, I respect and appreciate that. One of the reasons videogames are such an impressive medium is their vast diversity, and I like being able to explore unique concepts that I’m not familiar with. On the flip-side, if a game tries absolutely nothing to make itself stand out in this competitive market, I’ll likely make that clear in my review as well. You can’t make a good game entirely out of a good concept, but I still respect a developer that tries something new.
I do not review out of favoritism. I have plenty of video game series’ that I can say are my “favorites”. However, I take each new game on as its own individual entry in the series. For example, I might judge a new Super Mario title based on its predecessors, but I won’t skew my score just because “I like Mario games”. If a game has flaws it has flaws, and I’d rather expose them than pretend they don’t exist. While game reviews are partially my way of sharing my personal opinion, they are also a service to you as a reader to provide you with information that could lead to a purchase. I work hard to retain honesty when I review, giving you the most accurate information based on my own personal experience with the game.
I do not re-review post-patch (sortof). If I play a game and it’s full of random bugs or flaws that will likely be ironed out in a later release, I’ll still comment on those flaws as I experienced them. No game is ever guaranteed a patch, and I don’t want to just assume that things will get better after the first few updates. In an ideal world, a finished product should not contain any bugs in the first place.
That being said, if a game makes significant changes or adds significant content in one of its updates (Such as Infinty Blade for IOS), that doesn’t stop me from at least talking about the new content in one form or another. I likely won’t go back and re-review the whole game, but if the content is a big enough deal I’ll likely end up talking about it in one form or another.
I don’t believe in score inflation. I do, however, believe in good game inflation. Ten years ago, the games market was a pool full of hit-and-miss titles, and game publishers/developers were nothing compared to the giants we have today. As gaming is becoming a bigger and more prevalent industry, companies have to do more and more to ensure that they release competitive titles. If I happen to review a lot of games highly in a row, that means that we have a great stream of games on our hands! Games in general just keep getting better, and this is a good thing.
And that, my friends, is everything I’ve got so far. I’d like to hope that this covers any question you’ll ever have about my review style, but if you have any questions feel free to ask them in the comments section of my review articles. Thank you for reading, and hopefully I can help provide you with quality information in each new review I write.
-Josh
