Game reviews

I've recently written about "the reviews". It's a hard subject because the notion "review" is very wide and everybody's doing it in all kinds of ways. It's hard to really decide what a review should be like.

So I watch these games which will become "the next big thing": Q4, NFS:MW, The Movies, B&W 2, F.E.A.R., Civ 4, AOE 3, Gun, PJ KK and others... This month 3 little screenshots. The gaming sites are shouting from their lungs: "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!..." And you read, because it's gonna be "the next big thing" and you don't want to miss it. And 3 months of waiting, but wait! There is some kind of rumor, posted on a site that the game will be launched 3 days earlier or 2 months later. And "the connoisseurs" are launching a debate: "Yes! I knew it all along!", or "this means: The end of life on Earth as we know it...". The game is beta, more news, the game is almost gold, even more news, the game is launched.... "Aaaaa.... It kind'a sucks! It's not The Game we all have been waiting for! It's the biggest disappointment since Network-Computing!"...

I don't really understand why all these great games (because they are) are treated like this: brutal. I know that a game is made by uniting the talents of many great people. A game is all about creation, all about ingenuity, all about professionals dedicating 2-3 or 4 years of their life creating a game. It's not all about "the gameplay it's good, but it gets a 6", it's not all about "the graphics are great, but not innovating enough so it will get a 8", it's not all about "the music is good, the voice acting is good, but it lacks that dynamic... so it can't get more than a mediocre 7".

A game is as interesting to do as a movie, in fact can be more entertaining (it is really hard to define what this more can be). It has a story (even a shallow one), it has content, it has game mechanics, it has presentation, it has sound... A game shares a lot with art but it's interactive.

Ok, I realize that NFS:MW has an addictive gameplay but it's kind of boring after the first 25 races, I realize that Q4 has a stupid "enter the room, clear the bad guys, go to the next room", I realize Gun has a engine that manages like a fraction of a fraction the space GTA:SA has ... but these games don't deserve such hard reviews.

It's hard to create the perfect game because it's about entertaining, it's about tastes, it's about a personal experience that you may enjoy, or not. It's hard to define the perfect gameplay. You can get it right for the first time, but it will still leave room for improvement. It's hard to create an accessible game but tough to master. It's hard to introduce a dazzling story that's totally original (some would find it interesting, other would find it hard to track). It's easier to develop further your game into a sequel, but it's hard also because it has to be something new and better than the previews title. It's hard to create an intense game with lots of cool action, cinematic experience and to take many-many hours to solve, but not feel the pain of repetitive actions (remember Max Payne? also, remember Halo's Library level?)

So how should a reviewer give marks for graphics, audio, gameplay, replayability, presentation if all it's remarks are subjective. If I'll buy a gaming magazine or read an online review on a high rated gaming site I'll suppose the reviews are there and present the official opinion of that publication. But it's certainly not so, because all these reviews are created by an individual ready to play that game 'till the end an then write his impressions about it. Some are more professional, some are more subjective. Bear in mind the author is usually a gamer that plays lots of games of that particular genre, and a few others (ex: he plays FPSs, platforms and strategies but doesn't play RPGs, sport games or simulations...) so he's pretty severe in his area of expertise. He is an expert of that genre, so knows what he likes or dislikes, is always ready for something new, and wants a lengthy experience. He'll always ignore if that particular experience has an abrupt learning curve. He'll always subtract points from the beginning for a clone or a sequel. And that's not such a good thing to do.

In fact, what a 9 should mean? Gamespot gives a good for a 7, a great for a 8, and a superb for a 9. Are there any 10s (perfect)? Yes, but I don't know how they got there. [one comment: in the Top Games of all time-all platforms number 1, 5 & 6 are Tony Hawk games. Man, somebody at Gamespot sure loves those games!]
Another way to score games seems to be comparative marks: "The Chronicles of Riddick is better than Doom III but less than Half-Life 2" but it's completely subjective and those words really seem not to say anything about that game in particular.

Looking through IMBD's Top 250, you'll see the highest score of 9.0 - rating from 143,911 votes in the day I write this article. And that's the way it really should be! Let the people decide. Let the viewers decide. Let the public decide.

So, I'll repeat to you: "LET THE GAMERS DECIDE!"