Scores and Bores

Surfing the Gamespot forums, looking at the comment sections across IGN and YouTube, I have found more people discussing the review score a game receives, rather than the games themselves. That is a problem. A BIG problem. I feel there issue is two pronged, one is to do with the contents of modern reviews and the second is the pre-eminence review scores have taken over the actual enjoyment of a game. So, indulge me a little as I rant and explain how we can improve.

First off, the reviews themselves. When I was a kid, my only exposure to game reviews would be Playstation magazine. I'd save up, buy a copy every couple months, enjoy the demo discs, pour over the pictures from the games (the only glimpse of many games we could get before the era of YT and countless gaming sites) and then read the reviews. Oh and what wondrous reviews they were. As a gamer, they would tell me about the control scheme, whether it was good or not, it would provide a breakdown of the various technical and game play elements in the game, which of them worked and which did not. You would get a feel of how the game played before ever even playing it. These were reviews of a technical product by technically minded individuals who knew what makes a game tick.

Fast forward to the latter half of the last decade and the explosion in not only gaming sites but gaming blogs and YouTube videos and game reviews changed...for the worse. All of a sudden, we had reviewers talking over and over again about how a game would make them feel, about the story (at which stage did the story become more important than the gameplay) and I would find myself reading something akin to a critical break down of a film rather than a game. At the end of all that, there would be a score and yet none of that reflected the content of the review itself. I would have no idea how the game worked, what its gameplay pluses and minuses were, what the game environment was like and what one could do in the game. If there was a bit on it, it would normally be kept to the last couple of paragraphs. Games were now being reviewed like works of cold, detached art, rather than proactive forms of entertainment. People were now buying games on how high a score was (even an 8 these days is cause for concern) rather than the content of what the reviewer had written.

Everything, from the carefully manicured gameplay videos, to the carefully scripted reviews were done to market a product rather than to inform the consumer. Did it have something to do with the far reaching hold that publishers and developers had over marketing campaigns which were now starting to cost as much as a modern day block buster's promotional work? Who knows.

The situation has started ti improve, with Gamespot along with certain YouTube channels starting to once again provide us with informative, consumer-centric, rather than product-centric review. However, I feel it may be too little too late. Take the hubbub surrounding the latest release of Mass Effect. It has received middling reviews across the board. A mixed reception and yet people are heralding it as the end of the series and possibly BioWare itself. Is an average score really that bad? No one has labelled the game as atrocious and there are certain ideas being explored by the new games that I think all of us who are fans of the series have wanted for a long time, especially large, explorable worlds with open world type environments. That is something I have wanted for so long, rather than the corridor like worlds of the previous series. Surely that is a must buy for a fan?

This brings me onto the second point: the pre-eminence afforded to reviews and how we seem to have clocked out mentally. A game gets a 10/10 and we instantly buy it, without even thinking about it. We play it and even though it does nothing new or innovative, we claim it is all those things. I remember being excited to by MGS V after all the hype and after the initial 3 or so hours...the game does nothing. No Angry Joe, it isnt an innovative piece of open world gaming. It's side ops are repetitive with little environmental variation. GTA3 had a more varied world 15 years ago then MGS V does today. That's not the only issue but I digress.

So how do we solve this problem? Well, we stop ourselves from becoming marketing stooges. We start trying games to see how they play for ourselves, we start making up our own minds instead of letting a PR company in California do it for us. We start being proactive consumers who call bs on game developers, reviewers and internet sell outs selling us a lie. We take gaming back for the gamers.

Unless you a stooge that buy every game to see if they are worth playing there not much you can do.

Also if you do not like how the current gaming market is blame that on voting with your wallet since that been the main decision making information.

The problem is just very big.

Back in the day. You would go to the renting store and rent a game if it looks fun. No installation, no hype. If it was fun enough maybe you'll buy it.

The other part of the problem is the way internet feeds us all the time with info and most website try to publish a review or a video first to get views and all and so the end product suffer a lot.

Also games became very very very formulaic. Very few big innovation is going on since we got the 8 bottons controlers.

I some what I agree. There has definitely been a down turn in innovation but its not completely absent...just more difficult to find.

In terms of the internet, I alluded to that being a problem. everyone wants to get subs and views on YT and they need funding for their channel, so they get in bed with marketing and PR companies...allegedly ofc. Either way, theres very little critique and too muchfan boying or fan hating.

@soul_starter: that is true

Also with the internet people ( because it is true in everything , not just with video games ) want to hear and see stuff that fit their preconceive ideas. It is like having different point of view is frown and so check somewhere else that fit their point of view.

We can see very often here when they had the stupid show Feedbackula ... when the gamer don't agree with the score they whine. But I guess it is like you said, not enough info like back in the day.

Something that comes to mind and I can't remember if you talked about it but, back in the day when they showed a game in a mag, most often than not, the game came in the same year. Now we hear about something years and years before it comes out and I think it build up expectation especially when they show what they had in mind and can't do it.

Another thing is now they can patch games ... hard to review a game when it can change so much a month later.

@clefdefa: Great point about the creation of expectation. Going back some years, I'd look at a magazine and find out a game was releasing, a couple months later it would be released. NOwadays games are announced in advance by many months if not many years. When that happens expectations become unrealistic so even the slightest low review (a 6 or 7 for instance) becomes a major set back.