I played several hours of Brawl last night with my friend and I have to admit, I had a lot of fun.I think my technical criticisms still stand, and so do my personal ones. But the fanboy-fest is really, really enjoyable. I mean, even the music in Subspace Emissary is fantastic (I'm one of those people who can't get enough videogame music covers). So the source of my softening position on the game is my fondness for the subject matter, basically, and yesterday many of us theorized that's what it is for everyone.
That warm nostalgic affection rush for our cultural iconography, then, bumps up my positive feeling toward the game. Again, I just thank god I didn't have to review it, because I don't know what I'd have done. On the one hand, I've got black-and-white technical issues that would peel back my potential score a bit. On the other hand, I've got this thermal joy rush over characters that have been part of my life for more than a decade, since they were eight bits tall.
Answer me this: Is that a fondness for quality characters that deserves to be reflected in a review? Is it a trigger-finger response to the language of our culture? Or is it a personal bias, favoritism for a particular game or publisher?
If I had to review Smash Bros., in other words, would you as an audience rather I factor in my emotional response to Nintendo iconography, or should I discard it as personal? Does your answer depend on your own opinion of the iconography?
This is perhaps the most compelling reason yet not to score games. You'd probably want me just to tell you my opinion and provide whatever facts necessary (I have a bias in favor of the subject matter, I tend not to prefer the core gameplay) for you to place my opinion in context, right? I once argued that scores help readers weigh what a reviewer says, but I don't know.
As I said, I'm not reviewing Smash Bros, thank god, thank god. But I'm asking now, just in case someone assigns me to review Metal Gear Solid 4 on that fast-approaching day. I am, after all, intimately acquainted with the entire franchise and follow the director closely. But I am on record calling MGS3 "the perfect game" -- and confessing that's my subjective, personal, emotional opinion. I am on record confessing I'm "in love" with the protagonist (technically, I said Big Boss, but, y'know, almost the same).
I'll put it bluntly: Probably, I will be geeking out and shrieking in the first ten seconds of the intro cinema of MGS4. There is no unreleased title in the last two years for which I have been more excited. Would you say I am especially qualified to review the fourth game, or should I be disqualified?
Does the fact that market analysts, knowledgeable journalists and other industry folks have suggested that MGS4 might have a big, heavy hand in making or breaking the PlayStation 3 matter in your decision?
If I were to review MGS4, would you expect that I set aside my deep affection for the franchise and its characters? Do you think that's even possible, or am I doomed to be biased in favor of the game? Does a prior prejudice make me likely to be tougher or gentler on the game? If I gave it a good review, would you disregard it or weigh it less because you know me? If I gave it a bad review, would you be more liable to believe me knowing my predilection, or would you be more inclined to disagree with me because I had set a high emotional bar?
Here's a question -- would the way you received the review depend on what you wanted to hear and to believe?
Here's what I think; I'm not the only franchise loyalist. It wouldn't be considered such a crucial release if I were. Surely a review in the context of a fan with high expectations and strong preference is relevant to the audience, so long as they know that's what it is.
But I really am asking you guys, because I implied yesterday that Nintendo's last three most critical releases -- Twilight Princess, Galaxy and SSBB -- were reviewed more highly than they deserved because of reviewers' emotional loyalty (even subconscious) to the images, music and material. Even revising somewhat my opinion of SSBB, I believe this is true. What should I do when I'm the one who's the fangirl? Is it enough to just admit it first?
22 comments:
I've always been a big fan of the idea that even if a review has a numerical score, the true value of the review is in the words. So an explanation of potential bias or coloring of opinion can go a long way to contributing to a meaningful review. This is a very important question, of how to review games fairly and honestly. Because after all, every single game reviewer has a deep-seated passion for at least 1 (but probably more) series.
I think it's sufficient to simply state your fanboy status up front and let the buyer beware. This is why there's more than one person reviewing each game that comes along... obviously everybody brings their own perspective to the table, and it's impossible to eliminate bias from the review of any entertainment product, be it a game, book, movie, song or otherwise, because really the most subjective criteria in the world is also the most important one: did you like it?
That said, there are technical merits that I think it's possible to objectively evaluate, and I think it's unprofessional to ignore them when they happen. If a game has significant stutter or slowdown, or if levels take 2 minutes to load, if there's noticeable graphics glitches, obvious bugs or otherwise, I expect those to be reported on honestly.
Beyond that, though, if you're a fan of something, state your allegiance and go to town. Having been forewarned, we can adjust our reading of a review appropriately; the things you totally geek out over, we might take with a grain of salt if we're not in love with the series already, but we'll also take any serious criticisms you throw at the game that much more seriously.
Personally, I know I don't always agree with your reviews. I loved Galaxy and am seriously liking Brawl, as I've mentioned in prior comment threads. But I do enjoy reading your work. In the end, we all end up at GameRankings or MetaCritic anyhow. I'd much rather have an honest, enthusiastic review by someone who loves a series thrown into the review mix than keep it out due to bias concerns.
I should say I don't always agree with your perspective, since you didn't actually review those games. My bad. ;)
The Famitsu thing of having four people review a game might be some kind of solution.
There are so many people reviewing games out there, there's really no desperate need to remain totally objective in a game review.
Better to be honest. If you like a game for emotional reasons, say so, if you dislike a game because you've always hated RTSs, say so. The only people it'll really affect are those who look at scores only and don't read the review, and there's no satisfying them anyway.
What you squeal about in the privacy of your own home is between you and your go...er editor.
OK past the easy point that a lot will depend upon where you would end up reviewing it for, write what you think. Even if you try to hide your gushing it won't work. Yes you could try to do the pure technical route which takes up too much review space as it is (unless there is a major technical issue, only people looking for small tearing will find it).
So really just describe your reactions as much as possible in the space given. Yeah 500 words would make it fairly difficult, but hey thats why you get the big bucks.
All you can do is praise what a game does well, and criticize what it does poorly. In the case of Smash Bros., you did an excellent job in this post of explaining why the premise and the use of canonical characters led you to enjoy the game. That's an honest and fair approach. I don't think you'd need to do it any differently if you were reviewing it officially.
You know, the flipside is that you can sometimes be harder on something when you come to it from a so-called fanboy perspective. You mentioned your love of the Metal Gear series; I hate MGS2 to this day purely because I thought it invalidated everything I'd done in the first game. I wouldn't have felt that way if I'd never played -- and loved -- the original.
I think Eric summed up my feelings perfectly. As long as a reviewer states ahead of time their personal biases, preferences, or whatever, then I'm content to take the reviewers opinions seriously. These reviews tend to be more interesting to read to me rather than the copy and paste Gamespot/IGN style of most game reviews.
Mitch recently posted about his unfamiliarity with strategy games and how he was struggling to review Sins of a Solar Empire. His review eventually stated this. I think that's fine, and a valid way to review a game.
Another example was your own Fire Emblem review over at Destructoid. You made your feelings known about the genre, and still wrote what I thought was an interesting and valid review.
I like getting to "know" certain writers as far as their gaming preferences go and see how that informs their work. To me, the things they write have more impact because I can place it in context with that writer's body of work. It's more interesting that way. Reviews rarely sway my opinion of a game anyway. I've usually already decided based on pre-release information. But I love reading people's thoughts on games, whether it's one game in particular or in a broader sense.
Speaking of Destructoid, have you been following the silliness going on there with their community's vitriolic reactions to their recent Patapon and Condemned 2 reviews? The amount of lunacy from their readers is astounding. Jim Sterling wrote a rebuttal that probably doesn't help anything, but it did make for entertaining reading.
Relieving to know that the comments are largely in line with my own opinions on the issue.
I am dealing with an unusually educated audience here at SVGL, though. Sean, in regards to my Fire Emblem review -- people hated that review, and more people said I had no business writing it than accepted it. I've wondered since then if they were right. But not too much, because a review is least useful to series fans who will buy it anyway, and I never want to write a review under the assumption that my entire audience is wholly familiar with the game, franchise, genre or anything.
At the same time, though, maybe it isn't fair to have a review done by someone who isn't the game's intended audience, period. Film reviewers do it -- that's why they're the pros, because they can evaluate something based on who it's intended for. I did not do that with my Fire Emblem review, so maybe I screwed up. At the same time, it's true there ARE plenty of reviewers out there, and differing perspectives are the only way we'll all stay useful.
Regarding that drama, Sean, I actually did look at the Condemned 2 review. Those sorts of reactions are I'd say half the reason why I stopped writing there.
On one hand, I think that some of the reviews there, like Anthony's, tend to be structured in such a way that doesn't make it clear how their assessment correlates with their score, and a lot of it does seem very whimsical or intended to be reactionary.
On the other hand, they've done a very good job of clarifying exactly what the numbers mean, and the Condemned 2 review was, by that definition, appropriate based on the impressions discussed. The funny thing is (as with my Fire Emblem review) he didn't totally indict the game or say it sucked; by the community ire, you'd think he did, which is totally stupid.
That being said, sometimes Destructoid reviews tend to be almost entirely subjective, adhering more to opinion and impression rather than giving equal balance to those qualities that can be objectively analyzed, which might be why it's somewhat of a hot button issue to assign numerical scores. But hey, one of Destructoid's selling points for its community is that individual voice and that personal identity -- if people don't like that, why the hell do they go there? Just to complain?
There IS no pleasing that audience. People are always saying "reviews don't work," but I think what it is is such a huge portion of the audience wants to be validated instead of informed.
Also, I love how they totally deconstruct and critique the review and tell the writer what he should have done. If they're so good at it why do they read them, and why aren't they the ones doing it for a living? Feh.
I think Tom Bramwell did a good job of separately examining both the iconography and stark underlying game mechanics in his review of Sega Superstars Tennis on Eurogamer today.
This is a title that, like Smash Brothers, is a towering monument to gaming nostalgia (albeit of Sega's IP rather than Nintendo's).
To answer your question, I think that, rather than declaring your bias at the start of a review, you should review games like these (i.e. those that celebrate nostalgia) on their quality of fan service.
Then separately examine the underlying mechanics themselves. After all, there will always be part of your readership who come to a game without nostalgia and they must be spoken to if your review is to be useful to the widest possible number of readers.
I really have to come down on the side against reviews here. I really think that these huge budget epic series games are as good as the huge corporate monoliths can make them at the time, that's the point. Spitting out cookie cutter "9.999~/10" reviews just serves to saturate the environment with advertising. If someone can't at least "TRY" to be objective then the only qualification they have in game journalism is the ability to get games early.
I think bias towards a series of games should be mentioned before a review. I think I remember Fran from IGN mentioning it in one of his Metroid Prime reviews, so the score he gave was reflective of his love for the Metroid series but the game really did deserve the high praise it received.
As for your possible review of MGS4, I look forward to you fawning over it. I'm a HUGE Metal Gear fan and MGS3 is easily one of my top 5 favourite games of all time. ^_^
As earlier comments have pointed out, making any biases clear before your review are very helpful when interpreting the review in an attempt to answer the questions: 'will I like this?' and 'should I buy it?' If this is done sufficiently well, I believe the reviewer has discharged his responsibility to the reader, who then is accountable for interpreting the review.
With the abundant sources of reviews available today, there is no good excuse for a reader not to seek out a review for the game that is more applicable to his or her tastes. For example, while I enjoyed Mitch's review of Sins of a Solar Empire for its journalistic content, as a fan of RTS/strategy games I would not be inclined to weigh his opinion heavily when answering the above questions.
Number values can be a great way to sum up a reviewer's thoughts about a game, but any reader that consults a single review uses the '9.5' as the sole reason to drive to Best Buy and purchase the game before complaining about the 'bad review' is doing themselves (and the reviewer) a disservice.
Kevbo said...
I do not like numbers in reviews, I prefer words. Also I agree that there are SO many reviews out for any game that it is okay to be subjective, as long as you state it in the beginning.
Finally I think any 'rush' or emotion that you get from seeing nostaligic characters is all apart of the game experience. I think that is a factor for all games that reuse characters. That is probably one of the main reasons for reusing a character besides actually wanting to tell more of their story.
Also, I love how they totally deconstruct and critique the [game] and tell the [designer] what he should have done. If they're so good at it why do they [play] them, and why aren't they the ones [making games] for a living? Feh.
Sorry, Leigh - but it was just too obvious a joke to pass up. ;)
I definately would read a review of MGS 4 from you. For one main reason:
If you say it's SUPAR, then I would still take it with a grain of salt, knowing my opinion is quite different from yours on MGS3.
However, if you say "this game is a steaming pile of crap, what did they do to my sweet Metal Gear?" then I'd want to know why. If you said you didn't like the story, I'd be MORE inclined to check that out. :) If you said they ruined the gameplay, well, then I'd avoid it entirely, because that's the aspect of the game I agree with you on.
That's what people don't get when it comes to reviews. People have different tastes. You can still find out about games from people with tastes different from yours.
You are *uniquely* qualified to review MGS4: your review will be specific, and interesting - I doubt anyone could rate its "Metal Gear-ness" better. (Snakes out of ten?) Disclosure would be wise for those not familiar with your blog, but that's fair enough.
The impartial review is a myth - compare it to other art forms and their structures. A film reviewer may feign impartiality, but you can see their tastes come through over time. Pitchfork often opens with the reviewer's relationship to something similar, often definitive.
Imagine opening a review of (say) King Of Fighters XI with a description of the first time you saw Street Fighter II. ("Dhalsim, beat Chun Li in three, lost to Blanka in three. That day will never fade.") That's fair! I may write that review one day.
Too much of this is assumed. The nostalgia of Nintendo is so thorough in gaming (particularly US gaming) that they will always score high as long as they tap the back catalogue. There's nothing wrong with it but reviews should make the appeal clear. The Edge review was good in this regard.
Leigh...it's ok to show love for a series as long as you state your starting preconceptions for a series. that is, tell your readers that this is from an MGS fan. It's difficult to remove bias from a review (thus professionals are there to do that), so what you can do is what you can do.
As for a numerical score, people often use it to validate themselves, or just use it as a quick "shut up". More often than not the score of a game is glanced over and readers decide if the full review should be read or not afterwards. Strange, but that happens as well.
With a review that big, you're always screwed. Roll the dice and cross your fingers.
That said: Scoring it any less than 90%, of course, will be read as giving it 10%.
(One reason why I was always glad that I reviewed MGS and MGS2 on the PC, where my 50% kicking of the latter barely got noticed.)
KG
Subjective feelings should never be thrown out when it comes to reviews. Half the point is trying to relate the mechanics and technical aspects of the game; the other half is the emotional content.
Every time I think about No More Heroes, I get the little voice in my head telling me that the overworld is underdeveloped and the combat borders on single-button mashing. But it's drowned out by the other voices that are belly laughing and roaring battle cries at how fun and satisfying an experience it is (caveat: I loved the trash-picking job).
For multi-part franchises, it's important to have some reviewers that are more familiar with the material. That way, they can accurately assess how satisfying it would be for a customer of the same nature. Embrace your fandom! Just don't let it dictate everything.
For myself, the true test is time. I can't count how many instances I've come back to a game I thought I liked to find it a jumbled mess of overlooked flaws. And as you mentioned, your feelings for Brawl changed after gaining more experience with it. It doesn't erase your criticisms, but it adds new considerations to the mix.
After all, isn't the ultimate test of a game's worth its ability to sustain its perceived level of quality over time?
What you're saying about bias in reviews is why I generally don't read them anymore.
For example: I knew what SSBB was going to be a lot like SSBM and the fighting was going to revolve around button-mashing. That's fine, that's exactly what I was looking for in that game.
I haven't read the Fire Emblem review, but if you didn't like it based on what it was, that's fine. I like those games, so I'd probably like the latest installment.
There are two reasons I'll glance at a review score or the highlights: one is to see if the game is fundamentally broken or unplayable is some way; the second is if it is a new game to see if it sucks completely.
I was keeping an eye on "No More Heroes" because I really enjoyed Killer 7 and wanted to see what Suda 51 could do with the Wii. After the reviews came out and the love you were giving it, I knew I'd enjoy it. However, I wasn't looking for the game to be a "A" game or a "9.0," I justed wanted to see if it was broken or sucked...a lot.
Otherwise, I generally don't care what the reviewer has to say.
The initial wow factor that Brawl has given off has already worn off for me. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Nintendo fanboy in every good way possible (not the derogatory context of the word) but after playing it for hours and unlocking all the characters and stages, I don't feel the need to go back and play it for several hours straight anymore. I mean it's a great game and I love it but I get bored of not being able to find anyone to play online, and having no communication features really sucks.
Post a Comment