A month ago, longtime gaming journalist Dave Halverson wrote an editorial in Play about what the video game industry needs to do in order to become "accepted." It was an excellent piece (unfortunately not available online), and brought up the similarities between gaming and Hollywood. There's one that needs repeating, and one that needs to be added.
The most obvious point he made was bringing the designers forward and slapping their name on the box. Should we be buying a game because EA published it? No. Ask 50 people in a game store who actually DEVELOPED their favorite game and they'll likely get it wrong. It's bad enough they don't know the company, but why is the director of the project not featured? Die-hard gamers know Will Wright and Shigeru Miyamoto. How many other people do? Do you see a movie because it stars Bruce Willis or because Paramount released it?
That's one step, and the other comes from something Dave does very well. The criticism and journalism needs a major overhaul. We're still using the formula set up by the founders of this portion of the industry from Electronic Games. That worked then, but not now. That should in no way lessen what they did with EG. They created terms we still use today, and that's worth noting. However, the useless scoring system, separate reviews, cheap humor, and spastic layouts of the magazines need to go.
Games are generally reviewed with scoring systems for specific categories. Graphics, sound, gameplay, and an overall total is probably the most widely adopted system. That's fine, but for now:
STOP.
Why do we need this? Are movies scored on acting, plot, cinematography, and entertainment value? Of course not, at least I've never seen one done that way. If there is a score given, it's an overall type. Even the game reviews are segmented this way, splitting themselves up into sections to ensure they can cover each score, and why they gave it.
![Official Xbox Magazine [with DVD] (1-year)](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61F34WZlp9L._SL120_.jpg)
Article comments
1 - Matthew T. Sussman
Movie studios have no bearing, at least for me, on what I see. Same goes with VG developers.
Other than that, interesting argument.
2 - B Campbell
Matt,
I found this article very interesting, in part because I too nodded my head while I read the editorial in Play. The latest issue has an interesting editorial near the back about why females are still a minority in gaming, you might like that too.
As a reviewer at MyGamer, and having reviwed games as a "hobby" for over five years, I know what you're saying when you deride the formulaic approach taken by nearly every outlet. I've questioned the scoring coventions myself, but I think they're ultimately for the best. Your comparison is with Hollywood, but consider that it costs about $10 to see a movie, $15 to buy one, but $40-$50 to buy a game. It's a much bigger investment, and it just doesn't seem fair to give readers a subjective paragraph telling them whether they'll like it or not.
As a reviewer, I'm fully aware that few of my readers actually read an entire review. The scores are there to give them a quick glimpse of what they can expect, in a concrete format. Not a paragraph explaining that the graphics are better than last year's game because they're boop mapped and the quantum lighting effects articulate shadow resonances more realistically, but a quick score that says "bad, medicore, good". The score is a summary, it gives the reader an overview and if it interests them they can read the relevant section of the review.
Is there a difference between a 5 and a 6? Well, not really. But there is a difference between a 5 and a 9, or a 4 and a 7. The goal is not to pinpoint a game on a ladder, but to provide some kind of aggregate ranking system. If I rated one game an 8 and another a 9, I would hesistate to say that I thought the latter was better. But I would say they're both better than some game I rated as a 2.
As for humor, I think it's always an effective way to improve communication, but it's a very subjective issue. I don't like the sense of humor found in many magazines and at many websites. Sometimes I go back and decide that I don't like the sense of humor I used six months ago. But this is something that's going to vary from writer to writer and publication to publication, so I don't think it's fair to condemn the entire industry for it.
I don't disagree that the gaming journalism industry needs to change. I just don't think the rating scales and approaches to humor are the places to start. Thanks for writing an insightful article.
3 - Matt Paprocki
Thanks B.
I just got done reading the girls in gaming article, and it was refreshing not only because of the subject, but because it was printed on an inside cover. How often do you see that?
consider that it costs about $10 to see a movie, $15 to buy one, but $40-$50 to buy a game. It's a much bigger investment, and it just doesn't seem fair to give readers a subjective paragraph telling them whether they'll like it or not.
But they can still provide just as much info. I'm not saying the reviews need to be shortened. They can stay at the length, they just need to avoid the forumula.
The scores are there to give them a quick glimpse of what they can expect, in a concrete format.
I completely agree, and you know like I do that people look at scores more so than the review. It's so frustrating to hit a message board to see people complaining (and likely sending e-mail campaigns) to IGN or someone because they think "Game X should have a 9 in graphics you moron!" That's what I see as far as scores are concerned, and it's irratating. When my short lived fanzine was in production, I completely eliminated scores, and instead wrote a seperate short paragraph that summed up what the review was going for. Never recieved a complaint, but then again, all of three people probably read it. =;)
I also seem to think they lessen the impact of a review. It still gives the hobby a "still for kids" demeanor, and that's because they don't match up with standard critques from other mediums. It just seems childish to me to assign scores like they do now. I'm not completely against scores. I'm against how they're used.
there is a difference between a 5 and a 9, or a 4 and a 7
And for whatever reason, some people have it stuck in their head that a 7 is average. That's something I forgot to bring up because I wrote the article late. I'm guessing this comes from school. You can't pass with a 50%, but you can with a 70%. I'm not sure anything can change that mindset. However, one of the few things X-Play does right (the only thing, really) is use a nice 5 point scale which makes it easier to decipher.
As for humor, I think it's always an effective way to improve communication, but it's a very subjective issue.
Again, I agree. There are of course times when I smirk or laugh reading something. Unfortunately, there are writers out there who use it as a crutch, have no sense of what's funny, and then fail to even provide info on the game. It makes the writing seem immature, and it's another reason we're fighting the violence debate.
Going back to X-Play, this is something they do a lot. They fill a "review" with assorted "humor" and fail to give me as a viewer any game infomation. It does have a place, and I'm not saying it doesn't, but when everyone does it, it's annoying.
Thanks for writing an insightful article.
Thanks for reading and responding. I'll have to check out some of your reviews!
4 - B Campbell
Thanks for the responses! I think you raise some excellent points. Personally, I'm not a big reader of gaming magazines, and my favorite was the dearly departed GMR. I found Play only after I was looking for another title that wasn't EGM, GamePro or, horror of horrors, Game Informer.
With regard to your comments about X-Play: to begin with I'm not a huge fan of the show, but I do find it useful. I agree that the reviews can barely be called that, but since they're working with such a visual medium, they can get away with it. All I want from a review is an idea of what it's like to play the game, and it's really easy to convey that when you can use actual gameplay video. That makes it a bit easier for them to fill up with fluff and still deliver.
Feel free to stop by, read some reviews, and join our message boards! Thanks again for the interesting comments.