As usual, the opinions expressed in this column are the author’s alone, and do not reflect those of MyGaming
For a while now something has really been irking me. Reading through numerous publications, of both the online and print variants, I have started to notice a trend.
What I will be looking at is game reviews, and their reviewers.
I have always been an exceedingly critical person. Everything in my life got the treatment; from me personally, to the world in general. Sometimes I could be too harsh, but I would always try to see as many sides of a subject as possible, even if it was in contrast to mine. I came to expect a very similar process from any paid critic. However, over time, I am noticing less true critical thought from the industry we love – gaming.
There used to be a time when after reading a review I left feeling well informed. Those reviews contained far less bias than do the reviews of today. There was a sense of an understanding of the industry from the reviewer, and most importantly, a real in-depth look at a game. Nowadays, however, it feels like reviewing is being overly influenced by the industry. Many reviewers seem to be swayed by the industry’s voice, being swept up by a tide of hype, hysteria, and high production values; the end result being insanely high review scores for far too many titles.
It feels like game reviewing is slowly losing its way, and is in need of a serious paradigm shift. Many reviewers, especially in the local industry, seem primarily capable of quality writing, but lack what is needed to truly critique content. What I believe is needed is a harsh mind, one that would deconstruct a game. These same people can also be lacking in neutrality, which I strongly believe a reviewer should be. They can be seen inserting their own emotional skew into their articles by favouring platforms, genres, publishers, and ideas. People need to understand that not everyone can be a real critic, despite all of us having opinions. Not all opinions are equal!
Now let’s take a look at game scoring. It would seem now that a passable mediocre game is considered to be low to high 80%. It takes over 90% for a game to be considered truly worthwhile. Now tell me if I am wrong in my thinking; should not 50 to 60% be regarded as mediocre, or passable, 70 to 85% for a great game, and anything higher is truly amazing? And another thing; these high ratings, they should be handed out gingerly, not just slapped onto any polished game. Does this now not beg the consideration that the scoring system needs to be modified?
I do understand games are getting ‘relatively’ better. They now have insane budgets, with an enormous workforce toiling on them. Games certainly are looking amazing, but why do graphics have to be such a large deciding factor on a reviews score?
This brings me to the somewhat relative question – what makes a good game? Well there are a lot of answers to that depending on the person, but it seems that one of the overriding elements (at least by the general gaming public’s point of view) is that production value oft makes the game.
Production values should absolutely be taken into account, but I also feel that it should not be the deciding factor as to whether or not a game is truly worthy of its accolades.
One could use the same logic for big budget Hollywood movies. Sure they have epic amounts of money, time and effort invested, but does that alone make a masterpiece? I think not.
In conclusion, does it not follow then that game reviewers need to start taking more into account, giving less of a nod to high production values? Should they not rather look more closely at the content of a game? This would have a toppling effect, making review scores more standardized. The high scores will become rare, so when a reader encounters very high ratings, they would know that this game is truly, and without a question, fantastic.
Discuss the reviewing process in the forums
Loading ...
