Lunchtime Discussion: Positivity
Enthusiastic or accurate?Published 03/06/2010 at 12:00.
By Peter C [ColossalBlue].
Lunchtime Discussion: Animals [45]
Lunchtime Discussion: Apathy [28]
Lunchtime Discussion: Comedy [31]
Latest Stories (more)
Fake Alert: Sony Haven’t Banned Anyone Over Jailbreak, Yet. [10]
Sunday Thoughts: Reviewing Reviews [66]
Review: Metroid: Other M [30]
Recently there has been some discussion about reviews and the general outlook with which they’re approached. I take a lot of interest in this subject because of how hard I know our reviewers work and how much effort I put in to making sure we’re as accurate and as fair as possible. So it’s really interesting to me and it’s a subject I spend hours every week researching and keeping informed about.
People complain when we’re too positive. They say (in that splendidly ignorant way that the internet seems to foster) that we must be biased or on the publisher’s pay-roll (anybody’s pay-roll would be good right now…). But then, people complain if we’re too negative too. Apparently too much precision when pointing out the faults in a product means that we don’t love gaming.
I’ve read a lot about differing approaches to reviews. Some people say that all faults must be indicated and incorporated into the text; others say that it’s best to ignore some minor faults if the overall feel of the game is positive. Generally speaking (according to the research I’ve done), the metric scores of the first set of people are lower but the text is more accurate while the metric scores of the second group of people are generally higher but with sometimes quite poor text to back it up (or not, as the case may be).
So the choice seems to be between those “emotional” reviews which are artificially high and those “technical” reviews which are scored more accurately but you have to read the words as well as looking at a score. Of course, most people don’t read a video game review to be informed about the product, they read it to be assured about their preconceptions and in those cases, there really is nothing we can do.
Oh, in an effort to pre-empt the people who will no-doubt claim that we should just review without scores I will point out that publishers, developers, retailers and – believe it or not – almost every reader likes a metric rather than just a body of text. Almost all good reviewers use scoring systems because they are a convenient summary.
So what would you really prefer: frank, analytical honesty and a lower (but possibly more accurate) number at the end or unrestrained enthusiasm with a (possibly inflated) score to match?
Not logged in
Log in to join the TSA Community, see your PS3 Trophies, check your PMs, take part in TSA Meets and earn TSA Points.
Most Comments This Week
- TSA’s Guide To PlayStation Move [69]
- PSN Store Update: 01/09/10 [63]
- Sunday Thoughts: Reviewing Reviews [61]
- COD: Black Ops Multiplayer Revealed [57]
- October PlayStation Plus Content Announced [55]
- Arkham City Screens Are Amazing [52]
- MS Raise Xbox Live Price [51]
- WRC 2010 UK Debut Trailer [46]
- New Xbox 360 Pad Confirmed [46]
- Guest Writer: Fixing My Dead PS3 [45]
TheSabreman | 03/06/2010 12:07
Member
541 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
The best way to consider if reviews are any good would be to look back in a month and see if you are still playing it.
One thing that concerns me with all reviews (I’m not just picking on TSA) is the price perspective. If reviewers are getting games for free and reviewing them after 2 days play, I wonder how they consider game to be value for money.
How many games get high scores and never get played again after a month, value for money is a key factor for me.
cc_star | 03/06/2010 12:10
Team TSA: Writer
12558 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Good point, although I find when you’ve not paid for something you don’t have the same level of attachment for it, so a demo or rental can quickly never be played again whereas something you’ve handed over £40 for will grow on you more, so perhaps each emotion balances the other out.
3shirts | 03/06/2010 12:12
Member
4343 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Agreed. I have had games in the past that I forced myself to play to some extent because I’d paid for it. If it had been a rental or freebie I would have not bothered. In some cases, persevering has actually caused the game to grow on me.
bunimomike | 03/06/2010 12:08
Member
10300 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
I attach emotions with every game I buy because I have a preconceived notion that I want to enjoy it. With that in mind, a cold review would be utterly dismal in invoking said emotions. For me, and I appreciate it might be tricky, I’d like a reference point in every review. For example:
You’re reviewing a driving game. You mention what other driving games you like. They will instantly strike a chord with the reader. The emotions synchronise and you realise the reviewer and the reader are singing from the same hymn sheet. The classic “if you loved Game X or Game Y the way I loved it, then this new Game Z is the one for you”, etc.
However, if you highlight that Game Z is a great racer but for technicians and simulator freaks then it instantly respects that the Split/Second, Burnout, Blur fans amongst us might not enjoy such a title. Putting a game into perspective really helps.
We all know that a genre we love will probably mark every game in said genre up a notch or two, so make sure it’s related.
After that, spout whatever shite you fancy! ;-)
3shirts | 03/06/2010 12:15
Member
4343 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Perfick!
As I said below, there are genres I like more than others so a reviewer who seems to have a similar opinion is bound to result in me trusting that review a lot more.
bunimomike | 03/06/2010 12:17
Member
10300 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
It makes me feel like we’re having a game recommended to us by a friend. Someone who knows what I do and don’t like.
I take all my best recommendations from people I respect/know/etc. Well, except that time in the strip-bar when I was drunk but it looked like a woman. Honest!
colossalblue | 03/06/2010 12:19
Team TSA: Editor
2087 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
That’s a good approach, I’ve seen some places that put “If you liked this…” bits on their reviews and places that do “better than X but not as good as Y” It’s extremely subjective that way though. I like the “comparison within the text” approach, not just of the overall game but often certain features of the game but it’s wrong to rely to heavily on them because a large portion of your readership may not have played the same games as you.
bunimomike | 03/06/2010 12:24
Member
10300 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
Absolutely agree but a quick mention in there would give that instant chord strike. Sometimes I’m totally lost on whether to rent a film or not but I find some clarity often comes with the most innocuous mention. Even in the likes of IMDB. I don’t know these people but a chord is struck when someone mentions “that moment in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off when Ferris….” and that’s me signed up.
As it happens, you guys are pretty top-notch doing that anyway but it’d be great to see a game put in context as, frustratingly, it needs it sometimes. Maybe there’ll be things like The Last Guardian, which can only be compared to it’s prequels, but that still helps to a certain degree. It makes it relate-able.
colossalblue | 03/06/2010 13:03
Team TSA: Editor
2087 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
You mentioned Ferris Beuller’s day off so today, Mr Mike, you win.
bunimomike | 03/06/2010 13:05
Member
10300 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
Yay! BluRay on its way, yes? :-P
Kevling | 03/06/2010 14:28
Member
2673 TSA Points | Member since: Dec 2008
I’ve mentioned my personal preference for a move to 5 star ratings before (seems less divisive to me), so I won’t go on about that again…
One thing I do like is something GamesTM does in their reviews – they have a box on every review highlighting two games in the same genre (or even same franchise), and say whether the game being reviewed is better, worse, or as good as each of them. It works well as a kind of shorthand to help you get a feel for whether you’ll like the game being reviewed or not based on how it compares to other games, as opposed to comparing review scores that would probably have been given by different people any way.
Also, if a game has been rated particularly highly (or lowly) maybe a “second opinion” box might be an idea? Might help fend off some of the criticism that you’ve been receiving lately.
jimmy-google | 03/06/2010 12:08
Member
2825 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
I not sure about review scores. On one hand I want to know if the game is technically good but on the other I just want to know if its fun to play.
I guess if I’m reading a review to decide whether I want to play a game I want to know if its fun. Sometimes the flaws make a game special.
How ever a games are reviewed I want the whole range of scores used otherwise it becomes very difficult to pick between games.
3shirts | 03/06/2010 12:18
Member
4343 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
A good example for me in Assasins Creed 2 which I only recently rented. I found that it has some annoying glitches and control issues (some of the missed jumps had me screaming at Ezio more than I did at Lara!) but overall I am really enjoying it and can overlook the small problems.
cc_star | 03/06/2010 12:08
Team TSA: Writer
12558 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
I’m pretty sure I’m the most negative person I know, quite a few people will know I have a general dislike of all games that aren’t available on the Master System or Megadrive and I’m often overly critical or negative of nearly all games this generation, but sometimes once in a blue moon something amazing just grabs you by the balls and won’t let go until you’ve finished the whole ride over and over again… Split/Second was the product and for me, sits on the podium with Burnout3: Takedown & Burnout Revenge as the best action racers of all time so I errm wrote about it as such and scored it appropriately.
If I was to break it down and analyse it, then the only negative I can come up with is it doesn’t support the steering wheel, which dj-katy kindly let me know about. the game though remained edge of the chair exciting from the first second to the last and roughly 100% of the people who’ve handed over cash for it in my Twitter feed agree.
I’m only sad I couldn’t give it an 11 without breaking the Internet.
bunimomike | 03/06/2010 12:15
Member
10300 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
Shows how flawed any scoring system is. Do you deduct a point for lack of steering wheel support? Nah, wouldn’t think so. But it might be even better with it. So it gets an 11½ out of 10. Ignoring the piss-taking score, perhaps a simple:
Summed up in one word: Wonderful
is the way to go. :-)
3shirts | 03/06/2010 12:22
Member
4343 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Some get round that with a different scoring system, a percentage springs to mind, which allows finer numbering. For a game to get 100% it would literally have to be perfect while Split/Second could be a 99% because of the lack of steering wheel support. Of course this does mean you have to spend far longer thinking exactly what score to give when it’s not important enough to justify that.
I think a 10 just means “Everyone should have this game, read the review to find out why”
cc_star | 03/06/2010 12:26
Team TSA: Writer
12558 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Basically though, people moan about shit whatever you do.
And incremental scoring causes the worst moaning
“what? you gave Killzone 3 96%, but Halo Reach 97%…. c##ts”
Kevling | 03/06/2010 14:31
Member
2673 TSA Points | Member since: Dec 2008
Easy: Just say Split Second gets 5 stars, and the lack of wheel support isn;t big enough to knock it down to 4.
;)
3shirts | 03/06/2010 12:11
Member
4343 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
You need a balance. If there are glaring technical failings then they must be called out but if the overall experience/feeling is fun then that should be mentioned.
The score IS valuable as I do not want to read every review you do, no offence :)
There may be games of a genre in which I have little interest. I will look at the score and if it scores very high then I will go back and read the review to see if I should make an exception in that case.
So while I do not rely on the score by any means, it does have a place in the review
cc_star | 03/06/2010 12:21
Team TSA: Writer
12558 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Fallout 3 proves this.
I don’t like it all so its easy for me to slate, but surely there was that many game breaking problems more reviews should have gone into detail over them rather than saying its a bit buggy but overall its great… same with with Far Cry2 and a few others
colossalblue | 03/06/2010 12:21
Team TSA: Editor
2087 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
I think there is a valid argument for one-paragraph reviews + score but they also scare me. I think they’d stop people reading proper, full reviews and that would be a great shame.
We’d probably also get in trouble with one-paragraph reviews because people would complain that we skipped over things. It’s all about balance, as you said.
Daywalker | 03/06/2010 12:19
Member
1489 TSA Points | Member since: Jan 2010
I want frank, to the point reviews. No “I like the game because the little bunnies are cute” , it should be “Those rabbits were at a poor framerate and brought the the game down as a whole”. So what if 3 games each get a 10. This means they’re all bloody good games! Stop complaining people, and if you don’t agree, then make your own mind up!
3shirts | 03/06/2010 12:26
Member
4343 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Absolutely. Perhaps TSA could have a visitor reviews section where people can write response reviews if they disagree. Make them a minimum length and see if all these whiners actually bother. Might also provide a recruitment ground if a regular visitor turns out to be good at it!
Supertaxman | 03/06/2010 12:33
Member
1398 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
I thought that was what TSA’s verdict was for?
newsky87 | 03/06/2010 12:23
Member
544 TSA Points | Member since: Apr 2010
At the end of the day, the review is just the opinion of one person, and we’re all different so there’s always going to be some points you agree on and some you don’t. It’s all a matter of personal taste. Sometimes you have to take into account who the reviewer is, I’m sure all regular TSA readers have their own views on which staff writers they prefer and respect the opinion of over the other writers. But it’s having that variety in the first place that is the great thing. Even if a person you don’t normally agrees with reviews a game you can still form your opinion from that, “well, they didn’t like that bit, but I probably would” etc.
What I always find amusing is when people argue the reviewer or the the score is wrong and they haven’t even played the game themselves!
shields_t | 03/06/2010 12:43
Member
2353 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
Absolutely, beauty is in the eye of the beholder as someone a whole lot smarter than me once said.
Frankly I’ve enjoyed some games which others would consider to be absolute drivel and I’ve played some popular high review scoring games and wondered what on earth all the fuss is about.
Amphlett | 03/06/2010 12:24
Member
1625 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
This is really simple for me…
I have lodged myself firmly in to the daily (hourly) homage to TSA due to the fantastic community and honest to God gaming feel of the site. Your reviews, whilst not always the single point of confirmation for every game, are certainly the first point and are always held in the highest regard.
Keep on truckin’. Parp! Parp!
DJ-Katy | 03/06/2010 12:26
Member
1540 TSA Points | Member since: Apr 2009
Goodness, this is a difficult topic to make an unemotionally skewed response to.
I don’t actually think “enthusiastic vs accurate” are mutually exclusive, you can be both, but I don’t think _personal_ enthusiasm for a particular product has any place in a review. Sure, you can say you thought it was great, but you have to counterbalance by saying that is just your opinion as the reviewer.
If you are going to point out every flaw in a game, then you also have to point out every good feature. A review is a summary by definition, so I tend to remark on good features and annoyances when they exceed a certain threshold of noticeability within the game. The longer and more detailed the review or game is, the lower that threshold is because there is more print space and more complexity to deal with.
Reviewing based on personal emotion is IMHO wrong. You have to take it objectively whether the game excites you or not, put yourself in the shoes of other gamers and say, would any group of people enjoy this? Is this game a good piece of art and creativity that I just don’t happen to like personally, or is it actually a poor product? Of course, I can’t be representative of everyone’s tastes so it’s a hard judgement call, and that is where experience of cavorting with other gamers over all these years comes in, so you have some idea of the demographic of your audience.
I freakin loved Star Ocean. It was for me one of the best and most engaging games I had played on my PS3 ever, and the flaws were insignificant to me. I gave the game a 7 on TSA because it has niche appeal and most people would likely hate it. But I pointed out that in the review and said I would have given it a 9 based on personal enthusiasm.
bunimomike | 03/06/2010 12:29
Member
10300 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
Your last paragraph sums up genre/title love. More of this please (from every reviewer on the planet). An appreciation of others and why it might not float their own respective boat.
3shirts | 03/06/2010 12:31
Member
4343 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
But surely as a gamer yourself, you ARE in the shoes of gamers so it is safe to assume that a feeling of enjoyment/excitement will also be felt by those reading the review, at least a number of them?
DJ-Katy | 03/06/2010 15:46
Member
1540 TSA Points | Member since: Apr 2009
It depends on the game. I mentioned Star Ocean below as an example of a game I was enthused for that I recognised might not enthuse other gamers quite as much except for a small group.
But it goes the other way. Far Cry 2 is a good example for me. I hated that game, it was boring, difficult, drove me nuts. But it’s a very good game. Good graphics, good gameplay, pretty long and complex, I just didn’t like it personally. So am I to review it a 1 or 2 which is the enjoyment factor I got from it, or an 8 or 9 knowing it is a high quality product that many gamers are gonna love?
3shirts | 03/06/2010 16:40
Member
4343 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Well it shouldn’t be the biggest part of the review/score but it should be taken into account is all I’m saying. If you hated a game, then you should say so but also comment on how ‘technically’ good it is. Chances are, if you disliked it, so will others. What are you, unique?
Supertaxman | 03/06/2010 12:32
Member
1398 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
Well I find that very interesting, and personally I would have liked you to have used the 9 as the final score, as like I have said in my comment below, if the reviewer is positive about it and explains to me why the flaws are insignificant then I most likely enjoy the game much more.
However as it was I had read many reviews that focused very much on its flaws and how it was ‘not as good’ as other RPGs it put me off…
but I understand the flak you would probably have gotten if you had really given it a 9 :D
DJ-Katy | 03/06/2010 15:42
Member
1540 TSA Points | Member since: Apr 2009
Well, I don’t rate a game based on the flak I get (trust me I’ve had quite a bit a flak over Alpha Protocol this week from a couple of people who heard my opinion; I’m not gonna change my review as a result). The issue is that the game really was seriously flawed and that made it hard to recommend to anyone who didn’t know exactly what they were getting into; it wasn’t as ‘good’ in objective terms as plenty of other RPGs. I just happened to find a particular personal spark and love for it’s quirks that made it all not matter, but that’s not going to be the case for most buyers, so I have to discard those feelings and say yes, ok, well these really are quite serious problems that warrant a less-than-9 score.
Supertaxman | 03/06/2010 21:38
Member
1398 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
Well that’s fair enough I suppose, I haven’t actually read your review (must have missed it when it was posted) so I can’t really speak from direct judgement on this; but I just wanted to like that game so much, and the little I did play of it I was really unentused about and just thought if there were more positive reviews around I may have enjoyed it more…
Ah wells…
Supertaxman | 03/06/2010 12:28
Member
1398 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
I definitely think it is best to review games positively.
I often find that if a game is reviewed well and the reviewer is enthusiastic about it I find I enjoy it a lot more as I overlook the niggles and think more about the aspects that make it great and that I’ve been told about. Also if I’m not liking a game much, if I go read a good review it sometimes justifies what I don’t like about it and makes me enjoy it again.
I also hate it when reviewers dwell too much on really tiny points like screen tear and pop-in. I understand when it is constant and really gets in the way. But if they see it only a handful of times throughout the game I don’t think they should mention it, as it really won’t affect you when it comes down to it and it just adds to a list of why that game might be ‘bad’ which is never a good thing.