Deconstructing Game Review Structure 47
Recently there has been a lot of division on the topic of game review structure. Kotaku has an interesting summary of recent commentary, including a piece by GameSetWatch's Simon Parkin and the Taipei Gamer blog. "Except, of course, video games don't work in the same way as toasters or digital cameras. Sure, they have mathematical elements and measurable mechanics and it's possible to compare the number of polygons between this one and that and spin out ten thousand graphs detailing how two specimens compare. But, unlike with the Canon EOS400D, I would have no idea at the end of those 25 pages which game was better or where they would sit on the 'true' scale of quality."
Disparity between Reviewers and Users (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying that GTA4 is a worse game than Mario Kart Wii, but it is clear that the reviewers are not giving scores which reflect the experience of gamers who own the game
(Note: all scores from Gamerankings.com)
Re:You can't quantify "Fun" (Score:2, Interesting)
No, you can't quantify fun, but you can qunatify a lot of what about a game makes it fun to most people and allow them to draw conclusions based on that information. Such things include:
1) Interface, controls, information provided in-game and the customization of each.
2) Graphics levels and relative speed comparable to other established games.
3) Complexity and depth of levels/missions.
4) Polish - the presence (or lack of) bugs.
5) Length of play and difficulty compared to other established titles (ie. not as hard as Ninja Gaiden, but close).
6) If it's online, how intuitive the multiplayer functionality works and how it compares to other titles.
The list goes on but you get the idea. You throw out whatever facts you can, compare where appropriate, and let the user make his/her decision from there.
Differences (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a pretty straightforward analysis, and while it's hard to be 100% objective, it's fairly straightforward to say that the game's design minimizes the small skill gaps and thus replay value is minimized due to the fact that getting better and better at the game has diminishing returns. There's just no point in getting that extra hundredth of a second every lap when you lose 3-5 seconds to a blue shell.
The things that can't be quantified are the problem- is FF7's materia system better than FF8's junction system? That's purely personal preference. You can't go "well, this one requires more skill than the other" or "this one has more replayability" or whatever; because they're fairly similar in those respects and you can't really make a distinction between the two.
But anyone can see that Final Fantasy whatever is a better game than Super Barbie Movie License Cash-In 93 on the Game Boy. The huge, huge difference makes it plain.
I would say that it's probably easier to just lump games into "utter trash", "below average", "average", "above average", and "genre-defining"; and maybe have 2 categories- one for firstplay and one for long-term play.
Gran Turismo 4, for instance, is genre-defining and has excellent long term playability.
Mario Kart Wii is above average when you first play it, but the long term playability is lacking.