[General Discussion] Video game review reform idea.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

I was thinking about this for a few days, and I came to the conclusion that video games are a little too conservatively reviewed. Here's what I was thinking: for any successive game in a series (ex: Madden, or GTA), if it isn't a significant improvement from the predecessor (graphically or gameplay-wise, like GTA3 was to GTA2) then there should be a half-point deduction for each successive game (so, by the time San Andreas came out it should have had a full point deduction levied against it). This way, video game reviewers could be more responsible for recommending games.

(Note: I realize how useless most video game reviews are. Most gamers are smart enough to get their reviews from multiple sources. Still, I don't think game companies should be able to get away with sequels that are virtually the same every year. Would people have gotten the next Mario or Zelda or Metroid games if they stayed virtually the same each year? How about Sonic, or Crash Bandicoot? Or Jak and Daxter? Or, dare I say it, Halo? Those 5 series are just an example of series that more or less stayed the same each iteration. Maybe I'm alone on this, I don't know.)

I personally don't think games should be rated relatively. They shouldn't have any kind of safety buffer of previous games if it is totally unrelated. If the previous game in a series was kick-ass, it shouldn't have any impact at all on the second game, whether you expect it to kick ass as well or not. Each game should be reviewed as if it were the only game in the series. They really shouldn't be able to use history to their advantage. Inversely, games that had a shitty beginning should not be looked down upon either as a first glance.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I really can't say much for Mario, since there's only been one platformer game after it (and that is Super Mario Sunshine), Galaxy is supposed to be vastly different, so we'll see after that for Mario.

As for Zelda, sure the game's maintained relatively the same thing, but it's kinda like Final Fantasy. For Final Fantasy I - X, it's been more or less the same, but that doesn't diminish what a great series it is. It's the same for Zelda. Games don't necessarily have to change vastly to stay alive. Sometimes, just improving upon a working formula will suffice as long as nothing else is screwed up. Never played that much of Metroid, so I can't say anything there.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

If there is one thing I would change the way reviews are written today it would be to remove the numbered scoring system. Obviously when a game gets a 3.0 it means it sucks. But between 6.0 - 8.0 can be really fuzzy. Especially since anything below 8.0 is perceived to be a bad score by gamers. People have come to rely too heavily on the score alone and the number itself just doesn't convey enough information.

That's true, the numbering system tends to be very subjective. If you force people to read the damn review instead of just glancing at the score, they'd get a much better idea about how the game actually is, not what the reviewer thinks. The score alone tells you complete shit. If you want to know whether or not it suits you, read the review, because even if it tells you what the reviewer thinks, it also allows you to judge for yourself whether you like or dislike what the reviewer thinks, and what aspects of a game do you like and which do you not like. For example, take one of Angry Nintendo Nerds "reviews" (this is the most extreme case). If he had written a review based on what he played and gave it a score, more than likely, it's a really shitty score. While some are supported, you really have to listen to him to know exactly what aspect of the game warranted that score.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

That's what I mean though. As long as there is no "overall score", then people aren't going to base their entire decision on it. Aspect scores are fine, but overall scores are rarely an accurate depiction.

I liked Gamepro's ratings though. They have a Graphics, Sound, Control, and Fun Factor. It is possible for games to score high on the first 3, but poorly on the last, simply because it's NOT fun, which is probably the most important "aspect" of a game.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

10/10 never means anything. It just means the guy who reviewed it liked it. It means nothing in terms of whether or not you personally like it or not. What happened to the old, renting video games before you buy it?

Will next gen have demos? Because those are good indicators for people to see if they really want to buy it or not. PC games already do this. Console games need to catch up since they now boast wifi.

I was speaking idiomatically.