Looking at: Video Game Review Scores

The IGN problem

Last night I was discussing the recently released game Dead State, a game that I'm rather looking forward to. It's a turn-based sandbox RPG about surviving a zombie apocalypse, like if Wasteland 2 and State of Decay got together and had a kid. Turn-based RPG's are all the rage recently, with standout titles like the previously mentioned Wasteland 2, or the amazing Divinity: Original Sin, so I was excited for Dead State. Nevermind the fact that a large majority of people working on it are leftovers from Troika games, makers of the greatest steampunk RPG ever and the greatest vampire RPG ever.

Initial reviews for Dead State have been somewhat mixed, and when I mentioned to my brother that I'd still like to give it a go he said 

"I don't know, IGN gave it a pretty bad review"

Now, IGN has an interesting position in the world of games and game criticism, and to a certain degree I almost feel bad for them. They can't seem to do anything right by people. When they give a game a positive review they get accused of being paid off, as illustrated below: 

http://i.imgur.com/SLQJc.gif

Even when they give negative reviews, like their decidedly negative review of Medal of Honor: Warfighter[sic] they get called out for "pandering" and "not being honest enough".

 I have nothing inherently against IGN. I visit them daily, and their ability to deliver breaking industry news is commendable. Recently they've made great strides in reaching out to their community, culminating in one of the best moments in recent gaming journalism:

http://i.imgur.com/IZp6jIS.jpg

IGN's response to a mislabled video of Dragon Age: Inquisition PC footage. It was revealed that the footage was actually captured from the X1 version, and not the PC version.;

The problem with IGN is what they represent, and the image they've created of themselves. People tend to question the ethics of giving a game high praise when the website around it is covered in no less then six different ads for that game. 

But I'm not here to discuss ethics in gaming journalism, there's enough of that already. I'm here to discuss review scores, and how we should use them. When I checked IGN's review score of Dead State I saw they gave it a 6.8. you can read the whole review here. It's a fair review, offering many of the same critiques as other reviews. So why is a 6.8 considered a "negative" review, but a 7 would be considered an "ok" review. And when did all of this happen? A few years ago a 6 or a 7 would be fine.

Reviewing the Review

There are several issues with the way modern games are reviewed. First, let's start with the obvious: Metacritic. I like Metacritic. It's a great site that allows me to easily gauge how good/bad a game might be, and whether or not it's worth my money/time. Here's the thing though, I don't look at the number specifically. Metacritic rates games out of 100, regardless of how the websites themselves rate games. IGN, for example, rates things on a 1-10 scale, and Metacritic converts that to a 1-100 scale. Theoretically, this kind of works, but a 6.8/10 sounds much less harsh then a 68/100. And that's dealing with a site that uses numbers. What about sites that use alphabetical rating systems, or abstain from any sort of rating system at all? 

The best way around this is to, like I said, use Metacritic purely as a gauge. If the game is receiving positive buzz, then it's probably worth your time. If the game is receiving mediocre reviews, then check it out cautiously and do extra research to see why. If it's getting negative reviews, then avoid the game and save yourself some money. Of course, the best way to see if a game is good or not is to just play it, but demo's have gone the way of the dinosaur, and shelling out $30, $40, or $50 for a complete failure can really sting. 

Technical Difficulties

The second major issue with game reviews is how people review the games. Dragon Age: Inquisition has received universal praise, with some calling it one of the best RPGs ever made comparable to the likes of Baldur's Gate 2 or Morrowind. All of this despite the PS3 version being buggy, multiple reports of frame rate issues across the board, and a DRM that does serious damage to your hard drive while it's running. Similarly, Halo: The Master Chief Collection received high praise, despite the fact that the multiplayer is buggy and unstable and a hilariously over-sized day 1 patch. Shouldn't these factor into a review? If a game is buggy and unstable, then it is not a good game, regardless of how fun the game itself might be.

My favorite example for how fucked up modern reviews are is Fallout: New Vegas. I'm a huge fan of the fallout series, having played through and beaten every game, save the terrible Brotherhood of Steel, so when New Vegas came out I bought it immediately. What I, and many others, got was a great game with one of the most realized and expansive stories and tonnes of memorable characters, surrounded in bugs and broken code. For a good week after New Vegas launched the only way to save your game on PC was through a console code, and the game still has various bugs and crashes. 

Despite being really, really good, New Vegas' reviews struggled, and it ended up with an 84/100 on Metacritic. The reason New Vegas is interesting is because the dev team missed out on a promised bonus that would've been awarded with a Metacritic score of 85. All because of a few bugs. 

So why then does Dragon Age or Halo: MCC get a pass when something like New Vegas or Dragon's Dogma get middling to OK review scores? Games should be examined from all angles, technical and entertainment sides alike. It doesn't matter how good the game is, if it's buggy and difficult to play then it can't be called a great game. 

Sleeping with Fishes

Then we get into the controversial area of reviewing games. Should reviewers be allowed to interact with the developers? The answer should clearly be no. Being personally involved with a person will color your view of their work, regardless of how much you may think otherwise. Don't worry, I'm not going to go full #Gamergate here, but this shouldn't be an issue that requires a full-blown consumer revolution. This is journalism 101, and the fact that it's still going on is indicative of how shitty the industry has gotten. 

I'm not saying these people can't interact. Giantbomb has always been one of my favorite game sites on the internet, sort of acting as an inti-every one else, and guys like Alex Navarro, Jeff Gerstmann and the late Ryan Davis are all great examples of what people in the industry should be. But my biggest issue with Giantbomb has always been the way they interact with various developers. To me there's something wrong about playing a game side-by-side with the developer, then turning around and giving that game a glowing review. I'm not saying you can't have fun with people, this industry is built on the idea of people having fun together, I'm saying perhaps don't taint the ethical side of your review by interacting with the vary person who's work your reviewing. 

Then there's the idea of paid reviews. I'm headed back to IGN for this one since they, more than any other site, have been accused of this time and time again. I'm not going to indicate IGN specifically, but the idea of paid reviews is real, as revealed in this interview. For quick reference, here's the quote:

"NG: How often do gaming publications (big and small) collude with developers for review scores, or exclusives? Is this more common than the public could ever foresee?

Allen: I have personally sat in negotiations where a publisher negotiated a higher review score for a game in exchange for an exclusive cover or assets for a separate upcoming game. It is common, especially with previews. This is why you often see glowing previews of bad games, or pre-release reviews that have to be revised post-launch."

The idea that this is happening is somewhat disturbing. No, fuck that, it's really disturbing. Reviews are supposed to safeguard we, the consumer, against bad, unfinished, or unplayable games. How can we trust them if they're lying to us, just to score some more page views. 

Final review

Game reviews are a dying beast, with publications lashing out in their death throes. Numerical scores are meaningless, and should only be used a a guide line for how good or bad the game might be. Never put stock into a number, or a decimal point. Were it up to me we'd be on a 1-3 system:

1 - Don't play. It's a bad game.

2 - Play at your own risk, problematic and may contain bugs

3 - Very well designed, fun to play, and stable throughout.

That's it. If it has major bugs, like DA:I or Halo:MCC do, then it's a 2. If it's bugs are minimal and don't detract from the gameplay, then it's a 3. If it's a piece of steaming shit, then it's a 1. Simple. 

I'm not going to implement this system, as I don't see my writings as reviews. I started this blog as an echo-chamber of my opinions, and that's the way it will remain. All I want to do is remind people to look out. The industry is going through some major changes, both good and bad, as it reaches it's awkward and violent adolescents. Pay attention, keep your eyes open, and always remember to think for yourselves.