What’s in a review?

Posted by Kevin in Articles, News | 13 comments

Recently, a news story posted here on shoryuken sparked a huge debate, so I thought I would blog about it… here. On shoryuken.

The news story was the opinion of the people behind God of War III, a game which I am currently enjoying so you can enjoy my words later in the week and decide whether or not to put down €50 on the game. That opinion was rather negative of games journalists and sites that publish their reviews. Why? Well, the GoW developers reckon they have an epic title on their hands, one that couldn’t possibly be finished in 8 hours, as the reviews claim. I’ve not yet gotten into 8 hours of gameplay, but I’d be willing to hedge my bets that this is the average time for gaming these days. At least in story-modes.

The debate in our comments section focused on a review by our own radio celebrity, Terra Corrupt, who posted his own review of Final Fantasy XIII, which is a rather long game. At the start of his review he mentions the review is not based on the entire plot, as he has “only” reached hour 15 of the campaign but wanted to jot down what he thought thus far. Later in the review he said he would revisit this as he progresses. Awesome, I thought.

Instead, a huge debate spawned based on the fact that he had given a mark, and opinion on a title he had not completed. Something that really got up peoples’ goat. Why? Well, the potential is that people feel cheated out of a review (despite not paying for access to the site… though thanks if you do click ads!) and feel our opinion is worthy enough to decide whether or not they want to spend money. Of course, this is a rather hefty thing to carry on the backs of games journalists. It essentially means the entire industry rises or falls based on our opinions of titles. Sure, review scores have long dictated consumer spending, not just in games. It’s still a lofty responsibility. Controlling other peoples’ money.

Here we adopt a 5-star rating. It’s easier that way. Simpler to read into, understand and explain. 2 stars is a potentially decent title if it’s cheap, 3 is a rental, 4 is a good game worth buying and 5 is a prized possession. The lowly 1 star is held in reserve for the lowest of the low.

Some people will only purchase games based on whether or not they get that 4 star rating. Interesting, as often this site runs late with reviews, as we are volunteer-based and most of us have real jobs to do during the day. Which means people are willing to wait, to see what a reviewer thinks before spending their cash. Sure, huge titles like Final Fantasy, Battlefield and their ilk are likely to not sway anyone’s opinion – I would imagine most people already know if they’re buying those games long before they’re released. Most people just want to get a feel for what the game is like from a review, written by someone who has played through the game ad-nauseum to deliver content to web readers.

However, what if my review of Battlefield was only based on 1 hour of single player game? It wasn’t, of course, and I had reached level 4 or so online before writing my review. But what if it was? If I just wrote that review would people make any comments or gripes? I doubt it. The experience is explained in as vague detail as possible so as to not spoil the title, but to give a nice overview of my experiences. What if I explicitly said I had only played a short bit of the game and came to conclusions based on what could only be described as a demo experience? Would the opinion of the reader change then? Of course.

Reading the review of FF13 in question, no way would you think that review was half-baked, lazy or written from the perspective of someone who hammily scrambled some words together to form a vague opinion of something they hated. Some commented the review was “all over the place”. I disagree. It was written with a real sense of affection for the game. A real feeling that the guy who played this wanted to play it, and couldn’t wait to share his 15 hour experience with the public. Even if 15 hours was only one third of the experience, if a man decides that’s worthy of telling the internet that this game is absolutely worth the price of admission at that point, to put his reputation on the line at that stage to call it right there, then jesus christ, that’s a game worth buying. And no, I’m not directly referencing the FF13 review. I mean any review. If I ever play a game and don’t complete it, but review it anyway and state “at half way through the campaign, I’m in love…”, believe me that I want people to know how good my experience is.

Reviewers on “big” sites do this all the time. Do you really think every game on IGN, Gamespot or 1up is played start to finish, all the time? Not a chance. I’ve seen reviews on huge sites use god mode to go through a game. That’s not the same experience as the user. On top of that, a few years ago a Gamespot reviewer was sacked for giving a bad review to a sponsors’ title. How could anyone lay their trust in huge organisations like that? Why let them direct your cash to the tills of an organisation that would call for the head of a reviewer who didn’t enjoy his/her experience?

Ultimately, shoryuken.ie plays host to a number of people who review titles. Nearly every one are completed before being put to the public. In fact, it’s a rare occasion when a title is reviewed after a partial play… I would probably bet FF13 is the first such occasion, too. But FF13 is a mammoth game. No one expects a review of an WoW exclusively when the player has reached the top-tier levels. It’s unrealistic. Why expect it when the game is literally days long in total game time?

The irony is that the debate that sparked over such a review that was, as stated, completed after “only” 15 hours of game time gave the reviewer the opportunity to appears on The Last Word with Matt Cooper on TodayFM. Listen out tonight (16/03/10) after 6PM.