Why game reviews get a lot of flak
Game reviews have been getting a lot of criticism nowadays. Several of the issues raised are valid: that the ratings seem too high, that publishers wield influence in the reviews, and certain genres like MMOs aren’t fit for a definitive review. As the popularity of blogs and user-generated content increase, expect this sentiment—especially among core audiences who have access to this medium—to be more prevalent.
Interestingly, game reviewers themselves offer no defense to the accusations being hurled against them. Is this a sign of guilt? Naysayers would be quick to agree. Let me just say this: don’t flatter yourselves.
Game journalists write about video games and review these products for a living. There are two main differences between these professionals and the multitude of wannabes that try in vain to do the same thing: the professionals do it way better, and get paid for it.
Just because the job seems easy (i.e. play and finish video games, write a 1,200-word review, cash in the check), many gamers think they can do better. Let me ask this: if it were really as easy as people thought it was, then why aren’t there more professional game journalists in the world?
Because the truth is—it’s not that easy.
When hopefuls get ignored for their “thorough” write-ups, when wannabes can’t get their feet through the game-reviewing door, when aspirants fail no matter what they do, they criticize.
It’s just sour grapes.
This doesn’t mean that the issues raised about game reviews aren’t valid because they are. However, the problem doesn’t lie directly with the medium itself, but with other factors. The high ratings, for example, wouldn’t be addressed immediately by just changing the numerical scales. A paradigm shift is also needed for the readers who have gotten used to the practice.
MMOs are another matter. Since these virtual worlds are constantly evolving, updates should perhaps be “reviewed” as well. An analysis could be done on individual updates, or the MMO could be scrutinized as a whole—including the latest update. There are different ways to go about this, but the answer doesn’t lie in attacking the medium.
Ultimately, we look to these reviewers for recommendations. We must take a review for what it is—an opinion piece. Some of its writers do it for a living; some post it on a free blog. We may not always agree with the authors, but we don’t really have a choice. It’s either we wait for our friends’ recommendations (who are likely waiting for the reviews themselves), base our decision on a single rating or aggregate score, allow ourselves to be swept up by hype, or read the entire review and come out informed.
Image for Gears of War is courtesy of Microsoft Games.
I do the occasional game review (and lots of manga reviews) and I’ll say this much: critics often forget that there’s a format thrust upon us. 99.9% of the game reviewers I know, myself included, hate giving out definitive letter or number marks because nobody actually reads the accompanying review to take in the context. Instead, they focus on the letters or numbers and start gibbering like idiots. “How can Halo 3 possibly be rated higher than Zelda? omg, bias.”
Well said, Nadia. ;) The fanboys create issues out of nothing when their games get slightly-lower scores compared to games from “rival” systems.
There is always a pressure for the more visible game reviews to skew their ratings based on their sponsors, but most writers have the integrity not to let that affect their reviews.