Greg Costikyan knows games. He's designed best-selling RPGs. He's sold them via his own Manifesto Games publishing company. And he's written about them, at length, on his own blog. He knows games. But he doesn't know reviews. And that's a problem, because he's been mouthing off about reviews and criticism.
On his blog Greg explains what he thinks is the difference between reviews and criticism, and why he thinks the games press isn't providing them. But there's a flaw in his argument.
Greg believes there's a fundamental difference between a review and piece of criticism. In Greg's mind, reviews are about answering pure questions of worth. "A review is a buyer's guide. It exists to tell you about some new product that you can buy, and whether you should or should not buy it. A good review goes beyond that, and suggests who should buy it, since not everyone enjoys everything. (E.g., A romance novel may be very fine of its kind, but is quite unlikely to appeal to me, since it is not a genre I enjoy.)"
But criticism, he says, is something different. "Some valid critical approaches? Where does this work fall, in terms of the historical evolution of its medium. How does this work fit into the creator's previous ouevres, and what does it say about his or her continuing evolution as an artist. What novel techniques does this work introduce, or how does it use previously known techniques to create a novel and impactful effect. How does it compare to other works with similar ambitions or themes. What was the creator attempting to do, and how well or poorly did he achieve his ambitions. What emotions or thoughts does it induce in those exposed to the work, and is the net effect enlightening or incoherent. What is the political subtext of the work, and what does it say about gender relationships/current political issues/the nature-nurture debate, or about any other particular intellectual question (whether that question is a particular hobby-horse of the reviewer, or inherently raised by the work in question)."
PC Gamer has a response.
STFU noob!
Greg's is a purely semantic argument based around trying to define what reviews and criticism should be, that doesn't take into account what reviewers and critics are already doing. Games criticism doesn't /have to be anything/. There are no rules of what reviews can and cannot include - the only question for writers should be: what will the reader gain from the review?
Greg's argument ignores the beauty and malleability of words. Beautiful, because with the right language, you can make any point. Malleable, because any point can be made anywhere, in any piece of text. There are no limits.
My job on PC Gamer is mostly about sourcing, commissioning, editing, and writing reviews; from either in-house staff or our team of (excellent) freelancers. My favourites, and the reviews that get the most positive criticism from our readers, aren't those that provide straight buying advice. They're the reviews that do everything Greg is asking for; placing the game in its proper context. Where subtext exists, the best reviews critique it. Reviews can discuss the emotions the game conveys, and the novel techniques it uses to impress. The best part: they can tell you whether the game is worth buying /as well/.
I've been thinking about this a lot. I believe that games are the most important art form on the planet right now. More reviewers are always needed to continue and build on the work games journalists have been doing for nearly twenty years, to place their games in their rightful context, to provide exciting, entertaining and readable pop-criticism. But whatever we do, whoever these writers are, we can't place rules on what they can and can't write. That would miss the point.
Ah, an appropriately articulate riposte to such an issue.
Greg's piece does seem to imply that he's never read a game review in his life - I admire the man to some extent, because he's usually on the ball with a lot of what he writes (and isn't afraid to put his money where his mouth is). But Tim, you pretty much shot him down, and I'd say rightly so.
There's no point trying to delineate the two forms (review/criticism) because they really are one and the same.
Actually no, everyone is wrong as usual. I must come in to fill the gaps.
A review can contain criticism, a criticism can not contain a review except as a reference. This is not a semantic difference. World of Warcraft has had many reviews, few have effectively criticised it was very obvious flaws.
Having not read the blog though, I can't speak to the context of Tim's riposte.
There are limits to what a review should say. Unlike a comment piece that openly admits it has spoilers, a review should promote good buying decisions while not spoiling anything for the player. That doesn't stop critical appraisal, but it does mean a difference in terms of content. Imagine an English literature essay about a novel where you couldn't directly explain what happens in the book, for example.
Who gives a flying f**k whether a piece is called a review or is considered a critical piece. The argument between Edwards and Costikyan is about scale and depth, but both are arguing over semantics, not the issues.
Well, review or critique, it makes little difference to me what you call it. From my observations over the last few years, a review is rarely worth the paper it's written on.
Although, looking at the price of magazines, paper is quite expensive, so that's my argument screwed.
As for Greg. He's been in the business (anyone remember Paranoia?) a long time. I'm inclined to side with him over some journo who's using a gaming mag as a rung between local rag and something better.
I'm inclined to side with him over some journo who's using a gaming mag as a rung between local rag and something better.
Hrmmm, that's the thing. I don't see anyone in the games journalism industry that's pushing for a Pulitzer, and I don't use that prize facetiously. I genuinely think that most reviewers and journalists are happy to push out crap, play games for living and pick up a paycheque at the end of the month.
My favourites, and the reviews that get the most positive criticism from our readers, aren't those that provide straight buying advice. They're the reviews that do everything Greg is asking for; placing the game in its proper context. Where subtext exists, the best reviews critique it. Reviews can discuss the emotions the game conveys, and the novel techniques it uses to impress. The best part: they can tell you whether the game is worth buying /as well/.
From the mag that came today, I have only read Ross' intro, They're Back, and the Audiosurf review, and I have to say that Alec's piece is a perfect example of the above. Great writing (and therefore reading) even though I already own and love the game.
Hrmmm, that's the thing. I don't see anyone in the games journalism industry that's pushing for a Pulitzer, and I don't use that prize facetiously. I genuinely think that most reviewers and journalists are happy to push out crap, play games for living and pick up a paycheque at the end of the month.
But if you were in a job where you got to do what you loved, and got paid for it, why would you need anything more?
Just because there is something more renowned out there (like your example of writing something worth a Pulitzer), that doesn't mean you have to go for it. What ever happened to doing a job you love, and sticking with it, instead of striving for fame (which, lets face it, is what the something like the Pulitzer is).
No-one I know is striving for a Pulitzer. Everyone journalist I know, and everyone I employ, strives to do the very best job they can.
This:
I genuinely think that most reviewers and journalists are happy to push out crap, play games for living and pick up a paycheque at the end of the month.
I genuinely think that most reviewers and journalists are happy to push out crap, play games for living and pick up a paycheque at the end of the month.
is phenomenally insulting.
Let me qualify that, as I should have done originally. They're happy to push out what they're doing because it's what's expected. Yes, they strive to put out the best reviews possible, as part of PCGamer, part of Future Publishing, but as Costikyan it's not true criticism.
Can you honestly say that you've said everything you've wanted to say when you were published in PCG. Not everything you've wanted to say as part of a review, but everything you've wanted to say as a writer. I'm not questioning the limits placed on you for reviews, but the limits a review places on you as a journalist.
Can you honestly say that you've said everything you've wanted to say when you were published in PCG. Not everything you've wanted to say as part of a review, but everything you've wanted to say as a writer. I'm not questioning the limits placed on you for reviews, but the limits a review places on you as a journalist.
Honestly - I've never felt bound in, or felt that reviews have limits. The only limits I've ever felt come from word count, not what the title of the page is.
I've fired some reviews back at writers in the past, and probably, sometimes I've probably cut criticism. But I'll say this: it's only cut because it is unreadable tosh - never because the criticism is out place in a review.
Honestly - I've never felt bound in, or felt that reviews have limits. The only limits I've ever felt come from word count, not what the title of the page is.
To say reviews have no limits seems incredibly naive. You have to be careful of spoilers. You can't presume that your audience is a knowledgeable fan of a particular genre. You can't presume your audience is educated on the developer. You can't write a review entirely on a particular instance. You can't dedicate the article entirely to a gameplay advance, a new internal system. Reviews by their nature have limits.
I think that Costikyan is correct, but he doesn't convey the message appropriately. He's quite hostile in the piece, and that would appear to stem from frustration. It's something I'm guilty of as well, but his core argument stands, reviews only scratch the surface.
He is obviously, to me anyway, implying that the balance between reviews and features is off. And I agree with him.
No-one I know is striving for a Pulitzer. Everyone journalist I know, and everyone I employ, strives to do the very best job they can.
This:
I genuinely think that most reviewers and journalists are happy to push out crap, play games for living and pick up a paycheque at the end of the month.
is phenomenally insulting.
As is some of the trash that's been written in the reviews section of the mag over the last few years. It's not badly written, far from it; it's just that it's often as useful as t**s on a fish when it comes to informing us about a game! Calling them reviews....
Honestly - I've never felt bound in, or felt that reviews have limits. The only limits I've ever felt come from word count, not what the title of the page is.
To say reviews have no limits seems incredibly naive. You have to be careful of spoilers. You can't presume that your audience is a knowledgeable fan of a particular genre. You can't presume your audience is educated on the developer. You can't write a review entirely on a particular instance. You can't dedicate the article entirely to a gameplay advance, a new internal system. Reviews by their nature have limits.
I'd disagree with you - you can reasonably presume an awful bloody lot when you're writing for a PC games magazine that's read by PC gamers. You've got a target audience and you write for that audience. It's not even a real constraint or limit, because you can rightly take for granted that the reader already has some knowledge in this area, and thus you're not tied to explaining every last damn thing, which frees up word count for more of what Greg seems to be moaning about.
And he is moaning, to an extent. And he does a poor job of making his point. And, to top it all off, the grouchy bastard may actually be on to something! But he's only gone and shot himself in the foot with that piece. Now we'll be arguing f**king semantics for months! And no-one likes semantics... ¬_¬
I could pick this apart more but it's late, and I'm tired, and I'm not sure it's worth getting all worked up for.
Honestly - I've never felt bound in, or felt that reviews have limits. The only limits I've ever felt come from word count, not what the title of the page is.
To say reviews have no limits seems incredibly naive. You have to be careful of spoilers. You can't presume that your audience is a knowledgeable fan of a particular genre. You can't presume your audience is educated on the developer. You can't write a review entirely on a particular instance. You can't dedicate the article entirely to a gameplay advance, a new internal system. Reviews by their nature have limits.
I'd disagree with you - you can reasonably presume an awful bloody lot when you're writing for a PC games magazine that's read by PC gamers. You've got a target audience and you write for that audience. It's not even a real constraint or limit, because you can rightly take for granted that the reader already has some knowledge in this area, and thus you're not tied to explaining every last damn thing, which frees up word count for more of what Greg seems to be moaning about.
I think it's a matter of scale, and a commercial review, in comparison to a proper piece, a truly critical the difference is quite large. There were people complaining in Mag Talk about too many references they didn't know. Complaining in the online forum for a niche magazine. That's already showing that some of the supposed hardcore isn't aware of, what were to me and a lot of others, fairly obvious references.
And he is moaning, to an extent. And he does a poor job of making his point. And, to top it all off, the grouchy bastard may actually be on to something! But he's only gone and shot himself in the foot with that piece. Now we'll be arguing f**king semantics for months! And no-one likes semantics... ¬_¬
Yep. Tim hasn't taken the spirit of the argument, just gotten riled up about the language. And the point is (initially I hope) lost.
I could pick this apart more but it's late, and I'm tired, and I'm not sure it's worth getting all worked up for.
Aye, there's a lot of scale in it, but I think the main point still stands. That PCG isn't highbrow. And the problem probably lies with me. Maybe I'm expecting too much from what is one of the better gaming magazines.
Although Aircool made a valid point elsewhere. People, journalists and PCG want gaming to be treated as art, but they rarely seem to give it the treatment art deserves themselves. And it's arrogant to expect anyone else to if they can't do it themselves.
Tim's argument isn't semantics. Greg's calling for a certain type of writing, Tim's saying we already do it. Greg just hasn't seen it because he assumes it doesn't happen in reviews.
To say reviews have no limits seems incredibly naive. You have to be careful of spoilers. You can't presume that your audience is a knowledgeable fan of a particular genre. You can't presume your audience is educated on the developer. You can't write a review entirely on a particular instance. You can't dedicate the article entirely to a gameplay advance, a new internal system. Reviews by their nature have limits.
Those aren't limits. You can do all those things, they just come with drawbacks that are worth considering. All my best-received reviews have talked about things some people considered spoilers, and most of them assumed a lot of knowledge, too.
As for Greg. He's been in the business (anyone remember Paranoia?) a long time. I'm inclined to side with him over some journo who's using a gaming mag as a rung between local rag and something better.
Taking sides in an argument based on the advocates rather than its merits is intellectual sloth, surely?
(Greg) Some valid critical approaches? Where does this work fall, in terms of the historical evolution of its medium. How does this work fit into the creator's previous ouevres, and what does it say about his or her continuing evolution as an artist. What novel techniques does this work introduce, or how does it use previously known techniques to create a novel and impactful effect. How does it compare to other works with similar ambitions or themes. What was the creator attempting to do, and how well or poorly did he achieve his ambitions. What emotions or thoughts does it induce in those exposed to the work, and is the net effect enlightening or incoherent. What is the political subtext of the work, and what does it say about gender relationships/current political issues/the nature-nurture debate, or about any other particular intellectual question (whether that question is a particular hobby-horse of the reviewer, or inherently raised by the work in question).
These may indeed be 'valid critical approaches' but I'd argue they're also (often) incredibly dreary, unimaginative approaches. There's a reason I haven't read any serious arts criticism since abandoning an arts degree many years ago; serious arts criticism is often stodgy, pretentious, and fantastically dull. If you want to reduce a wondrous, challenging, life-affirming piece of art to a bone-dry heap of isms and ologys give it to a critic.
To say reviews have no limits seems incredibly naive. You have to be careful of spoilers. You can't presume that your audience is a knowledgeable fan of a particular genre. You can't presume your audience is educated on the developer. You can't write a review entirely on a particular instance. You can't dedicate the article entirely to a gameplay advance, a new internal system. Reviews by their nature have limits.
Those aren't limits. You can do all those things, they just come with drawbacks that are worth considering. All my best-received reviews have talked about things some people considered spoilers, and most of them assumed a lot of knowledge, too.
Yes, they can all be done, but from what I have read that would be the exception to the rule. And I can't see how can argue that reviews are on par with in depth critiques and critical analysis. The can feature the same elements, but that would be like saying Driv3r has a lot of the same features as GTA3. True to a fair degree, but completely missing the point.
These may indeed be 'valid critical approaches' but I'd argue they're also (often) incredibly dreary, unimaginative approaches. There's a reason I haven't read any serious arts criticism since abandoning an arts degree many years ago; serious arts criticism is often stodgy, pretentious, and fantastically dull. If you want to reduce a wondrous, challenging, life-affirming piece of art to a bone-dry heap of isms and ologys give it to a critic.
I'd argue that's more to do with the style of academic writing as much as anything. Scientific papers are very dull, but they're presented in the clearest way possible (if well done). I didn't like English literature because, as you say, it picks apart literature, sometimes to the point of destroying it. But the final piece can be entertaining and informative, as long as that's what it's supposed to be, rather than an information-packed academic article. Of course, you might be right in context; as I said, I gave it up years ago in favour of science, which I think is way cooler, plus has more funding.
I think that pretty much any information can be presented in an interesting or dull way. For example, my sister wrote an article on stories in games for her student paper recently, and asked me for comments. I said it was a bit essayish but otherwise OK. She sent me a different version a day or so later that was completely different and very funny, but had pretty much the same basic information content.
Yes Gap, I wouldn't argue with any of that. I guess I'm just hostile to the whole "We badly need more games criticism" argument. For me the review will always be the superior creature. It performs a clear and useful function (while often incorporating much of the analysis Greg seems so eager to see) and it doesn't generate a welter of untestable theories and an incestuous/snobby elite (apart from reviewers, obviously). Give me John Walker or Ben Croshaw over Pauline Kael and John Simon any day of the week.
Yes Gap, I wouldn't argue with any of that. I guess I'm just hostile to the whole "We badly need more games criticism" argument. For me the review will always be the superior creature. It performs a clear and useful function (while often incorporating much of the analysis Greg seems so eager to see) and it doesn't generate a welter of untestable theories and an incestuous/snobby elite (apart from reviewers, obviously). Give me John Walker or Ben Croshaw over Pauline Kael and John Simon any day of the week.
As for Greg. He's been in the business (anyone remember Paranoia?) a long time. I'm inclined to side with him over some journo who's using a gaming mag as a rung between local rag and something better.
Taking sides in an argument based on the advocates rather than its merits is intellectual sloth, surely?
Not really, particularly after reading both sides of the argument. After all, there is the weight of experience to take into account.
As for Greg. He's been in the business (anyone remember Paranoia?) a long time. I'm inclined to side with him over some journo who's using a gaming mag as a rung between local rag and something better.
No-one I know is striving for a Pulitzer. Everyone journalist I know, and everyone I employ, strives to do the very best job they can.
This:
I genuinely think that most reviewers and journalists are happy to push out crap, play games for living and pick up a paycheque at the end of the month.
is phenomenally insulting.
As is some of the trash that's been written in the reviews section of the mag over the last few years. It's not badly written, far from it; it's just that it's often as useful as t**s on a fish when it comes to informing us about a game! Calling them reviews....
is phenomenally insulting.
Dear God man, you really are an asshole. You appear to be gleaning some peverse satisfaction from insulting the very writers that pour their life into this magazine - to their faces - then mixing it up in some Thomson-esqe pseudo-arguments and calling it reasonable debate.
As for Greg. He's been in the business (anyone remember Paranoia?) a long time. I'm inclined to side with him over some journo who's using a gaming mag as a rung between local rag and something better.
No-one I know is striving for a Pulitzer. Everyone journalist I know, and everyone I employ, strives to do the very best job they can.
This:
I genuinely think that most reviewers and journalists are happy to push out crap, play games for living and pick up a paycheque at the end of the month.
is phenomenally insulting.
As is some of the trash that's been written in the reviews section of the mag over the last few years. It's not badly written, far from it; it's just that it's often as useful as t**s on a fish when it comes to informing us about a game! Calling them reviews....
is phenomenally insulting.
Dear God man, you really are an asshole. You appear to be gleaning some peverse satisfaction from insulting the very writers that pour their life into this magazine - to their faces - then mixing it up in some Thomson-esqe pseudo-arguments and calling it reasonable debate.
And why the hell not? PCG's reaction to criticsm is to slap it down and return fire. It's turned from a good, informative product into a self centred and arrogant publication. It hasn't had a permanant writing staff for a long time, and it shows. It accepts contributions, contributions that have to fit into it's writing style. Some of those contributers may have to adapt their writing style to get their work accepted etc.. etc..
Also, some of those reviews are insulting as they're way off target and seem to lack an appreciation of a particular gaming genre and its audience. But that's the catch isn't it, PCG doesn't do it reviews that way (apparently). I can't remember ever personally insulting any of the writers or staff members either. However, considering you've just called me an asshole, I think you're a bit out of your depth when it comes to a reasonable debate for obvious reasons.
It hasn't had a permanant writing staff for a long time, and it shows. It accepts contributions, contributions that have to fit into it's writing style. Some of those contributers may have to adapt their writing style to get their work accepted etc.. etc..
We have five permanent in-house writers. Ross, Craig, Tom, Graham and myself. We also have freelancers, all of whom have been writing for the magazine for more than two years. Every magazine in the world that I know of uses, and values, their freelancers.
The really odd part of your post though is that you seem to be criticising us for a) no consistency of writing staff and b) asking our writing staff to conform to a style. Damned if we do, damned if we don't?
No-one I know is striving for a Pulitzer. Everyone journalist I know, and everyone I employ, strives to do the very best job they can.
This:
I genuinely think that most reviewers and journalists are happy to push out crap, play games for living and pick up a paycheque at the end of the month.
is phenomenally insulting.
As is some of the trash that's been written in the reviews section of the mag over the last few years. It's not badly written, far from it; it's just that it's often as useful as t**s on a fish when it comes to informing us about a game! Calling them reviews....
is phenomenally insulting.
lol @ t**s on a fish
I have to side with Tim and the PCG lot in this one, and also I think they do a sterling job as writers. There are always a few hiccups of course, but I have been subscribed for a few years now, and have never been through a mag and found more than 1 article which I thought was rubbish.
Keep it up boyos (thought you could do with some encouragement with all this hatred knocking about suddenly)
As always, Chief Wyrmskin sides with no one and stands by all his absurd claims. ESPECIALLY the absurd ones. I'll just dig myself into a corner and fire at everyone, like a TFT Engineer and his turret on the mysterious one-man Purple Team.
t**s on a fish are useful. They gave me something to talk about in Heroic Steamvaults: Naga are technically mammals because of their boobies. Look it up.
The next person to bring up talk of semantics has automatically lost the arguement.
The next person to mention Jewish ancestry has automatically lost the arguement.
The first person to quote from this post, ditto.
Reviews are not critical enough. We now know Keiron believes 'Deus Ex wasn't as good as everyone thinks'. But we don't know why and it would be really nice to know now. I really think Keiron is the best reviewer(as I've said before, he was able to identify problems with SupCom in his Forged Alliance review that were not at all mentioned in the original non-Keiron SupCom review). I was really frustrated reading the World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade review because it seemed like the author REALLY wanted to talk about it's problems but somehow couldn't. I thought he wasn't pulling punches until I had a couple more read-throughs; it almost made it sound like WoW's strongest point: the art, was a bad thing because it exposed the utter emptiness of the core game-mechanics.
A criticism-enema is much needed. Drink Sunny D after brushing your teeth for a week and you'll soon be hating everything. That's my prescription and it's good for you.
Regarding Bioshock and Two Worlds' ressurection mechanics, I don't think this can be used against a mag when it praises one and damns another. A feature should be judged on it's own merits within the broader system it's being utilised in. Spider-Man 2(console version, I don't know WTF Activision thought they were doing with the PC one) had jumping. Did you see the jumping in that game? That was awesome.
Stubbs the Zombie had jumping. I rest my case.
Devil's Advocate should be the one page in the whole mag that must absolutely say something interesting. It's strength is that it challenges our attitudes as gamers, except one: our instinct for tribalism. Anyone who has read my posts on the EU WoW forum will have seen me constantly fighting WoW tribalists that defend the game no matter what. Unfortunately such tribalists can find their way into games journalism and we'd never know, unless they made it utterly obvious like Tom Francis and his recent slightly-annoying Orange Box/Valve/Steam-phillia. It's like Tom Cruise and that friggin sofa all over again.
I think this is the single most idiotic and dangerous phenomenom in games at the moment; it used to be contained because of the console wars between Sega and Nintendo, both of which would get games scoring ridiculously high(even though Nintendos were always consistently better, I admit as a Mega Drive owner) whilst third-party titles were rightly scrutinised because the fanbois were distracted by the Sega VS Ninty drama. If it somehow has managed to slip into a Devil's Advocate article without my notice, ignore this. If it hasn't, it's a farce.
You can tell how bad most reviews are by the occasional good review. You also see plenty of examples (Space Rangers 2 and Terra Nova: Task Force Centurai, to name just two) where the review text says 70% and the review score is 90% - or vice versa.
Woah! I don't think the Space Rangers 2 review Gamer read like a 90 - it got a 79%(ish) and a general hailing it was pretty neat but not the rapture that a 90% would get (Space is the other issue, of course - it was a 280 word review)*. And I think you're openly mistaken with Terra Nova. We're going way, way into the prehistory of PCG - i've been writing for it for a decade, and it was well before that - but I swear it got more than that. Like a 90%.
In fact, going and checking PCG's big collection book, it got a 91%.
Speaking generally, review scores not seeming to match review text is a classic reviewer error, but you've chosen two really bad examples, man.
Aircool_212: Were I still running this place, you'd have been banned months ago. As it is, in the same way you can dismiss what Tim said over Costikyan - who, bless him, is an agent provocateur to the bone - I can dismiss everything you're saying. There's no meat to any of it. It's just insults. The idea that Gamer's reviews are any worse now than they used to be at any previous point is openly ludicrous. You've ground your axe so much you're left holding a shaft.
Gorgeras: Deus Ex is one of the greatest games of all time. Upon release, it was probably the reigning champion. Even so, I could write thousands of words of what was wrong with it. I could do that with most games. When a game is genuinely great, you weight a review towards its greatness rather than the flaws, because otherwise you end up with a review of the type which humorguy is decrying upthread; one that reads like a 60 and is given 95.
(This is a difference between pure reviews and pure criticism, if we're playing that game.)
KG
*Worth stressing when I reviewed Star Rangers 2 for someone else, I gave it 9/10. I'm a fan.
Firstly, Space Rangers 2 got 7.1 in PC Zone, not '79%'ish'.
Secondly: Any comment along the lines of 'will stay on my hard drive for a long time' should be an automatic 90%+ review, because that's the key to a good game.
Thirdly, I reprint the final two paragraphs here: The second to last paragraph show' why the review score is wrong, the last paragraph is a rare occurrence where a reviewer shows how that second to final paragraph doesn't mean anything because the game is from a smaller publisher, and how if it was a major publisher that final paragraph would not have been written...
Something just grabs you and keeps you there. Maybe it's the sense of humour (a paragraph in the manual cheekily explains away any translation errors by basically saying, "It's the future, that's how they talk now". Maybe it's the hidden layers of depth. Maybe it's the amount of freedom you have to play any way you want. Maybe it's just very, very good game design.
Whatever it is, Space Rangers isn't going to break any sales records and may not even stay on the shelves very long. But if you play it you will enjoy it, and you can't really ask for more than that.
That, Sir, is a broken argument. At no point is it mentioned that the game is poor because its from a small developer. Games from small developers don't stay on shelves long. Its just a fact. They can't afford to advertise, so sales suffer. The article says But if you play it you will enjoy it, and you can't really ask for more than that , so I don't really see where it contradicts the penultimate paragraph.
Co-incidentally, my laptop battery is at 79% right now. How odd.
Anyway.
EDIT: To add substance to this post - I prefer the older writers to the newer ones. This may be nothing more than simply what I'm used to, and in many ways what I grew up with. It's probably also a large dose of rose-tinted glasses, selective memory and simply growing out of what I used to like, so new writers have to be twice as good as the older ones to compete with nostalgia. I used to love Terry Pratchett novels but after reading about twenty, I got bored of them.
An interesting point was made on a spin-off forum: who are reviews aimed at? What is your demographic? The poster there made a point that he writes for non-gamers buying games for their relatives, because clued-up gamers already have preconceptions about what they want and don't need to read a buyers-guide review.
And if PCG would like to grow the balls to ban me from the forums, then go ahead. Once you've aquired said balls, you might start using your rag to stick up for the consumer rather than bottom kissing the industry bigwigs.
I could be completely wrong of course. But not being a games journalist or whatever, I'll never be taken seriously.
Well, it was a good relationship whilst it lasted from issue one. However, I guess I've grown up and moved on.
Also, as far as I can remember, I've never personally insulted anyone. And where I have crossed the line, I've given my reasons and apologies as soon as possible.
I might talk horses**te, but at least I have integrity and the ability to realise my mistakes. Try it sometime, y'know, admitting when you're wrong. It's part of growing up and moving on.
And if PCG would like to grow the balls to ban me from the forums, then go ahead. Once you've aquired said balls, you might start using your rag to stick up for the consumer rather than bottom kissing the industry bigwigs.
We're not going to ban you. I don't really understand why you think we would? KG said he would have done? But, as pointed out earlier, KG is a freelancer. He doesn't run the forum.
I could be completely wrong of course. But not being a games journalist or whatever, I'll never be taken seriously.
Wrong about us sticking up for the consumer? Your the guys who buy our magazine. We're on your side. I don't really understand where the idea that we're not has come from.
Well, it was a good relationship whilst it lasted from issue one. However, I guess I've grown up and moved on.
Bitch. Can't we kiss and make up? No-one likes being dumped.
Also, as far as I can remember, I've never personally insulted anyone. And where I have crossed the line, I've given my reasons and apologies as soon as possible.
You could say you're a teensy bit sorry for accusing us of waiting for a better job on a local paper (not true - local journalism pays peanuts), and that we're staffed entirely by freelancers (not true ten years ago, not true today). Then we could be friends again.
I might talk horses**te, but at least I have integrity and the ability to realise my mistakes. Try it sometime, y'know, admitting when you're wrong. It's part of growing up and moving on.
When we make factual errors, we'll print retractions. We're not going to apologise for having strong opinions.
Oh all right then - you did help me out once and then asked me to say that I'd love you for it. I love you for it
Damnit, stop catching me off guard with friendly replies.
Here's the root of my problem - PCG has been piling up in my various places of residence since I was a student living at the Keelmans Hospital Building on Newcastle Quayside and I bought a copy of issue 1.
I was a lot younger then, I guess I just expect something different these days - basically, when was the last time PCG asked it's readership what it wanted to see in the magazine? From what I remember, it used to be an annual thing, along with a survey on games, publishers, hardware etc...
Take a look at Ride magazine (it's about motorcycles allright!) and their annual survey - they get to know their readers habits and interests and along the way get plenty of feedback to praise some products/manufacturers and name & shame others.
There's no magazine that I know of that does this kind of thing regarding PC gaming. As you well know, gaming is big business (although the debate as to whether the PC is on the up or down still rages) and it's about time the press stepped up another level to take into account the amount of muscle the publishers now have.
I guess I get angry because PCG is something I've invested a lot of time in - reading that is.
Gorgeras: Deus Ex is one of the greatest games of all time. Upon release, it was probably the reigning champion. Even so, I could write thousands of words of what was wrong with it. I could do that with most games. When a game is genuinely great, you weight a review towards its greatness rather than the flaws, because otherwise you end up with a review of the type which humorguy is decrying upthread; one that reads like a 60 and is given 95.
(This is a difference between pure reviews and pure criticism, if we're playing that game.)
That's exactly the problem I'm having. The first PCG I bought came with a free game on CDGamer, Earth 2140. And it's probably the reason I never played C&C. Me and a friend played that game to death.
What was being written then is fine, but it hasn't grown up. And the readers have grown up. What you say is the difference between the reviews and pure criticism is exactly what some people are looking for. It's a bit off that people are being asked to take gaming seriously, but all we get is consumer buying guides (which, no matter how a review is written, is still what they are.)
If you want people to treat games as a serious artform then the reviewers and critiques have to blatantly show it, especially in a young industry where there isn't the diversity in print media to afford it. If you look at other things, chat shows, there is a certain amount of fluff, a high proportion of it. But there is also the Paxmans, the mainstream gaming media doesn't have its Paxman.
And what rankles the most is that Tim has refused to acknowledge what a lot of people see as a valid complaint. People have invested years in PCG, some writing, most reading it, writing letters to it and posting on the forum. And Tim is still trying to maintain that PCG is doing the review and the depthful critique. If PCG were to say it's not interested in going down the route of strong critique, people would accept it. Be it for commercial reasons, or purely because the editors think it isn't the right place to do it. But Tim is saying that PCG does both at the moment, when that is blatantly wrong.
What are you talking about? I've never got the impression that they've preferentially treated EA games. In fact, they habitually rubbish the cheap sequels and film tie-ins that big companies churn out to trap unsuspecting fools loitering around games shops. I can only remember one positively reviewed Sims add-on, for example.
My generalist reply to the matter of game scores not matching their reviews is that this is not a problem.
The Burning Crusade deserved the 87% it got. Every bit of it and perhaps a half percentile more. Was the problem with the review that our man from PCG thought he couldn't properley talk about it's problems(only passingly mention that it had them) without being consistent with the score?
What does having a matching write-up and score tell us? What does it teach us about a game? If reviews came with the score covered up by the scratch-card material, most of us would proberley accurately predict the score based on the wording of the review: which makes the scoring system altogether pointless. Bioshock got 95%, but I did not see 1/20 of the written review talk about the problems that made up the missing 5%.
I think readers of all games magazines are only given accurate reviews for the best games. Where are the six-page spreads telling us how awful a game is and why? Bioshock's review told me the game was perfect, the score told me the game was near-perfect. People who played it and wrote on forums told me it was near perfect. The weak-link would be the written review.
Would I have thought less of Bioshock if more emphasis were given to the flaws(the combat had some issues and 2K seems to be ignoring a very large thread on their forums concerning the ridiculous physics engine FPS cap)? I might, but I can definately say I thought more of Bioshock when I read the review than I did when I actually came to play it. This is not to say that I think bad of it: I just no longer have the illusion of a perfect game, it's been replaced by the realisation that it is a 95% game, not a 100% one.
But I would have liked to have been able to know that before. The best bits about a game should never be spoiled in a review, but I think a review should try to spoil the worst bits because I should be allowed to know. Gamers talk about the unbelievable bugs Medieval 2: Total War had, journos don't. This should stop. Yes it fully deserved it's score, but only with a painful burning light shone on it's scabs.
But Tim is saying that PCG does both at the moment, when that is blatantly wrong.
I think it is very easy to miss a lot of the smarts within PCG because they're hidden under quite a casual tone. I don't think I've said, anywhere, that PCG is a bastion of critique. But we have smart guys working for us, and if they want to use the mechanisms of criticism, they can. The point of this blog post, which seems to have been missed, was never to say PCG was full of the kind of criticism that Greg demands. It was to point out the absurdity of defining one set of writing 'reviewing', and the other 'critique'. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The point I am trying to make is that a game by EA (or Valve or Bethesda) would never have a last paragraph with a 79% review saying:
'Whatever it is, is bound to break sales records and will stay on the shelves for a very long time because it's EA. But if you play it you will not enjoy it, and you can't really ask for less than that.'
Hey, I really hope you're right that we'd never see that. I'm not 100% sure what you mean there but I'm interested in what you're saying. Can you rephrase?
If you want people to treat games as a serious artform then the reviewers and critiques have to blatantly show it...
Why do you want people to see it as an artform? Can't you appreciate it yourself? I certainly care more about the experience of a game rather than its public perception as an artform.
And well done PCG, I still enjoy your mag as much as I always have. *shares the love*
Can you give examples of reviews that do this to back your point? As I've said, I haven't seen any evidence of bias towards large publishing houses. (Apologies if you've already aluded to examples).
In the case of DX:IW, it *was* given a clean slate, and was reviewed favourably for it, as opposed to the people who thought it was a pale shadow of the original DX. I haven't played KOTOR2 and I can't remember the review, so I can't comment here.
Often, games published by small houses lack polish and are (possibly rightly) attacked for it, but then the same is true of movie tie-in games made by big houses on a rushed schedule.
Hm! All the Battlefield games have lacked polish, been riddled with bugs and are wrapped around one of the most rickety game engines I've ever seen.
Yet as far as I can remember, they've been scored from 80% is up to 90%+
People might have enjoyed playing them, but that's only because of the lack of competition. They were very average games. They would have been good had the programming and support not let them down.
Agree with Aircool and can even throw in some of my own examples.
Oblivion is a game which if unmodded, punishes you for levelling up by making you weaker in relation to the things you fight. This is a massive, unpatched flaw and should not be excused on the basis that it can be modded out or that you can do the game as level 1 all the way through. The game should have been punished severely for it's consolisation. But it wasn't, presumerably because it was Bethesda/2K.
Sacrifice, way back in the dark ages, was given a mere 90%. Sounds quite high. But then again, so was the atrocious and equally ignored 'Evolva' which scored almost as much for some reason. So I doubt anyone who had noticed the lapse in critical thinking at the time would have given Sacrifice a decent look. Sacrifice was a 95%+ game.
This was repeated later with Hostile Waters, a game which had only superficial differences with Sacrifice but what it borrowed from it as a hybrid-genre game, it did very well. Once again, 90% appears to be some kind of kiss-of-death for reviews because so many quite bad games appear to score around that amount too. I'm glad Hitman: Blood Money actually got less otherwise many of us would have never heard it.
So basically, PC mags have jinxed the 89-93 percentiles. A game must be near perfect or quite good, never very good. Otherwise it will either be doomed or doom another similiar-scoring game by bathing it in it's muddy reputation.
And I really do get the feeling that EA could have sold Stubbs the Zombie and got a lot of mags to give it 78%. They seem to manage to inflate the scores of all their equally-awful tat.
I reviewed Sacrifice in Uncensored a few months back, and while I love the game, it certainly had enough down points to keep it below 95%. I think I gave it 91% just to prove I loved it a tiny bit more than PCG.
Fairynuff. Also, are the Featured Comments a bit random? I mean, I know aircool is awesome, but is he that much more awesome than everyone in the thread who didn't get a Featured Comment?
Think of the bigger picture Acheron; Sacrifice got Game of Distinction and Must Buy awarded to it in that issue. The pitiful Evolva also got those awards. Apart from being one of the first games with bump-mapping, what did it do to deserve being put on the same level as Sacrifice(which got bump-mapping in a patch, no longer available)?
A thick line needed to be drawn between them and the only one that was available was the score. I'm just glad Evolva panned like Sacrifice or it would have been the first great crime of the millenium.
Scores should be weighted. Bioshock genuinely is five percentile points better than Crysis(though we won't know until there is an actual computer that can play it: I don't yet accept it as a genuinely playable game). Had Crysis scored five points more or Bioshock five points less, I would never buy an issue of PCG again. They should not be seen as equally good from a critical standpoint. Scores don't mean anything unless we have a point of reference to work them from. If Stubbs the Zombie(my ideal model for an awful game) scored 80%, then every game released four months before and four months after it had better have scored 99.3% unless it was genuinely comparable in badness with Stubbs. Leisure Suit Larry games probably.
Had Evolva recieved it's deserved 60%-ish, then Sacrifice would have been a 90% rather than 95-98%.
Having not played Evolva, I can't comment on the game.
A thick line needed to be drawn between them and the only one that was available was the score.
The review itself might have acted as a line. I'm sure a lot of people did like Evolva, I know some folk who hated Sacrifice. Attitudes vary, opinions are unique. If PCG thought it was good, then they thought it was good. I've heard loads of people moan about Bioshock. I happen to love going through it every now and then, some sequences are just too good to forget about. The magazine can't cater to everyone's opinion on what the game should get. I personally think that they should scrap the review score and let it be decided purely on what is said in the review.
Fairynuff. Also, are the Featured Comments a bit random? I mean, I know aircool is awesome, but is he that much more awesome than everyone in the thread who didn't get a Featured Comment?
I guess so.
Aircool was created by one of the big developers, so we like him better than all you indies.
In response to the notion that people have different tastes, hence some will have actually hated Sacrifice: well people can be rated too. Anyone that hated Sacrifice is a stinky turd scoring 20%- as a human being. This is the level of an Eastenders fan, they should not be allowed to vote and must obey a curfew.
Those that think Crysis looks great on high/very high settings when it drops as low as 10fps on the most powerful system are 21-30%. Probably thinks the Daily Mail and Fox News are informative.
31-40% is occupied by traffic wardens, people who are not Dyslexic but make no attempt to have good spelling and grammar and those who keep Paul WS Anderson in a job by paying money for his awful films.
41-50%, people who think Crysis on medium looks as good as other modern shooters like Bioshock and CoD4, WoW players/devs that think Shaman is an ok class at the moment and people that think there is something wrong with even mentioning the name of Jade Reymond because it means we're all perverts.
51-60%, people who refuse to play anything but their favourite class in TF2 no matter how useless it is on a given map or how many we have already, militant vegans and those that think drugs are ok for some stupid reason.
61-70%, those that think Communism is ok for some stupid reason and that the reason why every mass socialist experiment has gone wrong is something to do with 'Capitalist interference'(yes, China is really suffering now it's using Capitalist economics, they did so well under Socialist economics), those who use this to argue that Capitism is ok for some stupid reason and should be the basis for an unrestrained free-market and those who used to think one or both of these things but eventually realised their doubt is more valuable than their ideology(typically in the higher 66-70% bracket).
71-80%, protestors of any kind: they believe in something, but not so much that they are capable of effectively arguing for it and instead must rely on getting a big crowd and shouting loudly. This catagory also includes people that incessently speak in conversational cliches such as 'at the end of the day' or 'so I turned round to him and said, then they turned round to me and said'. Who the hell talks whilst spinning around on the spot??
81-90%, normal, decent, law-abiding, normal, tax-paying(ish), normal, hard working, good-mannered, normal, thoughtful, generous and normal people that don't copy Al Murray's jokes. Node Prize winners. Heroes that died heroically. Winston Churchill. Churchill the car-insurance dog. Santa Claus and his brother Jesus.
I think the old percentage system causes to much confusion as, in the end, it's what most people judge a review by.
How's about changing it to 5 stars (or something more exotic). That way, the score becomes the guidline and the review provides the information on which you can base your decision to purchase...for example...
1 Star - Do not touch, it's just rubbish 2 Stars - Too many faults to make a worthwhile purchase 3 Stars - Fans of the genre may be interested. However, the game may be buggy or have other problems 4 Stars - Fans of the genre should will be very interested and likely to buy. 5 Stars - A definitive purchase, unless you really don't like this genre.
That 1-5 star summary is a far better guidline that the current percentage system is, which is sometimes at odds with the text of the review, and often at odds with other games.
The final score now becomes less of a focus, but still provides vital 'at a glance' information. It would also stop publishers bitching about not getting 90%+ or whatever. It would also put games into a better context with each other.
For example, MMO's. My fave MMO's are Guild Wars, LotRO, EVE Online and City of Heroes. I've tried WoW several times, but just not been grabbed by it. However, using the above system, I would give all the games I've just mention 4 stars except Guild Wars and WoW, which would get 5.
This is because Guild Wars is so different to the other games (and free) that everyone should give it a try (unless you really, really dislike MMO's, but even then, it's still fun by yourself). Also, whilst I don't really like WoW, it has a lot going for it; it's pretty much a benchmark MMO, runs on almost any machine, still looks good and has a very large community.
The current percentage system just doesn't make sense anymore, particularly as a summary of the game. A percentage score doesn't mean anything (even though a breakdown is given at the start of the reviews section), it's just a number that people debate over. Like UT3 getting 89% (read the review for the reasons why it missed out on 90%), the 89% just didn't mean anything. Whereas give it 4 stars - fans of the genre should like it - gives the score a real meaning.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
