Post by wafflerevolution on Sept 7, 2013 22:06:31 GMT
Judging Games by Fun or Fact?
By Shane
If you have seen any of the wildly popular poker shows on television you will know that when a player makes decisions based on emotion, usually after having played an exceptionally good or poor hand, he is described as being "on tilt". His emotions take over from the regular calm, calculated manner of a championship poker player. Sometimes it works out okay, most times it does not.
'Reviewers Tilt' or 'slant', when applied to a judgment of a game's worth is much more common, in fact how a reviewer 'feels' about a game is generally accepted as how the game should be judged, over the technical accomplishments of a title. Rarely is this even discussed, but the writings of one of our CCU members, Sheath013 (Scott), at his site prompted me to think about how a game should be judged. Scott wrote,
There is a trend of game reviewers and gamers giving bonus points to flawed games because they had fun with it.
GTA Vice City has been reviewed with three perfect 10's in EGM, while each reviewer rates the individual aspects of the game with 8's, 9's and 10's. It makes no sense to give a game with visuals of 8, sound of 10, ingenuity of 8 and replayability of 8 a [total] perfect 10 because the reviewer said he had fun, or because it's going to be popular.
Another example is Gamespot.com's Toe Jam & Earl for Xbox review. accused of being a 6/10, or "mediocre" not for having unoriginal or flawed gameplay, but for not being funny or hip enough for the reviewer. He even goes as far as to say that the gameplay is just as good as the original, with the additions of the second game, and even more additions on top of that... But he simply didn't have 'fun' with the game because it didn't pinch his ultra-cool funny bone...
These sites and magazines... are basing their decisions on their own enjoyment, rather than the technical aspects of the games they should be focusing on.
You can read the full text here.
An argument can be made, however, that any creative form is more in totality than the sum of its parts, and that in the criticism process there is room for evaluating how a game comes together as a whole.
An additional factor to be considered is how much weight in a review should be apportioned to originality. As Scott correctly points out, all of the significant gameplay elements of GTA III could be found in other games, all executed in a superior way, but doesn't Rockstar get some credit for combining those elements in a single game? By the same token, the lack of originality, regardless of technical expertise may also have a place in a game's final consideration. Should Gran Turismo 4, assuredly superior in every technical category to the Gran Turismos before it be scored down for lack of originality?
This article should raise more questions than answers about the role of tilt in the review process and also about how a game should be considered in general, thanks to Scott for prompting the thoughts.
By Shane
If you have seen any of the wildly popular poker shows on television you will know that when a player makes decisions based on emotion, usually after having played an exceptionally good or poor hand, he is described as being "on tilt". His emotions take over from the regular calm, calculated manner of a championship poker player. Sometimes it works out okay, most times it does not.
'Reviewers Tilt' or 'slant', when applied to a judgment of a game's worth is much more common, in fact how a reviewer 'feels' about a game is generally accepted as how the game should be judged, over the technical accomplishments of a title. Rarely is this even discussed, but the writings of one of our CCU members, Sheath013 (Scott), at his site prompted me to think about how a game should be judged. Scott wrote,
There is a trend of game reviewers and gamers giving bonus points to flawed games because they had fun with it.
GTA Vice City has been reviewed with three perfect 10's in EGM, while each reviewer rates the individual aspects of the game with 8's, 9's and 10's. It makes no sense to give a game with visuals of 8, sound of 10, ingenuity of 8 and replayability of 8 a [total] perfect 10 because the reviewer said he had fun, or because it's going to be popular.
Another example is Gamespot.com's Toe Jam & Earl for Xbox review. accused of being a 6/10, or "mediocre" not for having unoriginal or flawed gameplay, but for not being funny or hip enough for the reviewer. He even goes as far as to say that the gameplay is just as good as the original, with the additions of the second game, and even more additions on top of that... But he simply didn't have 'fun' with the game because it didn't pinch his ultra-cool funny bone...
These sites and magazines... are basing their decisions on their own enjoyment, rather than the technical aspects of the games they should be focusing on.
You can read the full text here.
An argument can be made, however, that any creative form is more in totality than the sum of its parts, and that in the criticism process there is room for evaluating how a game comes together as a whole.
An additional factor to be considered is how much weight in a review should be apportioned to originality. As Scott correctly points out, all of the significant gameplay elements of GTA III could be found in other games, all executed in a superior way, but doesn't Rockstar get some credit for combining those elements in a single game? By the same token, the lack of originality, regardless of technical expertise may also have a place in a game's final consideration. Should Gran Turismo 4, assuredly superior in every technical category to the Gran Turismos before it be scored down for lack of originality?
This article should raise more questions than answers about the role of tilt in the review process and also about how a game should be considered in general, thanks to Scott for prompting the thoughts.