Over at International Game Journalists Association, David applauds Gamespot for changing their points system in reviews.
Everything’s in .5 increments now, so scores are either an 8, 8.5 or 9, instead of an 8.7. David’s happy about this because it’s “a step toward considering games, and game criticism, pieces in a dialog in pursuit of meaning rather than a simple number standing in place of a real idea.”
But David neglects to mention the new “medals,” which award games for certain technical or artistic merits. For example, “Good Start” means the game has introduced some new concepts, while “Technically Proficient Graphics” is pretty self-explanatory. This to me derides serious criticism by compartmentalizing aspects of a game, much in the same way that numbered ratings broken into categories do. It’s not a bad system, but it doesn’t seem like a step towards dialog to me.
And in this aspect, I think David misses a key point about Gamespot. In my mind, that site has always been about consumer reports, not critiques. Their reviews are designed to tell you what to expect from a game’s presentation, graphics, audio and gameplay. If you want to know exactly how the D-pad is used to select your weapons in The Darkness, Gamespot will tell you.
1UP, on the other hand, will probably not. Their focus seems more on critique. Their reviews are shorter, designed to eloquently capture the experience of playing the game. In a review of Super Paper Mario, for example, they’ll tell you that while the game’s platform-puzzle sequences are clever, they don’t require the same platform mastery of a “real” Mario — a point so poignant it’s impossible not to notice it when you’re actually playing the game. It’s still a consumer report in a sense (with number rating to boot), but it drives more at the question of why you might be playing the game in the first place, rather than simply whether the game is acceptable over various criteria.
Of course, if there’s a spectrum of consumer report vs. critique, neither site reaches the latter end. I would imagine a full-on critique would not include a score, and as David has implied previously, maybe reviews are better off without them. Again, I think this is beside the point. Scores are sort of a necessary evil for most types of media reviews (okay, book reviews usually don’t have them, but film, television and music do). We’d all like to have readers pay more attention to our words and less to an arbitrary number, but at the end of the day, it’s a device that helps the reader quantify what they read and make a decision as to how they will spend their money.
The better question is whether all game reviews should be critiques rather than consumer reports, and at what point is a score no longer appropriate. I think wide variety of review types is important, as it is with film and music. Edge Magazine’s essay on Super Mario Sunshine (in print only, sorry) remains one of the best critiques I’ve read, but I’d hate to make a buyer’s decision based on the theory that it’s the first Mario game to imply Bowser and Princess Peach had sex (!).
1UP is more in the middle of the spectrum. They could probably get away with dropping their ratings, but it wouldn’t be completely appropriate to do so. Gamespot, on the other hand, needs the score. Although their dense dissections of a game should tell readers what they need to know, it would be a disservice to consumers not to include a score. As for the medals, they do seem more effective than the old breakdown of scores for gameplay, graphics, etc, but neither method really served the critique or the consumer.
Just as it doesn’t seem likely for gamers to fret over an 8 vs a 9 “tilt” rating, I don’t think someone needs to see a “Brutal” medal from Gamespot to tell if the game has enough blood and guts to satiate their thirst. After all, that’s what the ESRB is for, and that’s a whole other story.
