I had wanted to address this topic in a larger feature, but frankly that would be too much work in researching & articulating different points of view. Instead, I’ll just sum up my point of view and you can take it as you will.
I often stumble across this conversation while trawling the internets for interesting games commentary; This isn’t a review because x, What is a review? Why is this being passed as a review? etc etc.
As I see it, the subject covers 2 main points of view commonly in conflict with each-other through the comments of pundits on enthusiast media websites.
The first, Reviews as Consumer Advisories. Is this game worth buying? The intent, as readers see it, is for the writer to set out a shopping list of features, comment on each then wrap it up together with a final score as objectively as possible.
Of course this method can be at times misconstrued, or intentionally passed on as ‘Product Advocacy’, the belief that a glowing review was in some way bought by the publisher or PR arm representing a particular title.
The main thrust behind this type of review is ensuring every aspect of the game receives mention: graphics & visuals, sound design / ambience / soundtrack, characters, narrative & players motivation etc. Some sources even go so far as to score these aspects individually, whether they then contribute to a final global total or not.
I can empathise with this style of review. The potential market who don’t follow such products from announcement through release may well get more out of an objective piece, making them better informed about the title they are thinking about purchasing.
But ultimately I think the market for this style of review is mostly fictitious. Enthusiast media sites are known for cultivating & carrying specialist communities equally as enthusiastic & engaged around the industry as their writers are. In truth, most reviews on these sites will be boiled down to justifications; I just spent $100 on a new game, does the writer agree with my thoughts? If no, leave a disparaging comment, else praise.
It’s a formula I’m tired of reading online, as it makes up near 99% of discussions as an outcome of a review being posted, particularly around platform exclusives. Instead, my personal preference for review philosophies sits firmly with the other camp.
That being Reviews as Conveying Experiences. What are the reviewers’ thoughts? What did they enjoy? What stood out? Etc. The intent as I see it is to be completely open about a writers true feeling while playing the game, stripping down considerations of all its peripheral features and examining those that really stand-out, be it in a positive or negative light.
As such, these types of reviews should be considered subjective, meaning not everyone will feel the same way the writer does about a given title; but likewise this is not a case of right or wrong, rather what value the individual gets out of the piece.
Subjective reviews work for me because I see them as the thoughts of an individual, bringing in all their previous experiences, interests & at times even bias. This type of writing can also provide more interesting reading as perspectives given rarely come across as formulaic or imposingly structured. The voice of the reviewer overshadows, but not necessarily conflicts with, the voice of the website holistically.
Of course, considerations about final review scores becomes a lot more grey, as writers are given greater freedom to define & assign scores according to the values they take away from titles; as compared to an objective piece that is likely to have set criteria for such deliberations.
Review scores can particularly become quite nasty when games are given the highest score available. Now being of the subjective school of review philosophy it should come as no surprise that I think, and also believe its somewhat obvious despite how you may feel reviews should be tackled, that there is no such thing as ‘the perfect score’.
In either case, a top score is an indication that the writer cannot provide any greater recommendation for readers to invest their hard earnt, or symbolic of the writers overwhelmingly positive thoughts about the game. Again, there is no such thing as ‘a perfect score’! A game that is awarded such a result is not without fault, rather those faults uncovered are not significant enough to command a reduction in awarded score.
Overall, I think the industry & community alike are slowly getting up to speed with the concept of reviews as a personal position shared with an audience. Of course there are still a few prominent voices of contempt, but that’s the internet for you. I’ll leave it to you to decide which philosophy best suits what you expect from a video-games review.
Post-Script:
As this subject relates to Venting-Gamer, as one of the sites founders I try to sell my views toward good game review styles & techniques resting in the school of subjectivity.
That said, all contributors to the Venting-Gamer reviews section are given freedom to go about tackling a games review however they see fit, including review scale. You may have noticed some of the reviews on our site do not carry scores, while others do. This is completely up to the writer.
Personally, my contributions take on a common scale found in most movie review sources – the 5 star scale. I believe this method is easy to understand & easy to justify, making the bottom line far easier to express to the reader. For this reason, I do not believe in ½ stars being awarded, purely a 1-5 model.
