Reply With QuoteYay! But, um, isn't it a bit odd giving a game you *HATE* 6/10? I mean if you hate it, you should give it a mark which reflects that regardless of it's visual merits, surely?
March Indie Game Round-Up [The Questionable Edition...]
How creative with the game rating scale should you get with a game that acts like a virus? If a dog and rabbit-like creature were trying to kill the President should you stop them? Is becoming President in an election-sim game really "winning?" What happens to lost puzzle pieces when they fall from the sky? Is combining snowmobiles and Poker really a good idea for a game? If you have burning fruit trailing behind you, what should you do? All these questions and more are answered* in Game Tunnel's Independent Games Review Panel [March Edition].
http://www.gametunnel.com/articles.php?id=595
A big thanks to everyone who made this article possible this month. I greatly appreciate the reviewers and all the developers who submitted their games.
===
*Offer not available in North Dakota or where prohibited by law. Readers should use their own discretion when running for President. Questions may or may not be answered satisfactorily.
Yay! But, um, isn't it a bit odd giving a game you *HATE* 6/10? I mean if you hate it, you should give it a mark which reflects that regardless of it's visual merits, surely?
You forget Hamumu is a complex being.
Originally Posted by Hamumu about Shlongg one day
I like it that games are more versatile this month. Congratulations and thanks for making it.
Hehe, I found this kind-of-funny:
... when Mike Hommel gave it 0/10 and Brian 1/10, tihi.
Neat. I like the "Next Month's Games" note at the bottom. That way, the developers can get all nervous.
Mike Kasprzak | sykhronics entertainment | Blog | twitter | Ludum Dare
Smiles + HD (It's on everything™, IGF finalist, won a car) | ??? (2013) | MORE: Book, PuffBOMB, Towlr
Hey you what's up yo? Kickin' it oldskool style!
Loonyland 2 is number 1 eh...thats that reviewer of the month clout. Hamumu is turning the screws!
Actually I've been playing the demo and getting sucked in... I'll pick it up as soon as I have time to do something other than code and breath... so.. very.. busy.. sigh
Steve Verreault - Twilight Games
http://www.twilightgames.com --- http://www.indiegamer.com
"Do you really think it is weakness that yields to temptation? I tell you that there are terrible temptations which it requires strength, strength and courage to yield to.” - Oscar Wilde
Heh, yeah, but that's because I didn't know we could go lower than 1 on the rating.
I have seriously considered putting that quote on the Shlongg websiteYou forget Hamumu is a complex being.
I like it that games are more versatile this month. Congratulations and thanks for making it.
-bignobody
http://www.notsoftgames.com - Creator of Shlongg!
Helping the Wytches prepare their finest Brews
I didn't know either, but I had to give it a try for that heinous crime.
As for Poker, I think it deserved a six. My hate was irrational and strange, and almost tolerance. I wanted to like it. And yet I seethed with fury. How do you rate that?
I'd give you a 5 for the fury and a 1 for the seething, so yeah that adds up to 6
If you hate it, you give it a very low mark.
Either you review the game (a personal statement of opinion), or you second guess yourself (ooh, but other people might like it...). I know which I prefer in reviews. You ain't there to make friends.
I'm not sure I agree. I think a review is different than an opinion. Reviewing a game is critique of the game. Part of that is how much you personally enjoyed the game, but not all of it.If you hate it, you give it a very low mark.
Either you review the game (a personal statement of opinion), or you second guess yourself (ooh, but other people might like it...). I know which I prefer in reviews. You ain't there to make friends.
Part of a review needs to be considering the qualities of a game and making a personal judgement on how you see those qualities.
For example, Gears of War is a game that I loathe and won't play on my own accord. However, if I were to review it, I'd probably give it a decent score, based on what I've seen of the game. The reason why I'd give it a decent score is that I'd be reviewing the game based on its quality. The fact that I personally think the game is NOT fun would decrease my score to something lower than the 9 average that GOW has carried through most publications, but I wouldn't rate it 1 simply because the game offends my senses in many ways. I'd rate the quality of the game overall, not just my opinion of how much I enjoy it.
Mike has never had a problem scoring a game low (note the 0 on the 1-10 scale later in the round-up), so my suspicion is that his review is perfect. It explains the conflict, he likes it and hates it at the same time, but can't figure out the rationale, so he scores from what he feels and lets you know what he feels and leaves it up for the reader to reconcile.
I'm sure there are a million way to review games, and at GameTunnel I really leave it up to the reviewers. I sometimes will suggest that something might be too high or low, but it is pretty rare. I think everyone makes the best judgement that they can and THAT is exactly what I like to see in a review
It's very true that how people review games differs greatly. I guess it just seems utterly bizarre to see words like "hate" in a review and then a 6/10 mark afterwards because then the games ranking doesn't truly reflect the feelings it inspired in all of those who played it.
And besides, if you hate a games gameplay, there's no way that it having really polished graphics should drag its mark up. You don't byy a game so you can just look at it.
I don't see that a review should be objective at all. It's not written by committee and that's exactly the benefit of having 4 different reviewers commenting on a game, so that one person hating the game and giving it a pasting in the text and the mark are offset by those who perhaps don't.
It's the same reason that review aggregation sites like Metacritic are great, so that you can form an overall opinion from several sources.
You keep getting hung up on the graphics. If you re-read the review, you'll see that I didn't say "it sucks, but it has good graphics". I hardly mentioned the graphics (I tend not to, because I tend not to care, unless a game has a really cool style that stands out). I believe it deserves a 6, so that's what I gave it. Blend that with what other people think it deserved to get an overall value, but it is what I thought. I realize the text is conflicted and strange, but that's exactly how I felt - conflicted! Not because it 'sucked but had good graphics', but because it was pretty good all around (gameplay, controls, everything - it FEELS like a fun game, until you get into the real mechanics of it and actually try to compete), but I had a bad feeling in my gut about it. Well, one real glaring flaw besides too many keys - collecting cards and trying to spot them in the distance as they spin just kills the fun value of the snowmobile racing/fighting for me. I think it was a crazy and unique idea that just fell flat. And that's really how it feels - that it fell flat. Which is exactly what a 6 rating is for*, pure averageness.
So anyway, yes, the 6 was my own opinion of the game, not some metascore I cobbled together from what I imagined everybody in the world thought. That's my process, it seems yours would differ greatly, so please join the panel!
Really though, if I were to rate purely on my own gut reactions, almost every game would get a 1-2, with about 2 games a month getting a 6, two games a year getting a 9. I don't like games unless they are awesome. I'm a cynical, jaded, massively overinformed lifelong gamer. There's no way my personal standards on what I'd play are valid for the public. That's how I take it anyway. Just a different angle on the concept of reviewing than yours.
* If you care to argue over what number is average, there's an official scale I refer to at the bottom of the roundup.
Well, ok. But I still think if you hate something then that should be reflected in the mark. You must hate it for a reason. If you had that same feeling about a person despite them being ostensibly reasonable, you still wouldn't hang about with them, would you?
And if a game "falls flat", it isn't average, is it? It's very bad. Perhaps it's just an issue with trying to roll several factors into one mark.
Also, if you have a scale from 0 to 10, surely 5 is for pure averageness? Oh-ho!
Gah, I have trouble enough penning reviews for my podcast. Last thing I need is more responsibility. Plus I'm not sure I could use the sort of fruity language I like.
I'd prefer it if you went with more polarised marks, tbh. Everything ends up in this mush of 7s otherwise, and if you're trying to find a game which looks interesting based on the marks, then I'm more likely to read one which has greatly differing marks than one which was just a mess of 6's, just because I'd have my curiosity picqued and it's an indicator that the game has *something* about it, whether it be good or bad.
Oh, the numbers seem perfectly fine, it's the correlation of numbers and text I'm continually bleating on about.
Reviewing well is tough, but I do think there's some level of objectivity to it. I'm not so convinced it should just be a statement of opinion. Presumably a reviewer should be able to look a little past their own personal feelings at a given moment. I read a review of an adventure game I was looking forward to a long time ago in a popular game mag. The reviewer started the review something like... "I hate all adventure games. Never liked any of them and this is no exception." -- So if a review is just personal opinion then how can I trust that guy's? There should be some consideration put into how you think the game will be perceived by others. If you just finished Starcraft and you're sick to death of RTS games does that mean the RTS game you have to review is bad? I think the idea with reviewers to some extent is that they know games well enough that they can judge them with at least some objectivity.
Steve Verreault - Twilight Games
http://www.twilightgames.com --- http://www.indiegamer.com
"Do you really think it is weakness that yields to temptation? I tell you that there are terrible temptations which it requires strength, strength and courage to yield to.” - Oscar Wilde
I think that guy shouldn't really be reviewing adventure games, then. However we was honest in stating it wasn't his kinda' game and so you simply weigh that into your impressions (by not reading the review or taking it with a HEFTY does of salt). In my latest arsecast I review a point and click and admit that its a genre I am not intimately familiar with, stating that "my opinion might well be not worth squat but here are my impressions, anyway" (I'm paraphrasing there to omit the swear-words
That said, there are some genres I simply wouldn't review in because they're so far outside my comfort zone (1 on 1 beat 'em ups, simulation games, text adventures).
Again if you're sick to death of RTS games then maybe you shouldn't be reviewing them. With a panelled review board such as GameTunnel has, this is a luxury they can afford.
I think that objectivity (which in itself is a bit of a spurious concept in journalism) isn't nearly as important as fairness in a review, telling people clearly what led to your opinion. If you've just played Starcraft and the next game doesn't thrill you then either it's not as good as Starcraft or, as you say, you're burnt out on the genre. You'll know which is it, and so you should state it.
Hey, I don't claim to be a great reviewer. I just claim to be an honest one.
I think that is the crux of the frustration. Not that you are honest, but the approach insinuates that others, specifically members of the panel are not.
I'll go back my last line in my post:
"I think everyone makes the best judgement that they can and THAT is exactly what I like to see in a review."
The fact that Mike's review of the game made you pay more attention to it means to me that it was done right. You got the message. It seems to me that you want the message to be 'the game sucks,' or 'the game is good,' but in this case the message is 'I feel like it is bad and good, so I'll tell you that.'
For me, I'm happy with the result. I know what to do with that review on a personal level and how to respond to it. I know if I should download the game or not based on what I see and read. Again, for me, the perfect review is one where the reviewer is free to write and say what THEY want. That is what happened here. It's quite upfront and honest
As soon as I posted it I looked it at thought "hoho! that'll get a comment.".
That's perfectly fair, yes. I guess we either like a reviewing style or we don't. I'd take Mike's straight-forward approach over the NSJ twattery which pervades much of the press any day of the week.
Hmm, not sure I entirely agree with that. I paid attention to what seems to be a review text/score disparity, not really the game itself. I mean the penultimate line is "it just is so incredibly not fun" followed by "6/10". Simply doesn't add up for me as the *only* thing that I *really* care about in a game is if it's fun.
Oh yuss, it's not my job to tell you how to do things, I'm just picking up on something I found quite odd and not letting go of it.For me, I'm happy with the result. I know what to do with that review on a personal level and how to respond to it. I know if I should download the game or not based on what I see and read. Again, for me, the perfect review is one where the reviewer is free to write and say what THEY want. That is what happened here. It's quite upfront and honest
I think there is a bigger issue here, and it is something that nags at us all and makes us want to discus it...reviews in general and their propensity to be mis-leading.
GT is being discussed b/c, well that is what generated the thread, but I feel the bigger picure too. It's big, obviously way beyond what GT impacts. Hopefully we do our best in our little part of the picture.
I think the thread, and ones like it, are good for helping us make sure our best always come out when reviewing.
I think that reviewing in the mainstream press with regards to mainstream games is certainly less trustworthy than reviews of indie games (simply because of the advertising budgets involved not being nearly as much of a factor and the way that the indie community is probably far more fragmented in terms of those publishers who pay for advertising) however I think that sometimes the close-knit nature of the indie community leads to reviews which are a little too forgiving.
I think that too, sometimes. Though notably the panel scores are right on or lower than most of the metacrtic scores for the games that we have reviewed that are on metacritic (like Sam & Max). Which makes me wonder if we are just perceived as being more forgiving than we are?
I think possibly it's also to do with the fact that indie games are within the grasp of the home developer so there's a lot more of the "that's shit! I could do better than that!" attitude from people. I'd be interested to see what the bell curves are like for various different reviewing websites and publications, though, just to see who really is more harsh.
I would actually prefer that system over the current system. There's no point in giving a careful rating to a game that's generic, inferior to an existing title in the genre, or just not fun. Actually I'd not even bother with 1s and 2s and just give them 0s, as in "zero reason to choose this game over all other indie games that exist". Different reviewers have different opinions about which games are interesting, but that's why there's a panel of reviewers. And if only two games a month get a rating above zero, then a rating above zero would actually mean something.
Rainer Deyke - Eldwood
You're my new bestest chum.
You guys have your ideas of how to review, I disagree. I truly believe that zeroing out a game because I didn't enjoy it is an awful way to review. But I recognize that's just my opinion, so I only apply it to my own work. There's definitely room for a site that works on that philosophy! Sounds fun. I'll do it my way, you do it your way, and gamerankings.com can metascore us together into the One True Score.
That's really all this is, no matter how much you can't let it go. This is my opinion, no matter how difficult it is for you to connect the words to the number, or how much I include my mind (heaven forbid) instead of just my gut, it's what I think is deserved. It's most assuredly honest, and it's most definitely my own. You're expressing an opinion on an opinion, so there will have to come a point when you just let it go and realize that your opinion differs from my own, as can happen on rare occasions.
(now where are all those guys who insist that you have to do thumbs up/thumbs down, or exactly 3 choices, or that only out-of-5 is correct?)
No scores at all is my preference.
There are two main reasons. One, is that a number is too subjective. A seven to me is a two to someone else.
The second reason, I dislike numbers is that your taste may be different to mine. I like flowers, you like killing. I could rate something down because it has killing. If I say that 'it has lots of killing, but I'm bored of killing' then both you and I know the difference.
With my reviews I try to instil a sense of what it is about. By that I mean, if a game is silly I write the review in a silly manner. I try and get the essence of what it is about - so that you can have a tiny taste of that experience.
I also like longer, more critical reviews. For complex things, I like a complex review.
I love big reviews by many people too. Like with the ludumdare/pyweek competitions where you can see the other peoples ratings. There you can see such fun situations like 50% of people hating a game, and 50% loving a game. For half the people it is a 1/5 for the other half it is a 5/5, but the game gets averaged out to a 3/5. You can also see that some people really adore a game, but other people find it average. Read the comments from those people who love the game, and then you may find out why they love the game. It's called learning to appreciate something. Why is that thing good? Maybe level three is fucking awesome, but the first two levels suck. Maybe it creates an emotion in you, that you don't know how to recognise - like a game that makes your wrist hurt on purpose. Or maybe it's a brilliant two player game, or it's only good with keyboards, or if you press the C key you can do something which makes the game totally great.
A review that helps me appreciate something is very useful. It's great when you can dislike something, and then read a review - gaining a whole new perspective on it.
- It's great that reviewers get reviewed. 5/5 == 1
Posting Permissions
Mike Hommel