[AndreaDraco83]

Hi Jorz, welcome to the forum!

I perfectly understand that you took the Casebook reviews as a mere example, but - since I'm the one who reviewed those games - I figured that I can grab this chance and explain something.

Originally Posted by Jorz

If the reviewer is a big fan of FMV, mystery games, episodic games, whatever, he should probably say so in the first paragraph of the review. That would help the reader make an informed judgement about the review.

Well, in the opening paragraph of my review of the first episode, Kidnapped, I wrote:

Some people like the realistic dimension that good direction and live actors can bring to a story while others find the frequently cheesy quality unbelievable and the gameplay in “interactive movies” too simplistic. Love it or hate it, however, in the late ‘90s this technique seemed to fade away due to the enormous production costs, so I was surprised to learn that a brand new episodic series is now trying to revamp the old splendours of FMV adventures. Surprised and delighted, which should make it obvious which of the two categories I fall within.

This isn't however my point. In every review we write, we try hard to be as objectives as possible. Of course, we all have preferences toward sub-genres, themes and so on, so - for example - it is very possible, for me, to like a mystery/noir adventure, since this is my favorite genre, even if the same game could appear not-so-appealing to other users. Anyway, there are two things that are pretty important:

1) Saying that I'm a fan (personally) of mystery adventures, and especially of FMV adventures, doesn't mean that I'm willing to inflate the score (and the review) of the game no matter what: my review of Art of Murder 2 was pretty clear, in this regard, and my review of Phantasmagoria - A puzzle of flesh wasn't particularly laudatory. I know that this "rule" is perfectly valid for all the other reviewers: if a game is bad, regardless of our personal taste, it will receive a good review.

2) Usually near the end of the review we usually mention which kind of adventurers can be interested in the game. For example, citing always a Casebook review ( the second one, this time), I wrote:

It’s true that the light gameplay may disappoint the more hardcore puzzle fans, but anyone who appreciates interactive movies, story-driven adventures and mystery/noir games will certainly be satisfied.

It's true that I have a penchant for story-driven adventures, but this doesn't mean that I can't recognize a good one or a bad one when I see them, nor it means that I can't see that a particular game, like Outcry, while not perfectly suitable for me, can be very much appreciated by fans of puzzle-driven games.

All in all, my point is that it's true that a reviewer's own preference can influence the review (I think that it's fair and human), but - without having to resort to long and boring comparison with other reviews - it's also true that the review itself is always pretty clear in recommending (or not) a certain game to certain users, as well as highlighting the game's own merits and flaws.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Jorz

What I do now, for lack of a better system, is click on the reviewer's name, read his reviews of some games I've played, and see how he's rated them, to get a better understanding of his personal tastes, and how they may be reflected in the review of the game I'm interested in. This is obviously very time consuming, and it's only possible because I'm very patient... and no other website has got a better system in place yet

I'm sure the individual reviewers are very much obliged to anyone who takes one's time to do that. It's like you take time to know them better instead of just treating them as a devoid of individual features part of a website.

[Jackal]

The word "friendly" came up earlier. While again I disagree that friendliness should even be a consideration (a critic's job is to assess, not promote), I will point out that part of our editorial policy is to criticize a product but respect its developer. We're very aware that there are real people behind every release, and that they never deserve personal cheap shots even if we're necessarily slaughtering their game. Not everyone will recognize that distinction, perhaps, but it's always there.

Originally Posted by Banderwocky

When I contributed articles to this site so many years ago, I was very critical.

Hey, I didn't know that was a former staffer behind that avatar. Glad to have you around again, BW. (Even if I wasn't here back when you originally were. )

Originally Posted by Jorz

I don't care whether reviewer X liked game Y or not. I want to know whether I'll enjoy it or not, that's why I read reviews and expect some degree of objectiveness.

Sure, that's what everyone wants to know, but of course that's the one thing no reviewer can ever actually answer for you. So they describe their own experience and opinion, and the good reviews also offer enough information to help you make up your own mind. Since everyone's preferences and abilities are different, the latter may not always be enough, but it's something every review here is required to offer.

You can say it's subjective all you want, but they simply aren't fun.

Heh. No, when it comes to "fun", there is no consideration other than pure subjectiveness. Just as a random example, for the life of me I can't understand why anyone would like soccer. I find it so insanely dull that it's almost painful to me to sit through... and it's the most popular sport on Earth. No right, no wrong, just people being different. That's going to happen with games like any form of entertainment. Comes with the territory.

[varkatope]

Personally, I've always found the reviews here objective and accurate. A while ago (before I found Adventure Gamers) I bought a game because another rather large adventure gaming site recommended it. In fact, said recommendation was printed on the game box. I was somehwat disappointed to find out that the game wasn't the A+ perfect title I was promised, but the 3 1/2 star title you guys reviewed: a good game with a few flaws. This has held true for other reviews as well. This is a much better designed site with better reviews and better forums. I'm glad I found it.

Thanks!

[dekaneas297]

Since the major issue debated here is the subjectiveness of the reviewer (which is mostly expressed by the score), have you ever thought of giving the option of two scores (''Reviewer's score'' and ''Members' score'')? Having a second score, the person reading a review can get a more clear opinion about the game. Of course this isn't absolutely true (as Jackal pointed out in the case of soccer like/dislike) but it surely helps and gives a more solid picture of the game.
Yes I know I proposed two other 'solutions' for the score issue before but that came to my mind right know

[Jackal]

Welcome to AG, varkatope.

Good to see this thread is bringing new members out, if nothing else.

Dekaneas, user ratings are something that have been on our drawing board for quite a while, and we'd still like to implement it at some point. As with most of our better ideas,though, finding the time to create and then integrate new stuff is the only real hurdle, but it's a BIG one.

[Banderwocky]

Hey, I didn't know that was a former staffer behind that avatar. Glad to have you around again, BW. (Even if I wasn't here back when you originally were.

Thanks Jackal

It was almost 10 years ago. I don't think anything has changed about the content of the articles or the method used to critique games.

[darthmaul]

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

I have to agree with the statement that some adventure games are way too nice and give the wrong impression of games, and that's not good either. From what I've read on Just Adventure, they seem to be very positive about everything but they do mention the flaws too, just in a friendly manner. I don't play indie games at all, so I can't comment on that.

As for the genre, I do think it's dying. Every now and then we get a professional and high budget adventure but in between... Not much, well, not much that I'd want to play. It seems cartoons and games meant for kids is the new trend and that's really not what I'm interested in. If you look at the number of AG's made in one year and then review through games an adult would be interested in playing, there's not much left.

I guess we just are in a different universe then...

Tons of games have been coming out, with plenty being great.

Big budget is often crap. I don't see the need for big budget anything.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by colpet

As with any reviews, I take away more if I know the reviewer and their preferences. AG is well know for it's skew towards 3rd person games. Therefore when I read a review here about a 1st person game, I always take it with a grain of salt. Personally, I don't care that much if a reviewer likes a game or not. As long as they report about the nuts and bolts - gameplay, puzzle types, menu screens, requirements - that's all I need to know. Rhem 2, a 2 star game here at AG was one of the best gaming fun I'd had in years, whereas Sam and max Hit the Road (4 1/2 stars) temps me not.
As for reviews in general, my favorite are the GB ones.

I think what you're really picking up on here isn't a bias for 3rd person titles, but a focus on story over gameplay. Reviewers here often tend to be fairly forgiving of uninspired puzzles and low interactivity if they enjoyed the story, while I can't think of many games that got a good rating on the basis of their puzzles in spite of a weak story.

That's fair enough, and Andrea for example has been pretty explicit in stating his preferences and priorities. But it's maybe something to keep in mind for players who care more about the challenge and the gameplay.

[AGA]

I've been writing here for 5 years solid, under two different editors. Nothing has changed behind the scenes, be it in the editorial policies or the focus of the site. It's still a bunch of people writing about the genre they love in as fair a way as they can.

[oerhört]

Just to chime in with my two haven't-been-on-AGs-for-years cents: I believe the "official line" here sounds both reasonable and fair. I'm very glad you refuse to treat AGs in a "special" way as opposed to other genres.

If anything, I find that you're being quite kind with the games as it is -- or, that's my general impression at least.

As an example of a relatively recent article I actually read, I'd like to point to the Overclocked review, which awarded the game fours stars out of five, concluding that "Overclocked is a unique adventure with a tale that keeps you engrossed from beginning to end – or more accurately, end to beginning – despite a few weak gameplay issues."

I was rather disappointed in this, since I reviewed the game myself at the time and could find few redeeming qualities aside from the assumedly good intents of the developers. I was fine with it focusing on the story and not too much on the puzzles (although the puzzles should have been better streamlined anyhow), but when a game "focuses on the story" and then goes on to tell an extremely uninteresting and badly written one, with a climax that makes no impression at all, that's rather grave.

I don't know if this one article is symptomatic, but if it is (and it's a rather large if), I'd rather you started comparing the stories of AGs with actual quality work in other genres and media. To me, both adventure games and games in general seem to be handled carefully when discussing story, but the fact of the matter for me as an adult is that I can't really be bothered with story-centric games that can't be compared fair-and-square with decent TV drama or literature.

[Jackal]

I agree to an extent, but comparing media is a tricky thing. Games shouldn't be treated like other media don't exist, but you can't compare them on a tilted playing field either. Games are not movies (or books, or theater, etc.), and movies are not games, and neither is fully capable of doing what the other does best. Just as you can't (reasonably) complain about a movie experience being too passive, nor can you expect a game to have the same sense of pacing and cinematic impact of a film (moments, maybe, but not consistently over 10+ hours).

Now, if you're just talking about quality dialogue and basic plot direction and such, then yeah, a good story isn't dependent on its medium. In that case, you just need people to agree on what makes a good story... which is totally impossible.

[oerhört]

I agree fully that games should be treated as games and not as anything else.

However, games often overtly try to be movies, or at least try to challenge movies at their own home turf by applying lessons and techniques from movies (or, indeed, literature -- especially JRPGs and other japanese narrative-driven games). Thereby making it all the more tempting to just point out that they're often amateurishly put together.

My general point was just what you said: That story-driven games need to convey good stories that would be considered as such not only by genre stalwarts such as us, but by people in general.

Of course, all stories are subjective experiences and as such, I'm prepared to accept a lot of different views on what constitutes a good story. I did, however, find that in the mentioned example a writer well versed in drama theory and the defining stories of other mediums should have been able to point out that the story was in fact an amateur effort on a number of basic levels.

But as you say, agreement on this is perhaps a pipe dream.

[the gnome]

I'll just briefly drop in and say that Adventure Gamers is the only source of adventure and adventure-related reviews I can actually trust. I really appreciate the demanding, err, thing.

[tsa]

As I said earlier in this thread, I think AG is critical but fair in its reviews of adventure games. I just thought of the following: is there any data on how many developers read the reviews of their game(s) on this site? A critical adventure gaming site can help improve the genre.

[Jackal]

No hard stats, but anecdotally I can say I'd be surprised if any don't read them, as everyone always seems very familiar with AG whenever I speak to them. But there are several non-English studios I never have much direct contact with, and I honestly couldn't say if they do or not. Our reviews could just be all Greek English to them.

I've encountered a few devs who probably agree with the accusation in this thread. But only a few, or only on rare occasions. More often, I've heard honest acceptance of any criticism leveled their game's way, so in general I'd say there's a very healthy professional respect between AG and the developers. (After they finish cursing us behind our backs, of course. )

[tsa]

Originally Posted by Jackal

No hard stats, but anecdotally I can say I'd be surprised if any don't read them, as everyone always seems very familiar with AG whenever I speak to them. ... Often, I've heard honest acceptance of any criticism leveled their game's way, so in general I'd say there's a very healthy professional respect between AG and the developers. (After they finish cursing us behind our backs, of course. )

I guess you can conclude from that that AG is not too harsh. Critical but fair . Do you have any idea how much the criticism is taken to heart by the developers, to take into account for their next game?

[Jackal]

Never enough, tsa, never enough.

Seriously, though, I'm not sure I can answer to what extent AG's (or any review's) feedback is instrumental in creating change. A lot of our criticism is done in fairly broad brush strokes, anyway, so they aren't necessarily things that can be "fixed" so much as simply done better in future.

When I do speak to developers about design issues, often it seems like we're identifying things they've already targeted themselves. It's not unusual for dev comments to go something like, "We agree with you about Point X being a weak area, but we were limited by Factor Y, or we were trying to accomplish Goal Z in this game. Next time we hope to..." That sort of thing. So yeah, they listen, but I doubt it's often (if ever) anything so overt as "Oh, we didn't realize that failing until AG's review!" (Which is probably a good thing.)

On the other hand, it drives me nuts to see the same easily-avoidable mistakes made game after game.

[aries323]

I agree that adventures should not get special favours just because they are adventure games. I disagree, however, with the opinion that people that play adventure games play other games as well. Most people (and I mean that in a very general way) that play adventure games only play these sort of games.

For a review, I would like the reviewer to review the game, not give me their personal opinion of say the French accent in the game or how bad it is that the game's developers got the geography of a certain city wrong. I want to know how the game is to play, if the puzzles are logical, silly, or outright stupid. I also need to know if the story makes sense and is coherent, how the dialogue is and how the characters are and the character interaction is. I really don't need to know if the reviewer don't like certain subgenres or if he doesn't think that a rookie should be sent to deal with a certain situation.

As said, I want a somewhat objective review of the game, not the reviewer's personal opinions, unless it is to say if he or she did have a good time playing the game - or not - and the reason behind this statement, of course.

[Jackal]

You're contradicting yourself, since a reviewer's personal opinions is exactly what you're asking for. You're just asking for opinions on issues that matter most to you. That doesn't make them any less subjective.

As for the other details, different things affect different people's enjoyment or appreciation of a game. If they don't bother you, they're easily ignored. They're never mentioned instead of addressing those larger issues, though, so it's not an either/or proposition.

And since no one speaks for "most" people one way or the other, we'll have to leave that issue undecided. I'm sure lots don't, but it's simply a fact that lots do. So our approach is the more inclusive one.