Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
Critique the Critics: which reviews on the site do you disagree with?
.... When I told her I was impressed, her response was: “But, it’s really easy!” Granted, she’s more intelligent than the average teenager, but I was still quite impressed.
It just shows that if you don’t know something is suppose to be difficult, then it quite often it isn’t difficult 
You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ
Apparently the reviewers see the rating as the most subjective part, and not as an objective decision of quality.
Wait, what? Nothing you linked to says that (because it isn’t true). Both parts should strive to be equally objective, insofar as that’s possible (and it never fully is). It’s just the writing ALSO allows for some personal (subjective) commentary. For example, you can say “It sucked for reasons X, Y, and Z, and yet I enjoyed it as a guilty pleasure” in a review. There’s no way to reflect THAT in the score. Or conversely, “everything about this game was well made, but it’s really not my cup of tea” is a valid review comment. A low score wouldn’t be.
The score should reflect what the reviewer has objectively-as-possible explained in detail as its pros and cons. That’s all. The mistake is in seeing a number and thinking that somehow makes it a science, when in fact it’s just a numerical translation of what is still an inescapably subjective view.
I thought “Virtue’s Last Reward” should have been at least 4 stars myself. The same for 999.
I’m starting to wonder if the 3DS is going to have as many adventure games as the DS had. If it does not - I can always play my PC adventure games.
I enjoy playing adventure games on my Alienware M17 r4 and my Nintendo Switch OLED.
There is i believe a tendency to misinterpret the rating system, and to consider a rating of 3 or 3½ star as a low rating, but according to the description of the scoring system 3 is actually above average, or at least games with more positive than negative aspects.
Maybe that’s because the vast majority (462/625) of games on this site received 3 stars or more, so people figured out that the official definition can’t be right within the context of games reviewed to this site.
I’ve been reading random reviews following this thread, and one way I think reviews could be improved is to actually show what they’re talking about. The easiest way is to embed screenshots from the game when discussing things like the graphics - often a review just says “the background graphics are dull and muted”, and you have to hope the screenshots actually show what the reviewer means, which they don’t always. Some reviews that criticize the quality of characters or writing in general use quotes, but most don’t.
More difficult would be to embed voice or short videos to demonstrate the quality of animation or voice acting, but I think it would be worth it, as they help readers make up their own mind - you often see disagreements in the comments about these things.
Interestingly, when puzzles or backtracking are discussed, there are almost always spoiler-free examples, so good job on that.
Apparently the reviewers see the rating as the most subjective part, and not as an objective decision of quality.
Wait, what? Nothing you linked to says that (because it isn’t true). Both parts should strive to be equally objective, insofar as that’s possible (and it never fully is). It’s just the writing ALSO allows for some personal (subjective) commentary. For example, you can say “It sucked for reasons X, Y, and Z, and yet I enjoyed it as a guilty pleasure” in a review. There’s no way to reflect THAT in the score. Or conversely, “everything about this game was well made, but it’s really not my cup of tea” is a valid review comment. A low score wouldn’t be.
The score should reflect what the reviewer has objectively-as-possible explained in detail as its pros and cons. That’s all. The mistake is in seeing a number and thinking that somehow makes it a science, when in fact it’s just a numerical translation of what is still an inescapably subjective view.
It seems i might have exaggerated my point here, you are correct you never said it was purely a subjective rating. Sorry about that.
But you did say:
So you agreed with the objective criticism (good and bad), just not the weighting of them. The purely subjective part, then.
I interpreted that as the rating being very subjective.
Anyway my point was simply to say that the ratings aren’t as objective as some might think or wish, and bring attention to the fact that it had already been discussed in that thread.
You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ
Not really commenting on the original thread, but I was reading this article that came out of GDC that analyses the weighting given to website reviews on metacritic.
It was interesting to see what sites reviews are held in higher regard and was surprised to see some adventure sites high on the list.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-27-metacritic-score-weighing-process-revealed-report
Weighting—Critic/ Publication
Highest (1.5)—Just Adventure
High (1.25)—Adventure Gamers
Of course Metacritic have come back and disputed that they have cracked their formula.
An adventure game is nothing more than a good story set with engaging puzzles that fit seamlessly in with the story and the characters, and looks and sounds beautiful.
Roberta Williams
Having just finished Anacapri, of course I had to check the 2 and a 1/2 star review. And it’s a bit of a mess. Basically she goes through a whole bunch of good points about the game - the length, intricate storyline, the scenery and immersion, characters. And then a few minor points seem to turn the game a pile of crap. She starts a paragraph saying “this is good” and there’s always a “but” at the end of it with some usually insignificant thing she doesn’t like. I don’t know what “localization work” is, but that gets a lot of criticism. It’s just a lot of nitpicking.
Honestly, this thread was made for this game because I don’t think I’ve disagreed with a review more. More than that, I think it’s just a terrible review. It seems to be totally contrary to Jackal’s “be as objective as possible”, because there’s little substance to it other than her “subjective” dislike for the game. And even that is dubious: she doesn’t like the music and voiceovers - were we playing the same game? The music is fantastic and the voices were done by local residents so it was a matter of professionalism (whatever that is) sacrificed for authenticity. And of course, no mention of how the story brilliantly linked dream and reality and its use of Jungian symbolism to create a meaningful dilemma which is gradually revealed to you. No - the interface and the game’s unpolished-ness is more important than that. Someone who can’t look past the superficial elements of a game really shouldn’t be writing reviews.
I suppose this highlights the problem with all reviews - if you dislike a game you can always emphasise the bad and neglect the good, and vice versa. It’s why I don’t choose to ignore games based on 2 star reviews, or automatically run out and get the latest 5-star game. Fortunately.
But you did say:
So you agreed with the objective criticism (good and bad), just not the weighting of them. The purely subjective part, then.
I interpreted that as the rating being very subjective.
Not the rating independently of the assessment. The one simply reflects the other. I simply meant that while two people can agree on both the specific strengths and flaws of a game, they may still not agree on how they balance out in the enjoyability of the overall experience. And in fact, the exact same strengths and weaknesses in one game may not weigh the same in another. Bad voice acting in Myst, for example, is trivial because there’s so little of it. Whereas if TLJ had bad voice acting, it would be hugely damaging.
And it’s a bit of a mess. Basically she goes through a whole bunch of good points about the game - the length, intricate storyline, the scenery and immersion, characters. And then a few minor points seem to turn the game a pile of crap. She starts a paragraph saying “this is good” and there’s always a “but” at the end of it with some usually insignificant thing she doesn’t like. I don’t know what “localization work” is, but that gets a lot of criticism. It’s just a lot of nitpicking.
Without actually re-reading the review in question, this is a perfect example of what I just described. What you call “insignicant” is very significant for some. This is what I mean by “disagreement” vs. “criticism”. Apparently you’re not actually disputing the accuracy of the flaws mentioned (not counting the music thing, which is pure personal taste on both sides), just disagreeing with how important they are. And that’s fine. Different strokes and all that.
It was interesting to see what sites reviews are held in higher regard and was surprised to see some adventure sites high on the list.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-27-metacritic-score-weighing-process-revealed-report
Weighting—Critic/ PublicationHighest (1.5)—Just Adventure
High (1.25)—Adventure Gamers
As of a few years ago, I suspected AG wasn’t at their highest tier, but I think we’ve consistently moved up the charts over time. It’s been years since JA’s reviews even appeared on Metacritic, mind you, so I really wouldn’t put much stock in that data. It’s a shame that Metacritic isn’t more transparent about its policies.
.... When I told her I was impressed, her response was: “But, it’s really easy!” Granted, she’s more intelligent than the average teenager, but I was still quite impressed.
It just shows that if you don’t know something is suppose to be difficult, then it quite often it isn’t difficult
Hehe, you have a point there. The mentality in which you approach something can certainly affect performance, something I’ve experienced with a lot of people as an acrobatics and martial arts instructor. The people who learned the fanciest moves weren’t necessarily the most physically gifted ones, but rather those who defeated their own mentality and decided that nothing was too difficult for them.
Duckman: Can you believe it? Five hundred bucks for a parking ticket?
Cornfed Pig: You parked in a handicapped zone.
Duckman: Who cares? Nobody parks there anyway, except for the people who are supposed to park there and, hell, I can outrun them anytime.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
