Adventure Gamers - Forums

Looking at that review: it’s a reasonably well written review, makes it clear that he liked the first game a lot and gives us some of the reasons he was so disappointed with the second. From what I remember of the game, I disagree hard - but that’s allowed. A reviewer may hate a game for the same reasons that will make me love it; conversely they may love pretty games with railroaded stories, interminable cut-scenes and only nominal puzzles. As long as the reasons are clear, that’s fine - a good reviewer can make that clear in a review (and thus make the review useful to me) even as they give the game completely the wrong mark

Phlebas - 12 January 2016 05:17 AM

Looking at that review: it’s a reasonably well written review, makes it clear that he liked the first game a lot and gives us some of the reasons he was so disappointed with the second. From what I remember of the game, I disagree hard - but that’s allowed. A reviewer may hate a game for the same reasons that will make me love it; conversely they may love pretty games with railroaded stories, interminable cut-scenes and only nominal puzzles. As long as the reasons are clear, that’s fine - a good reviewer can make that clear in a review (and thus make the review useful to me) even as they give the game completely the wrong mark

Yes, but a review must be more than that, otherwise the reviewer is just talking about him or herself. Assessing a game’s quality independently of liking/disliking it is imporrtant.

Yes, but a review must be more than that, otherwise the reviewer is just talking about him or herself. Assessing a game’s quality independently of liking/disliking it is imporrtant.

It might be important, but I’m not convinced it’s possible - how would you define a game’s quality in a way that didn’t come down to personal judgment? Even if we could come up with a list of objective criteria, the content of that list would be a personal judgment and subject to disagreement. There are probably games you love that I don’t just dislike but consider to be terrible games, and vice versa.

Surely we’re better off admitting that the review is a personal view, and actually reading the reasons the reviewer liked or disliked the game (or if you prefer, the reasons the reviewer considered the game to be an objectively good or bad game) - that way the review can be helpful (and hopefully also an entertaining read) for both of us.

Phlebas - 12 January 2016 06:09 AM

It might be important, but I’m not convinced it’s possible - how would you define a game’s quality in a way that didn’t come down to personal judgment?

Okay, here’s an example:

Puzzles
-Do they have enough clues to be able to solve logically?
-Are they well integrated into the story and not arbitrary or shoehorned (mini-games etc)?
-Is there a variety of puzzle type and difficulty?
-Are they enjoyable to solve and not tedious? (somewhat subjective)

See what I mean? Each can be more or less ranked from good to poor, so as to be informative to everyone.

So it seems that we must conclude there’s no need to point out that a review is a poor review, as it is just subjective. It’s a bit like people saying a scientific statement is just another opinion. I myself don’t think subjectivity is the only issue here, but also the fact that most (or all) reviews are written by amateurs. Apart from this, the review in question is a bit cursory, to say the least.

I agree with what Oscar is trying to say though. There are relevant criteria and it is a matter of competence and wisdom (phronesis) to apply those well in writing a review.  But we know this is an old discussion (in literature, music etc), so I guess it is wise to stay away from it.

mart - 12 January 2016 10:11 AM

So it seems that we must conclude there’s no need to point out that a review is a poor review, as it is just subjective. It’s a bit like people saying a scientific statement is just another opinion.

Am I reading this right? Are you seriously trying to say that a discussion a person’s emotional response to a creative work is like some sort of scientific statement??? That would be insane.

TimovieMan - 12 January 2016 10:50 AM

Actually, AG’s reviews compare rather favourably with most professional reviews, imo. I’ve read some horrendous reviews by professionals, and I feel that AG (even though the reviewers are amateurs) has pretty high editorial standards. Of course, YMMV.

From the reviews I’ve actually read I do for the most part agree but have said before that I have some concern over the games that get very low scores as it can kill sales as I’m aware that some gamers’ won’t entertain them although I’m sure this wouldn’t have affected BS2 with it being a sequel to a popular game.
I don’t even read reviews if I’m interested in the premise of a game as I will buy it anyway but if I’m teetering a good descriptive review will help me make a decision & I will read as many as I can from different sources but I know not everyone will. Also another problem I’ve encountered is a reviewer reporting bugs/glitches which I’ve not experienced myself in the same game so obviously a conflict with a particular system that perhaps should be investigated more before putting anyone off from buying the game?

The argument was never that reviews are entirely subjective or objective (unless Phlebas was trying to say that).

It was that they should provide more than basic feelings about the game. I can hate Myst and still say it does a good job in making hot-spots stand out in the environment, provides unique and interesting environments to explore, and has an intriguing original story. Some will disagree with that, but most won’t.

The BS2 review and many others were written in AG’s very early years, before the site really had anything much in the way of editorial standards. I’m not even sure the current scoring system was in place when some were originally written.

That was all way before my time, though. There are a lot of early reviews that wouldn’t get past the first draft stage anymore. I’d gladly even replace them if any of the current staff felt motivated to do a new one.

That said, disagreement about a score isn’t even on the LIST of any reason I’d consider for updating one. People should actually be grateful for reviews that go against the grain. Not as a matter of contrarian principle, but simply to offer a different perspective. I can pretty much guarantee that everyone in this thread feels there’s one “classic” adventure game that is grossly overrated. Wouldn’t it suck if no reviewer ever dared represent those viewpoints? (EDIT: Or non-classics that are underrated; works both ways.)

Okay, sure, that’s a valid enough reaction to a review score for personal reasons. But it’s just as likely that others might be more inclined to read an outlier to see why there’s such a big discrepancy.

In either case, the point is ultimately moot. A reviewer simply can’t be concerned with who may or may not agree with their rating, particularly those who don’t even read the article. We’d never shy away from a “controversial” score for fear of not being part of a perceived consensus, nor would we ever deliberately post one just as clickbait. If people choose not to read, that’s entirely their prerogative. We can only do our part.