Two Bits

Newsweek’s Level Up recently featured an article by N’Gai Croal called, “Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?” There, N’Gai quoted a number of reviewers from online gaming websites who were upset that games with amazing innovation were being underrated by game reviewers stuck on things like controls and combat. The game in question was, unsurprisingly, Mirror’s Edge, and I mentioned the game reviewer dilemma briefly in my own review. N’Gai’s reply was, to summarize (but you really should read the article), that to ignore a game’s flaws, particularly if they break and impede the vision the innovation is striving for, is plain bad criticism.

To say that Mirror’s Edge is a bad or broken game, and then leave it there, is also to cop out of criticizing the game. Equally bad, for sure, is to focus on what makes it good and disregard, or overlook, the flaws that drag it down. I’m not going to defend my own review much. I acknowledged its flaws then chose to talk more about what it was doing that was exciting for me. I think what is interesting about the Mirror’s Edge discussion, however, is how a lot of it stems from the simple fact that Metacritic has to get its numbers from somewhere. I felt free to go into what I enjoyed about the game without having to justify a 7 or 8 at the end of it. But how does having to throw a number on things change the discussion?

The major difference between reviews with scores and reviews without scores is the understood level of objectivity, both for the writer and the reader. Take it this way: Play magazine’s Fable 2 review (which did not have a score), ended with this line, “Fable 2 is a fine role-playing adventure.” Possibly, that would amount to a 7 or 8 in a traditional review, but in Play magazine, it’s simply telling it like it is. Fable 2 is a fine game. Not perfect. Not revolutionary. But fine.

The problem is that you can’t say games are fine with review scores. To give a game a high score, you have to feel that the game is not only a tight product but also innovative in some way. Mirror’s Edge was one but not the other, so it can’t have a high score. But wait – Halo 3, Gears of War 2 – are these really innovative? Well, maybe a high score isn’t innovation as much as it is just a tight game with solid gameplay mechanics. But then, there’s nothing inherently wrong with Call of Duty: World at War, and yet it gets less than perfect reviews.

Of course, everyone knows there are inherent problems with ascribing an objective, numbers-based system to a subjective field. So why do we put up with it? More and more, it seems like discussion of game criticism revolves almost entirely around whether or not a game deserved the score it got. “Mirror’s Edge deserves a better score!” says one. “No game with such problems can get a good score!” says the other. (Not N’Gai Croal, fortunately. Again, you should read the article.) If you understand game reviews to be a defense of a number given to the title before the writer even began his writing, you begin to understand why reviews are written the way they are.

On the other hand, there is no reason to take up arms because Play magazine noted Fable 2 as a fine adventure. Whether you like it or not, whether it’s your game of the year or not, the game is inarguably a fine adventure. Or is it? Part of what makes Fable 2 discussion interesting is hearing about the different experiences people have – including game-breaking bugs that cause your family to cease to exist for no reason. Also more interesting is talking about what Fable 2 does, not based on Molyneux’s typical overhype but based on what is clearly evident from within the game itself. These things cannot – or will not – be discussed in a game review with a review score. In fact, it doesn’t matter what Fable 2 is trying to accomplish and what it does for the Western RPG. What matters is whether or not it’s a 9 or a 10 – or, shudder, worse!

One cannot help but wonder what eliminating review scores would do. I have to imagine it would only help. For one, game critics would have to admit their reviews are subjective. It is difficult to say that a game is amazing when you cannot simply mutter something about its “fun times” before pasting a 10 on your article. For another, we wouldn’t have discussions about whether or not game reviewers are missing innovation when they review Mirror’s Edge. Not a single review (that I know of) has failed to note the game’s innovation. What many of them do note, however, is how it’s not quite a 9 – and that’s where the controversies emerge. Indeed, outside of the realm of review scores (just read that article already!), the discussion is deep, relevant, and insightful.

Part of this likely stems from another issue: are game reviews meant to aide purchasing decisions, or are they telling us more about our experience? Clearly, publishers, developers, and game reviewers feel it is the former. This is intriguing, as most people who read game reviews with any level of interest are enthusiasts. In addition, enthusiasts, especially those planning to spend $50-$60, are more likely to read the press behind a game rather than simply scan Metacritic. So the scores aren’t aiding the enthusiast’s purchasing decisions . Of course, mom and dad might read the Metacritic scores. But it would seem they are even less likely to look at Metacritic than an enthusiast. (We might more often find them listening to the Gamestop clerk’s recommendations.)

So who are the scores for? They are for us, the enthusiats, and our desire to bend mathematics to our sense of fun and adventure is neutering the discussion. The more we spend time discussing scores, the less we move video game criticism forward, as a practice.