A Further Comment on Game Reviewing
Bruce Shelley has really cheesed me off. The Age of Empires III co-creator has created a term and used it to explain why his precious game isn’t scoring in the high nineties with every single reviewer.
First, several things to mention: I have no doubt that AoE III is a fantastic game for people who are into that genre, I really don’t. Two, I have an unbearable dislike for the big game review sites, who allow very little diversity of opinion into the review process, resulting in scores that look like the same person reviewed it across the board. Three, people actually have differing opinions about what makes quality, what makes playability, and what makes a good game. That’s why it’s called an opinion.
So yes, Shelley has decided that “innovation bias” is the thing that is leading to low-80 average scores. He cries that game developers that innovate are rewarded richly by reviewers, and that those that put out a solid title, but don’t innovate to a fantastic amount, get the shaft. He uses AoE III as an example (naturally), and looks at the scoring that it received in two large PC gaming magazines. Computer Gaming World really wasn’t a fan, it scored Shelley’s baby at 60%, and PC Gamer practically humped it, awarding it 91%. Shelley is concerned that us moronic gamers will be confused by the disparate ratings and be unable to decide whether it’s a good game to buy or not. -gasp- I know, like, I so totally get all turned around when like, numbers aren’t the same.
What Mr. Shelley has failed to realize is that, and this is obvious to most of us, the reviews were written by different people. With different opinions, and different expectations out of the type of game he was providing. Very strangely, and this escapes him as well, this diversity of opinion and expectation almost exactly mirrors similar variety in the comsumer market. By having clear 10’s from every reviewer, the reader learns almost nothing. In fact I’m very suspicious when the same comments and scores keep popping up for the same game, and begin to wonder how much of the marketing budget went to pay off reviewers so that it could have a nice average score rather than reflecting the varied interests that exist.
It is not “innovation bias”, call it end-point user diversity. We’re not all clones who are going to come to the same conclusion, we’re mostly free-thinking individuals with our own tastes. Maybe Bruce, the Computer Gaming World reviewer just plain thought AoE III sucked. And to some people it probably does. So go have your warm milk and cookies and fall asleep crying into your pillow because not everyone loves you. Baby.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Musings, News, Things That Suck
2 opinions for A Further Comment on Game Reviewing
Tor
Dec 24, 2005 at 8:36 am
Actually, I was a huge fan of the AOE series (notice *was*) until AOE III came out, I.. I don’t know.. but after playing it for only a few hours, and that was 99% tortured, playing on by will force alone as my brain was screaming “Oh god no, no, NOOOO!!!”. Where was I? Oh, right, I don’t like AOE anymore, so thanks a lot for this *words too bad for the internet (or I don’t have the words)* game, it ruined what was once a good game.. *pouts* I want my old Big Berta back…
Karmakin
Dec 24, 2005 at 3:00 pm
What’s the problem?
AoE III does suck. Too bad Microsoft has a better RTS series in the Rise of Nation’s game. And Rise of Legends looks pretty sweet.
But for what he said, that gaming mags do tend to put innovation in front of solidness, from what I see is a bit true. The reality is, that usually games have both or neither.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: