Support NeoGAF

[Chairman Yang]

That is, if they're intended as a way to deliver critical commentary, insight, and a true evaluation of a game's quality to readers. Too many reviews are written in a "buyer's guide" style that dates the review quickly. Why not occassionally go back to certain popular games, edit the score to reflect the reviewer's current opinion and the current state of the game, with a brief paragraph detailing the rationale for the change? Of course, the original review could be preserved for comparison purposes.

The truth is, people's opinions of games easily change over time. Graphics age well or poorly, gameplay stands the test of time or becomes instantly outdated with the release of a similar but superior game, patches/mods are released that make the game twice as good (look at many PC strategy games for this phenomenon), or the reviewer simply didn't have enough time to really get the full measure of the game's quality. This makes looking at archived reviews nearly useless in many cases; does Tony Hawk 3, for example, really deserve a 10.0 on Gamespot in today's market? Does God of War, which gives off a great first impression, merit a higher score than DMC3:SE (and for that matter, should DMC3 be rated higher than DMC3:SE)? Many review sites even admit that a 9.0 today is better than a 9.0 last year...but how much better? And for which games?

You may say that scores don't matter that much, and people should just read the text of the review. Sure. But if a scoring system is in place, some basic effort should be made to ensure that it achieves some degree of consistency over time. You may say reviewers don't have the resources/time to go back and re-score already reviewed games. I say that changing a number and adding a paragraph for a few key games is quick, easy, and valuable to the review reader, and is worth sacrificing a few extra rant columns for.

That's my view, anyways. The truth is, as a pretty recent buyer of a PS2, I have no real chance of picking out the best games using reviews alone--I have no idea which games aged well or poorly. Which games are the best TODAY. I shouldn't have to rely on message boards and word of mouth alone.

What do you think?

 

[GhaleonEB]

I disagree. Extend this beyond games for a sec - should you re-review movie down because it's in black and white? A book because it uses Shakespearian language? Reviews are a way to identify how well a game stacks up to the peers of the time.

Save the retroactive reviewing for those "top 100" lists GAF loves to hate on.

 

[drohne]

an algorithm would cover it: review scores would first decay for several years as hype dissipates and standards rise, and then shoot up unaccountably as nostalgia kicks in and people forget what those games were like anyway.

 

[demi]

GI does something like this in their magazines in the retro review section (a fav of mine)

Then: 9.0

Now: 6.5

 

[Chairman Yang]

I disagree. Extend this beyond games for a sec - should you re-review movie down because it's in black and white? A book because it uses Shakespearian language? Reviews are a way to identify how well a game stacks up to the peers of the time.

Movies and books are re-reviewed all the time. Reviewers not only talk about how well the work holds up, but they add insights/commentary that weren't obvious at the time of release. The same should be done for games.

 

[Chairman Yang]

GI does something like this in their magazines in the retro review section (a fav of mine)

Then: 9.0

Now: 6.5

That's pretty cool. Do they only do this with really old games, or any game that's ripe for re-evaluation?

I also remember some old videogame magazine, Game Buyer or something, that had a thing called "radioactive decay" that changed a game's score over time.

 

[RevenantKioku]

Movies and books are re-reviewed all the time. Reviewers not only talk about how well the work holds up, but they add insights/commentary that weren't obvious at the time of release. The same should be done for games.

One problem is, mostly, who cares, and secondly without something to compare it to it's useless. The Then/Now in that one mag is pretty cool, but the reviews aren't seemingly taken 100% seriously, and in the end it's just video game reviews.

 

[demi]

That's pretty cool. Do they only do this with really old games, or any game that's ripe for re-evaluation?

They've listed mainly NES, SNES, Genesis, GB/GBC, and PSX and N64 I think... no current gen or legacy (re: Atari etc)

Some games don't have a Then score as they didn't review it, but they still give it a Now score

They're just a single paragraph about the game, that's it. But it's still one of my favorite features in the magazine.

They used to do retro strategies (Zelda II walkthrough, SOTN map, etc) but they just did away with it in the recent issues...

BRING BACK RETRO STRATEGIES GAME INFORMER :livid:

 

[GhaleonEB]

Movies and books are re-reviewed all the time. Reviewers not only talk about how well the work holds up, but they add insights/commentary that weren't obvious at the time of release. The same should be done for games.

But they do not change the original review, which is what you were arguing for. Plus, it's an epic undertaking to keep evaluating past games on a sliding scale. You have thousands of titles to re-review - which ones do you pick? How often do you update them?

I think the options have already been mentioned here. Don't do it, do it so a few games when relevent (GI-style) or do it to all games, per drohne's suggestion (which I like most, actually...).

 

[Warm Machine]

If a game is truly fun there shouldn't be a change in score, unless they are reviewing based on available features or something assanine like that.

For example, I still give Asteroids and Tetris a 10/10 because everything in the package complements the other.

 

[Chairman Yang]

One problem is, mostly, who cares,

Presumably anyone who reads the review. Wouldn't you want a review you read for the first time to be as accurate and insightful as possible?

 

[C- Warrior]

Actually, as I said before -- IGN actually made there "review system" stricter. Jeremy made note of that to justify why DMC3:SE scored slightly lower than DMC3. It's the same reason why no xbox 360 game scored more than a 9.0, which I'm sure suprised some people considering that it was not only IGN, but the xbox.ign guys who gave Jade Empire a 9.9.

 

[GhaleonEB]

That's pretty cool. Do they only do this with really old games, or any game that's ripe for re-evaluation?

I also remember some old videogame magazine, Game Buyer or something, that had a thing called "radioactive decay" that changed a game's score over time.

The problem with this is that it's hard to predict how a game will age over time. Transitory elements like graphics can age, but the game can remain just as fun and deserve the same score. A game like Soul Calibur on the DC for example has aged really well; a game like Toshinden on the PS has not.

 

[Chairman Yang]

But they do not change the original review, which is what you were arguing for. Plus, it's an epic undertaking to keep evaluating past games on a sliding scale. You have thousands of titles to re-review - which ones do you pick? How often do you update them?

I specifically mentioned keeping the original review around for comparison purposes; the new score/content would be added on with a clear note that it's a new addition.

I also mentioned the problem of which games to pick. The answer is simple; games that have 1) a significant change worth commenting on, and 2) are games that people have some interest in.

I think the options have already been mentioned here. Don't do it, do it so a few games when relevent (GI-style) or do it to all games, per drohne's suggestion (which I like most, actually...).

Doing it for all games would take a lot of resources, as you say, but I would like to see that too. It'd make scores much more meaningful in general. The GI style seems cool too, but I haven't seen any web-based review sites use it.

 

[kablooey]

an algorithm would cover it: review scores would first decay for several years as hype dissipates and standards rise, and then shoot up unaccountably as nostalgia kicks in and people forget what those games were like anyway.

:lol +1

That applies to pretty much any other entertainment form too. I'm looking at you, Pitchfork.

 

[Chairman Yang]

The problem with this is that it's hard to predict how a game will age over time. Transitory elements like graphics can age, but the game can remain just as fun and deserve the same score. A game like Soul Calibur on the DC for example has aged really well; a game like Toshinden on the PS has not.

Well, it wasn't based on a formula or anything--it was done by the original reviewers. They just adjusted the game's score each issue (which probably wouldn't take very long for the majority of games).

 

[Joe Molotov]

This sounds like a great idea! Instead of watching the stock market, we could watch the IGN reviews. I can see the posts now...

"LOL, Nintendo fans! Ocarina of time is down 3 points this afternoon! FLOP!!!"

"Whew, that was a close one. I got worried when Shenmue dropped 7 points last Tuesday, but thankfully it's up 4 points this morning."

"Madden 2007 has turned out to be the best Madden title yet. News of this has caused Madden 06 to plummet 12 points, Madden 05 to fall 8 points, and the rest of the Madden series to take 3-5 point hit."

On second though...no.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Actually, as I said before -- IGN actually made there "review system" stricter. Jeremy made note of that to justify why DMC3:SE scored slightly lower than DMC3. It's the same reason why no xbox 360 game scored more than a 9.0, which I'm sure suprised some people considering that it was not only IGN, but the xbox.ign guys who gave Jade Empire a 9.9.

Well, the problem with this approach is that now the entire review scale makes no sense. DMC3:SE scored 0.6 points lower than DMC3 despite being better. Does that mean every game before DMC3 really scored 0.6 points lower according to IGN? Probably not, but there's no way to tell. I have no idea if a 9.0 really means a 9.0, or if it actually means an 8.4 or a 7.0 or whatever. If IGN just changed the original DMC3 score (and all of the old scores) in accordance with the new scale things would make a lot more sense.

 

[RevenantKioku]

Presumably anyone who reads the review. Wouldn't you want a review you read for the first time to be as accurate and insightful as possible?

Well that's a whole other topic entirely. But I'm not seeing how re-reviewing them helps lots. Lets not forget games are much different than say, movies. We've been getting rereleases of tons of VHS movies to DVD, hell even tv shows and other shit that's just plain bizarre is hitting DVD because it's a better format. Some thing that are almost "lost to time" have been hitting DVD, but the same isn't going to happen for as many games. A lot of games are lost, plain and simple. Tracking down an old game that you see a re-review of is just near impossible or too expensive in most cases, and then you have to make sure you have the hardware.

Well, the problem with this approach is that now the entire review scale makes no sense. DMC3:SE scored 0.6 points lower than DMC3 despite being better. Does that mean every game before DMC3 really scored 0.6 points lower according to IGN? Probably not, but there's no way to tell. I have no idea if a 9.0 really means a 9.0, or if it actually means an 8.4 or a 7.0 or whatever. If IGN just changed the original DMC3 score (and all of the old scores) in accordance with the new scale things would make a lot more sense.

Oh, well there's your problem. Here's a hit: Ignore the numbers.

 

[SKOPE]

GameSpot "recalibrated" its old review scores a few years ago. (It lowered many by about a point.)

As for re-reviewing games, no. For newer games, it lets publishers get away with releasing buggy games and patching them later--even on consoles; publishers quietly rerelease buggy games without the bugs once in a while. For older games, it's a waste of resources. Just do a feature about older games and how well they've aged.

A 9.0 today is indeed better than a 9.0 last year. A sequel might be better than its predecessor, but unless it's significantly better, it (the sequel) should get a lower score anyway. Except for the hardcore fans, it isn't worth spending money on a slightly better game that looks and plays similarly to a game they already own.

Which is why it's important to read the reviews, not just look at the scores.

 

[Attack You]

Animal Crossing review from gamerzinluv.com:

Jan. 2006 - "My girlfriend and I have been playing this game non-stop for the past few weeks, and I must say it should be on every couples' buy-list if they wish to spend quality gaming time together! I have to open my gate now! I'm coming, darling!"

July 2006 - "I caught my girlfriend cheating on me. She took my entire red turnip patch, in the shape of a heart, sold them for money to buy a crown, and gave it to the jerk in the apartment down the hall over wi-fi. I didn't take it so well, and my uncle posting bail for me earlier this afternoon was the conclusion of our messy break-up. With this, I realize now that there are some glaring flaws in this game I failed to address before..."

January 2007 - "This game, obviously built on the pretense of building and sharing memories with friends and loved ones, has aged horribly. Just a quick glance at the graphics triggered my depression again for the fourth time this month. I sold everything of value in my house -- and in the game as well. With the persistance of my Animal Crossing neighbors in asking about my ex-girlfriend's character and repeatedly showing me letters she wrote foreshadowing her leaving me, I eventually erased my town. This game has no redeeming value. Leave it in the discount bin and walk away.

(If you're reading this message, it was set to auto-post to the server a short while after I take my life from a self-inflicted gun wound to the head.)

 

[jamesinclair]

CNET does it, they always keep adjusting their hardware reviews to keep with the times.

A 2001 MP3 player getting a 9.0 will be much less today.

I like that system.


I hope people start re-revieing Revolution downloadable games.

 

[Flynn]

It all depends on the critic and the style of the writing.

The New Yorker uses Pauline Kael's old capsule reviews when classic flicks are revived and her take on the films are just as valid now as the were twenty years ago.

Of course games are changing much faster and more distinctly than movies are, so re-visiting important games and re-reviewing them is a pretty cool idea -- especially in the context of the game as a classic.

I hate scores, but I think the idea of constantly changing them is retarded. If you're gonna insist on assigning a number to something, you should have to live with your decision.

 

[conker]

You can't do that.
If you rescore old games, they will all receive lower scores (with the exception of a few, such as Tetris, which should always get a bajillion points).

And games would eventually reach zero - or close to it.
The difference between a 9 and an 8 would decrease.

Here's the REAL answer.

Every generation, up your review format by 5 points.
That's right.
Don't rate X360 games on a scale of 10, rate them on a scale of 15.

That way when you compare last gen's 8's and 9's to this gen's 13's and 14's, you'll know thta the next gen has arrived. You'll know for sure that the newer games are without a doubt the better ones. You'll know this because the numbers are bigger and, as we all know, numbers are important. Twilight Princess? That shit got a 10, man! Move up to the big boys and play Madden 2K7 with me - this fucker got an 11! WHOOT.

(I wouldn't be surprised if some jack shit gaming "journalist" does this)

I think a better idea would be to ban all scoring systems and make reviewers, I don't know, REVIEW a game instead of RATING a game. Two VERY different concepts.

 

[Amir0x]

game critics have to fix the way they review games before they start adding new features to them man

 

[conker]

You totally didn't read my post, did you?
(Assuming you were refering to me.)

That whole idea was SARCASM, since it's OBVIOUSLY retarded, and it's something that reviewers might try to do.

My post said (if you read the end) that they should get rid of numbers.
REVIEW a game, not RATE it.

 

[Chairman Yang]

game critics have to fix the way they review games before they start adding new features to them man

That's true.

My post said (if you read the end) that they should get rid of numbers.
REVIEW a game, not RATE it.

Numerical scores are handy, though--there's a good reason they're around. They provide an easy, quick way of sorting through game reviews at a glance. People can click on reviews that have a certain minimum score and then read the reviews. Without scores, readers would have to read every single review before they could be sure of finding worthwhile games.

I agree that scores should just be a peripheral tool, and not the substance of the review, though.

 

[RevenantKioku]

Numerical scores are handy, though--there's a good reason they're around. They provide an easy, quick way of sorting through game reviews at a glance.

Which is exactly the problem.

 

[monchi-kun]

a pros/cons system would solve this issue

 

[Chairman Yang]

Which is exactly the problem.

Well, rather than abandoning scores entirely, I'd rather just have them be more accurate by using the methods I proposed.

 

[Jiggy]

game critics have to fix the way they review games before they start adding new features to them man

QFT.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

If you know anything about games, review scores don't have to evolve with the times; as long as their consistent with their own time period, they're useful. By comparing two games in the same genre, one that you've played and one that you're interested in, you can fairly accurately conclude how good the game you're interested in is.

It's cool when mags go back and re-review old games, but it's hardly necessary.

Numerical scores are handy, though--there's a good reason they're around. They provide an easy, quick way of sorting through game reviews at a glance.

Something's wrong when people are too lazy to read a review's introduction/pros and cons tab.