Support NeoGAF

[CabbageRed]

Its a small thing but it keeps nagging me: many reviewers who have to give graphics a score seem unable to seperate a game's visuals from how much they enjoyed the game overall. By that I mean, if they enjoyed the game then they think the graphics were good and visa versa. Obviously, there are exceptions but this generally seems to be the outcome in most reviews.

An example would be IGN's review of Stronghold 2 (http://pc.ign.com/articles/609/609550p3.html). As someone playing AoW, Swat 4, Doom 3 and HL2 on a decent PC, I felt Stronghold 2's visuals (along with those found in AoW) provided a glimpse at what RTS's will soon look like.

However, the reviewer states, “This is not a good looking game on any level and it has performance issues.” Performance issues are most certainly prevalent but to say it looks good on no level strikes me as being absurd. It seems more likely that the reviewer is confusing the graphics for the gameplay. Something along the lines of an attractive woman becoming unattractive if her personality rubs you the wrong way.

I keep seeing this review after review and it makes me wonder if graphics should really be scored at all. If you like the art direction and/or find the visuals to be technically impressive, then say as much in the review. To actually score the graphics a an entity separate from the gameplay isn't working and really provides little service to the readers. Screenshots and some mention of performance in the review should be more than enough.

 

[miyuru]

Yeah, it's tough sometimes. Still, reviewers should take much more care in their scoring - scores should primarily be objective.

 

[Ranger X]

I agree with you but people would find it too wierd if they don't see any score about the graphics. People do exactly the same mistakes as reviewers after all. And this world is all about image.

 

[God's Hand]

It looks good on a bad level, that's for sure.

But reviews are just published opinion. It's your fault for caring.

 

[Jared Goodwin]

I realize I'm saying this in a post on GAF, but if you're worrying about consistency in subscores in video game reviews, it's time to go outside and/or get a little perspective.

With the grand majority of publications (IGN definitely included), subscores are, even more than overall scores, just gut calls from the reviewer, not based on any criteria other than the reviewer's mood. Don't expect them to be consistent within the work of a single reviewer, let alone an entire publication.

Don't worry about it too much.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

im sure it comes into play as far as how much someone enjoys the whole experience. Im sure if GTA3-VC-SA were average or below average games, reviewers would rip into the graphics a whole lot more.

 

[CabbageRed]

Nifty. Replies to my first thread, I was sure this was heading to page 2 asap. Thanks

“Yeah, it's tough sometimes.”
+
“I agree with you but people would find it too weird if they don't see any score about the graphics. People do exactly the same mistakes as reviewers after all. And this world is all about image.”
+
“It's your fault for caring.”

I know I'm fussing over the unavoidable and it was mainly a lukewarm rant. Still, I would love to see more sites and mags stand back for a second every month to look at how they are judging the various facets of gaming that they've decided to quantify.

Then again, I thought Daily Radar's minimalistic approach to overall rating was brilliant so I may be in a small minority again.

“I realize I'm saying this in a post on GAF, but if you're worrying about consistency in subscores in video game reviews, it's time to go outside and/or get a little perspective.”

I should have done a better job of expressing that I was just bringing up something small that was nagging me. It was just something on my mind and GAF seemed like a better place to express it than any real life social circle.

 

[DDayton]

Did anyone have that problem with Star Fox Adventures? Heh heh heh...