Column: A Review Manifesto

November 10, 2008 on 4:35 pm | In Column, Ramblings | No Comments

The great wide world of the Internet holds a pure deluge of information and articles and links. And while it’s always good to read the opinions of people who are paid to give you an opinion, I’m also thankful for the Net’s more plebeian voices. Of particular interest are those contained in the comments section following most articles. While most of the time said activity gives me only humor, it also occasions a more introspective thought.

I was a bit skeptical when I found out that the damn good “Call of Duty 4″ would be getting a quickly produced sequel, “Call of Duty 5: World at War,” made by the less-than-stellar Treyarch. The fact that they decided to return to a World War II setting only reinforced this notion, despite the clever manipulated titled. Seriously, why not just call it “Call of Duty 5: Nazis, Just One More Time and Then We Are Done, Promise.” But lo and behold, this article appears, bestowing upon CoD5 a perfect score. My issue is not that Treyarch has managed to produce a superior game (though I remain skeptical until further evidence presents itself). Rather the problem and contradictions implied by the “perfect” 10/10 score, something pointed out by a brave soul in the torrent of comments.

The central fallacy of a flawless score is that it suggests there is no way the product can be improved upon. Most, I think, would agree that “Call of Duty 4″ had everything you could ask for in a shooter. Ah, but was it perfect? Where there not occasionally things that irked, annoyed or frustrated you? That didn’t stop it from being highly enjoyable and an accomplishment in it’s on right. Giving a game a near-perfect 9/10 seems to be saying that if maybe there was just one more gun or one more level or one more gimmick then it would be vaulted to that most coveted of levels. People wonder why games aren’t taken more seriously and I think the anachronistic review system employed by most publications shares some of the blame.

There are some parts of the gaming community who would like to see the industry move past pure entertainment and into art, similar to the way movies and music have one foot in each door. By using such a reductive formula for criticism, the room for growth and expression is inherently stymied. While movie critics may employ a numerical scale, you would be hard-pressed to find a movie critic who would tell you that directors should stop making movies because the perfect one has been made already.

The scale is even furthered narrowed by the fact that since a 10/10 represents such a high threshold of excellence, most publication shun it entirely in order to show their “independence.” So, in the end, you’ve got an 8, which represents “pretty good,” and a 9, which signifies “pretty awesome.” Thus, a full 20 percent is in common use throughout much of the games industry. This practice hurts developers, journalists and consumers alike by sustaining a system riddled with hypocrisy.

This is just a small bit of what can be a much larger argument. The scale also threatens journalistic integrity by creating a glut of games that fall in the 8-10 because a 7 is feared to be a mark of total shit. That’s what a zero is for. Theoretically, a 7 is still above average, and there is nothing wrong with an average game if it’s something dig. If a game has a couple of things you enjoy in its mix, say turn-based strategy, zombies and medieval settings, but only garners mediocre reviews, it’s actually entirely possible that you still might like it.

I believe that a grading system (a la 1up.com) is a better way to rate games. By using pluses and minuses, it offers broader range of opinion while still saving room at either end of the spectrum. If it’s a damn good game that is completely fun and enjoyable slap an A on that sucker and that is simply all you are saying. Barring that, the only recourse I can see is Metacritic. where at least you can get a compilation of reviews instead of being subject to those wild editorial swings between 8 and 9.

In the end, no rating system can be perfect (just ask the ESRB, har har). It’s up to the consumers to take the time to actually read reviews and form opinions for themselves, rather than relying on numerical snap judgments. This also means the professionals on the other side should focus on writing copy that’s compelling enough to merit deeper reading and advance the gaming industry forward.