Ugh. This is embarassing.
Not long ago, I wrote a huge post on my beloved The Walking Dead, by Telltale, in which I declared it to be my favorite game of all time. This was, at the time, true. I still stand by calling The Walking Dead a phenomenal game, and anyone who's interested in what the medium can do beyond just power fantasies should check it out.
Now, prior to playing The Walking Dead my favorite game was Deus Ex. Not Human Revolution, a prequel released in 2011 that somehow managed to both disappoint and pleasantly surprise me to great extent, but the original, released all the way back in 2000. Whilst I may have enjoyed The Walking Dead for its story, I have to admit that, as a game, Deus Ex is simply superior, a masterpiece of complex level design that is still to be surpassed in that particular aspect. Thing is, I first played it all the way back in 2007, and have gone through the ritual of re-playing it start to finish every year since then, and it was a good 6 years before it was dethroned as my favorite game.
The Walking Dead, unfortunately, does not have such luck. It has been dethroned by a new contestant, a game which I am about to finish and will soon move on to review. Which makes its reign, compared to the 6 year reign of terror of Deus Ex, rather short, and I can't help but feel a bit flip-floppy.
Anyway, what does all this have to do with the title? Why are you going on and on about your favorite games and not talking about review scores? Well, it's quite simple. I can already tell that the review score for my new favorite is going to be lower than you'd expect. It's most definitely not a 10/10, and I doubt it'll make it to a 9.
This is because I feel reviews need a degree of objectivity. Now, Jim Sterling, one of the smartest people on the gaming portion of the internet, has a large body of work discussing this, and usually coming up against the "objective review", and for good reason. Look up his objective review of Final Fantasy XIII on Destructoid (or click this handy link), and you'll not only be treated to one of the funniest things on the internet, but to a clever statement of just what the problem with objectivity in reviews is.
That said, one can recognize faults in a game experience without this affecting their enjoyment. Despite this, it is important to mention this, and factor it in the score. Similarly, well-designed mechanics that don't positively affect your gameplay experience are important to mention. I can tell Rome: Total War is a brilliant game. It has an insane amount of depth given out through crisp, to-the-point gameplay. Nonetheless, it bores me to death, and I would rather play the terrible sequel to Deus Ex, Invisible War, which, despite being a terrible game, built on a foundation of completely batshit design decisions and programmed by a gibbon has the flavor of Deus Ex that I craved so much before Human Revolution came out.
Of course, a score will be affected by ones personal preference: Total War bores me to such an extent that I'd likely score the rather mediocre Invisible War above any of the games in that series. It can't be any other way, nor should it be: knowing what reviewers share your tastes and trusting their opinions is the optimal way of making buying decisions, and in a world of completely objective reviews, we couldn't make these decisions properly. All I'm saying is that game reviewers (which, despite reviewing games, I am most definitely not a real one of) should also factor in flaws or merits that, whilst not affecting them personally, could change the enjoyment of other players. The only reason my next review is my favorite game is that it's good in all the ways I care about, and bad in all the ways I don't care about. It may be bad in more ways than other games, but it happens to fall precisely in my own particular blind spot.
Not long ago, I wrote a huge post on my beloved The Walking Dead, by Telltale, in which I declared it to be my favorite game of all time. This was, at the time, true. I still stand by calling The Walking Dead a phenomenal game, and anyone who's interested in what the medium can do beyond just power fantasies should check it out.
Now, prior to playing The Walking Dead my favorite game was Deus Ex. Not Human Revolution, a prequel released in 2011 that somehow managed to both disappoint and pleasantly surprise me to great extent, but the original, released all the way back in 2000. Whilst I may have enjoyed The Walking Dead for its story, I have to admit that, as a game, Deus Ex is simply superior, a masterpiece of complex level design that is still to be surpassed in that particular aspect. Thing is, I first played it all the way back in 2007, and have gone through the ritual of re-playing it start to finish every year since then, and it was a good 6 years before it was dethroned as my favorite game.
The Walking Dead, unfortunately, does not have such luck. It has been dethroned by a new contestant, a game which I am about to finish and will soon move on to review. Which makes its reign, compared to the 6 year reign of terror of Deus Ex, rather short, and I can't help but feel a bit flip-floppy.
Anyway, what does all this have to do with the title? Why are you going on and on about your favorite games and not talking about review scores? Well, it's quite simple. I can already tell that the review score for my new favorite is going to be lower than you'd expect. It's most definitely not a 10/10, and I doubt it'll make it to a 9.
This is because I feel reviews need a degree of objectivity. Now, Jim Sterling, one of the smartest people on the gaming portion of the internet, has a large body of work discussing this, and usually coming up against the "objective review", and for good reason. Look up his objective review of Final Fantasy XIII on Destructoid (or click this handy link), and you'll not only be treated to one of the funniest things on the internet, but to a clever statement of just what the problem with objectivity in reviews is.
That said, one can recognize faults in a game experience without this affecting their enjoyment. Despite this, it is important to mention this, and factor it in the score. Similarly, well-designed mechanics that don't positively affect your gameplay experience are important to mention. I can tell Rome: Total War is a brilliant game. It has an insane amount of depth given out through crisp, to-the-point gameplay. Nonetheless, it bores me to death, and I would rather play the terrible sequel to Deus Ex, Invisible War, which, despite being a terrible game, built on a foundation of completely batshit design decisions and programmed by a gibbon has the flavor of Deus Ex that I craved so much before Human Revolution came out.
Of course, a score will be affected by ones personal preference: Total War bores me to such an extent that I'd likely score the rather mediocre Invisible War above any of the games in that series. It can't be any other way, nor should it be: knowing what reviewers share your tastes and trusting their opinions is the optimal way of making buying decisions, and in a world of completely objective reviews, we couldn't make these decisions properly. All I'm saying is that game reviewers (which, despite reviewing games, I am most definitely not a real one of) should also factor in flaws or merits that, whilst not affecting them personally, could change the enjoyment of other players. The only reason my next review is my favorite game is that it's good in all the ways I care about, and bad in all the ways I don't care about. It may be bad in more ways than other games, but it happens to fall precisely in my own particular blind spot.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario