Already in the loop? Log in

Or, you probably want to create an account

Pay to Waste

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Posted in Pixelosophy by Aaron Leach

When reviewing a game, the reviewer has to consider the possible benefits and detriments to the audience. This can factor heavily into how high of a score or what type of recommendation a game will receive. Video games hold the distinction of having the highest risk factor of any other entertainment medium when looking at two specific factors that are extremely valuable to people. Those factors are time and money. Those are two things that almost no gamer can afford to waste, and nothing wastes both like a bad game. I assert that this makes a game reviewer’s job even more important to the people they serve and is a good reason to call for stricter standards (much like Alex said in his article) and even harsher reviews when it comes to video games.

Games really do have a lot riding on them when it comes to our precious time and money. Think about the last time you saw a crappy movie. How pissed were you really? You were probably disappointed and maybe a little irritated, but I’m sure it wasn’t anything you didn’t forget about by the time you dropped your date off after having your overly grope-y advances repeatedly denied. Oh sure, like that only happens to me. Basically, you were out $10 (Maybe if you had at least paid for her ticket too, the date would have ended differently.) and 90ish minutes. Ten bucks? Not a big deal. That’s just one less trip to McDonald’s that week. Ninety minutes gone? You probably waste at least two hours every couple days doing who knows what without you even realizing it regardless of seeing a bad movie. You see my point.

Games are not so lucky. Think of the last time you got burnt by a game that sucked. How pissed were you to have just lost sixty of your hard-earned dollars? I bet you were at least six times as pissed as you were about the movie. Seriously though, a full-priced game is nothing to scoff at, and it stings the wallet even more when a game doesn’t live up to what a review lead you to believe. Let’s not even get started on the astronomically priced special editions. You get a bad one of those, and suddenly you could be out over a hundred bucks. Ouch indeed.

Let’s say that even though you fired up your new game and realized it was E.T. all over again, you still decided to carry on. That brings us to time. If you keep playing that game, it could be anywhere from five to fifty hours that you’re going to sink into a game you are only playing because you feel the need to get something out of your purchase. That’s a lot of time lost, kids. Even on the brief side, five hours can feel like hundreds if the game is just a chore to complete. It’s like sex with an ugly hooker. Sure, she’s hideous and getting to the finish may not be the most fun you’ve ever had, but it’s still sex. And you still paid for it.

For these reasons, reviews need to start getting a whole lot better across the board. Reviewers need to stop romanticizing the personal experiences they had during the game and start thinking about the wide variety of people who will be deciding whether or not to purchase said game and whether or not they will like it. Telling a reader, in lengthy prose, about one session of Modern Warfare 2’s multiplayer and how awesome it was when you got the most checkpoints in Domination does not make for a very informative review. I’m sure that experience was awesome, but that’s not necessarily the experience the rest of us will have, so stop wasting my time with it. Instead, let me know about every little good and bad thing about the game from an objective standpoint. The review should aid the reader in making that decision to part with a hefty chunk of cash and spend that time. I’m not saying there needs to be some new money and time ratings system because it would be just as subjective and arbitrary to say a game is worth $40/$60 as it is 7/10. Money and time hold different value to everyone, so that type of a scoring system is out.

The answer is simple. Reviewers, start giving us thorough, objective reviews. Readers, start reading the entire review rather than looking at just a number or grade. These two simple steps would not only provide some relief for reviewers but for gamers’ wallets as well.

Related Posts

  • Jamie

    There’s definetely something to be said for the high risk purchase of games and the same applied to the developers; games are starting to cost and take longer and longer,with a significant jump this generation, so developers need a profession accurate reviews of their producer.

    Of course, there are options like renting or demos for good reason, and removing a score will prevent a consumer scrolling to the number will invest them in reading the review and its message. I think removing the scoreactually gives the reviewer more leeway to write a more personalised review since they aren’t trying to give you a formal score anymore, and it really is more their message to you.

  • Dave

    First, I agree that reviewers should be held to higher standards when it comes to writing reviews. Game journalism has evolved a lot, but it is still primarily fans of games writing up reviews and journalism tends to take a back seat. We see that changing slowly, but a lot of the sites that are more journalistic are still heavily influenced by the big industry leaders *cough IGN cough*.

    Second,I still stand by the idea that a dollar based rating system can work. Yes, it is still subjective, but it is impossible to review anything without being subjective. I think the shortcomings of it can be overcome by shifting some responsibility to the reader. The reader must take it upon himself to find a reviewer that they trust and read through the reasoning behind the review with a critical mind. Numbers become a lot less arbitrary when they come from someone whose opinion you value.