I’m curious about whether or not (but mainly how) people here review games? I keep a spreadsheet of my collection and rank each game based on some different criteria including:
Game play (Depth and Control)
Replay
Production Value (Style and Polish)
Uniqueness
You’ll notice I’ve omitted the typical sound and graphics categories. Personally, I think style and polish encompass these components and help explain how even older games can still be considered “high quality” by today’s standards.
For me, game play is the most important, and depth doesn’t necessarily equate to complexity. For example, a fighter can be a very “deep” game but not offer the complexity in terms of items, skills, length that a very deep strategy rpg (like Disgaea) might boast. Nevertheless, they would both score high in this category according to my review system.
With replay, there is again more depth to this category than one might assume. Replay (in my opinion) doesn’t necessarily have much to do with game length. I think games like Guardian Heroes, General Chaos, Power Stone, etc. have great replay value, but they’re very short (story-play through) games. According to my system, I sometimes rank even longer RPGs low in the replay category because I can’t foresee any reason to go back to them.
Uniqueness is self-explanatory, and in my opinion, a very important part of a game’s appeal. The tricky part for me when rating games in my collection is when a game’s uniqueness is compromised by future releases that seek to imitate the original in some way. My dilemma: Do I then change the uniqueness rating on the originals or do they get credit for “inventing” a game mechanism or genre?
Perhaps I’m obsessive about this, but I’d love to hear how all of you review/rate your own games. I like to go through my entire collection every once in a while and “re-review” each game, just to remind myself of why I love (or hate) each game.
How do you review games?
-
General Chaos
- 128-bit
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:51 pm
- Location: Toronto
-
Crabmaster2000
- 128-bit
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:45 pm
I havnt written a review myself on a game in years. I just wanted to comment that I really like your style and polish idea to work around the sound and graphics catagories that are so important to lots of people these days. Great Idea!! also I'd love to read one of your reviews if you wanna post it and give objective feedback on it. sounds like you've put a lot of time and effort into your system.
Want to see someone barely eke through a whole pile of NES games? Check out my youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/2000Crabmaster?feature=mhee
250 NES games beaten since October 2011
Co-Host of the Rfgeneration Collectorcast:
http://rfgenerationcollectorcast.podomatic.com/
250 NES games beaten since October 2011
Co-Host of the Rfgeneration Collectorcast:
http://rfgenerationcollectorcast.podomatic.com/
Personally, I look for gameplay, though I believe in two types of games: those to be played quick for a few minutes of fun, and those you really take your time with, and I believe you have to rate them differently.
In your quicker games, things like fighters, racing titles, side-scrolling shooters, etc, I think control is first and foremost. A fighter doesn't have to be deep, most storylines are total garbage, and graphics aren't necessary to make a good game, though I do need to be able to see what is going on. If I think something is too hideous to look at, or I find it too hard to tell what is going on because of poor design, then I won't be able to play a game. I think all the style of a game like this should emphasize its frantic pace, with fast music, quick action, and short levels. This is the kind of game I like to sit down with when I have a spare ten minutes in which to game.
With slower games, things like RPGs, survival horror games, the longer first-person shooters and so forth, I pay much more attention to storyline. If I'm going to be playing something for more than a few hours without beating it, I want it to really draw me in, so I feel the experience was worth the time. Sound doesn't need to be so quick, instead emphasizing specific emotions for specific moments, perhaps varying from horrific to absurdly happy to mournful when necessary. If I don't enjoy the music, a longer game begins to feel tedious. Since I'm spending so long looking at this, I'll usually want the graphics to have a little more appeal to them, though I don't think these should ever be emphasized over game play or storytelling(something the game industry doesn't always seem to understand).
Between the two, replayability is something I desire more from those shorter titles. If a single run through an RPG is 20+ hours, I've gotten my money's worth, compared to a run through a fighter that can be done in less than 10 minutes. Uniqueness is nice, but I realize that after more than thirty years of gaming, it's going to be difficult to create a title truly unlike anything else. Still, I suppose even I get bored of WWII shooters sometimes...
Yeah, that's pretty much how I view reviews now, having had a few years to really ponder them (and having reread some old reviews I've written, which tend to make me cringe). Also, I usually prefer the reviews of friends to mainstream companies like IGN or Gamespot, as they tend to slant towards what is popular getting higher reviews when they don't always deserve them.
In your quicker games, things like fighters, racing titles, side-scrolling shooters, etc, I think control is first and foremost. A fighter doesn't have to be deep, most storylines are total garbage, and graphics aren't necessary to make a good game, though I do need to be able to see what is going on. If I think something is too hideous to look at, or I find it too hard to tell what is going on because of poor design, then I won't be able to play a game. I think all the style of a game like this should emphasize its frantic pace, with fast music, quick action, and short levels. This is the kind of game I like to sit down with when I have a spare ten minutes in which to game.
With slower games, things like RPGs, survival horror games, the longer first-person shooters and so forth, I pay much more attention to storyline. If I'm going to be playing something for more than a few hours without beating it, I want it to really draw me in, so I feel the experience was worth the time. Sound doesn't need to be so quick, instead emphasizing specific emotions for specific moments, perhaps varying from horrific to absurdly happy to mournful when necessary. If I don't enjoy the music, a longer game begins to feel tedious. Since I'm spending so long looking at this, I'll usually want the graphics to have a little more appeal to them, though I don't think these should ever be emphasized over game play or storytelling(something the game industry doesn't always seem to understand).
Between the two, replayability is something I desire more from those shorter titles. If a single run through an RPG is 20+ hours, I've gotten my money's worth, compared to a run through a fighter that can be done in less than 10 minutes. Uniqueness is nice, but I realize that after more than thirty years of gaming, it's going to be difficult to create a title truly unlike anything else. Still, I suppose even I get bored of WWII shooters sometimes...
Yeah, that's pretty much how I view reviews now, having had a few years to really ponder them (and having reread some old reviews I've written, which tend to make me cringe). Also, I usually prefer the reviews of friends to mainstream companies like IGN or Gamespot, as they tend to slant towards what is popular getting higher reviews when they don't always deserve them.