|
The Gamer's Quarter A quarterly publication
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Cycle Mac daddy
Joined: 08 Sep 2006 Posts: 2767
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I liked the idea of a four star system and our editor came up with another idea similar to that, but ultimately our readers wouldn't want it. They desperately need to know which game is better than the other. We're 1-10 right now and lots of people want us to go back to the 100% system because I WANT TO KNOW WHICH 7 RATED GAME IS A HIGHER 7!!! SIGH. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 6279
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If your readers really want to go back to the 100% system use a letter grade scale and explain to them how to break it down:
F = 50% or lower
D- = 50-53%
D = 54-57%
D+ = 58-59%
etc....
Really though... _________________ “The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cycle Mac daddy
Joined: 08 Sep 2006 Posts: 2767
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah we went through that idea too, but then we'd have people saying I WANT TO KNOW WHICH D IS THE SLIGHTLY HIGHER D!!! Really, we can't win. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Winged Assassins (1984) .
Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Posts: 996 Location: Super Magic Drive
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cycle wrote: | Yeah, I liked the idea of a four star system and our editor came up with another idea similar to that, but ultimately all our readers except for Winged Assassins wouldn't want it. |
_________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjsimpso .
Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 94 Location: USA
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dessgeega wrote: | 7.9
and that's final |
Actually...
L: 7 (It's good but not SPECTACULAR)
N: 6 (for style and parody)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjsimpso .
Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 94 Location: USA
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the scale I was thinking about using:
3d6. Yep, 3d6 as in D&D. Scores are distributed on a nice bell curve, so 9-12 are average scores(roughly within one standard deviation of the mean). Anyone who's played D&D understands this intuitively. An 18 or a 3 would be incredibly rare, 1 out of 216 random observations.
Ideally you'd represent this score with graphics of 3 dice. This conveys another subtle level of information to the reader through the combination of dice you choose to reflect your score. There is clearly a difference between a score of 4-4-5 and 6-6-1 even though the final score is the same. You could use this to indicate if there was a certain element which really let the game down. A 6-6-1 might even be intriguing enough to convince someone to read the review!
Alternatively, if you want to avoid the problem of defining the limits of achievement the moment you hand out your first 10, use something like the Ricther scale which doesn't have a max. So an 11 is 10x better than 10, and 100x better than 9 and so on. Obviously you'll have to rely on decimal points though. The first 8 you hand out would be a milestone achievement though in that it would be 1000x better than the average game(if 5 was average)! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dessgeega loves your favorite videogame
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 6563 Location: bohan
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wait, so are you rolling dice to get review scores?
because that's actually brilliant. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjsimpso .
Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 94 Location: USA
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dessgeega wrote: | wait, so are you rolling dice to get review scores?
because that's actually brilliant. |
Actually...no. But that would make an excellent statement!
I'll leave the dice-rolling video game reviews to someone a little more avant-garde than I |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjsimpso .
Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 94 Location: USA
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh shit! My avatar just made me think of something.
Mahjong hands!!!!
18 Unique Wonders for the mother fucking win! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Access .
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 Posts: 27 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Metrics on journalism / criticism is ridiculous.
Its like a war correspondant putting a score on a battle, its just pointless and insensitive.
A reviewers role is an extension of marketting, they tell consumers independantly whether you should buy a product or not.
A critic tends to be more about talking with people who may or may not have played the game about the medium in general.
If you *must* have a score on it, make it as vague as possible. Roger Ebert, who dabbles in criticism in most of his reviews has a 4 star system. The larger the score, the more precise it has to be and the more stupid it is(whats the difference between a 65 and 66???).
Even if video games are out of 100, they are really out of 50 because for some reason (maybe a sociologist can help me out) our industry treats anything less than 50 as a negative score. We might want to see a 3 (of 5) star film, but we wouldn't want to play a 60% or a 6.0 game. But they are the same. 50 - 60% is like the lowest score for video games, anything less than that isn't just bad, its *loathed*. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
dessgeega loves your favorite videogame
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 6563 Location: bohan
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Access wrote: | Its like a war correspondant putting a score on a battle, its just pointless and insensitive. |
i like this. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
helicopterp .
Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 1435 Location: Philadelphia
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i don't.
and I think the problem with numbers is the way people look at numbers, giving arbitrary demarcations a silly, unquestioned authority. the problem lies in a readership's perception of the number as fact, and that is a responsibility which a reviewer ought to take into consideration. especially when it's in print form or from a well-presented source. however, the mere act of assigning a number is, often times, a useful way to condense words, visualize them, or contradict them when they're especially useless.
count me in the camp agreeing that the text of a review should be able to convey an opinion scorelessly, but that asks a lot of an audience. the inclusion of numbers is a more democratic way to present the score, which I'm for. why deliberately exclude a group of people (readophobes) when you can easily include them somewhat. who knows, the numbers could rope some "readers" into actually reading a good review. i realize this doesn't do much against the aura of authority numbers can carry in the eyes of some.
as far as metrics are concerned, i would love to see them. but not just masquerading opinions--real objective statistics. (well, in so far as any statistic can be objective. there is always the issue of which statistics to include/what factors into each.) For instance, how many jumps in a racing game/number of different context sensitive moves/average life-span of the reviewer in a multiplayer shooter. Then you could take these simple ones and dissect them into each other, sabermetrics style. Bill James has pushed baseball stat-tracking in a number of incredibly interesting directions (go to Baseball Prospectus and just look at the titles of the articles if you aren't familiar). Games criticism, too, could benefit from a real study of in-game statistics. _________________ Like you thought you'd seen copter perverts before. They were nothing compared to this one. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
helicopterp .
Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 1435 Location: Philadelphia
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i.e. use numbers from a game to tell a different kind of story in a review _________________ Like you thought you'd seen copter perverts before. They were nothing compared to this one. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cycle Mac daddy
Joined: 08 Sep 2006 Posts: 2767
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree numbers have their place, which is why we didn't consider the absolute removal of them for very long.
On a personal note, there is nothing more frustrating than seeing a post on the official forums along the lines of WHY DID THIS GAME GET ONLY A 5 THAT'S BULLSHIT and I just want to say RTFR, but instead I just repeat what I already wrote and they calm down. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjsimpso .
Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 94 Location: USA
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
helicopterp wrote: | and I think the problem with numbers is the way people look at numbers, giving arbitrary demarcations a silly, unquestioned authority. the problem lies in a readership's perception of the number as fact, and that is a responsibility which a reviewer ought to take into consideration. especially when it's in print form or from a well-presented source. |
For those that haven't read my blog, this is one of the points I bring up. Assigning concrete scores is not something to take lightly because of the perceived authority / aura of objectivity and finality. My hope was to address this by creating a scoring system which is more informative and which requires a modicum of thought from the reader in order to parse. Judging from people's comments, I'm not sure I'm on the right track though. At least, there doesn't seem to be much interest in my particular approach. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
extrabastardformula .
Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 295
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
kirkjerk wrote: | Sorry for the pile of posts.
Reading http://www.medwaypvb.com/yakstuff/graphics/zzap2columnpg1.jpg - Minter talks about one point still very relevant for reviewing today -- in a time where games just couldn't be about volume of content, he puts it in terms of "Defender Syndrome", where a difficult to learn/control/master game might get an unfair review, because the reviewer won't put in enough hours to really grok it. Today when we have games running into the dozens and dozens of hours, how do reviewers do it? Just play what they can and judge on that? And isn't there the risk of becoming generally so proficient that it skews your viewpoint? | Man, I just really can't get Minter's mindset. It just reminds me of getting told that I had to put in some number of hours before I could say I didn't like a Zelda title or I wasn't being fair to it. But all the while I was thinking I could spend those six or ten hours playing something I actually like.
Also his statement of reviewers of the arcade titles being less open minded and willing to put forth required effort just seems even more backwards. With every quarter you make a decision what to play in the arcade. If one quarter into some llama game isn't enough to make me want more than fuck it. I'm going to play some more Joust. _________________ Signature:
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit
HTML is ON
BBCode is ON
Smilies are ON |
|
Back to top |
|
|
purplechair .
Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 378 Location: in my pants
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
jjsimpso wrote: | helicopterp wrote: | and I think the problem with numbers is the way people look at numbers, giving arbitrary demarcations a silly, unquestioned authority. the problem lies in a readership's perception of the number as fact, and that is a responsibility which a reviewer ought to take into consideration. especially when it's in print form or from a well-presented source. |
For those that haven't read my blog, this is one of the points I bring up. Assigning concrete scores is not something to take lightly because of the perceived authority / aura of objectivity and finality. My hope was to address this by creating a scoring system which is more informative and which requires a modicum of thought from the reader in order to parse. Judging from people's comments, I'm not sure I'm on the right track though. At least, there doesn't seem to be much interest in my particular approach. |
I think part of the problem is that this is the opposite of what the average reader would want.
Also, since we're talking about granny-face Ebert, I read something he said about his review scores being all relative. Like, he rates films based on how they compare to similar films... so if you're going out to rent a DVD, and you can't decide between Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 2, then you can (in theory) just compare their star ratings for some quick advice? But if you can't decide between Spider-Man 2 and March of the Penguins, then the ratings may be less useful to you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SuperWes Updated the banners, but not his title
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 3725
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was reading Official Xbox magazine last month and they had something incredibly offensive in their letters section. Somebody had written in and asked about review scores and their response was something along the lines of "review scores are relative to the time of release. Sometimes a game comes out and we give it a 10, like we did with Fight Night: Round 3. That doesn't mean it's still a 10 today, but at the time it was so much more advanced than anything we'd ever seen that we felt it deserved it. Now we might give the same game a 7 or an 8."
Now, I totally understand that this would happen. Sometimes you're blown away by a game at first, but when you look back at it you didn't really walk away learning as much as you'd have liked to. This is fine because, hey, shit happens, but it should be the exception rather than the rule. It should be an accident that you try not to do again, not a structure an entire review system is built around.
BTW, Official Xbox magazine is shit. I only get it for the demo disc and now that I have the internet and Xbox Live I'm not even sure why I have a subscription anymore.
-Wes _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shaper 4.0:
And then 1 and 4 seem extreme enough (though they are each entirely reasonable) that you are inclined to read the review to understand the justification. And often those are the fun ones, as he really has something to say and is able to let loose -- whereas the 2s and the 3s involve a lot more head-scratching.
It's a good, bold, unambiguous rough sketch -- that's simultaneously so lacking in nuance that it requires the context of the review itself to know what the hell it means.
EDIT: WHOA, there's a second page here.
What I like about Ebert's relativism is that -- well, say you really liked some dumb action movie that was such an excellent example of a dumb action movie that he gave it four stars -- and you thought his review was right on-target, so you went to see another movie that he rated four stars. Completely different kind of movie. March of the Penguins, or some foreign drama. If you've got a bit of imagination in you, maybe your world will be rocked a little. It goes the other way, too -- being able to appreciate really excellent trash, and breaking out of the snob tower. It's a step toward being able to appreciate things on their own terms, rather than measuring them up against some kind of imaginary ideal or just plugging them in to fill some random fun hole in your life.
I mean. I don't know how often it really works, but I'd like to think I've grown a better appreciation for many things not even film-related through Ebert's reviewing style.
Even if I am still a bit of a snob. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kirkjerk .
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1227
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Access wrote: | The larger the score, the more precise it has to be and the more stupid it is(whats the difference between a 65 and 66???). |
i know this!
it's "1", right?
right?!? _________________ =/ \(<D)_/
==/\/ >_ kirkjerk.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kirkjerk .
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1227
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
SuperWes wrote: | I was reading Official Xbox magazine last month and they had something incredibly offensive in their letters section. Somebody had written in and asked about review scores and their response was something along the lines of "review scores are relative to the time of release. Sometimes a game comes out and we give it a 10, like we did with Fight Night: Round 3. That doesn't mean it's still a 10 today, but at the time it was so much more advanced than anything we'd ever seen that we felt it deserved it. Now we might give the same game a 7 or an 8."
Now, I totally understand that this would happen. Sometimes you're blown away by a game at first, but when you look back at it you didn't really walk away learning as much as you'd have liked to. This is fine because, hey, shit happens, but it should be the exception rather than the rule. It should be an accident that you try not to do again, not a structure an entire review system is built around. |
Then I suppose that one Game Informers feature where they bring out 3 older titles, showing the score now and the score they gave then (if available) must really drive you nuts, eh?
I think your implication that "a game is a game is a game" is noble but misfounded, a concept that reviewers should judge games by where they rank on a "timeless classics" scale.
Console strength jumps each generation, and as a console matures programmers learn more about how to leverage its strengths. Certain genres of games benefit mightily from increases in technology... they can render more detailed worlds, with more stuff going on, and realize qualitative increases in interaction.
It's a little sketchier if you're basing the deflation more on what you then see other games in the same genre do w/o increases in technology, but still.
I have an optimistic view of the trajectory of gaming; despite my affection for the retro past, I think games are doing things they couldn't previously, while incorporating the glories of the past as kind of a subset, either in the form of casual games, embedded minigames, or downloadable or repackaged retro releases. So from this point of view, many games would get crammed in a narrower and narrower range of 9/10 as that power increased... _________________ =/ \(<D)_/
==/\/ >_ kirkjerk.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SuperWes Updated the banners, but not his title
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 3725
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
kirkjerk wrote: | Then I suppose that one Game Informers feature where they bring out 3 older titles, showing the score now and the score they gave then (if available) must really drive you nuts, eh?
I think your implication that "a game is a game is a game" is noble but misfounded, a concept that reviewers should judge games by where they rank on a "timeless classics" scale.
Console strength jumps each generation, and as a console matures programmers learn more about how to leverage its strengths. Certain genres of games benefit mightily from increases in technology... they can render more detailed worlds, with more stuff going on, and realize qualitative increases in interaction.
It's a little sketchier if you're basing the deflation more on what you then see other games in the same genre do w/o increases in technology, but still.
I have an optimistic view of the trajectory of gaming; despite my affection for the retro past, I think games are doing things they couldn't previously, while incorporating the glories of the past as kind of a subset, either in the form of casual games, embedded minigames, or downloadable or repackaged retro releases. So from this point of view, many games would get crammed in a narrower and narrower range of 9/10 as that power increased... |
Technology very rarely dictates a game's quality though. Yes, it means that developers are capable of more, but often that "more" comes down to the same shit games as the shit games from 5 years ago but with prettier wrapping. Overall though, I'd say games have improved with each generation.
Regardless, my problem isn't that they do rate games like this, it's that they don't strive for something better. To put this in context, take a look at the Game Informer re-review thingys. When they rate something similar now to how they did in the past the connotation is "hey! Looks like we got it right!" There's kind of a fine line there, but the ultimate goal should be timeless reviews and to actively strive for anything less seems odd to me.
-Wes _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
D-A-I-S .
Joined: 26 Nov 2006 Posts: 123
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
purplechair wrote: | - Final Fantasy 8 is like being in a coma. |
What? Final Fantasy 8 is being tricked into going on a road trip with friends you don't want to spend that much time with, only to find that what you experience on the trip is arguably worth being tricked and it might be you who ultimately ruins the experience with your hangups.
I've run through multiple views of how reviews should be done, but I tend not to think too much on the subject. I like numbers (going up, sometimes going down).
For a while I thought of a magazine in which "important" games got two reviews, with one preferably being positive and the other being critical. For some reason the only game I thought about in this context was Gunstar Super Heroes, which isn't terribly important all things considered.
Later I fantasized a site with "too much information reviews", where instead of trying to be concise and fit things into X paragraphs, the reviewer would be encouraged to spill out every thought they had about the game. Each review would actually feature six r so Firefox-like "tabs", which would take you to different parts of a review.
The first tab would be sort of a press release mating with an attempt at an objective preview, birthing out something closer to how you would describe the game to a friend who has shown interest in the game ("It's called A, developed by B and published by C, It has X and Y, it's trying to do Z"). Then would come a review that somewhat resembles a conventional review, with an outline of the good, bad, ugly and ultimate opinion.
The next two tabs would be extensive lists of positives and negatives, divided into categories like wonderful little touches/minor nuisances or gamemaking/gamebreaking design choices. The fifth tab would be a letter to the developers with a more personal communication of the praise they deserve and criticism of the mistakes they made, and this letter would ideally be sent to the developers if some form of contact is found, even if it's just bugging the PR contact for the publisher until we they blacklist us.
I can't remember whether these were final details (like the above were), but another tab would hold some form of moderated miniforum on the review and game - general or specific commentary on the game or review, communication with the reviewer when they are available to talk, and perhaps even a "help with" topic or two while the forum is still active (when it's inactive, further topics would be judged based on their merit and sent to more general boards if not found wanting. It'd never be GameFAQs with fanfics and secret boards and shit like that).
Oh, and I think I may be forgetting a tab or two here, but there'd hopefully be at least three more kinds: an "after the honeymoon/returning to the scene of the crime" for games where reviewers come back to a game after a few weeks or months and reflect on their current feelings about it versus their initial reactions; secondary reviews which other reviewers could add as supporting or criticizing the original review (and possibly even involving into a debate tab if both are interested); and in what would hopefully be rare cases, "I was wrong" tabs in which a reviewer addresses mistakes or errors in judgment they made and describing how they have adjusted the review in light of them.
Can't remember if they were scores, but if there were, they'd just be to get people's attention, like any good score...
Too much information.
.....
..
Most recently, I fantasized that I would grab a gamefly account (for legitimacy) and "review" every DS game they could send me, blogging my experience on each game until I came to a point where I had "seen enough" (finished the game or gotten irreversibly sick of it), at which point I would summarize my experience with both objective and subjective terms. Ideally I'd do this from the point of a would-be video game scholar, but I probably would've just come across as some blogging schmuck. (there's dozens of DS blogs out there that have done the same thing, I don't exactly have much new to bring to the table except minor fetishes for trivia and gaming legacies)
I have a lot of fantasies, really. It's a shame some of them are about video game reviews. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjsimpso .
Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 94 Location: USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Swimmy .
Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 990 Location: Fairfax, VA
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.insertcredit.com/features/journalism/index5.html
I never thought there was much more to say than that. Games deserve all kinds of criticism, scores are fine in their own context, more varieties of competition would be much better, more competition won't come until there's more public interest.
Until then, I support people doing their own thing and trying to make that public interest happen or to individually fix what they think is wrong with game criticism. Like TGQ! And blogs! _________________
"Ayn Rand fans are the old school version of Xenogears fanboys."
-seryogin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
daphaknee just enemies now
Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 892 Location: YAY AREA
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i really liked the gamepro picture reviews of the guys face and when it got a five he would be SCREAMING becuase thats how i felt about the graphics/sound too, but yeah i think the gameplay was more just a big smile
does gamepro still use that system? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think, a less straightforward variant on it. And yeah, I really like that system too. It was basically a 1-5 rating, which is fine. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
daphaknee just enemies now
Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 892 Location: YAY AREA
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yeah sleeping to screaming is probably the best scale that anyone could ever use, it should be adopted everywhere!
man i cant even find pictures of it
i wonder if i have some old gamepros around here somewhere.. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm imagining a variant with Tim Rogers' face. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
dessgeega loves your favorite videogame
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 6563 Location: bohan
|
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lestrade looks kind of like the spikey screaming face. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
purplechair .
Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 378 Location: in my pants
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello hello. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjsimpso .
Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 94 Location: USA
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So that is why I had a sudden surge of comments! Thank heavens for comment moderation is all i can say. Jeez!
I'll take it as a compliment that Tycho made fun of my idea. Well, maybe not, but it certainly doesn't bother me! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Harveyjames the meteor kid
Joined: 06 Jul 2006 Posts: 3636
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Man this forum has really gone uphill now I don't have the internet D: D: D:
First one to suggest the two events are related gets a SOCK IN THE KISSER |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjsimpso .
Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 94 Location: USA
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've put up my first review using my L/N method.
http://taipeigamer.blogspot.com/2008/07/ln-review-bioshock.html
It is a review of Bioshock, of course. L11,N18 if you are curious.
If that makes you eyes glaze over, you can ignore it and just read the text(which I've included below). Still might want to click the link to see my fancy dice graphics.
Quote: | "In real life, there is no such thing as a gradual descent from civilization to savagery. There is a crash -- and no recovery, only the long, drawn-out agony of chaos, helplessness and random death, on a mass scale."
-- "The Anti-Industrial Revolution", Ayn Rand
Bioshock is a video game about such a collapse, and for those familiar with the game, the irony of beginning my review with such a quote from Ayn Rand will surely not be lost. For Bioshock is about the collapse of a pseudo-Objectivist utopia called Rapture, established on the bottom of the sea by one Andrew Ryan(notice the similitude). The player is thrust headlong into the chaos -- for the crash is already well under way at the start of the game -- when his plane plunges into the sea near Rapture's aquatic entrance.
The opening segment of Bioshock does a fantastic job of introducing Rapture and it's ego maniacal founder. As the player is taken down into the city in a submersible, a loudspeaker drones:
I'm Andrew Ryan and I'm here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?
No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone.
I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I
chose the impossible. I chose ... Rapture.
And indeed, Rapture is something magnificent. It is perhaps the best realized setting in video game history. The attention to detail lavished upon every aspect of the place is unparalleled, from the characters, to the music, to the numerous pieces of pop art and advertisements, to the general depiction of tragedy. Even better is the way that Rapture is presented to the player for the player to explore, but only if he so chooses. In Bioshock, the setting is the narrative, and it is up to the player to immerse himself in it. Yes, objectives are conveyed to the player through radio conversations, but hardly anything else is pushed at the player. The majority of what the player learns about Rapture will be through discovered voice diaries and the player's own keen eye for details.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Rapture is who lives there. Or perhaps more insightful is who doesn't live there. Rapture was created as a place where the greatest of mankind could strive without the artificial limits imposed by government and religion. But who does the player find there besides thugs, a stripper, some engineers necessary for Rapture's infrastructure, and a few brilliant but unstable scientists and artists? There were certainly some talented individuals that came to rapture -- most of which the player has to kill -- but a place like Rapture is destined to attract only the most ambitious or the naive. Many commenters have described Bioshock as a critique of Objectivism, but really it is a critique of all utopias and the human vices which cause them to fail.
Unfortunately, the narrative has very little impact on the actual gameplay. Unlike in Bioshock's spiritual ancestor System Shock, the player doesn't actually need to understand exactly what happened in Rapture. Nothing that the player learns can significantly impact his chances of success. Perhaps there are some clues to the locations of hidden stashes of useful items, but nothing significant stands out. This seems to be an intentional design goal, given the developer's stated ambition of creating a straightforward first person shooter that anyone can complete. It is clear that they didn't want anyone to ever get lost or become stuck in a certain area, and requiring players to pay attention to environmental clues just wouldn't be compatible with that goal. By default, there is even a smart little on-screen arrow which guides the player to each sequential objective. The decision to make the game completable by as wide an audience as possible was one that had consequences for almost every aspect of the game's design.
Bioshock also aims to be a game about morality. Bioshock's narrative themes deliver on this promise with its tales of human fallibility and the dangers of ideological extremism. Bioshock, however, doesn't really deliver on its key moral decision as hyped by numerous pre-release interviews. This decision, for those who weren't already aware, amounts to whether the player should harvest, and thus kill, or rescue the genetically engineered Little Sisters. It is here that the design goal of creating an easy to finish game conflicts with a narrative goal. Essentially, the developers needed to liberate the moral decision from gameplay consequences so that choosing the harder road of doing the right thing didn't actually make the game harder. The moral choice would carry so much more weight if the player were legitimately tempted by the prospect of the power to be gained from harvesting the Little Sisters. In fact, the hint of an unspecified reward for rescuing them pushes the curious player in the opposite direction.
Although lacking in puzzle solving and exploration, Bioshock is a well-executed shooter in terms of its basic mechanics. The weapons feel weighty and the action is suitably kinetic. The player also has quite a few options, including special powers called plasmids, a variety of weapons and ammo, passive status boosts in the form of gene tonics, a camera to "research" opponents with, and the ability to hack mechanical devices like security cameras, gun turrets, etc. Bioshock is not a game, however, which really requires the player to use more than a few techniques. Each weapon may be upgraded separately in such a way that they are all viable. With regard to plasmids, most major encounter areas are home to pools of water and conspicuous oil slicks so that players favoring either electricity or fire attacks are both accommodated. There are even ammo types which can serve as a substitute for plasmids if the player prefers gun play. So the player is free to use whatever methods he likes, but at the expense of ever feeling clever more than once or twice for making use of the obvious environmental aids.
The photography and hacking subgames are fraught with their own, more serious problems. In the case of photography, it just doesn't make any sense and doesn't lend itself to deductive reasoning. All players would probably like to easily bypass those security cameras, which can be done by taking enough pictures of them, but under what logic would it make sense for the player to even try this? The player is only told that researching enemies by taking their picture will increase the amount of damage done to them, which makes little enough sense as it is. The hacking minigame is even worse because it is harder to ignore, not very challenging, and incredibly tedious after the thirtieth or fortieth time.
The greatest flaw in Bioshock's gameplay, however, is the vita chambers, respawn points where the player instantly regenerates after dying. The player can immediately jump back into the action without having to reload a saved game. The consequences of failure are thus dramatically reduced, making ammunition the most important resource to conserve instead of the player's own life and limbs. Once the player realizes that firing a grenade and missing is a fate worse than death, kamikaze tactics ensue. The vita chambers also seriously inhibit the negative reinforcement necessary to push the player to improve his skill with the game. Will the player learn from mistakes that lead to his death? Will he explore the wealth of options available to him if it isn't necessary to achieve success?
Bioshock's lack of consequences for death also diminish the game's climactic battles with the Big Daddies. The leviathans take so much effort -- and ammunition -- to bring down that it is here that the player is really likely to use those kamikaze tactics. What should be a thrilling battle becomes a tedious war of attrition. One must wonder if the incredible resilience of the Big Daddies is a direct result of attempting to create an epic battle in an environment where death is no obstacle.
Bioshock is a wonderfully immersive experience. Everyone with an interest in games needs to experience Rapture, just to see what the medium is capable of in terms of writing, setting, and narrative. Unfortunately, after playing the game for 10+ hours, the player's experience will likely be marred by the developer's desire to ensure that everyone will finish the game. The end result is that one impediment to completion, difficulty, is merely replaced by another... boredom. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|