To comment on this article as a guest or registered member, please visit the forums.
By Michael Lowell
Most recently amended on October 26, 2010; originally published August 24, 2010
About These Reviews
I review games here. They come with ratings. Let’s talk about reviews and the ratings attached to them.
In the quest to hold hands and tolerate “playable but sloppy”, Mainstream Video Game Journlolism™ believes a seven-out-of-ten review score constitutes an “average video game”. After all, you can’t be mean to the guys who pay for advertising. Well, you can call their game crap as long as you give it a “good score”. In America, seven-out-of-ten is supposed to be a C-minus. For whatever reason, we also decided to rate games on tenths of a point. Most outlets haven’t figured out a 9.9 is no different than a 9.8., nor is an 83 any different from an 82. It’s really fucking stupid. Allow me to explain the purpose of these reviews and establish the criteria that I will use on this web site.
- “Why write game reviews? I prefer your commentary on the video game business.”
I would agree with you. Social and business commentary is my meal ticket. Game reviews don’t have quite the same legs unless you’re slandering Assassin’s Creed II* or giving Metroid Prime 3: Corruption a “mere” 8.5-out-of-10.* (Then again, Kevin VanOrd claimed that the control scheme made Corruption too easy, which would be like complaining that the mouse and keyboard make shooting people in the head too easy.) Internet rage is straight cash, homey. That is, if you’re writing the review when the game is still relevant. In the case of most modern video games, that cycle lasts about three to five days. By then, people have already moved on to the next game.
So, why write the damn things if I’m not using them as a traffic magnet? It’s simple: Writing video game reviews is fucking hard. In the long run, the hard writing makes the easy writing easier and makes the web site more enjoyable to read. Game reviews have to be informative. However, you can’t be too informative. You don’t want the review to read like an instruction manual. You have instruction manuals to read like instruction manuals. You have to be consistent, and that’s particularly difficult. In exposing yourself to new games, you’ll come to different conclusions on older games. At which point, you have to explain why you loved Final Fantasy VII when it was released back in 1997 but claim in your latest review that JRPGs are the slop smeared upon the underbelly of the medium. And, of course, you have to be entertaining. Unfortunately, some subjects are more entertaining to discuss than others, and nobody has ever sold out a stadium by promising to explain how video game computer code works. There are a thousand subjects with more comedy and entertainment value than double-jumping or bunny-hopping. Also, the complete apathy for video game reviews generated by the mainstream video game outlets (Kotaku, IGN, GameSpot) hasn’t done any favors for anybody who actually knows what they’re talking about. Most people skip to the score and move on with their lives. In other words, reviewing video games is a bit like women’s professional wrestling. On the off-chance that the girls put on a product that is genuinely entertaining for reasons other than “tits and ass”, half of the audience is getting drinks or taking a piss. The girls already lost, and most people are already scrolling through that “wall of text” to see what score I gave the game.
Thanks to the state of video game criticism, winning over an audience with video game reviews is one of the hardest things a gamer will ever do. I’m up for that challenge. Even if my web traffic suggests that I’m writing reviews for my own amusement, I’ll continue to do it.
- This web site uses a scoring scale from zero stars to “six stars”, a rating that will be represented by five gold stars.
“Gears of War is a 9.6 game for sure, I dunno what Gears you’ve been playing….”
- Discussion thread on nV News, one of many outlets for the outrage concerning the infamous 8.8-out-of-10 review score given to the Nintendo Wii version of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess…outrage directed at a game that hadn’t been released.*
The rating scale on this web site originally graded games from one-star to five-stars. I quickly came to the conclusion that this didn’t separate a wonderful game like Uncharted 2: Among Thieves from a medium-defining experience like Deus Ex. I also hated Bullet Witch with that much fire and passion. So, here we are. This scale is designed to reflect a medium where “average” isn’t really worth your time. I’ve never understood why moviegoers limit themselves to what’s currently in the theatres and I can say the same thing about video games. There are too many good video games to be found in too many great genres across too much hardware and too much history. For that reason, the scale is designed to measure and embrace the games that we will still be talking about half-a-century from now. If that makes me a snobbish connoisseur of the video game industry, then I’ll accept that role. Here’s the scale:
Zero Stars 
Zero-star video games are the bottom of the barrel. You know that magical area in the ten-point review scale from zero-to-five? It’s an area that measures a vast and worthless range of computer code. A zero-star rating is an all-purpose rating for measuring total ineptitude. Since its early days as a commercial business, the video game industry has been flooded with games that fit this description. With the advent of digital distribution and the rise of “anybody can make a commercial video game”, the number of awful games available to the public has consequently exploded. Despite this explosion of video games that are never worth your time, you should expect very few reviews on this web site to use a zero-star score. This site is designed to examine consequential and important video games. Consequently, very few important video games have earned that distinction. The zero-star score will most often be used to smear high-profile games that fell flat on their faces. The goal is to expose these games so that we don’t get fooled by them again.
One Star 
One-star video games have serious problems. These games are not unplayable. However, they tend to have severe flaws that either inhibit the ability to play the game at a competitive level, suck the entertainment straight out of a game, or don’t have the complexity required to satisfy any skilled or experienced gamers. Or, as this rating tier will soon be known as, “The rating that Michael Lowell gives to ninety-five-percent of ‘indie games’.” (I expect to receive significant rage for that last statement.)
Two Stars 
Two-star video games appeal to their target audience and nothing more. This score is a cut-off for those who are interested in the genre. Anything below this score is usually a warning to stay away. Very often, two-star video games can have the same razor-tight controls and interesting combat systems used by four- and even five-star games. And very often, these games suffer from a crippling lack of difficulty that never tests those strengths. With several tiers of more interesting and entertaining video games to be found, no two-star games should be in your absolute-must-play list. At least not until you’ve explored the highest points of the genre or the medium.
Three Stars 
The rating tier for three-star video games is a domain of promising introductions. They’re also reserved for high-profile let-downs, and these let-downs may lead to the savage reviews normally reserved for one- and two-star games. This is often the cut-off for games that spearhead franchises and sell millions of copies in the process. Most casual fans will keep an eye on the series and see what direction it continues in. Fans of the game will probably pick this one up anyway.
Four Stars 
In a slow twelve months, four-star video games are dark horses for “Game of the Year” accolades. The game mechanics in four-star video games usually share more in common with complex five-star video games than the simpler-or-flawed three-star video games. In many cases, these games may be one or two design decisions away from becoming excellent games and even classics.
Five Stars 
Five-star video games are some of the best games released in any given year. These games are often entry points for unfamiliar genres, for seeing some of the best that a genre has to offer. They may also be the inevitable conclusion of a genre, a point where the genre reaches intense levels of complexity. In all cases, these games are a hell of a lot of fun to play. General disinterest in five-star video games is probably a wake-up call that video games are never going to please you.
Six Stars 
Six-star video games are the best of the best. These games are, without exception, among the best games ever released. If you want to think of the games that earn this score as some sort of “Video Game Art List”, feel free to do so. Any decision to give a game this score will not be taken lightly. It will be used sparingly and only after significant collaborative discussion. In the case of competitive multiplayer video games, it may take years for these games to be played at a level where their mechanics can be explored and honored with such a high distinction. Ultimately, this score will be reserved for the best games and most deserving games to ever represent the medium.
- “What is up with your scores for Super Meat Boy and Angry Birds? They’re simple games that accomplish what they wanted to! How can you score them so poorly?”
Like many casual games, Angry Birds uses positive reinforcement to make players feel good when they succeed: After a player lays waste to all the pigs on a level of the game, a raucous wave of cheers goes up. Other than the gentle mocking of the pigs, [Rovio chief executive Mikael Hed] says, “our game doesn’t really punish players.”
- Nick Wingfield, writing in the Wall Street Journal; “Why We Can’t Stop Playing”; published November 30, 2010*
I can explain this very easily: Games with complicated rule sets almost always do more things correctly than games with simple rule sets, even if the simple games do fewer things incorrectly. That’s why so-called “timeless classics” such as Tetris and Pac-Man had to continually reinvent themselves in order to remain interesting. Eventually, these two franchises peaked with the creation of Tetris The Absolute The Grand Master 2 PLUS and Pac-Man Championship Edition DX. If I have to choose between an “imperfect game with a deep rule set” or a “polished game with a simple rule set”, I am picking the former nearly every single time. Nobody is going to tell me that Henry Hatsworth in the Puzzling Adventure was a less interesting game than Super Meat Boy because the level design in Henry Hatsworth wasn’t world class or its difficulty took an obscene jump at the halfway mark. Henry Hatsworth was two solid video games that became even more fascinating as they played in tandem. It was far more complex and more successful in its ambitions than anything Super Meat Boy tried to do.
When a video game earns considerable hype, game reviewers and consumers have this bizarre habit of judging games as though they’re perfect and then subtracting for any notable flaws. This is why franchises like Call of Duty and Assassin’s Creed consistently get high marks when they don’t necessarily deserve them. I’m starting from the very bottom and working my way up. If you think it’s okay to penalize a game for the failures of individual mechanics and accomplishments, Deus Ex would like to say hello. Deus Ex features unremarkable graphics, hacking games closer to resource management simulations (where the important thing is how you manage your multitools and lockpicks rather than navigating their use through a minigame or a test of skill), and laughably simple artificial intelligence. On the contrary, it was a real fucking role-playing video game where the player’s decision-making makes every playthrough different, a game that can be completed as either a first-person shooter or a stealth-action game. But don’t tell that to the reviewers! It’s a secret! That’s why Deus Ex earned a MetaCritic average score of 90 rather than the average score of 177 that it deserves. Sloppy graphics? Boo fucking hoo. The best video games cover for their flaws with massive rule sets, and the best video games do it admirably.
- All genres are not created equal.
While comparisons between genres are nearly impossible (and there’s never going to be a shortage of people dumb enough to undertake these comparisons in “best games” lists), comparisons between similar game mechanics are not. From here, certain types of games can be judged against each other. Games based on Defense of the Ancients were popularized through custom game creation in the real-time strategy genre. Little surprise that Defense of the Ancients shares a lot in comparison with the RTS. Multiplayer Online Battle Arenas or Action-RTS games (or whatever the hell you want to call them) can be compared to real-time strategy games. Tactical shooters can be compared to their less-realistic counterparts on the Doom and Quake side of the fence. For a more interesting comparison, examine the disconnect between the perception of beat ‘em ups and Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games. People have played World of Warcraft without interruption for nearly a decade. At the same time, the beat ‘em up has been derided as an aging genre with a dearth of content. Reviewers and consumers complain that the combat system in a gem like Bayonetta grows tiresome over the course of one individual playthrough. That is ridiculous and absurd. If I can demonstrate why beat ‘em ups have superior combat systems and apply that experience to a review of an MMORPG, then I’ll do it.
Am I technically judging and ranking genres when I do this? Yes, I am. However, I’m not making that call without explaining my position on these games and doing it in exhaustive detail. (The kind of exhaustive detail that is not taken into account when most people rank these games and genres.)
- I will not publish any review for a game until some sort of stable consensus has been formed. The formation of that stable consensus may take months after the release of a game. In the case of some video games, it may take years. If time passes and my viewpoint (or the viewpoint of another author on this site) cannot be defended, I am willing to change or modify my opinion on a game or review.
“Without question, Grand Theft Auto IV is the best game since Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.”
- Hilary Goldstein of IGN, Grand Theft Auto IV Review, published April 25, 2008.* “[T]he best game since Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time” was ranked 10th in an IGN August 2011 rundown of “The Top 25 PlayStation 3 Games”.*
This is a recent update to my review policy. Originally, that whole “Gospel” thing started off as a rather firm conviction that I knew my shit about the video game industry. One of the crappy things about “learning” is that you discover two new questions every time you answer one of them. Well, I now know enough about the video game industry that my branding of The Ghetto as “Gospel” is less about conviction in my ideas and more about marketing the web site. For that reason, I will now wait for the original period of hype to subside and I will wait for a body of knowledge to develop around a game before I review it. This isn’t to say that I don’t have a good eye for how game mechanics or a game system works. It happens that when you’re putting out published material casting itself as an expert opinion, as firm and unchanging opinion, the expectation is that this opinion is strong and accurate one-hundred percent of the time. In the span of three weeks, I have now had second thoughts on two different video game reviews published on this web site. That’s not good enough. While “nobody will ever take your game reviews seriously again” hasn’t stopped GameSpot or IGN or Kotaku or any of the other scandal rags, placing myself in that position is not something I wish to do anymore, since it requires me to tread old ground, rewrite reviews, and defend my credibility. I have other things I would like to do.
To prevent these mishaps, I will only review a game when I believe there is a significant body of knowledge to affirm or reject my own findings. I will then use that body of knowledge as a litmus test for my own findings. I am not using this as an excuse to push someone else’s bottom line, and I am sure-as-hell not doing this to be a megaphone for the Video Game Journlolists™. Much like catalogs of replays and video footage can become a reference tool for competitive video games, the changing opinions of academics, critics, journalists, and even the public at-large can be used to more accurately review and score a video game. (Hell, even the Video Game Journlolists™ do this, where they hype video games through impressive review scores and then step back from their original verdict by savaging the game in “Most Overrated” lists. They’ll claim the original game wasn’t quite what they thought it was…just in time for the “SUPAR INKREDIBLE SEQUAL!!1″)
If I can find feedback that demonstrates I am on the wrong side of the issue, I will acquiesce. I consider my open mind to be one of my best strengths and I would be a fool to ignore using it. That’s what a good researcher and a good writer should be able to do. If you consider that a cop-out, that my reviews will not be a completely personal experience with a video game, go ahead. I don’t gain anything by rushing a review to publication and neither does the reader. History is a collaborative effort and I will be taking that into mind whenever I review games from this point onward.
- Whether a game is reviewed in a “full review” or covered in a shortened review will depend on the nature of the game and all relevant games.
The totally-unrealistic goal of the video game reviews section on this web site is to provide a synopsis and a score for every relevant game in the medium. Which games will receive a full review? Which games will receive hundreds of words of criticism and which will receive thousands? That’s my call to make. The simple answer: When it’s necessary. Ideally, new games in a series will receive a full review. Any sequel built on a new engine will receive a full review. However, this does not prohibit me from savaging the latest independent smash mobile video game in under five-hundred words. If I can destroy a game in that amount of prose, I’ll do it. If I can articulate why Doom II is superior to its predecessor in every way and I can do it in several hundred words, I’ll do that. It will be left up to my discretion.
- Games that have undergone a significant peer review process through a competitive gaming scene or “e-sports” scene will not receive a higher score because they have been “validated” by a skilled player base; “e-sports” can only be scored more accurately.
It’s little surprise that some of the best competitive multiplayer video games (StarCraft: Brood War, Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne, Quake III Arena, Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament 2004) are considered to be some of the best video games in the history of the medium. Likewise, some of the most prominent competitive video games of the last decade (Defense of the Ancients, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2) have been average games and some have been even lousier arenas (World of Warcraft, Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock) for determining the best video game players. (Spare me your anger. Every one of these games will eventually be reviewed on this web site and everything I said in this paragraph will have a paper trail to go with it.
It’s an unusual situation. A lot of games will never see the kind of scrutiny required to build a metagame capable of turning a great game into a legendary video game. In 2001, StarCraft: Brood War was a year removed from the Terran revolution that would establish most of the game’s modern playstyle. Protoss and Zerg were considered to be the stronger races. Terran was considered to be the weakest race. Now, imagine if everybody had suddenly stopped playing the game in 2001. Everybody from top to bottom. When you remove the decade of professional StarCraft that would lead into the release of StarCraft II, you’re left with a game whose legacy would be awfully different. The legacy of StarCraft would be the legacy of three intensely unique factions going to war with each other and not a wunderkind compromise between poker and chess with “three perfectly-balanced races”. And while the quality of games are constantly re-evaluated and argued over in the years and decades following their creation, there’s no greater peer review process than sticking millions of people in the same competitive environment and telling them to try and one-up each other.
The more a player has to project on how a game is played at its highest level, the more difficult it becomes to write an accurate and meaningful review. This is why games should be reviewed by skilled and competent players who also understand the theory behind a game. (I do my best to stress the phrase “understand the theory”. Most great athletes do not become great coaches. Any deficiency in knowledge of their chosen sport was usually overcome with sheer athletic ability. The same can often apply to video games and the most skilled players in their communities.) In the case of battle-tested video games featuring hundreds-of-thousands and even millions of players all trying to be the best, not much projection is required. The replays exist, the broadcast footage exists, the body of knowledge exists. All a reviewer has to do is break down a game that a lot of people thought was entertaining to watch and determine whether that game was actually any good.
Interestingly enough, this also creates a window where it is exceptionally difficult to review a competitive video game. While I already feel comfortable about the final verdict that I would place upon StarCraft: Brood War, its story hasn’t ended yet. The StarCraft: Brood War professional scene is still relevant in South Korea and the strategies are continuing to evolve over a dozen years after its release. The popularity of this scene may be dwindling, but the best StarCraft players in the world are still under contract to play Brood War. When Lee Young Ho (Flash) and the rest of the Brood War players under contract move on to StarCraft II and its assorted expansion packs, we can then conclude that the game has reached its peak, since it’s unlikely the game will ever be subject to the same peer review ever again. At that point, I can review the game and feel comfortable that I won’t have to discuss it again. (Unless, of course, StarCraft: Brood War becomes hugely popular in the year 2050 for reasons that science nor religion can ever explain. Assuming the nano-augmented video game players of the future make Flash look like IdrA, a second review may be in order and my grand-kids will start writing that review if they want any Christmas presents.)
- Price is not a reflection on the quality of a game.
At a mere 99 cents, Jetpack Joyride is an insane value for what’s offered. Let’s put it this way: the in-game stats on my iPod tell me I’ve put six hours into the game; include my time playing on an iPad, and you’re adding another two or three. To put that into perspective, I probably didn’t have to play more than 30 minutes of this game to give it a proper review, the game is simply that straightforward.
- Nick Chester of Destructoid, Review of 2011′s Jetpack Joyride, giving a 9/10 score to a game that he only needed thirty minutes to conclusively review, presumably because the game cost a dollar.*
This has become a particularly laughable point of concern in the years since the digital distribution of video games took off, the idea that a video game should be held to a lower standard because it can be purchased on your mobile phone for a dollar. It would make sense to mention the price of a video game merely to supply historical context, so that future generations may gawk at the millions of people who gave in to the 180-dollar price tag for 2007′s Rock Band or the tens-of-thousands who gave in for the 200-dollar price tag of 2002′s mech mash Steel Battalion and its gawdy forty-button, dual-joystick controller. Consumer excess is one of the most entertaining catalogues of human history.
If a retailer marks a sixty-dollar video game down to ten dollars, does the computer code change? Do the game mechanics become more or less effective? Does the combat system become more effective? The answer is obviously “No.” 2004′s World of Warcraft is an average video game because it’s tied into all of the crutches that defined the most popular Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games of its day, not because it required a monthly subscription fee for most of its relevant shelf life. Subsequently, the first two Fallout games are not some of the defining computer role-playing games in the medium because they can now be purchased in digital outlets for a couple of dollars. Deus Ex is not one of the greatest games of all-time because it can now be purchased on the cheap.
But even assuming the incorrect assumption that the price of a video game was a reflection on the quality of a video game, defining games by the cost would be irrelevant because the price of all video games will eventually become irrelevant. Great games will eventually know no price because people will be playing them well after they are no longer commercially viable. Somehow, I don’t think that the release price of 1985′s Super Mario Brothers will have much bearing on the conclusions of academics writing their thesis in 2085, long after you and me and most everyone who played the game at the time of its release is dead. The only important question is whether the game is good or bad. Everybody has a different way of coming to that conclusion, but price should have nothing to do with it. Next time you boot up an old game in an emulator or download abandonware on the internet and you pay nothing to do it, you’ll understand.
- Originality is not a reflection on the quality of a game.
Let’s pretend that Activision publishes a Call of Duty game based on the exploits of Buzz Aldrin. Call of Duty: Buzz Aldrin’s Revenge receives a 90 on MetaCritic. Reviewers praise Buzz Aldrin for designing a killstreak system based on his own encounters with NASA personnel and the Third Reich. Everybody who plays the game enjoys it. Next year, Activision releases Call of Duty: Shakespeare’s Revenge. Reviewers are dismayed to find that Shakespeare and Buzz Aldrin have far more in common than anyone imagined. The two games are identical, save for the inconsequential change of historical period and some different artwork. What average score should the game receive? If both of the games play the exact same, then both games should receive a 90. For whatever reason, in a field of criticism where readers demand some bizarre and nearly-scientific ten-point scoring system for video games, we have decided that a video game should be punished if it is little different than its predecessors. That’s bullshit.
Another comparison. The Warcraft II expansion pack Beyond the Dark Portal features no new multiplayer units, one new terrain tile set (heavily modeled off a previous tile set), a new set of mostly-unplayable multiplayer maps, and a pair of single-player campaigns telling the storyline from a non-canon Orc perspective and a canon Human perspective. In terms of quality, Beyond the Dark Portal is a slightly better product than Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness, because the single-player campaign is more challenging, difficult, and generally entertaining than that of its predecessor. However, the conventional wisdom in Mainstream Game Journalism™ is that Beyond of Dark Portal should receive a lower score than Tides of Darkness because the game lacks “originality” or “doesn’t do anything new”.
News flash: Your disinterest in a particular model for a genre or set of game mechanics does not mean that Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Rock Band 3, New Super Mario Brothers Wii, Portal 2, StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, or Gears of War 3 are bad games. In many cases, these games are the best games in their respective franchises. If they’re bad games, then one should be able to demonstrate why they’re not only inferior to their predecessors, but commit mistakes employed by inferior games. They are not bad games because you are disinterested with the current flavor of the month in the video game industry. They are only bad games if you can demonstrate why, for instance, tactical shooters have taken a precipitous decline in quality over the period following the release of Call of Duty 4. Not because you are “bored with this kind of game”. You’re welcome to be less interested or entertained by a sense of familiarity, but when you go to give a score and a verdict, whether the game “does anything new” is not part of the equation.