GamerNode: Columns - Metacritic: The Downfall of Free Speech?

Lesson to videogame journalists: Never EVER give a game an 8.7, but always be confident in your assessment of every game.
GamerNode knows the woes that come along with honest and non-conformist critique, and we think some publishers need to take a chill pill along with the fanboys.

Amen. Never give a game something too close to a nine, even if you believe that's what it should be, it just entices fans to round the number up, then realise you didn't do that yourself. Nightmarish, but the sad truth. That said, I remember writing a review of Cooking Guide for the DS once. What in the hell was I supposed to give that? I settled with seven, but I'm now worried I'm going to get "OMG F U" comments from Delia Smith.

I agree that fanboys will nitpick at anything they feel demeans their favorite system. But hey they are fans, that what they are supposed to do. Fans are not professional writers who were hired to write objectively about each game they review. However it is the lack of objectivity that is what’s missing from today’s game reviewers. Only in the gaming arena are games compared against each other in the often odd ways that they are. Have you ever heard a movie reviewer state they would have given the movie 5 stars if only they added in a car chase; after all movie X had a car chase so this movie only gets 4 stars. (Simple analogy based upon the example from your article) Even the auto industry does not review cars the way the gaming industry does. Of course auto comparisons are all based on a set standard, which is largely impossible in the console or PC market. But the auto review industry has standards, which the gaming community lacks. Guessing here, but I would say that 60% of today’s game reviewers constantly pit one title against another simply because it generates hits to their website. The more popular the games compared, the more hits your website will get.

If game reviews only stated the reviews opinion that would be fine with me. To each their own I normally say, but I feel that game reviewers were hired to be objective, console impartial, and rate games upon their own merit. Assigning a lower review score because a game lacked a feature found on a different game is simply ludicrous. The editor should have never let that article be published. Had the reviewer been objective and simply rated the game on its own merits I doubt he would have been flamed the way you say he was. But in the end I have no pity for any game reviewer that writes reviews that compare consoles or games against each other. Until magazines such as yours step up their efforts to regulate and indemnify the game review process, us fans will suffer and respond with the few tools we have.

The thing that we need to remember though, is realistically, although some sites do generate hits through excessive criticism and controversy (read: Something Awful), most sites are full of honest journalists who simply aren't going to like the same things most people like because of their degree of exposure to the medium we're all so involved with.

To be a film journalist, one has to watch a lot of films. One would also, predictably, not be that keen on films such as American Pie or Scary Movie, or even more serious films, simply because one has now seen so many films that they've become a journalist of specialist interest.

Personally, my specialist interest is roleplaying games, and as a result, I bring criticism more easily to games that aren't of this genre, because of who I am. Reviews that remove the reviewer's personality completely are pointless, you might as well be reading an advert written by someone else. The thing with sites like CVG is that every platform is a team effort, written by members of the same team every time. No one specializes, in the same way that no one here at GamerNode would place themselves into one category so strongly they'd never get to do anything else.

The journalist in question has written about the PS3 before. When working full time for a site on the scale of IGN, Gamespot (if we can still count them as credible after the Kane and Lynch debacle) and CVG, you can choose what you want to cover, volunteer even, and prefer not to do certain titles. The review adored the game, and it came through in his writing. Take a closer look at the language used, and where the emphasis is placed on certain features and the reaction it generated in the title's reviewer in question. He loved the game, but he didn't like the fact he couldn't play it with his friends, and marked it down, because it's a genre that's evolved to naturally incorporate co-op participation, so Killzone 2 felt like it was a step backward.

I am aware there are purely solo sections of Killzone 2, and I can fully accept that, but personally if I was designing the title (which thank god I'm not, as it'd include dragons with those iconic gas masks duct-taped to their faces) I would have factored in a lone squad companion so this was possible, a la Gears 2.

Where the fans fault in this particular instance is through their criticism of the fact that all his comparisons were of titlesfor the Xbox 360, such as Halo 3 and Gears of War 2. This is a flawed argument, simply because there are no examples of cover systems and co-op gameplay that are anywhere near as influentially iconic as these two titles.

I just think people need to accept that, opinion or not, the review isn't being written by Microsoft Sam. If I don't like a title, I'll say so, but for someone to ignore nine hundred words of praise and focus on thirteen percent of a mark, is anal and pointlessly agressive.

As anyone who's been online long enough should know, all opinions of The Great Unwashed cancel out on the internet. Extremes of uninformed opinion simply shouldn't provoke any reaction, from any of us. I don't agree that Metacritic, or Gamerankings, or any aggregate review site should censor out the wealth of information they provide (and simply show one number). We just need to ignore the popular vote and commentary. I see that forum as more of a PR move than anything useful to gamers. I very much want to see who is awarding the professional scores, so I can read their informed opinions.

I agree completely, it's best to ignore, I think CVG have made a huge mistake, as did Yahtzee with his review of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, in making a video explaining why he said what he said and backing his point up with evidence, because then it's not a fanboy attack, it's a war between the press and the public, for want of less melodramatic vernacular.

There's a reason we have our jobs, and if we were that uninformed we'd be working somewhere else, or at the Daily Mirror. But I just think that those very interested in who said what, and keen on the opinions of known game journalists are more likely to visit all of these sites independently, as opposed to being shunted there in a bad mood because they clicked on a link saying 87 after smiling at a row of 99s.

Its a long time since I have bought a game based entirely on a review, sure if a friend recommends a game to me, chances are I will try the game out however with review magazines/sites I read the reviews for entertainment rather than to see whether or not I should try that game. Its not that I don't trust reviewers although there have been times in the past when games I have thoroughly enjoyed haven't been reflected well but I understand that it is simply what the reviewer thinks and what I think doesn't matter to them and vice versa. It will be a sad day when all reviews face intense criticism from the community just because of the reviewer thinks something others do not.

The sad truth of this is, the only way that you can avoid this level of criticism is by simply turning your hand towards print journalism, as the only letters I've seen sent into Edge sound like they're written by English graduates, with no lols, F -Us or that sickening homophobic word in sight.

Honestly? Not once have I ever bought a game based on a review, though I bought Psychonauts not because of what Yahztee of Zero Punctuation said about it, but because of the way in which he said it. Yahtzee has a surefire advantage over text-based reviews; his are vocal with video representation, and you could hear the passion in his voice. Sure, he slagged off the difficulty curve to high heaven, but you could hear him smiling as he did so, and that's rare for a Londoner.

You make an extremely good point that reviewers will occasionally tear games you love to shreds; it calls to memory games like Assassin's Creed, slated for being repetitive to the point where the reviewers, for the majority, went off on a huge detrimental tangent, never to return to the fantastic graphics, inspired plot and brilliant voice acting.

I think it's a sad day already, but hopefully sites like GamerNode, The Escapist and those who aim for reviews written from a really personal, soulsearching point of view are going to rise to the top simply because (and I am by no means attempting a veil of arrogance in any way, shape or form) they're written by people who're themselves in their writing. No "we" inclusions (though IGN I think are an exception as "we" has always meant "the guys who played it with me at the office" and not a grammatical house rule), just "I think", "I love" and "I can't stand it when...". The future lies in brutal honesty and personality that shines through someone's journalistic efforts.

Yes, brutal honesty and personal opinion are a boon to videogame reviews, but so too is the understanding that you are reviewing a game not only for a million doppelgangers of yourself, but for a variety of different types of gamers who all appreciate different things in their games. A certain level of objectivity is required to produce a universally meaningful review, because not everyone has had the chance to get to know you, the reviewer, personally, prior to reading a particular review.

I can talk to a close friend about a game and say, "it's my kind of game, but you probably won't like it," simply because we know each other's tastes, but in a review I'll have to consider the many possible likes and dislikes of the gaming community as a whole before coming to any final conclusions.

This is true, I admit, you do need to take other people into account when writing outside your blog, or similar vault of un-edited written material. I'm not going to say SuperGameTitle 3 was a terrible game simply because I don't like the genre it's in. Respect for your readers comes first. Treat them like idiots, and they will eventually begin to just find you boorish and rude, and not bother to read your content anymore.

I've told friends they'd like or dislike games depending on their tastes, but with games, I think it's a safe bet to always play by the rule of respect; respect for the various aspects of the genre, its conventions, its successes and its failures. Criticizing a fighting game for not having any cars is pointlessly stupid, but I've seen similar levels of ignorace displayed in articles on the web. However, saying that the fighting game was brilliant but you feel the characters could expand themselves into a sandbox universe, that they were so intruigingly well written that you want to see them outside the ring, perhaps have them drive down the freeway in a Dodge Viper, is respectful of the genre while maintaining you could have had a bigger experience; not because the game was bad, but because it was good to the point you wanted to take it to other places and realms of experience.

Objectivity is a balancing act; too much personality and you're ignorant, too little and you're a robot. But as long as reviews aren't a complete lie about how the reviewer really feels about the title, then it's all good to a degree. For those interested in an example of the day games journalism took a sharp turn for the soulless, google "Kane and Lynch Gamespot" and you'll find an interesting tale about how one man's bad review became a mountain of praise over a few thousand dollars of advertising money. Be fair, but don't be afraid to be honest, lying to someone about a product is worse than putting them off it.

This site is quickly becoming one of my favorites. I'm a huge KZ2 fanboy (been playing the demo constantly), but I agree with this article completely.

Well, it's nice to know we're appealing to you, StateofMind. I think Killzone 2 is a milestone title in many ways, I just think that fans need to remember sites often think of 10/10 as "as good as it could be", and not flawless. An eighty-seven is fantastic for any game, considering titles like Bioshock only got ten or less marks more than this around the board both online and not.