It’s not just game reviews, but most reviews. It’s simply what readers come to expect from a review. If all an author wants to do is offer impressions or a journal of gameplay, that’s fine, but then label the piece as such. A review, on the basis of historical precedent, is an article that features an end-of-piece numerical conclusion, and that’s important because it allows readers with ADD to skim the author’s fluff and get a very quick summary of a game’s assumed worth.
We don’t even care what kind of numerical scale is used. A three-point scale, a five-point-scale, a 10-point scale, or even the impossibly unecessary 100-point scale. Heck, go with alphabetical grades ala school and let the reader determine how it translates, but for the courtesy of loyal readers everywhere, rate the game in a way that doesn’t require an analysis of the author’s word-smithing. Not all of us have the time to read a half dozen so-called “reviews” just to guess at what the author’s final verdict is. And, lest you suppose your review is all a reader needs to make a decision, think again, you arrogant twit.
Yes, we know you think your review is better because it doesn’t include a mundane, layman’s rating. We know you’re proud of your fancy metaphors and like the idea of advertising your related podcast. But we, the readers, simply don’t give a fuck. Nor do we find it witty for your rating system to conclude with “Buy”, particularly when you pimp the title’s sale with an affiliate link. Don’t tell us what we should buy, as we can make that determination ourselves. Tell us what you think of the game, and summarize it simply in the end. There’s a reason gaming rags with such conclusions sell in brick’n mortar outlets, and this is one of the reasons. Some people think an “7.5″ is worth buying, others aren’t keen on shedding pocket-cash for anything scoring less than a “9.”
If your take on a title seems curious to us, we’ll certainly read the whole article if we haven’t already, but be courteous enough to meet our minimal expectations. It’s not like deciding on a final score for a review you’ve supposedly sweat over is a tough thing to come up with, artistic style be damned.
In a world where every gaming blogger is capable of spewing their thoughts about a new game, knowing that a particular site will categorically rate new titles using a common system is a breathe of fresh air. Sadly, that air is looking pretty stale these days.
Similar Posts:
- Google Reader alternatives for RSS reading? – Brent Simmons was one of many who [commented earlier today](http://inessential.com/2012/02/18/no_mor…
- Maxator agrees: the PS3 is for clowns. – Comrade Maxator launched his own blog, and then quickly followed up with some PS3 trash-talk: So how…
- Yes, the PS3 blows. – He may have alluded to it, but Ben “Stasis7″ Kuchera’s review of the PS3 for Ars Technica is only a …
{ 3 comments }
I give this rant 3 out of 5 Calvins.
You’re going to shoot this down, I know it, but I don’t care. Even though Zero Punctuation (the Escapist) doesn’t use a rating scale, his reviews are hilarious. While many of them are negative (and a little vulgar in the telling), he’s normally good at pointing out the good and bad of the game. Even with negative reviews, he’s normally pretty good at pointing out who would like the game or good aspects of the game. The disadvantage is that he only reviews about one game a week, thus missing many games.
By the way, Silent Hill is creepy.
Listening to Zero Punctuation’s take on a game is all about the commentary, because his presentation is intended to entertain. That is to say, we don’t go to Zero Punctuation because we want an objective review of a title, but because we’re interested in his comedic musings. So, we don’t expect a numerical conclusion at the end of his videos like we do for most reviews, because his videos are about the commentary only, not really about whether or not a recommendation is warranted.