Build a Better Review System, Templates might help -- but they just as easily hinder Options

[ZarroTsu]

Wanting to write reviews, I decided I'd use the strategy discussed by one Yatzee Croshaw here.

The problem is that, because I don't give an "overall rating", this kind of review is rejected from the forum.

What reason is there for there to be an "overall rating"? Isn't it suppose to be what I think of the game? Giving it an overall rating because that fits your format is fine. But forcing me to follow this strategy isn't asking for what I think of the game; it's asking me for what you WANT me to think of the game. And that defeats the purpose of writing in general.

Moreover, their presence from a reader perspective is solely to ignore the rest of the review and judge the game on a given number. Some here might say they don't do this, but often times even they are guilty of it. Even I do it. But if these numbers don't exist, then it compels me to actually read the review. So...


Generic forum discussion question for the reasoning impaired:
Why do "Overall Ratings" exist? Are they there to help, or are they there to defeat the purpose of writing a review when you could just write a number?



This post has been edited by ZarroTsu: Oct 4 2012, 02:51 PM

[KD648]

If I understand correctly, and if you're like me, the issue you take with being forced to provide with in overall score is that it allows, and in fact encourages, the reader to make a snap judgement about the game. Especially when the overall score is an amalgamation of separate, smaller scores. As an example, on metacritic the Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim recieved a 94, whereas the original Bioshock sits at 96. Therefore, Bioshock is better than Skyrim. We all know that a game is more than just the sum of its parts, but I also think none of us want to pretend that everyone is going to read every bit of every review.

An in between, for me, is to offer scores for different aspects of the game, but than rather than have an "overall score", rate the game on a "recommended" scale. Just say upfront whether or not you think they should play it, and then write a sentence about why. As an example, I'm going to fake review the two games I just said.

Bioshock (2007)
Gameplay: 10 - Tight FPS action mixed with RPG elements are balanced, fun, and frantic.
Story: 9 - Great writing and atmosphere suppliment a pretty straightforward story.
Sound: 8 - Ambient sounds are incredibly well done, but the minimalistic music is forgettable.
Graphics: 10 - Rapture is stunning and terrifying, all at the same time.

Rating: Recommended - Bioshock doesn't revolutionize the genre, but great atmosphere and polish put it far above the rest of the FPS crowd.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (2012)
Gameplay: 8 - Combat feels much better than it did in past iterations of the series, but specific instances like riding a horse still feel awkward.
Story: 8 - The lore behind Tamriel is as solid as ever, but the plot is really just a well-written excuse to explore the sandbox.
Sound: 9 - The music is epic, and the voice acting is highly improved... with a few exceptions.
Graphics: 9 - Skyrim is georgeous, but animations still feel a bit awkward. Play in first person.

Rating: Highly Reccomended - Technical bugs included, Skyrim is the best 300+ hour long sandbox RPG on the market and an experience unlike any other.

This way people can still add up points if they so choose (Bioshock is the winner obviously), but you still have a shortcut that explains why a game may be more or less than the sum of its parts.

P.S. Bioshock is awesome and one of the best games I've ever played, so the "Reccomended" vs "Highly Reccomended" thing is just to illustrate a point.

This post has been edited by KD648: Oct 5 2012, 12:38 PM