Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
HOW SHOULD WE JUDGE GAMES?
Posts
Kylaila
View playlists
Closeauthor=CashmereCat
For example, would you rate Goat Simulator as a good or a bad game? There are tons of glitches, and a lack of an overall goal, but that's kind of the point. Is it a good game because it achieves what it set out to achieve? Or is it bad because it only appeals to a niche of people that enjoy those type of games?
Besides, do you review on the basis of recommending to the niche group of people that would enjoy that type of game, e.g. a visual novel? Or would you review it from the point of view from the general player who enjoys all types of games but just wants to look for something interesting?
That's a though one.
I would rate this game mediocre-poor, probably, BUT tell people how incredibly fun it is. Or not. Depending on what kind of player you are.
That's why reviews are worth more than ratings alone. It isn't necessarily only about saying which game is good or not, but more about what kind of person will enjoy the game.
As for genre .. I would take it for the general audience who is familiar with the genre. Although I usually state in a short sentence what playing it will be like.
If the game is specifically appealing/unappealing to those not familiar with said genre, that would be worth pointing out. Some games might be a good start for newcomers, but boring for those used to it.
Of course, this being an indie community means that there are many games which simply are hard to enjoy. Some which lack many many parts, and that is why I find it important to point those blunders out and rate them accordingly.
A low rating does not equal a bad game, but it shows that there are areas that are worth improving. I feel it would be rude to completely ignore polish, even if the impact is still there.
Now as a general note for you, Cashmere, since you want to review more seriously. Just do it. Find a style that suits you. And then stick to it. Even if it is not as objective as you'd like it to be, if it's consistent people will notice and know what to take with a grain of salt and what not.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
I tend to prefer judging a work by what it's trying to do, rather than by some standard of technical quality or "fun." (Granted, the majority of games include entertainment in what they're trying to do, so that's usually germane, but there are a few games that are trying for something else, or are only fun for a certain segment of the population.)
Things like graphics, sound, writing, etc. only matter as far as they can effectively convey the core idea of the game. If you can easily tell what's going on in a TI-86 calculator game, it's equally as "good" as next-gen hardware for that particular game. HD, realistic sound is awesome, but not always needed (and sometimes actively detrimental to a game if mishandled).
I guess really there's three separate axes to use to judge a game (or really any work):
The third one's the iffiest, just because of different tastes and the fact that sometimes the main idea of the game is "Make you want to beat your head on a desk." While I might question the creator's motivations, I'd have to say that such a game should be treated with a certain level of validity.
Things like graphics, sound, writing, etc. only matter as far as they can effectively convey the core idea of the game. If you can easily tell what's going on in a TI-86 calculator game, it's equally as "good" as next-gen hardware for that particular game. HD, realistic sound is awesome, but not always needed (and sometimes actively detrimental to a game if mishandled).
I guess really there's three separate axes to use to judge a game (or really any work):
- Technical Skill: How well is it made? How polished is it? Is anything broken?
- Success in Core Idea: Does it achieve its purpose? Does everything work together to support whatever Main Idea the crator(s) were pursuing? Is it not a conflicting mess of ideologies?
- Enjoyability: Kinda related to the second axis, does it succeed in being engaging or enjoyable on some level?
The third one's the iffiest, just because of different tastes and the fact that sometimes the main idea of the game is "Make you want to beat your head on a desk." While I might question the creator's motivations, I'd have to say that such a game should be treated with a certain level of validity.
Crystalgate
694
author=CashmereCat
For example, would you rate Goat Simulator as a good or a bad game? There are tons of glitches, and a lack of an overall goal, but that's kind of the point. Is it a good game because it achieves what it set out to achieve? Or is it bad because it only appeals to a niche of people that enjoy those type of games?
Besides, do you review on the basis of recommending to the niche group of people that would enjoy that type of game, e.g. a visual novel? Or would you review it from the point of view from the general player who enjoys all types of games but just wants to look for something interesting?
Goat Simulator didn't look fun to me, so I would consider myself not part of the target audience and not review it. I will only review games which, prior to playing, looks like they are fun to me.
Suppose I actually did think Goat Simulator looks like fun and decided to play it. I would rate it according to how much I enjoyed it and then try as best as I can to explain what I thought was/wasn't fun and also provide additional information I think would be useful to others.
I think games should be reviewed for those who are likely to actually play it and not for everyone. People who don't like first person shooters will not play them, so it's pointless to review them from the point of view of someone who finds them boring. I will note that how the game it marketed will affect how I think it should be reviewed. If it's marketed to a niche, then it should be reviewed mainly for that niche. However, if it has a mass market appeal, then it should be reviewed for that larger group of people.
The thing with Goat Simulator is that it is a deliberate, conscious decision to keep bugs in and - most importantly - the bugs don't detract from play. In fact, they've been careful to leave only bugs that make the game more fun/funny. It's also a game type that isn't about constant progression but messing around - thus in the case of finding a bug that does stop playing you can just restart and do something else. It's built for that kind of play, deliberately.
It's actually an interesting game to look at from a design point of view.
Like I said, I'd rate by the mechanics first, then add or minus based on play. If you check any of my reviews you'll find that I write a lot and point out details. If a game was a lot of fun I would point that out. If it had bad story/graphics, that is something I would also point out. The end score would reflect a mix of that.
For example: This, This or This
Why do I use this? Well, I find it best to break things down like that as it covers most parts of a game. Skip parts that aren't relevant (puzzle games with no stories, for example) and move on to the rest. You can't judge something on what it's not designed for, after all.
It's actually an interesting game to look at from a design point of view.
author=Blindmindauthor=LibertyHmm, yeah I see a lot of people use this type of review structure. Do you feel that this is ultimately the best way to analyze a game?
When writing a review I tend to break it down in to parts - Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Writing - then break those down into parts (Mapping/Huds/Atmosphere, Music/Sound/Atmosphere, Bugs/Battles/Puzzles/Mechanics/Balance/etc, Story/Characterisation/Mechanics) depending on the type of game. Of course, I don't really use those as headings - I just touch on them as I write.
The end score will be composed of a 'score' for the main headings based on the different subs...
For example, what if you played the most fun/engaging RPGMaker project of your life, but the graphics and story-line were horrendous? Would you consider it "better" than a game which scored completely average in every department, but didn't really stand out in any way?
(Not saying I agree or disagree, just interesting. xD) I find that a lot of RM games are memorable because of one or two noteworthy aspects, not necessarily the whole package. But since you're only showcasing your final score, I guess it seems appropriate.
Like I said, I'd rate by the mechanics first, then add or minus based on play. If you check any of my reviews you'll find that I write a lot and point out details. If a game was a lot of fun I would point that out. If it had bad story/graphics, that is something I would also point out. The end score would reflect a mix of that.
For example: This, This or This
Why do I use this? Well, I find it best to break things down like that as it covers most parts of a game. Skip parts that aren't relevant (puzzle games with no stories, for example) and move on to the rest. You can't judge something on what it's not designed for, after all.
