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
CashmereCat
View playlists
CloseI was thinking about how we judge games and I think its important to know why you enjoy games. Is it the graphics? Gameplay? Story? But not all games have a story and yet they can be good so is story needed? I came up with a few categories to help myself define what I look for in a good game. Here goes.
Graphics - generally one of the biggest things that makes a game better is a pleasing aesthetic, or beauty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so it is subjective, but I find that people actually agree quite a lot on what is beautiful and what isn't. Good graphics can sometimes make an otherwise terrible game seem OK, and an average game seem good. Likewise, average graphics can make a decent game seem worse than it is.
Audio - not just song selection, but good sound mixing can create a nice atmosphere. This is very similar to "graphics" in that it's an aesthetic choice but I'd argue that music is more subjective than art. People have way more specific music tastes than graphical tastes, in general.
Gameplay - by this I mean the mechanics that the game uses. Are they entertaining? This is a really wide topic.
pacing/presentation value/polish/professionalism - this usually comes about when you realize how much TLC the Dev has used in making this game. The devil is in the details, they say.
Story/characters - Not all games have this, but how good is the story, how relatable are the characters, or how interesting they are. Skill in writing and telling a story are measured here.
X Factor/originality/innovation - I think this category is important and underrated because innovation is the heart of creativity and new, fresh ideas are always needed otherwise life gets boring.
I was also wondering what percentage weighting I'd put on each category. Every game is different, but generally I would judge like: Graphics 15%, Audio 7.5%, Gameplay 25%, Presentation 25%, Story 12.5%, X Factor 15%.
These would vary with the type of game, but those are generally the averages. I'd imagine this is different for each person.
What do you think is important when judging a game? What would you consider your rubric and why?
Graphics - generally one of the biggest things that makes a game better is a pleasing aesthetic, or beauty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so it is subjective, but I find that people actually agree quite a lot on what is beautiful and what isn't. Good graphics can sometimes make an otherwise terrible game seem OK, and an average game seem good. Likewise, average graphics can make a decent game seem worse than it is.
Audio - not just song selection, but good sound mixing can create a nice atmosphere. This is very similar to "graphics" in that it's an aesthetic choice but I'd argue that music is more subjective than art. People have way more specific music tastes than graphical tastes, in general.
Gameplay - by this I mean the mechanics that the game uses. Are they entertaining? This is a really wide topic.
pacing/presentation value/polish/professionalism - this usually comes about when you realize how much TLC the Dev has used in making this game. The devil is in the details, they say.
Story/characters - Not all games have this, but how good is the story, how relatable are the characters, or how interesting they are. Skill in writing and telling a story are measured here.
X Factor/originality/innovation - I think this category is important and underrated because innovation is the heart of creativity and new, fresh ideas are always needed otherwise life gets boring.
I was also wondering what percentage weighting I'd put on each category. Every game is different, but generally I would judge like: Graphics 15%, Audio 7.5%, Gameplay 25%, Presentation 25%, Story 12.5%, X Factor 15%.
These would vary with the type of game, but those are generally the averages. I'd imagine this is different for each person.
What do you think is important when judging a game? What would you consider your rubric and why?
Avee
5794
Here are some of the articles I could find about reviews:
REVIEWING FOR DUMMIES
GUIDELINES FOR GAME REVIEWING
HOW TO WRITE 300 WORDS!
REVIEW CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES
HOW TO BE A REVIEWER
REVIEWING FOR DUMMIES
GUIDELINES FOR GAME REVIEWING
HOW TO WRITE 300 WORDS!
REVIEW CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES
HOW TO BE A REVIEWER
Those are useful links. They've probably got some stuff in there about what I'm talking about. I review a lot of games myself. But I'm just asking what categories do you think a game should be judged on, and perhaps what shouldn't we include in our judgements.
SnowOwl
5188
Probably for me the most important factor is enjoyment. Not as in fun, although that is part of it for some games, but how I feel playing. Do I feel like I want to continue? Do I want to close the game and forget I ever downloaded it?
Just saying that isn't really saying much, though. There are games where the enjoyment I got from it was due to it having a really amazing atmosphere, while the gameplay was crap. I still thought it was a good game.
If you're looking for the score part of judging, however, the stuff you wrote is what games are usually judged by. It's hard to justify giving something 5/5 just for amazing atmosphere, when the gameplay is dull and uninteresting. So I guess if you have to justify that 5/5 score, writing that review and giving scores on gameplay and all that jazz is probably going to be tricky when you give out the overall score.
Actually I probably don't know what I'm talking about, I don't really do reviews after all (except a couple of times).
Just saying that isn't really saying much, though. There are games where the enjoyment I got from it was due to it having a really amazing atmosphere, while the gameplay was crap. I still thought it was a good game.
If you're looking for the score part of judging, however, the stuff you wrote is what games are usually judged by. It's hard to justify giving something 5/5 just for amazing atmosphere, when the gameplay is dull and uninteresting. So I guess if you have to justify that 5/5 score, writing that review and giving scores on gameplay and all that jazz is probably going to be tricky when you give out the overall score.
Actually I probably don't know what I'm talking about, I don't really do reviews after all (except a couple of times).
Avee
5794
I'd simply say that we should evaluate what is in the game.
RPGs tend to include a lot of different things:
-Visuals: sprites, animations, portraits, maps, backgrounds, user interfaces, etc.
-Audio: music, sound effects, voice-overs.
-Narrative: story, plot/sub-plots, characters, character development, world, NPCs, etc.
-Gameplay: genre, mechanics, features, player options, gameplay loops, controls, etc.
It isn't enough to rate how good we feel those things are individually.
We should consider how they contribute to the whole game and how well they work with each other.
That's when we talk about things like atmosphere, consistency, user-friendliness, pacing, difficulty curve, innovation, replay value, etc.
I believe that if one element is well underdeveloped or obviously secondary to the experience, like graphics in Tetris, gameplay in VNs or plot in SMB, then they shouldn't be accounted for in a review.
RPGs tend to include a lot of different things:
-Visuals: sprites, animations, portraits, maps, backgrounds, user interfaces, etc.
-Audio: music, sound effects, voice-overs.
-Narrative: story, plot/sub-plots, characters, character development, world, NPCs, etc.
-Gameplay: genre, mechanics, features, player options, gameplay loops, controls, etc.
It isn't enough to rate how good we feel those things are individually.
We should consider how they contribute to the whole game and how well they work with each other.
That's when we talk about things like atmosphere, consistency, user-friendliness, pacing, difficulty curve, innovation, replay value, etc.
I believe that if one element is well underdeveloped or obviously secondary to the experience, like graphics in Tetris, gameplay in VNs or plot in SMB, then they shouldn't be accounted for in a review.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
It's a hard thing to do. I use different splits since I review plenty of non-rpg-games and I usually review it under what this game is trying to achieve. A visual novel with no player-input whatsoever can still be superb even if it does not use every means (see: choices) a visual novel could use.
So more than what the game has, I try to look at what this does in the game. If the graphics are a trippy mess, then that's fine for trippy games (if it's still playable).
The usual split would be
core materials/polish (are there custom assets? good graphics? audio?)
story/themes
gameplay
how does it come together? (atmosphere, how do the parts add to the atmosphere/story? is it consistent?)
Good that you mention the X factor. It often is not there, but I think giving credit for new ideas is a good thing to do. It'd just be bonus points for me, though, no separate standard category.
As for the link, Corfaisus, it's one every developer should read. If not everyone.
And as a related note .. it's time and again astounding how well you can see the developer through their games. As with any kind of art, actually.
So more than what the game has, I try to look at what this does in the game. If the graphics are a trippy mess, then that's fine for trippy games (if it's still playable).
The usual split would be
core materials/polish (are there custom assets? good graphics? audio?)
story/themes
gameplay
how does it come together? (atmosphere, how do the parts add to the atmosphere/story? is it consistent?)
Good that you mention the X factor. It often is not there, but I think giving credit for new ideas is a good thing to do. It'd just be bonus points for me, though, no separate standard category.
As for the link, Corfaisus, it's one every developer should read. If not everyone.
And as a related note .. it's time and again astounding how well you can see the developer through their games. As with any kind of art, actually.
Crystalgate
694
I do not weight different categories into percentages. That does not accurately represent how much I like a certain game. For example, good visuals will not alone carry a game, but if the visuals are really poor, it can greatly impair the enjoyment I get from the game, even if the rest is good. So, bad visuals can drag the overall score down far more than good visuals can raise it. It's kind of how a bad liver can screw over your health, but a good liver will not guarantee good health as the hearth (or any other vital parts) may still be weak.
How important the different categories are also varies from game to game. Some games focuses less on story than others. In games with a low focus on story, the quality of said story will not affect the final score as much as it will in a story heavy game. If you're reviewing a certain game and in that game something which seems unimportant in other games suddenly feels important, then go ahead and take that something into account.
How important the different categories are also varies from game to game. Some games focuses less on story than others. In games with a low focus on story, the quality of said story will not affect the final score as much as it will in a story heavy game. If you're reviewing a certain game and in that game something which seems unimportant in other games suddenly feels important, then go ahead and take that something into account.
Eh, I tend to weigh fun factor heaviest. If your game has issues, fine, but as long as it's fun, that's what really matters. I mean, the rest counts too, but fun factor counts the most.
What is the use of playing a game if it's not for fun?
What is the use of playing a game if it's not for fun?
It's good to have a framework for a review but I'm not sure about weighing the different categories. Not every game has huge storytelling ambitions or interesting mechanics. Some games make sacrifices in some areas to focus on others. Trying to apply weights is just an attempt to justify your final score. I generally know what kind of score I'm going to give a game without weighing the different components although maybe that's from writing a lot of reviews.
When writing reviews I've settled on focusing on Mechanics, Story and Aesthetics (visuals and audio). This covers most elements of games on this site and tends to lead to more balanced sections. But if a game has really interesting mechanics and not story I'll put more emphasis on that section. Same with story or aesthetics.
When writing reviews I've settled on focusing on Mechanics, Story and Aesthetics (visuals and audio). This covers most elements of games on this site and tends to lead to more balanced sections. But if a game has really interesting mechanics and not story I'll put more emphasis on that section. Same with story or aesthetics.
Housekeeping
3571
I don't know if I'd say "fun factor" so much as "engagement." Like, a Snow Owl game generally works because of the sense of dread you feel when playing it, and the gameplay tends to be simple enough to not get in your way. Or, I might find a game to work really well on an intellectual level, or a game could get me invested into characters and end up making me bawl my eyes out. I guess that can all be considered "fun factor," but when I think fun factor, I think something like Smash Brothers where I'm giggling like an idiot.
Nah, I look at fun factor as 'are you enjoying yourself'. Basically, if I'm scared in a horror game, if I'm feeling tense in a psychological one, if I'm invested in solving the mystery in the murder mystery game - basically, as long as I'm not bored the game has some kind of fun factor.
Housekeeping
3571
Then, yeah, I'm on board with that! I guess the only caveat is that aesthetics, music, etc. can all play into and enhance the fun factor.
I think we break games into different criteria because it's human nature to want to categorize, and it makes reviews seem more clinical and objective. The drawback is that people get too obsessed with the categories themselves and don't think in terms of overall experience, so often you see really enjoyable games get nickeled and dimed to death.
I think we break games into different criteria because it's human nature to want to categorize, and it makes reviews seem more clinical and objective. The drawback is that people get too obsessed with the categories themselves and don't think in terms of overall experience, so often you see really enjoyable games get nickeled and dimed to death.
That's what I thought you meant when you used "fun factor". My previous post initially had another paragraph tacked on about why I don't think a game should be rated on whether it's fun or not since a lot of my favorite games I wouldn't classify as fun to play but still fulfilling. Maybe "Engagement" is a better term?
@Artbane You're right about percentage weightings not accurately reflecting the quality of the overall product. Sometimes a game is greater than or less than a sum of its parts.
@Liberty The only thing about judging how much fun you had is as so: do you also judge from an unbiased point of view how great the game is? e.g. you might have a ton of fun playing Flappy Bird but you might not classify it as a great game simply because it's overly simple and has been done before. Whereas you might rate highly a game that you may not enjoy but you can appreciate is a great game because it's incredibly innovative and clever but you might not be into the genre of visual novels per se.
Edit: Is there such a thing as illegitimate criticism? E.g. "This game's story contains a talking dog and I don't like it therefore it sucks", or "This game contains turn based battles and I don't like waiting 0/10". What qualifies as bad criticism? Is it when personal biases get in the way of your judgment? But reviewers need biases to define what's a good game and what isn't, even if the bias is: 'games should be entertaining'. So when does such a bias become harmful?
@Liberty The only thing about judging how much fun you had is as so: do you also judge from an unbiased point of view how great the game is? e.g. you might have a ton of fun playing Flappy Bird but you might not classify it as a great game simply because it's overly simple and has been done before. Whereas you might rate highly a game that you may not enjoy but you can appreciate is a great game because it's incredibly innovative and clever but you might not be into the genre of visual novels per se.
Edit: Is there such a thing as illegitimate criticism? E.g. "This game's story contains a talking dog and I don't like it therefore it sucks", or "This game contains turn based battles and I don't like waiting 0/10". What qualifies as bad criticism? Is it when personal biases get in the way of your judgment? But reviewers need biases to define what's a good game and what isn't, even if the bias is: 'games should be entertaining'. So when does such a bias become harmful?
Cash: It's important to distinguish between "I didn't like this," and "You, the player, will not like this."
author=LouisCyphre
Cash: It's important to distinguish between "I didn't like this," and "You, the player, will not like this."
But here's another conundrum: how do you know what the player will enjoy? Are you, the average player in most respects, not a good example of what the "player" might feel? Also, what if sometimes a lot of players will judge the game using a certain lens and you're here to reveal why they should think differently about a game. For instance, some might say that World of Warcraft is a terrible game and give it 0/10 because they didn't like the way the orcs looked in the new update. So, yes, you're here to tell players if they will enjoy it, but sometimes I also think you should be convincing players why they "should" enjoy it.
A
That is why you need to know yourself and your prejudices.
What genre do you enjoy, which do you not enjoy?
What is it you want to see/enjoy in your game?
What issues annoy you more than others? (typos, for example)
I for example dig messages and themes in games rather than some grand full-blown story that stays on a more or less superficial level.
I am also not as easily scared as others are when it comes to horror games. So if I find it slightly unsettling, it's probably alright for the majority of players.
B
Then you also need to know what the genre is all about to put it into perspective.
What are its core elements and so on.
This allows you to look at the elements that would contribute the most to the player's experience, even if it is something that is lost on you.
Even if you don't like the genre, you will acknowledge certain aspects into which went a lot of effort.
Let's say fighting mechanics in a 2d fighters.
Even if you can't find it fun, you should still roughly be able to tell whether it is balanced, has some skill progression/learning curve and so on.
You will never achieve truly objective criticismn. But that is quite alright. If it falls into an area that is not your forte you can always add that certain things that are important to you may be experienced differently by other players. That will make it easier to read for others.
Reviews don't need to be 100% accurate to give you a good idea of what it is about. Properly reading one will make you see certain biases anyways, and you will always compare and wager the pros and cons raised - there are a few games which were rated fairly poorly, but which I knew I would enjoy thanks to the reviews.
That is why you need to know yourself and your prejudices.
What genre do you enjoy, which do you not enjoy?
What is it you want to see/enjoy in your game?
What issues annoy you more than others? (typos, for example)
I for example dig messages and themes in games rather than some grand full-blown story that stays on a more or less superficial level.
I am also not as easily scared as others are when it comes to horror games. So if I find it slightly unsettling, it's probably alright for the majority of players.
B
Then you also need to know what the genre is all about to put it into perspective.
What are its core elements and so on.
This allows you to look at the elements that would contribute the most to the player's experience, even if it is something that is lost on you.
Even if you don't like the genre, you will acknowledge certain aspects into which went a lot of effort.
Let's say fighting mechanics in a 2d fighters.
Even if you can't find it fun, you should still roughly be able to tell whether it is balanced, has some skill progression/learning curve and so on.
You will never achieve truly objective criticismn. But that is quite alright. If it falls into an area that is not your forte you can always add that certain things that are important to you may be experienced differently by other players. That will make it easier to read for others.
Reviews don't need to be 100% accurate to give you a good idea of what it is about. Properly reading one will make you see certain biases anyways, and you will always compare and wager the pros and cons raised - there are a few games which were rated fairly poorly, but which I knew I would enjoy thanks to the reviews.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=Housekeeping
I don't know if I'd say "fun factor" so much as "engagement." Like, a Snow Owl game generally works because of the sense of dread you feel when playing it, and the gameplay tends to be simple enough to not get in your way.
I realize horror is hit-and-miss, but I never really found the style of horror that Snow Owl incorporates into his games to be all that effective. Like, take It Moves for example: the never-ending scaffolding with the big demon head in the background was pretty cool but not "it's going to get me at some point" nerve-wracking, while the "spooky scary" face that appears on the screen during that maze segment with all the switches that eventually takes up the whole screen and is accompanied by static IIRC was more just annoying and hindered my ability to actually do what it was I was needed to do.
author=CashmereCat
Edit:Is there such a thing as illegitimate criticism? E.g. "This game's story contains a talking dog and I don't like it therefore it sucks", or "This game contains turn based battles and I don't like waiting 0/10". What qualifies as bad criticism? Is it when personal biases get in the way of your judgment? But reviewers need biases to define what's a good game and what isn't, even if the bias is: 'games should be entertaining'. So when does such a bias become harmful?
Normally I'm a massive fan of Sequelitis, but, at times, this one felt kind of petty on the grounds of "the game has atmosphere and monsters that you can't wail on". I mean, I get that the game had the Iron Knuckle and therefore more of the game could have had stuff like that, but 1. does Legend of Zelda need to be Dark Souls? 2. if everything was special, nothing would be, and 3. do you really think they could have pulled that off reasonably with the limitations of the N64? And the buddy Goron thing just felt like awful critique because it's so specific that it would probably just end up ruining the game.
