Do casual gamers view Ninja Gaiden II as better or worse than the 'expert' gamer? And does it matter?Danc at Lost Garden had an interesting take on the evolution of the video game reviewer. He mentions that over time there might not be a need for 'expert' reviews because the 'experts' have a tough time taking into account a first time buyer, or someone who is not on a hardcore level. Therefore their ratings for games will be skewed either positively or negatively without taking into account the general masses. Here's his piece and then I'll comment.
"If you are serious about providing objective insight into a game, either a title you are building or one your are reviewing, your expertise is not enough. In fact, your vast mastery of game related skills is mostly likely causing a giant bias in your judgments. You need to fight this bias by observing other players over and over again. They will do things with the game that are a source of wondrous insight. Your expertise becomes a tool for making great changes based off these insights, not one for predicting a priori exactly how all users will react to the game.
As for the current review industry, it is built on the unstable foundation of expert opinion in the absence of actual player observation. As games evolve and become ever more about first time learning experiences, the traditional game review will become increasingly irrelevant. It is arguable that they've already stopped informing most buying decisions and now serve as little more than entertainment for the hardcore niche. As the value proposition of reviews falter, the vast, churning, capitalist forces of creative destruction will replace them with a much richer set of game criticism that offers real value to its readers."
It is an interesting thought. Though, when I read it, I wonder, is there any way that we can fix this? We can't just simply pull people out of the street and ask them what their opinion of a game is. Well, maybe we could. This action is already being done on certain websites with a "reader" score and the "expert's" score. I've always found it interesting that the reader score is almost 100% of the time higher than the expert's score by at least five percentage points or so (this is not scientific so take that for what it is).
On the other hand, I've heard this argument before, and it's one that I've thought about myself many times. I haven't heard it put quite like this, but I have heard it before. I think the author of this statement has a great point. We can't simply look at a game, as reviewers, from the perspective of our expert analysis, we have to think, "How will the general audience like this game and why?" On the flip side, we can't simply think in terms of the average gamer either, we also have to look at the game as a piece of art while understanding what makes that piece of art good, bad, or average. It's a fine line that simply isn't in black and white. One day reviewers may do a better job getting a particular message across that won't scare off the casual gamers and still be inviting to the hardcore gamers as well. I think currently the system of "reader" reviews and "expert" reviews still stands as the best happy medium we will get. To me, that's not a bad thing.
-Jeremy aka Adridius
No comments:
Post a Comment