Monday, 30 November 2009

Wrong Ratings?

It's become clear to me recently that a lot of the games I've become really hooked on and played for hours are, in fact, games I've given fairly modest ratings to while some which I've rated highly have pretty much been left on the shelf to gather dust. One reason is because some of the games are quite hard to get into, but these usually represent by far the better long-term challenge.

So, fellow reviewers and review readers a like, my questions to you are:

  • Just how long should you play-test a game before reviewing it?
  • Should games be rated down just because they may be too difficult for a lot of players?
  • Should ratings be changed retrospectively if you've played a game to death after giving it a relatively low rating? (Conversely, should games that impress you at first but which you lose interest in some time after you've reviewed them receive lower retrospective ratings?)

I await your comments with interest!

CaptainD - PC Gaming Blog


EEbEE said...

I think the whole concept of giving a game a number (out of ten for example) is flawed...

Each game is percieved differently by each player. The only way a review can be of ANY use to a player is if the player knows the reviewer and can make the connections between his/her likes/dislikes and those put forward by the reviewer.

This is where random internet reviews fail miserably... The reviewers lack identity so it's hard to guess how the game will feel based on that review and it's rather pointless 8.5 out of 10 score.

CaptainD said...

True, but when you have a body of reviews, the seemingly arbitrary numbers serve as a baseline to compare against other games you might have had experience with. I see what you mean though... but if we get too subjective, reviews themselves are pretty useless. (Don't say it!!...)

BTW did you ever get round to playing The Marionette? What did you think - has it changed your opinion of freeware games?

Google+ Followers