Game Reviews ... How Do You Review Art?

The Escapist (easily the single best game industry "magazine" on the planet) is running a piece on the seedy underbelly of game reviews. I can't help but agree with a lot of the points in the article. Reviewing games (or movies, or any other sort of art) is always going to be controversial. They never seem to do a product justice, they're totally arbitrary and loaded with bias (or worse, favoritism), and really don't seem to affect how a game sells at all.

There are aspects of game reviewing that the article never quite gets to. Reviewers are unconsciously pressured into not only skewing a review score because of the pressures mentioned in the story, but even the language can be crafted to try to get a review onto the box or into an ad campaign as promotion for the publication.

The "games as art" thing is a oft-debated issue, and despite the fact that every game "journalist" (as if there was such a thing, don't get me started) has broached the topic at one point or another, I decided to wade into it for a research paper at the University of Washington. I took it in what I feel is a different direction, keeping it personal as all artisitc experiences should be. You can download a PDF copy of my "Video Games as Art" paper, or you can e-mail me for a file. One thing that I came across is that some of the games that were most like art (to me) didn't sell very well.

And there's the root of the problem. For as much as games (and movies) are an art form, they're also a consumer product, and anytime someone is exchanging money for something, they want to know what they're going to get in advance and whether or not it will be worth it. The product has to make a value proposition, and the end result needs to meet or exceed that proposition. Valve is a company that gets this on a deep, fundamentatal level. Gamers know that if they buy Half-Life, they'll get a great game. But they'll also get enough free content and other game experiences with it that they could play that game for YEARS. The reviews just don't matter, because the value proposition is blown out of the water.

So I've finally reached a level where I feel I can put my metaphorical foot down and say, I'm not going to review games anymore. Everyone's experience will be different with a game, so all I can really tell you is whether or not you should Buy It, Rent It, or Skip It. Anything else is just background and opinion, but those two words are enough to tell you whether or not a game meets or exceeds its value proposition. I could talk at excruciating length about how gorgeous a game's graphics are, or how the controls work, or how it sounds, but in the end, none of that matters unless you play the game (or don't).

Thus, I'm getting rid of all the fluff, and Two Word Reviews is born. The great part about this is that it simply doesn't matter how long I play a game, or finish it, or anything about me. It becomes all about whether or not a game is worth the price they're charging, or the price to get it into your hands temporarily. (On that note, I should specify that when I say "Rent It", I'm talking about a service like GameFly, so we're talking roughly $20/mo. or just under half the price of the game.) Pretty much all opinion is taken out of the equation, because by and large, the value proposition of most people is the same.

It'll be an interesting experiment. I'll probably never get my review on a box, most game websites wouldn't want to run these reviews (or pay for two words), but I know I'll feel a lot better about it.

What Are the Games That REALLY Sell?

Just saw a story at GigaOM that led me to this piece at Next-Generation, discussing the Top 100 Games of the 21st Century. That means 2000-2006.

The results are somewhat surprising, but not very when you dig a little deeper. The results? Kids games and Casual games are ruling the list, and here's the kicker ... Backyard Basketball by the fine folks at Humongous/Atari beat Doom III. Doom III made more money, but probably wasn't as profitable. Other notables ... games with a non-game IP sell well (just about any marketer could have told you that), and multiplayer games are not the gold mine (Warcraft pun entirely intended) that you might think.

But it was the following line that I found curious ...

"Most gamer magazines and sites underserve and misrepresent the game industry."

It's a flawed assumption. Why? Because the hardcore gamers are primarily the ones buying the magazine. By definition, "casual" gamers are the ones that want something pick-up-and-play ... they're not going to spend time finding and reading a magazine to find out what's good. They'll download a bunch of trials (or play Web versions), then pay for the games they like. Similarly, Xbox Live Arcade has a demo model built into every game, negating the need for a magazine. The magazines are doing the exact right thing for them ... catering to the enthusiasts and developers.

Here's something I find far more interesting. Just how few units some of the top games sold. You don't crack 250,000 units until you get into the top 80. The PC platform is tougher to make big-budget games for, so you have to ensure that you can keep your costs under control to make a profit.

Other interesting facts ...

* The number 1 game (The Sims) sold almost TWICE the volume of the number 2 game (Diablo 2).
* Blizzard had three games in the top 10, including the aforementioned Diablo 2, World of Warcraft at number 3, and Warcraft III at number 7.
* EA dominates the top 10 like they dominate console publishing, with three titles. Microsoft Game Studios has two. Aside from Blizzard (who self-publishes, according to the list), Maxis has three games on the list from a development standpoint.

Check out the list. It's very enlightening.