Reviews: The Existential Debate

I realize that this article should have come before I ever did a review. Never mind the fact, it's here now. If you've paid great attention to my reviews, you'll notice they don't end with scores in the typical fashion. There's a reason for this and it forms the basis of my disagreement with modern reviews.

The easiest way to start is to cite an example. Here's a review from IGN, they're reviewing Borderlands. A game I believe is a modern classic and will be remembered fondly. (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/103/1035922p1.html)

Now they give Borderlands an 8.8, which according to their scale isn't even close to a bad score. Yet, I'm not really worried about the actual score. If you read the entire review, the reason the game gets an 8.8 instead of the usual 9.5 for anything truly great. Stems from their areas of review, what is the story like? is it good? does it make me care? Is there competitive multi-player? Borderlands did away with a need for all those questions. Borderlands has a story, but it's designed so that if you, your friends just want to rip through and kill bad guys you can. So by that token the story isn't engaging, it isn't really good, and it probably won't make you care. Ign scores it lower because it technically doesn't offer a full package. The main problem with this style is that each game cannot be held to the same prerequisites.

One game to the next isn't going to stress the importance of story or online multiplayer. It's still a mystery to me that Dead Space 2 got such a high score, despite having a god awful tack-on multi-player to weight it's score down. In the end, what upsets me about these reviews most is the lack of consistency to even that reviewing procedure, like hey IGN if that's what you're about then at least to stick with it. I can tell you that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Borderlands probably have the same level of story in their games. The only difference being it seems Call of Duty is trying to set up these big moments and characters hoping that you get caught up in these insane conflicts but who cares? All I know is Borderlands is 8.8, the cusp of being great for it's lack of story. Yet Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is a 9.5, a slightly flawed masterpiece in IGN's eyes. Yet if you re-read those last two sentences don't those scores and follow-through seem inter-changeable between those two games.

I love and hate video games, while borderlands did occasionally frustrate me, being a game of this generation I don't believe there's much else they could have done to make this game more appealing.

So going forward you are going to see a new system implemented in my reviews and they will be short and understandable. It all starts with what will be my three available scores. Buy, Rent, Run Away but, these won't be in concrete. The scores will be nuanced, it won't just be Rent this game, it will be "If you love post-apocalyptic shooters, and are looking for a cheap, cool game to add to your collection. You could easily turn that rent into a fifteen dollar purchase." Each ruling will be specific to the situation the game is in. If a game comes out retail $ 39.99, then it might be more appealing for immediate purchase. Or if they're asking you for $59.99 for a game that isn't even worth half of that. Then it will be a warning to shy away from this purchase. I'm going to help my readers out. I understand that no matter what the only opinion you can trust is your own. If you heed my words, I believe I can help you from making some bad expenditures.