Should We Change Our Game Reviews?
Posted on 25th Apr 2009 at 12:35 by Joe Martin with 54 comments
This is a blog post I’ve been thinking of writing for a long time, but I’ve chosen not to get around to it until now because it hasn’t really been very relevant.
There’s not been that many good PC games coming out lately that have required an in-depth look at graphics. Well, not from me anyway. A good thing about being part of Dennis Publishing is that delegation is nearly always an option.
The crux of this blog post rests on one question; how useful is the graphics coverage we give in PC game reviews at the moment?
If you don’t know what I’m talking about then, well I guess that gives me an answer right there. You see, before I joined bit-tech the site had a policy of doing very in-depth graphic analysis for each and every PC game review that came along and console games were mainly ignored. Tim, Richard and co. would even graphically analyse new patches for games and game reviews would focus heavily on graphics.
As far as I’m aware that started to change when my predecessor Ryan joined bit-tech. Console games started to get a bit more attention and the graphics coverage of specific games became less quantitative and more comparative – like in this Darkstar One review.
When I joined bit-tech two years ago I carried on this method, comparing the different graphical settings of a game to each other in a subjective way. I didn’t look at performance all that much and that was probably for the best – I’d be the first to admit that I’m the least technically minded member of the team and I think that stuff belongs in GPU reviews anyway.
I also started covering more console games. My basic belief is that if the game is good then it deserves to be covered regardless of platform in most cases. An awful lot of very bad PC games come across my desk – is it really worth covering stuff such as Conspiracy Island 2 when we could be looking at GTA IV? That’s one question I’d like feedback from the community on.
Lately though, I’ve been thinking that how we cover graphics in game reviews isn’t really all that helpful anyway. A quick look at the presets is all well and good – but I’m certain that the average bit-tech reader knows what a scene will look like with AA off and proving that things are blurrier with texture quality lowered is an exercise in futility. Is that information actually useful to anyone? For Crysis yes, but not for most games I’d wager.
Part of this is...well, not laziness, but certainly a desire to free more time up on my behalf. Taking all those screenshots, resizing them, comparing them and then writing a good 600 words for each page about them takes up a lot of time and that time could be spent either playing the game or polishing the review. Which do you prefer – less spelling errors or more graphics analysis in the game reviews?
There’s no agenda here and I can’t promise that anything will or won’t change, but I am very curious to see if my opinions align with yours and if there’s one thing we pride ourselves on at bit-tech then it’s listening to our readers. Drop your thoughts in the comments below.
There’s not been that many good PC games coming out lately that have required an in-depth look at graphics. Well, not from me anyway. A good thing about being part of Dennis Publishing is that delegation is nearly always an option.
The crux of this blog post rests on one question; how useful is the graphics coverage we give in PC game reviews at the moment?
If you don’t know what I’m talking about then, well I guess that gives me an answer right there. You see, before I joined bit-tech the site had a policy of doing very in-depth graphic analysis for each and every PC game review that came along and console games were mainly ignored. Tim, Richard and co. would even graphically analyse new patches for games and game reviews would focus heavily on graphics.
As far as I’m aware that started to change when my predecessor Ryan joined bit-tech. Console games started to get a bit more attention and the graphics coverage of specific games became less quantitative and more comparative – like in this Darkstar One review.
When I joined bit-tech two years ago I carried on this method, comparing the different graphical settings of a game to each other in a subjective way. I didn’t look at performance all that much and that was probably for the best – I’d be the first to admit that I’m the least technically minded member of the team and I think that stuff belongs in GPU reviews anyway.
I also started covering more console games. My basic belief is that if the game is good then it deserves to be covered regardless of platform in most cases. An awful lot of very bad PC games come across my desk – is it really worth covering stuff such as Conspiracy Island 2 when we could be looking at GTA IV? That’s one question I’d like feedback from the community on.
Lately though, I’ve been thinking that how we cover graphics in game reviews isn’t really all that helpful anyway. A quick look at the presets is all well and good – but I’m certain that the average bit-tech reader knows what a scene will look like with AA off and proving that things are blurrier with texture quality lowered is an exercise in futility. Is that information actually useful to anyone? For Crysis yes, but not for most games I’d wager.
Part of this is...well, not laziness, but certainly a desire to free more time up on my behalf. Taking all those screenshots, resizing them, comparing them and then writing a good 600 words for each page about them takes up a lot of time and that time could be spent either playing the game or polishing the review. Which do you prefer – less spelling errors or more graphics analysis in the game reviews?
There’s no agenda here and I can’t promise that anything will or won’t change, but I am very curious to see if my opinions align with yours and if there’s one thing we pride ourselves on at bit-tech then it’s listening to our readers. Drop your thoughts in the comments below.
54 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyIt might be a different matter when the next generation of consoles come out and games start to be demanding again though...
As for console games, I don't mind seeing reviews of those, certainly not the bigger console exclusives, as I do own a PS3. But I'd still like to see more of a slant towards PC games, as I'd always buy the PC version of a game given the choice (even with all the warnings of the demise of PC gaming), they are generally graphically superior, after all.
Yeah I think that pretty much sums up my opinion too. ;)
Basically just a broad idea please. :)
+1
But basically yes, keep graphics in the reviews, but not too much of it.
EDIT: and mention any obvious missing settings, such as the far too many games lately that have no AA at all, forcing you to mess round in the graphics driver control panel to try and force it on. >:(
For example, you recently reviewed Riddick on the PC. The texture and post effects comparison are very, very useful, because they show that users who just hit the game's minimum requirements will be stuck playing something very ugly, whereas if you simply have to turn off post effects, you may not be missing that much. Focusing on either presets or the most important settings for overall image quality (i.e. shaders in Crysis rather than shadow resolution) is where it needs to go.
I've always enjoyed bit-tech's reviews, compared to a lot of other sites, even if the gameplay discussion isn't always quite as in-depth. I think you've carved out a niche for yourselves as catering to a specific PC audience with your game reviews, and you should keep doing that, but just be mindful of the importance graphics play in a game and that you don't need to post comparisons of every little setting.
I quite like to get an idea of how good looking a game is, however personally I think it's a bit of a flaw to just use the "low", "medium" and "high" settings, as such this gives us no clue of how well it will play on our own systems, and at the end of the day I assume that is what we are interested in.. "how good will this look on my system".
I know this will add more work (as opposed to less) but would it make more sense if you gave us the settings at which you can play the game on the systems you suggest in your monthly buyer's guide? This way I think we would have a much better chance of figuring out how the game might look on our own systems.
Using Crysis as an example, Very High, Medium and Low settings should be applied across the board and then the differences discussed and shown in pictures. Maybe some AA if it really makes a difference (but I'm sure ost of us know what the differences will be like anyway).
Overall, what I am saying is that where it matters, it is definitely worth doing a section on the graphics. But with the console ports etc, there are usually so few settings to change that a simple "The graphics are excellent/good/average/mediocre etc" would be more than enough, along with a short list of what can be changed.
I always love reading the graphical analysis parts of reviews, as it gives me a greater appreciation of the work that not only you, bit-tech, put into reviews, but also the developers making the game. If a game scales very well along with graphical settings changes, then that is surely worthy of mentioning and goes a long way towards making a game great. Just look at the Source engine; it scales excellently, and that only improves my opinion of Valve and the games they make, since everyone and their nan can enjoy them.
If there is no hype for a game, keep doing what you do, it's more than good enough already :)
i also agree with jenny. testing the game at 1024/low on a high end system to see what the low settings look like isn't much use, but testing the game on a dual-core and 8800gt to see if it's still playable would be quite useful.
that should be *fewer* spelling errors. Tsk!
:D
- install,
- change keyboard settings,
- verify that screen resolution is my screen's native,
- just check if game automatically set low/med/high settings,
- play,
- uninstall
Simply I don't have time to change one setting, check if it looks better (means - if I can see this :P) and if I still can play on this setting. Bit-tech's reviews show specific options, performance impact and how much changes on the screen. To say it short - you make me to fiddle with some options :)
As was said already - it would be great to know what hardware is required to play on specific set of settings.
Oh, and please don't forget to write about game playability. I didn't check all the games you've reviewed, but bit-tech usually says what every player says about a game (this includes me :)).
P.S. Joe, FarCry 1.3 patch review wasn't a patch review - it was a technology review ;) In my opinion such articles are really worth their time, if there's a real breaktrough or at least someone tries (as with 1.3 patch - it was about to bring real HDR, but it was... erm...) you should write about it.
Graphics are important but should only be described in length if there is anything wrong with it. I don't want to hear for every shooter how amazing the new detail for faces is ["YOU CAN SEE EACH HAIR IN THE NOSE!!!!!1111one"] but if there are many clipping problems or slow-downs in console games [WTF?!?!] then please feel free to tell me.
Other than that, as mentioned, focus on how a game feels. The "The Path" review was a great example of how to make a game review fun while still telling you all you need to know.
Again, ;) for that, Joe. :)
Of course if I had a lower spec PC I imagine that then I'd be interested in a quick run-through of what it looks like on different systems, but as it as, I just don't care.
For a while now though that has changed. Gone are the majority of in depth graphical stuff, left over is a pitiful reminent of a few screenshots with different texture settings and thats it.
Take the Empire Total War review for example, the game is filled with a bunch of interesting graphical settings which can make a huge impact on the visuals and performance, yet BT's graphical analysis doesn't even mention a single one and goes on to display only obvious presets low/high. Even the writer mentions that everything shown is run of the mill and to be expected, wasted effort if you ask me.
This site once had a unique selling point for PC game reviews, but now they're the same as the console reviews and every other review site out there.
Anyways my suggestion would be, if your going to take the effort and try and give PC gamers what they want in a game review, at least spend that effort on something that might be of true interest such as a unique graphical option instead of just bland and predictable texture settings or presets.
As for taking it out completly, people can always skip a page or 2 if they "just don't care" or can't be bothered with their graphical settings because of their busy lives, but missing information that has come to be expected can ruin a review.
Graphics: 8
Gameplay: 6
Value: 7
Overall: 7
Or whatever it may be, this would also allow you to shrink the graphical analysis as you could give an impression on the graphics in the score section.
Due to the nature of graphical adjustment on the PC there should certainly be some analysis, but perhaps limited to presets, painless performance/eye candy gains, and likewise any crippling problems. I guess it boils down to a few screen shots with fps numbers and reporting the others only if you find something to report. Unfortunately that'll still need a little work in the background testing resolutions and such. Then again, we don't normally expect you to report every bug you stumble across, so don't feel you need to knock yourselves out.
lols
maybe you could cater more to the enthusiast crowd and show some hd footage on youtube or something.. that would be different
^ This.
When the games demand it (i.e. Crysis) then graphics should be detailed but for most games it doesn't really matter too much and the way the game plays should be the main point of the review.
Keep up the good work btw, one of the best bits on Bit-Tech are your game reviews. :)
Also the review for a PC game which is released after the console version tends to fall short. (see your Fallout 3 reviews...the PC review generally says "look at the console review"...ah, but the PC-Version had bugs the console version hadn't...and a LOT of different settings...and a lot of limitations due to the interface beeing console-friendly))
You used to focus on PC and frankly CustomPC isn't called CustomConsole either :D
Hard OCP typially do this with all major PC game releases and it really gives a good idea of how the current CPUs and GPUs will perform. Have you guys thought about video reviews/ updates via embedded Youtube or Viddler?
As for the console vs pc, while it's true that there is a lack of high profile titles for the pc, I'd like Bit-tech to continue the trend I've noticed for a while now, giving indie titles more room.
More then 1/2 a year later PC-players are still waiting for needed major patches for SP,and even more for MP!
But it seems money to be spent on patching has allready been spended by the marketing division of UBIsoft,that tricked reviewers to write fantasy-stories based on graphics show-offs,not gameplay experiences;
or maybe plain briberies...
Eversince I'm no longer interested in (hyping) reviews:
I prefer to wait 6 months after initial release,and pay only $5 for a $50 game to enjoy the graphics,
or even longer:untill decent game-patches have come,
and their quality has been affirmed by users!
I tend to read games sites for the hidden gems that might come out of the reviews - if you restrict yourself to the big budget high publicity games, surely the great ones from small companies will just get lost in the abyss? (after all, you can rarely be absolutely sure that a game will be rubbish just from a glance)
I'd almost say that its the big releases that don't need so much focus - there are dozens of reviews for each of these, and alot of people make up their mind well in advance wether or not they are going to try the game.
a) how good the game looks
b) how it scales of lesser hardware
c) are there any problems
In many cases, you can answer these in the review without the need for lots of screenshots and graphical analysis. I think for the vast majority of readers, knowing whether the game looks nice, and whether their PC can play it is the most important thing. In an ideal world, three benchmarks for each of the Buyer's Guide PCs to give an idea of how well the game performs on lesser hardware would be ideal, but given time restraints it'd be easy enough to simply tell us. E.g. Left4Dead scales well on lesser hardware, Crysis doesn't. A mixture of quantatitive evidence of personal experience will probably suffice.
Naturally, as others have pointed out, for a game that uses r/evolutionary graphics, for example a new engine, it's important to do a much more indepth breakdown, but for something like the new Riddick game, simply telling us with three screenshots of the presets is probably enough.
Ofcourse all this is aside from the standard marks you give.
One thing that i would like is a full article from one of the more techy guys about graphic engines. Compare engines, explain what they are, how they are made, upcoming developments, etc etc.
Would it make more sense to you guys to have a quick look at the graphical presets then, but mainly replace the graphics page with a more in-depth look at multiplayer, or another facet of gameplay which you feel we neglect?
Obviously, for games that are all about the graphics (crysis, etc) we'd take a more full look at the graphics anyway - that will always be the case. If we have things to say about the graphics then we will always say them, but I'm more mindful of games that are graphically mediocre or where they aren't all that important.
But it's kinda pointless to write long graphics review if you can max out everything without seriously affecting FPS even on poor PCs.
What I would really like to see is something that takes the FPS ratings into account on say a batch of 4 or 5 current cards at a few different resolutions so we can work out how well a game will run in our rigs.
I think something like a scaled down version of the bar charts used in the GFX card reviews would be a great benefit to the readers here.
For me, for game reviews I want to know these things :-
1) Is the game good/fun/worth buying?
2) Is it mulitplayer/online - and if it is does it differ from normal playmode? How? Better? Worse?
3) What is different about it - if anything - or is it better than what is available?
4) Is it value for money?
5) What are the graphics like?
6) What are the sounds like?
7) What is the storyline/background and is it any good?
Pretty much in that order. I have a pretty standard medium rig based on an overclocked Q6600
As you can see I am not too fussed about the graphics being state of the art - so long as they don't totally suck, and do what they need to do, I'm not too bothered. If they are particularly great or different, that is a nice bonus, and something I would like some more detail on, but not why I buy the game.
In a review I would like to see how a game would run on my sort of rig on low/med/high standard type of settings that I will be picking and setting up QUICKLY (because I do not want to spend all day fiddling about with grafix options to get an extra layer of shadow, I want to play the damned game) and what the FPS or consequence of those settings are, so I can choose what is best for me. What they are best set at for online compared to solo play etc
Anything else, all the guff you often see about pixel counts and 16 types of shade with 16 screenshots to show them all, and I can't tell the difference between shot 1 to 16, have zero bearing to me personally. I understand why some people would want all of that, but if it is a choice between all that extra detail (which I skip over reading in reviews 99% of the time) or you having more time to play the game properly and giving better feedback on the multiplayer side of things, I will take those over graphics anyday.
As far as reviewing bad games - this is why I stopped buying PC Gamer a while back. The mag was full of crap reviews on crap games getting less than 40%. While amusing in the short term, when it happens mag after mag after mag- bleh - waste of money.
If a game is scoring less than 40% (for me less than 80% is dodgy ground) I don't need 900 words to tell me why. A simple list of crap games with the crap score next to them is enough for me to avoid them thanks a lot. If one of these minor releases gets a good score then it will get a full and proper review anyway yeah?
If it is a big release and crap, yeah a couple of pages explaining why is great.
Common sense?
however.... given some of the stupid graphics settings on games (looks at GTA IV), what i'd really like to see is how well a game performs graphically at the Recommended Specs.
it's all well and good seeing how good a game can look if you've got the best kit out there. but even on a forum such as this, full of people who know computers and are often upgrading, chances are a lot of us just aren't going to have amazing rigs - especially in the current financial climate.
it would also be interesting to see how things run at minimum required specs too of course.
i feel this is just far more relevant than - look what you can get with a kick arse computer.
i suppose the more relevant question is how would we want this information presented to us. as you say the graphics section of pc games reviews here is often very in depth. and i'll be honest, a lot of it means nothing to me. i get frame rate and stuff obviously, but some of the stuff you guys go on about is very 'tech speak' and i know this site is aimed more at people that know their stuff than some, but you also get a lot of people like me who like intellectual discussion about stuff, but don't really get why Hz matter etc.
maybe keep that stuff for those that really want it, but have it as an addendum to the review rather than the meat of it. i suspect most of us really just want to know if the game's fun to play, how much it challenges the player, if it's breaking any new ground, and to an extent how it looks.
other then that i think your reviews are fine.
For instance: "Crysis on Low: NV GF8300+, ATi x800+; Crysis on Med: NV GF8800+, ATi 3xxx+; Crysis on High: NV GF9800GT+, ATi 48xx+" (Numbers pulled entirely out of my ass, but you get the idea).
But I think the text could concentrate on how much effect (Visually, and computationally) bumping each setting has.
So, for example, "Typically, bumping the decals and post-processing can be done 'for free', with only a 5-10% drop in performance for the considerable visual improvement. However, bumping shadows or reflections can seriously eat your GPU, each step leading to a 40% drop in FPS!"
So people can use the presets as a guide for their system, and then tweak values up (or down) to get the best balance of performance:display they can for their system.
And, just maybe, you discover a brilliant game along the way.
I've been intending to work something like that into my blog posts for a while now, but I honestly have so many blog ideas and am only allowed to do one a week, so getting round to it is taking some serious time. I honestly have four or five blog/feature ideas queueing up on my home PC now...
As I said in the blog post, it can take quite a bit of time getting those shots and writing that page for what appears to be very little actual gain.
Also, +1 for more PC reviews like back when. I would like to see more game mod coverage again.
-Take interesting screenshots.
-Highligt any new interesting features.
-Write down your own opinion, sum up your experience with the performance vs what you expected.
-stop using the same layout for every review, it looks like a chore, 600 words, seriously?