Matrix Games

Where I argue about the horribleness of game reviews

Again on Warhammer 40,000: Armageddon and more

Game reviews can be the greatest of things to read for a publisher. Phrases like "Where the game shines is in its use of the Warhammer fiction. Strong use of theme goes a long way in the land of hexes. The benefits that a convincingly portrayed fictional or historical setting can contribute is not only found in the flavour but in immediate accessibility", make them happy even if the same review also reads "On one level, no, it’s not a looker and it never will be" and "Despite the hundreds of unit types and meaty campaign, Armageddon feels like a snack rather than a feast, but it’s a tasty snack" (this is from the RPS review by Adam Smith).

Such reviews are fair, they get what the game is about. They don't make design choices look like big game flaws and they don't fall into the pretty obvious and mundane if-you-like-Warhammer-buy-this-game type of comment. Yes, it's a Warhammer 40,000 game, so possibly that's my target audience, thanks.

There are occasions, though, where game reviews could hit the nerves in ways that go beyond the natural disappointment. That's when considerations of a single review become the starting point of a bigger argument about the reviews themselves. They border the philosophy of judgement  - maybe that's a science or a discpline - and the professionalism of critique in general. It's a complex topic and the basic questions are the usual "should a product be reviewed by someone who doesn't understand it", "should someone unfamiliar with a genre or topic be reviewing something of that genre of topic" and such.

In Gold: The Final Science Fiction Collection there is an interesting quote by author Isaac Asimov (that's in part three "On Writing Science Fiction") that reads: From my close observation of writers, they fall in to two groups: 1) those who bleed copiously and visibly at any bad review, and 2) those who bleed copiously and secretly at any bad review. Which makes a lot of sense and brings the matter to a further question that's even less easy to answer. Do reviewers need to consider that a bad review will hurt the feeling (and sales) of people who spent hours, days, weeks, months, even years in making their product?

Well, reality is that a bad review is bad for the mood, but not always bad for sales. So one gets used, with experience, to negative comments. In a time where customers feedback is one of the dominant factors for the success of a product a guy writing negative things on a specialist site is just another drop in the ocean. Of course there are negative comments that are placed in front of many more eyeballs than the one of the average Mr Common Player's view. What matters in reality is a combination of the relevance of the comment, the name of the writer and the additional views at the bottom of the article, under the score.

One thing that's not good and has no positive angle at all is when a review contains wrong facts. Take Calm Down Tom review of the same game as a great example of a list of things that are not good, neither for the game, nor for the publication. To quote a few: "It's a turn based RTS" (sure, why not)", "There's very little detail to the various units you'll be controlling" (that's a pretty bold statement), "...an iPad title that's been ported to PC..." (rise iPad players!) and my favourite "It’s a bit like playing the game of a movie or a book that you already know the ending of" (yes, or like playing a game about World War II - one would probably know the ending of that, right?).

Independently of the personal judgment and the score, wrong is wrong and it's no good. One would argue that knowledgeable customers would spot the long list of errors and ignore the article or even laugh at it. That's certainly one to hope for.
And maybe also read something more appropriate when looking for a view on a game they'd like to buy.

Once on a time, the ancient legends tell,
Truth, rising from the bottom of her well,
Looked on the world, but, hearing how it lied,
Returned to her seclusion horrified.

Marco A. Minoli - Marketing Director HoW
@piuemme