Project COE’s Revamped Game Reviews RAQ!

As of March 24th, 2010…all our forthcoming reviews adhere to the new system we’ve concocted in our imaginary labs. It’s ALIVE!

Last Updated: March 9th, 2011.


 

So you’re going back to the drawing board with written reviews?

Yes, more or less. We’re so bored out of our minds right now we just decided to develop our site a bit.

Why? What’s wrong with your current tried-and-true method of reviewing games?

Are you kidding me? “What’s right about it?” is the better question to ask. It’s tasteless…just like an eggplant. I hate those things. We’ve been set on changing the way we review games for a year now. It just took us awhile to settle on something concrete. Did I mention that I hate eggplants?

What’s so different about your reviews this time around?

We’re ditching the essay-based format for a more streamlined one that focuses on pros and cons. While article-type reviews don’t seem to have any restrictions per-se, the material can be rather drab. You’re forced to write about most of the game’s aspects (like an automated instruction manual) while offering constructive criticism simultaneously, thus having a bulk of text that may be inconvenient to the reader. Yes, we can show off our writing skills freely, but in this day and age only 1% of you gamers actually read through the whole review. Most of you just skip to the final score or browse Metacritic and be done with it. This is a 100% proven scientific statistic…ask the guys who believe that chickens can fly! It may be the only correct fact I know about chickens.

Well you don’t seem to be offering anything new. Sounds like Kotaku’s reviews to me. What gives?

We’re not ripping off Kotaku. “Inspired by” is a better phrase to use. We believe that their reviews are the most efficient in the gaming journalism circle today. Our format has other inspirations, too: most notably EGM’s old method of previewing games and Clint Eastwood’s infamous western flick, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.”

Is that the movie that contains the “Do you feel lucky?” line?

No. That’s “Dirty Harry”.

How about “Go ahead. Make my day.”?

No! That’s “Sudden Impact”.

How about…

How about you let me finish my explanation before testing me on movie trivia?! Anyway, The bulk of the review will have five parameters: the great, the good, the so-so, the bad and the ugly. The great and the ugly contain a game’s highest and lowest point, respectively…only ONE point can be elaborated on in those categories. The good, bad and so-so, however, can have multiple points. Additionally, for the sake of being funny, you will occasionally find “the great” and “the ugly” replaced with other similar descriptions…it all depends on the subject matter and the reviewer’s sense of humor (yes, we’re that desperate to make you guys like us. We’re funny, right? PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LAUGH AT MY JOKES AND AWESOME HUMOR!). These parameters are preceded by an introductory paragraph and a segment called “Parent Talk”, which describes the game’s technical features and ESRB rating. The review concludes with the lowdown; a final paragraph and our new innovative key word system!

Innovative key word system? You mean numbers, right?

No. That’s a fad that died out long ago. We’re completely eliminating numbers from the picture since all people do is look at the score and ditch the review itself. Seriously, when is the last time you made sense of a 9/10 rating for a game? It’s neither universal nor objective. A 9 from SpotGame can convey a completely different perspective from NGI. Let’s not get into decimals, either. A 9.8/10? Come on! What does that even mean? This isn’t rocket science, you know. It’s not like the world will explode if you miscalculate a 0.2 off perfection (although that technically has nothing to do with rocket science, you clearly understand what I’m trying to say…hopefully). Project COE has been giving numbers based on our gut feeling and nothing more, and we’re literally getting stomachaches from barfing random numbers based on what guts are telling us. As Steven and Jarrod mentioned during our discussion, numbers are for fanboy flame wars and Metacritic. We care about neither. Get it? Got it? Good!

Here’s how we’ll analyze games from now on, on a scale from high to low. The phrases speak for themselves, but we’ll explain in detail just in case. Note that a game will not be restricted to one phrase in the lowdown. Depending on the critic, we may use multiple phrases thus encompassing all options of the appeal of the game in question. For example, I may highly recommend everyone to buy Vagrant Story II, but still warn the general audience of lack of tutorials and hand-holding that will eventually confuse the player. Some may consider it a rental because of these reasons alone.

The following are the general keywords we’ll lean to weaving within our lowdown paragraph.

BUY IT: A great game that needs to be played immediately due to high entertainment and replay values. One heck of a roller-coaster ride. You may not have the incentive to revisit it soon after your first run, and you may trade it or sell it to play something else. Nonetheless, the experience is unforgettable.

TRY IT: the phrase “try before you buy” is praise-worthy. The game in question is definitely worth checking out, but you may want to give it a test run to find out if it’s truly your cup of tea. A demo, a play-through at your friend’s place, or even if it’s on display in your local retail shop–all good options.

APPROACH WITH CAUTION: the gray area in our ratings system. Can tip either scale. A mixed bag of impressions. Buying it, waiting out, renting it, or avoiding it entirely — it all depends on your gaming tastes. It can even be the best game you’ve ever played if you’re willing to overlook the negatives. You can even be the type of gamer who doesn’t tolerate these negatives at all despite the good value found. The diamonds in the rough may be worth a lot to you, yet worth nothing at all to others.

RENT IT: a one-time experience. A popcorn game. May be fun for a short while. Once you’re done with it, however, you’ll never look back.

AVOID IT…AT ALL COSTS: our worst award (duh!). The wall of shame. Don’t even think of playing this game.

I remember your rating system being quite different. How come you changed from finalized ratings to “key word”-based ones?

It’s true. The keywords above used to be final stamp ratings, yet the more we relied on it, the more we’ve noticed that we’re still using a tiered numbered system in a way, only this time around words replace numbers. Our objective was to completely eliminate this type of criticism from our site, and we’ve failed to do so with our new ratings. Thus, to rectify the situation and not let all the work go to waste, we’re still keeping our catchy phrases only now they’re weaved into the final paragraph of the review and we have the ability to use more than one. Though occasionally you’ll see a couple of games pop up with a final decision (like 2010′s Quantum Theory being a complete waste of your time and money, no exceptions).

Talk about overkill. Anything else?

Yeah. We have a special scale for download games. Before asking me why, ask yourself this: “Am I stupid?” After reading our retail scale, you should know that you can’t rent or buy download games. You either save ‘em in your hard drive or don’t. Thus, the retail scale needs to be trimmed down and renamed appropriately.

MUST DOWNLOAD: needs to be played on release day. It’s just that good of a download game which fits well with its suggested price.

DECENT DOWNLOAD: not bad, yet not excelling. You can wait on it and decide later. Perhaps a certain price drop will motivate you to download it at a later date.

DON’T DOWNLOAD: speaks for itself. A waste of hard drive space.

I’m still not convinced. You guys sound biased to me.

It’s impossible to be 100% objective. If you want that kind of writing, go read manuals and strategy guides. What makes a review special is the presence of both subjective and objective material. Meaning: we don’t take the average of the number of good and bad points and weigh the final score accordingly, nor do we try and fully appreciate the general tastes of the whole gaming population. The former basically puts us back in square one since we’re using numbers to review our games, and the latter is simply impossible to do with a few exceptions. Instead, we compare the game in question to our personal experiences of other games within the genre itself.

Let’s talk examples. The latest anime-based RPG from that friendly neighborhood niche game publisher down the street has just been released. We don’t immediately hate on it because it uses anime and its audience is small compared to fighters and FPS games. We simply compare its material to other anime-based RPG out there. Is it too straight-forward with its influences or does it try to please and surprise its intended audience? Likewise, a post-apocalyptic shooter from that publisher with a big budget has also hit shelves recently. As you readers know, the FPS genre is overcrowded with releases each month. Does this new one stack up to the latest stuff or should you go hunt down that FPS sequel from a one-hit-wonder-turned-franchise released a few months ago? See what I mean?

I can go on forever here, so I hope you’ve gotten the point. We’re trying to be as fair as possible within the realm of subjectivity and each of our personal experiences and opinions.

8 thoughts on “Project COE’s Revamped Game Reviews RAQ!”

    1. Glad you like, dude. Looks like my alternate comedian persona took over as I wrote this. Medical student by day, gamer by evening, and comedian by night! :P

  1. But i did like the medals, can you keep it alongside this renewal, i love all the ideas , but please dont remove the medals…pretty please. i think they are so different and very unique of your site

    1. LOL. You do really love our medals, Manu. Tell you what…I’ll contact Eddy, our site designer, and see if he can whip up some new “medals” for us. We’re currently just testing the waters to see if the names 100% stick. The only one that’s liable to change is “CHERISH IT”.

  2. Yeah this system was designed for feedback, so by all means let us know. We can’t use the same medals, because that puts us back into the traditional “score” area, where we don’t really want to be. However, we can certainly whip something up for the new remarks we’re leaving like Buy It, etc. Eddy can surely come up with something equally as nice.

  3. This system is really nice and innovative. It hearkens to the whole “apples vs. oranges” debate about reviews, and whether you can compare games to each other. Do you rate them opposed to all other games in existence, or games in the genre, or purely on the potential that one game possessed? This tiered system helps release the restrain on minuscule differences and gives a sense of value relative to the consumer.
    Though I will admit, as an admirer of the art of video games, I do prefer the more rigorous and precise 100 scale system. Though I’m not faulting you on this new direction, as it does attract a different, more prevalent audience.

    1. Good stuff, man. Took the words right out of my mouth. As for comparing games with each other, your examples occur in a case-by-case basis…as you’ve seen in our GoW III and Sonic reviews, we’re forced to compare them with the previous installments, but in the same time we shouldn’t undermine the quality present when put alone. Luckily though, as you’ve mentioned, it doesn’t make a huge impact in our final say on the game.

      Glad you like our new direction, man…and I respect your preference on the tried-and-true numbered system. While it does have its advantages, we as COE are so tired about its negatives it brings to the table. Nobody can convince me about the difference between a 4 and a 3 out of 10 for example…and even if there is an explanation, it will vary from person to person.

      If you have any further feedback, don’t hesitate to mention them. We’re still testing the waters with our reviews despite finalizing things. If something doesn’t work, we’ll have to rethink things.

Leave a Reply