Characterizing and Understanding Game Reviews
José P. Zagal
College of Computing and Digital Media
DePaul University
243 South Wabash Avenue
Chicago, IL 60604, USA
jzagal@cdm.depaul.edu
Amanda Ladd, Terris Johnson
College of Computing
Georgia Institute of Technology
801 Atlantic Drive
Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
{amanda.ladd,terris}@gatech.edu
ABSTRACT
Game reviews are one of the primary forms of videogame
journalism and are also one of the prevalent forms of discourse
about games. How can we characterize them and better
understand the role they might play in helping create and shape
our understanding of games? This article reports on the results of
a study that analyzed and deconstructed a selection of game
reviews from popular online websites. Our findings show that
game reviews are rich and varied in terms of themes and topics
covered and that considering them purely as “shopping guides”
ignores the broader role they play in the discourse of games. We
found that game reviews often include game design suggestions,
hypothesize about the intentions and goals of game creators, and
offer advice to readers on how to approach and best enjoy
particular games. More generally, game reviews can also help
preserve videogame history by contextualizing the links and
historical connections that exist between games.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
K.8.0 [Personal Computing]: General - Games
Keywords
Videogames, game reviews, understanding games, reviews
1. INTRODUCTION
Game reviews are one of the primary forms of videogame
journalism. Andy McNamara, editor-in-chief of Game Informer
Magazine, recently commented at the 2008 Game Developer’s
Conference that the purpose of game reviews is to help consumers
by leading them to games that make them happy (2008). His
words echo the purpose, or role, that game reviews attempt to
fulfill, namely inform the reader so that he or she may make a
decision of whether or not to purchase or play the game reviewed.
From this perspective, game reviews can be considered as
consumer advice. In fact, Stuart argues that most game magazines
are structured in such a way to guide the reader through to
purchasing a game (2005). The reason for this is that presumably
“most readers seem to see magazines as buying guides and little
else. They want to know what they’ll be able to buy in the future,
and what’s worth buying now” (Stuart 2005).
Game reviews often overshadow other forms of journalistic
discourse surrounding games such as news, investigative
reporting, and commentary (Thomas 2007). Reviews have also
been maligned for a variety of reasons such as being inconsistent
in writing and style (Thomas, Orland et al. 2007), or being “rife
with grammatical errors, historical inaccuracies, plagiarism, run
on sentences, [and] clichés” (Buffa 2006b). They have also been
accused of failing to take a critical and analytical viewpoint
(Costikyan 2008). Another accusation is that reviews don’t
explain what playing a particular game feels like and that they
don’t analyze what a game means outside the game itself
(Klostermann 2006).
Despite the controversy surrounding their quality or importance1
,
game reviews are undoubtedly an influence on the ways that
people view, understand and talk about games. In a prior study,
Zagal and Bruckman found that students taking videogamerelated
classes at the university level had difficulties expressing
ideas about gameplay or articulating their experience with games
(2007). They argue that a possible explanation for this lies in the
fact that most of what students read about games are videogame
reviews, and that they are thus generally lacking in models of
what in-depth analysis or critique about games look like.
However, what are game reviews like? How can we characterize
them? How do game reviews talk about games and what things
do they talk about? Is the professional game designer Ernest
Adams essentially correct when he says that “reviews only
compare games to other games; they don’t analyze games in their
larger cultural context” (Friedl 2002)? These are some of the
questions we explored by analyzing and deconstructing a large
number of game reviews. Our goal was not to determine whether
game reviews are “good” or “bad”, comment on the quality of
their writing, or consider whether or not they are effective for
guiding purchasing decisions. Rather, we aimed to get a sense of
the kinds of things that appear, or are routinely discussed, in
games reviews in order to better understand how these may shape
our understanding of games and the discourse surrounding their
use.
2. METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION
In order to characterize videogame reviews we sampled and
analyzed a random selection of game reviews from the most
popular specialized media sources on the world wide web. In
order to determine popularity (and thus, indirectly, reach) we used
the Alexa web ranking system. The only game review sites2
to
1
For a summary refer to (McCrea 2007).
2
GameFaqs, ranked #30, was not considered because although it
does have game reviews, these are written and submitted by site
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
ICFDG 2009, April 26–30, 2009, Orlando, FL, USA.
Copyright 2009 ACM 978-1-60558-437-9…$5.00.
215
appear on the 100 most popular sites on the web were IGN
(www.ign.com, ranked #43) and Gamespot (www.gamespot.com,
ranked #48).3
We considered Alexa’s ranking of the most popular
sites by users in the United States only.
For each of the sites, we created a list of all of the reviews posted
during the year 2006 and then, as needed, randomly selected
reviews from the list for our analysis. We decided to sample from
an entire year rather than shorter period such as a few months in
order to minimize the effects of the lack of uniformity in games
releases over an entire year.
Analysis of each of the reviews was conducted in an iterative
process in which data from one review confirmed or contradicted
data from others in order to refine theoretical categories,
propositions, and conclusions as they emerged from the data
(Glaser and Strauss 1967). Essentially, we used open coding to
bring themes to the surface from deep inside the data (Neuman
2000). We assigned codes or labels to each sentence (or, in some
cases a few sentences) in a review. Initially, these codes or labels
often overlapped, and individual sentences often had more than
one code or label assigned. As we analyzed more reviews, new
codes emerged and existing ones were modified. The goal of this
process was to identify consistencies between codes (codes with
similar meanings or pointing to the same basic idea) that would
begin to reveal themes. This process continued until no further
codes emerged. By the end of this process more than 120 different
reviews were analyzed.4
3. FINDINGS
As described earlier, we were not interested in evaluating the
quality or effectiveness of game reviews. Rather, our goal was to
get a sense of the kinds of things that appear, or are routinely
discussed, in games reviews. Do game reviews have particular
characteristics that define them? For example, are game reviews
focused on the technical aspects of games such as the quality and
resolution of the graphics? When reviewing games, what sort of
context and knowledge do reviews assume the reader has? Also,
are there different styles of reviews and how do they vary?
Finally, how could we explain or understand these characteristics
and what might they tell us about the medium of videogames in
general?
As mentioned earlier, our analysis focused on deconstructing
game reviews (ie, breaking then down into sentences or groups of
a few sentences) and then characterizing what these components
"are about". These characteristics are what we will now describe.
Taken together, they represent the most salient features and
qualities that game reviews have. They also inform us of what this
particular form of discourse surrounding game is like. They
provide us with an insight regarding the assumptions made by
game review writers about what things they feel readers need to
know, what they already know, and what their role is within the
broader community of people who play games (and read game
users and are not representative of mainstream games
journalism.
3
As measured on Feb 25, 2008.
4
Additionally, we performed preliminary analyses with reviews
from print magazines. The data from those reviews informed,
but was not used directly in the study we report on here.
reviews). While some of these characteristics are predictable,
there are others that are perhaps particular to games (further
research would be required to explore this in detail).
From our analysis we were able to identify nine common themes:
description, personal experience, reader advice, design
suggestions, media context, game context, technology, design
hypotheses, and industry. Each theme wasn't necessarily present
in all of the reviews. However, each review had more than one
theme in evidence. For instance, the first few passages of a review
might relate the personal experience of the reviewer. The
following sentences might be descriptions interspersed with
reader advice before wrapping up with some sentences about the
media context of the game being reviewed.
We will now briefly describe each theme and show excerpts from
game reviews that exemplify the theme described. In order to
provide sufficient context the excerpts may include sentences that
were coded differently from the theme being described. We also
note that the themes are not presented in order of prevalence or
importance.
3.1 Description
Perhaps the most evident or obvious theme for a game review are
those passages dedicated to describing the game being reviewed.
This theme essentially covers the description of the features,
modes and/or characteristics, and gameplay of a particular game.
"The gameplay in Emergency 3 is divided between a 20mission
single-player campaign and a freeplay mode. In
freeplay, you can complete a series of challenges or
address an endless stream of emergency situations
spread out over a large town. Regardless of which mode
you choose, the basic gameplay remains the same.
You're given specific objectives to complete and you
must use a variety of rescue units to do so." – Emergency
3 (PC)
Additionally, it is common for the description to include a brief
discussion of what the player needs to do to play this game.
Sometimes the descriptive parts of a review may include specific
instructions such as what buttons need to be pressed on the
controller to achieve certain results.
“You control the action almost exclusively using the
touch screen, and while this may sound strange, the
system works well and eventually becomes second
nature. During the strategic portions of missions, you
simply draw your ships' flight path for the next turn,
pointing them wherever you want them to go. During
battle, you move the stylus around the screen to fly in
different directions, and you can make your ship execute
a highly useful barrel roll by rubbing the stylus from
side to side.” – Starfox Command (DS)
It might be considered superfluous for a game review to present
instructions on how to play or refer to the specific buttons and
commands used. This information is, after all, generally available
in the game's manual and is often presented to the player during
their initial interactions with the game itself. However, when
attempting to understand what the experience of playing the game
is like, the reader arguably has need of information that somehow
communicates the potential complexity of managing a games'
input. For instance, the reader might not be willing to consider
216
playing a game because of its extensive use of complicated button
sequences or combos. Alternately, as shown in the example
above, the reader can consider the ease of use or naturalness that
the interface might provide to the player.
3.2 Personal Experience (as Player)
Game reviews often include first-person accounts of the
experience the game reviewer had with the game in question.
Sometimes, these personal narratives recount interesting actions
carried out by the player. More often, however, they consist of
descriptions of the emotions felt both during play as well as after.
We note that sometimes, such as in the example of a racing game
below, these first-hand descriptions may convey emotions that
normally would not be associated with a particular game.
“Quite quickly several of our games turned into insanely
comedic Blues Brothers scenarios. It was
humiliating/hysterical to see the inane blunders!” –
Need for Speed Carbon (PS2)
Another common aspect of personal experience includes
descriptions of the sensations and perceptions associated with the
act of play itself. The following excerpt describes how the
reviewer feels that he is able to get an adequate sense of the
weights of different cars in the videogame The Fast and the
Furious. The notion of “sense of weight” is arguably an idea that
is perhaps nebulous or hard to pin down objectively, so we find it
interesting to note how often these kinds of sensations are
described.
“The inference of weight comes through beautifully, with
each and every car feeling like three thousand-pound
pieces of machinery rather than paperweights on wheels.
You have a great sense of speed and inertia because of
this, and the power that your wheels are kicking out
comes through the controller nicely.” – The Fast and the
Furious (PS2)
Passages sharing this theme may also describe technical problems
encountered, such as bugs or software crashes. As expected,
emotions accompanying these descriptions often include anger,
frustration, and disappointment.
The appearance of this theme is testament to the inherent
challenges of describing a game: connecting what is “in the game”
with what it feels like to play it. The former is arguably covered
by the Description theme. The latter, covered by the Personal
Experience theme, lies outside of the game. It involves the
emotions and feelings experienced through play. Gillen (2004)
argues for more games journalism that eschews the traditional
(analytic) form of games writing over one that focuses on “what a
gamer feels and thinks […], not just the mechanics of how it got
there.” (Gillen 2004) While we did find evidence of this sort of
approach in game reviews, it is used mainly to support the
analytic form of analysis.
3.3 Reader Advice
It may seem obvious that a review will offer advice to a reader.
What surprised us was the form that most reader advice takes in
game reviews. While the purpose of game reviews is, in theory, to
provide purchasing advice to the reader, we found that more often
than not, game reviews provide readers with advice on how to
enjoy a particular game. For example, a review might advise on
what the appropriate mode of play is or what the player should do
in order to avoid frustration and derive the most enjoyment.
“But if you are willing to invest the time to dig in and
read a thick manual, experiment with more options and
variations than you'll ever be able to completely explore
in an average lifetime, and patiently learn a complex but
well-designed game system, Dominions 3 will reward
you with one of the richest strategy-gaming experiences
available on the PC today.” – Dominions 3: The
Awakening (PC)
Alternately, Reader Advice might attempt to assuage the fears that
readers may have about a certain game. Will this game be too
complicated for me? How much of a commitment will be
necessary for me to be successful at this game?
"Thankfully, there's no real "wrong" way to play, just
different and better ways, and the nature of the game is
such that you can take it at your own pace." – Guild
Wars Nightfall (PC)
Reader advice may also include recommendations of certain
modes of play as well as tips, tricks and strategies that may be
useful to succeed. Additionally, reviewers also often commented
on the kinds of skills and abilities necessary to play the game in
question.
“You can also collect potions, which let you shoot a
fireball. But potions can be limited, so they're best used
as a last resort.” – Solomon’s Key (Wii)
We found that readers were rarely directly advised whether or not
to purchase a particular game.5
At most, the reviewer might share
his or her opinion with the reader regarding the perceived value of
the game (with respect to the recommended retail price).
“Many of the games we look at are simply too cookiecutter
to set them apart in our minds, and thus can't be
recommended as a $30-$40 dollar investment when it
comes to consumers.” – Cars (GCN)
So, why does a game review try to educate the reader as to how
you should (or could) enjoy the game being reviewed? It has been
argued that game reviews cater to the games industry at the
expense of the public (Buffa 2006b). From this perspective we
could argue that helping a reader learn how to derive enjoyment
from a particular game increases the chances that the game will
be purchased. Another way to understand this issue is to consider
the review writer as someone deeply impassioned by games and
who wants to, as it where, proselytize. In the same way a friend
might try to convince you play a game (“It’s so much fun to play
it this way!”), the game reviewer cares enough for the medium
that he or she wants to make sure the reviewed game gets a fair
chance at being played and will truly be appreciated.
5
Arguably, review scores might play this role. A game with a low
score will probably be ruled out as a possible purchase
regardless of what the review says (assuming it is even read in
the first place).
217
3.4 Suggestions for Improvement
It is reasonable to assume that a game review would explain the
perceived flaws and problems a particular game might have. This
was indeed the case. However, we were surprised that in addition
to detailing issues, game reviews often provided suggestions for
improvement. Alternately, they might comment on features they
felt were lacking and should have been included in the game.
Often, as in the example below, a reviewer might go into
extensive detail regarding issues of game design.
"Although the concept of making your characters felons
is cool, they could've been handled in some better ways.
For one, you can literally let felonies sit at the post
office without any positive or negative effect happening
to your characters. You'd think that the court system
might try to enforce their will at some point if you simply
let these documents go, whether it was in the middle of a
story battle or a different item world exploration. The
second quirk is that while someone can be accused of a
crime, such as having too high a level, anyone of your
party members can stand in for them in the courtroom
and take on their felony. This makes it entirely possible
to avoid negative penalties as long as you make sure
that someone in your party is guilty of that specific crime
that you're accused of." – Disgaea 2: Cursed Memories
(PS2)
In other instances, the review might draw attention to technical
problems, or bugs.
“A single ‘I want to play, find me an opponent’ option
would have been a better choice, but the same could be
said for most of the other fighting games on Xbox Live,
too. Other issues that are begging to be patched include
a background bug that gives you the same background
stage every time you play an online game.” – Ultimate
Mortal Kombat 3 (Xbox 360)
Generally speaking, we did not find that the suggestions for
improvement referred only to issues of game. Suggestions weren’t
limited to gameplay, interface, narrative or level design but could
also cover the business of making games, outsourcing of talent, or
even casting of voice actors.
“There are a few fleeting bits of humor in the dialogue,
but the script generally tends to hammer home the same
moral messages of teamwork and honor at every
opportunity. While that's nice and all, Bruce Campbell's
legendary talents could've been put to better use on
dialogue more suited to his comedic range.” – The Ant
Bully (PS2)
Although we do not have any evidence to describe the role that
game reviews actually have in the design and development
process of videogames, game reviews often assume a rhetorical
position in which they are a contributing factor to the design and
improvement of games.
"Nevertheless, when we reviewed FIFA Street we alluded
to the fact that we'd very much like to see its problems
addressed in a sequel at some point, and now, one year
later, EA Sports Big has done just that." – FIFA Street 2
(PSP)
3.5 Media Context (non-game)
Bolter and Grusin explain that “no medium today, and certainly
no single media event, seems to do its cultural work in isolation
from other media, any more than it works in isolation from other
social and economic forces” (Bolter and Grusin 1999). This also
applies to videogames. It was thus unsurprising to find that many
reviews took care to provide the reader with details of the broader
(i.e., non-videogame) context relevant to understanding the game
being reviewed. These cases where mostly of two types: a game is
discussed in the context of a broader media property (ie. Star
Wars games) or it remediates a cultural artifact from another
medium (i.e., book, film, comic, etc.). For the most part, review
passages of this theme referred to “licensed games”. These are
games that depend on the brand recognition of an external (ie,
non-videogame) media property for commercial success.
However, we found that providing a media context for a
videogame usually involved more than simply referring to the fact
that, say, the game is based on, or uses characters from a TV
show. The process of contextualizing a game within a particular
media landscape can be complicated. The example below situates
the events played in the game with respect to the general plotline
followed by a Japanese manga (and anime) series: Naruto. We
note that both the review as well as the game assume the reader is
familiar with Naruto’s world and storyline. This sort of
knowledge is crucial to understand where the game “fits” with
respect to the broader fictional universe of which it is a part of
(Zagal 2008).
“Clash of Ninja 2 assumes that you will already be
familiar with the whimsical and ninja-filled world of
Naruto, and the story mode makes little mention of
Naruto's origin as a wicked nine-tailed fox demon.
Instead, the streamlined story mode focuses on the
events after Naruto and friends have graduated from the
ninja academy, with their confrontation with Haku and
Zabuza on the bridge and the trials of the Chunin Exam
serving as a couple of the highlights.” – Naruto: Clash of
Ninja 2 (GCN)
Reviews also provide a media context beyond referring to external
media properties. For instance, some reviews might describe parts
of a game in terms of conventions or clichés from other media or
relate its aesthetic qualities to those from other media.
"If you've seen one of those terrible genre/ hybrid movies
like Jason X, then you're well versed with the theme of
Pocket Racers, Konami's ‘spooky’ rendition of The Fast
and Furious meets Ghost Ship." – Pocket Racers (PSP)
"The story plays out like a modernized anime version of
a myth, except with a far more original visual style than
what most anime brings to bear." – Okami (PS2)
Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, we found passages of
reviews that acknowledged (or hypothesized about) the sources of
inspiration behind a game. We note that these passages may help
the reader make connections that otherwise may not happen. In
the example below, it isn’t obvious that most readers would be
218
familiar with the film WarGames since it was released 23 years
before the game DEFCON: Everybody Dies.6
"In a sincere act of tribute, developer Introversion has
taken the deadly global thermonuclear warfare
simulation from the classic 1983 Cold War film
WarGames and fleshed it out into a full game called
Defcon: Everybody Dies. The game stays true to the
message of its source material, which is that there are
no winners in nuclear war, though it does posit that
perhaps with the right strategy, you can lose less when it
finally does happen." – DEFCON: Everybody Dies (PC)
3.6 Game Context
Of all the thematic characteristics found, this is perhaps the richest
in terms of variety and scope. Generally speaking, almost every
single game review analyzed referred to other games in some way
or another. It almost seems impossible to review a game without
providing the broader ludographic context in which it resides.
Sometimes, when a game is part of a series or franchise, the
review might describe the essential changes between the game
currently being reviewed and earlier games in the series.
"One of the most popular and certainly original aspects
of the first FlatOut was its stunt mini-games,
affectionately called the Ragdoll Olympics, where you
hurled your driver out of your vehicle and at some sort
of goal or target. […] One of the most-wanted features
after last time out was the ability to hold a marathon of
events rather than skipping from single event to single
event, and Bugbear has delivered." – FlatOut 2 (PS2)
Alternately, there might be references to other popular games that
may be similar in theme and/or gameplay.
"Much of Scarface is based on what we've seen in Grand
Theft Auto. In fact, it's fairly obvious that Radical used
said series as the blueprint and then went back and reevaluated
its shortcomings. The result is that we have a
game that fixes many of GTA's problematic elements,
like the targeting system or having to drive out of the
way to stock up on weapons, while also retaining many
of its standardized and fun aspects." – Scarface: The
World is Yours (PS2)
Reviewers also commonly assume that the reader is familiar with
other videogames (not necessarily from the same series) and hope
to leverage that knowledge. For instance, a review might refer to
game genre conventions without providing details as to what
those conventions refer to or mean.
"Gamers at all familiar with traditional 3D platformers
will immediately discover that Pac-Man World has
unfortunately not strayed far from the original formula.
The play controls and level designs follow the guidelines
in Platforming 101." – Pac-Man World 3 (GCN)
In other cases, the game context provided to the reader is largely
historical. For example, it may refer to the history of a game series
or the track record of the company that developed the game.
6
The game’s developer later explicitly acknowledged the film’s
inspiration (Delay, Arundel et al. 2006).
"Developed by Z-Axis (a very talented crew that brought
us the excellent extreme classics, Aggressive Inline and
Thrasher: Skate and Destroy), X-Men lacks the polish
and depth that the crew's previous software has always
had." – X-Men: The Official Game (Xbox 360)
"Did you like Breakout back in the late '70s? How about
Arkanoid in the '80s? […] Taking the classic blockbreaking
concept of the aforementioned games, and
adding in some varying mode types and a Gradius-like
power-up structure, Break 'Em All has some merit as an
update to those classic games." Break 'Em All (DS)
What is perhaps most surprising about this theme is the apparent
dependence that game reviews have on other games. This might
conspire to make game reviews inaccessible to readers who may
not already be deeply invested in videogames. Do game reviews
cater only to most committed fans and exclude everyone else? Or,
do they serve as sources rich in jumping points from which lessknowledgeable
readers can begin to learn and explore
videogames?
3.7 Technology
Technological platforms both limit as well as afford the
implementation of certain kinds of applications. As Bogost and
Montfort argue, videogames are no different (2007). Thus, it is
perhaps unsurprising to find that explanations of the technology
on which videogames run, and the implications of that technology
in a game’s design and user experience appear frequently in game
reviews. Oftentimes, the discussion centers on the particularities
of the interface controllers, particularly so when they are novel or
specific to the game being reviewed.
"Like any peripheral-based music game, much of
beatmania's success lies on the shoulders of its unique
controller. While the beatmania controller isn't perfect
in its design, its implementation is great and helps
separate beatmania into its own, entirely unique
experience." - Beatmania (PS2)
On other occasions, specific platform issues may be discussed.
For instance, the footprint of the installation of the game can be
relevant for PC games, backwards compatibility may appear in
reviews of console games, or technical comparisons might be
made for games that have been ported from one platform to
another.
"There's a slight, jarring pause as you go into and out of
this menu, as if the game simply can't hold all the
different weapons in memory at once like it could on the
PC." – Painkiller: Hell Wars (Xbox)
Oftentimes, the discussion centers on technical aspects related to
computer graphics or video formats. For example, reviewers
might discuss issues such as framerates, video formats and
resolution, popup, or directly address what seem to be limitations
in the implementation of the game.
"While no 16:9 mode is available, the game does run in
480p, which makes a huge difference for any HDTV
owners out there." – Trauma Center: Second Opinion
(Wii)
219
Interestingly enough, the technical capabilities of the hardware are
also often referred to in terms of whether or not the hardware is
being utilized to its full potential. The underlying tone seems to be
one of “more is better”, and that, particularly in the case of
console games, a game that utilizes the hardware platform to its
maximum capabilities is somehow “better”.
"Far Cry Instincts was one of the best games released on
the Xbox last year. It was also one of the most
demanding, and you could easily tell that the Xbox was
being pushed to its limits. Unfortunately, Xbox 360
owners looking to run the game on their next-generation
consoles haven't had any luck; the game isn't currently
backward compatible with the Xbox 360." - FarCry
Instincts: Predator (Xbox 360)
3.8 Design Hypothesis
The Design Hypothesis was another emergent theme whose
appearance surprised us. We often found passages of game
reviews where the reviewer openly hypothesized (or guessed)
about the goals or intentions of the game developers. These
hypotheses can be viewed as, generally speaking, an attempt to
rationalize or explain certain design decisions in the game.
"It's almost as if the designers still wanted to keep a thin
layer of abstraction there to maintain the idea that this
is a tactical game, not a shooter." – Full Spectrum
Warrior: Ten Hammers (Xbox)
"There are always three suspects in any case, and
eventually you'll get warrants to bring them all in. The
third one you bring in is always the guilty party. […]Is it
some kind of lame tie-in to the fact that it's the third Las
Vegas game, and that there's a 3 in the title? Did
someone actually think this was clever?" – CSI: 3
Dimensions of Murder (PC)
As in the Suggestions for Improvement theme described earlier,
this theme highlights the implicit assumption of the role that game
reviews play in the games industry. By directly addressing the
creators of the game, reviews not only assume that industry
members read game reviews but that they also incorporate that
into their work. Game reviews are thus presumably part of a
dialogue between game creators and game reviewers. More
specifically, we can say that game reviews often actively “call
out” game creators for their design and implementation decisions
asking them to explain why things were done in a certain way.
3.9 Industry
Game reviews also often find the space to comment on the state of
the games industry in general or discuss industry-related
information that may be relevant for the game being reviewed.
The following three excerpts provide examples of this theme by
discussing developer/publisher relationships, market trends, and
business strategies.
"[…] but you won't be able to shake the feeling that this
game exists as a contractual obligation between
Activision and DreamWorks." – Over the Hedge (Xbox)
"Electronic Arts seems like one of the last companies to
cash in on its past with some sort of retro compilation,
but it has finally happened" – EA Replay (PSP)
"But Wii Sports is also significant because it is the
perfect representation of a new development direction
for Nintendo - one focused on simple gameplay controls
and uncomplicated, primitive graphics. The title is the
result of a company-wide effort to win over the elusive
non-gamer -- your mom, your dad, and maybe even your
grandfather, too." – Wii Sports (Wii)
Some reviews also comment on business models adopted in the
games industry. References to in-game advertising, product
placement, and digital distribution are some of the concepts
commonly referred to or discussed.
"Big Bumpin' is one of three games being sold at
Burger King as part of a limited-time promotion.
Each game is available for around $4, provided you
buy some food to go with it. […] Rather than the
despicable acts usually associated with product
placement--the Burger King's appearance in Fight
Night Round 3 immediately comes to mind--these
games are top-to-bottom advertisements." – Big
Bumpin' (Xbox)
3.10 The Missing Theme
We also want to note something that was notoriously absent in
game reviews: discussion pertaining to the methods and means
through which game reviews are conducted. Aarseth notes, in the
context of game analysis, the importance of acknowledging a
methodology of play (Aarseth 2004) and Buffa hints that game
reviewers might not actually play the games they review (2006a).
What would the reader stand to gain if he knew that the reviewer
did not complete the game? Does knowing that the game was
played with the help of a strategy guide make a difference? In the
case of games that are open-ended, how much playtime is enough
for an adequate review? Stuart notes how game reviewers rarely
have more than a couple of days to play a game (2005). In what
ways does this influence or affect a game review? These aren’t
questions for which we have answers. However, we feel that they
highlight an issue that is perhaps absent in the discourse of games.
As the Reader Advice theme suggests, understanding a game
comes not only from what is in the game, but also from what the
player brings to the table when it is played.
4. DISCUSSION
Jenkins describes how “games provide the basis for social
interactions at home, at school and at the video arcades. Children
talk about the games together, over the telephone or now, over the
Internet, as well as in person, on the playground or at the school
cafeteria. Boys compare notes, map strategies, share tips, and
show off their skills, and this exchange of video game lore
provides the basis for more complex social relations (Jenkins
1998).” What role do game reviews play in the scenario Jenkins
describes? Do these boys talk about games as game reviews do?
Although we don’t address it directly in this paper, we want to
understand the role that game reviews play in games literacy and
the meanings that people make from videogames.
220
Table 1: Summary of Themes Found and Descriptions
Theme Description
Description What you need to do to play this game as
well as its features, modes, and
characteristics.
Personal
Experience
Emotions felt due to the game (during or
after play. Also includes technical
problems experienced.
Reader
Advice
Recommendations, strategies for success
and enjoyment of game as well as
discussion of the skills or abilities
necessary to play this game.
Design
Suggestions
Discussion of features that are missing or
lacking or suggestions for future
improvement of game.
Media
Context
Contextualization of game with respect to
non-game media properties from film,
books, TV shows, comic books, and so on.
Game
Context
Contextualization of the game with respect
to other games, game genres and their
conventions as well as the history of games
in general.
Technology Affordances and role of hardware on which
game runs. Includes discussion of the
controllers used or other capabilities.
Design
Hypotheses
Design Goals that developers/designers
had for the game
Industry Discussion of state, issues, or trends of the
games industry as a whole.
Our study identified nine prevalent themes in game reviews (see
Table 1). So, all together, what do these themes tell us out
videogames? The themes of Description and Technology address
the more expository issues of videogames. They inform the reader
about what is in the game and what the player uses to play it.
These issues are perhaps analogous to summarizing the plot in a
film or book review. The Technology theme, however, reflects the
importance that computation plays in videogames. While it is
arguably possible to understand and enjoy films without a
knowledge of the technologies used to create (or present) them, a
degree of technological and computational literacy is implicitly
assumed (or required) when it comes to discussing games. Does it
really matter if a game utilizes the underlying hardware to its
utmost capacity? Perhaps not. How about a game that implements
novel gameplay ideas thanks to a technological innovation or a
clever programming trick? The answer would seem to be yes. In
this sense, game reviews are inextricably linked to the broader
discourse of computational and procedural literacies.
The inseparable relationship between game and platform raises an
issue called “innovation bias”. Dang argues that game reviews
tend to focus on discussing the innovation (or lack of) a game
might exhibit compared to its predecessors and that game
reviewers are generally incapable of reviewing a game outside of
that context (2006). The ubiquity of the Game Context theme is
testament to the importance that older games have in
understanding current ones and it is hard to imagine how this
could not be the case. However, we believe that Game Context
plays other roles. The collection and preservation of videogames
is something that has recently been drawing attention (Gooding
and Terras 2008). Most efforts have concentrated on the
preservation of physical artifacts and digital files (Winget and
Murray 2008). Game reviews, on the other hand, can serve as
“curators” of the knowledge that goes along with the artifacts and
files. They help preserve videogame history. Although this may
change as the history of videogames becomes longer, game
reviews are one of the few places where an uninformed reader can
unravel the links and historical connections that exist between
games. In what ways was this game influenced by others? How
has this particular game genre evolved? What design directions
were attempted and ultimately abandoned? These are just a few of
the things that can be teased from game reviews even considering
that much of this information is implicit or presumably already
familiar to their reader.
The “innovation bias” of game reviews is perhaps not a problem,
but rather a feature of the medium of videogames. We may argue
that a “game design” is effectively always a work-in-progress that
is regularly instantiated, as it where, by the release of a game title.
Grand Theft Auto III is arguably a revolutionary game. However,
we should not forget that it is the third iteration of a game design
that has been continuously polished and improved. Movie sequels
don’t “improve” on the original. Games do, for the most part.
While you perhaps shouldn’t watch, say, The Godfather Part 2,
without seeing the original, the same is usually not the case for
games. Why play Age of Empires 2 after playing Age of Empires
3? We are, of course, generalizing, but it speaks to the
particularities of the medium to note that its strengths lie in the
iterative process through which games are improved and allowed
to extend in new directions7
. This evolution is also coupled to the
affordances of new technologies.
The unspoken role of game reviewers as curators of game history
might also help explain the Design Suggestions and Design
Hypothesis themes. We found that game reviews are artifacts that
attempt to establish dialogue between the consumer public
(represented by the author) and those that create games. While it
seems awkwardly presumptuous for a game reviewer to proffer
advice on how to design better games, a game reviewer has
arguably played many more games than most game developers
and may thus know more about the medium. Whether or not the
dialogue actually goes both ways is, however, an open question.
To conclude, although game reviews are often maligned for a
variety of reasons, we have found that they are rich and varied in
terms of the themes and topics they cover. To speak of game
reviews as serving purely as “shopping guides” ignores the
broader role they play in the discourse of games. We should not
underestimate how reviews help create and shape our
understanding of games and their history. That being said, we are
excited by the increasing diversity of ways games journalism talks
about games. For example, British videogames magazine Edge
features what are perhaps two subgenres of traditional game
reviews: ‘The Making of…’ and ‘Time Extend’. The former
provides a view behind the process of creation of a particular
7
The film industry, with its recent interest in multiple editions of
a film (directors, extended, etc.), is perhaps taking a cue from
games.
221
game while the latter constitutes a retrospective in-depth game
review focusing, with the benefit of hindsight, on some of the
more interesting or innovative qualities of a particular game.
5. FUTURE WORK
We are currently using our findings from this article as part of a
new research study where we analyze a larger number of game
reviews. The results from this study will hopefullyprovide us with
deeper insights on common structural patterns as well as possible
correlations between the themes we’ve identified and broader
issues. For instance, we look forward to exploring potential
differences and similarities between game reviews, other kinds of
reviews (film and book), and media (print or web).
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the Georgia Tech College of Computing Intel
Opportunity Scholars program for support for this research.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Aarseth, E. (2004). Playing Research: Methodological
Approaches to Game Analysis. Game Approaches / Spil-veje.
Papers from spilforskning.dk Conference August 28-29,
2003. W. Bo Kampmann, Spilforskning.dk.
[2] Bogost, I. and N. Montfort (2007). New Media as Material
Constraint: An Introduction to Platform Studies. 1st
International HASTAC Conference. Duke University,
Durham NC.
[3] Bolter, J. D. and R. Grusin (1999). Remediation:
Understanding New Media. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The
MIT Press.
[4] Buffa, C. (2006a). "How to Fix Videogame Journalism."
Retrieved December 15, 2008, from
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/how-to-fix-
videogame-journalism.
[5] Buffa, C. (2006b). "Why Videogame Journalism Sucks."
Retrieved December 15, 2008, from
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/opinion-why-
videogame-journalism-sucks/69180/?biz=1.
[6] Costikyan, G. (2008). "Game Criticism, Why We Need It,
and Why Reviews Aren't It." Retrieved December 15, 2008,
from http://playthisthing.com/game-criticism-why-we-need-
it-and-why-reviews-arent-it.
[7] Dang, A. (2006). "The 5 Problems with Videogame
Journalism." Retrieved Dec 11, 2008, from
http://firingsquad.com/features/problems_with_video_game_
journalism/.
[8] Delay, C., V. Arundel, et al. (2006). "Post Mortem:
Detonating Introversion's DEFCON." Game Developer
December: 26-29.
[9] Friedl, M. (2002). Online Game Interactivity Theory.
Hingham, MA, Charles River Media.
[10] Gillen, K. (2004). "The New Games Journalism." Retrieved
September 25, 2008, from
http://alwaysblack.com/blackbox/ngj.html.
[11] Glaser, B. and A. Strauss (1967). The Discovery of
Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Chicago, Aldine.
[12] Gooding, P. and M. Terras (2008). "Grand Theft Archive: A
Quantitative Analysis of the State of Computer Game
Preservation." The International Journal of Digital Curation
3(2): 19-40.
[13] Jenkins, H. (1998). Complete freedom of movement:
Videogames as gendered playspaces. From Barbie to Mortal
Kombat: Perspectives on Gender and Computer Games. J.
Cassell and H. Jenkins. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press: 323-
356.
[14] Klostermann, C. (2006). "The Lester Bangs of Videogames."
Esquire Retrieved December 8, 2008, from
http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0706KLOSTER_66.
[15] McCrea, C. (2007). "Fear and Loading in Game Journalism."
Retrieved December 15, 2008, from
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_
108/1318-Fear-and-Loading-in-Game-Journalism.
[16] McNamara, A. (2008). Up Against the Wall: Game Makers
Take On the Press. Game Developer's Conference 08. San
Francisco, CA.
[17] Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social Research Methods (4th
Edition). Boston, MA, Allyn & Bacon.
[18] Stuart, K. (2005). "State of play: is there a role for the New
Games Journalism." Retrieved Feb 26, 2008, from
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/archives/game_culture/20
05/02/state_of_play_is_there_a_role_for_the_new_games_jo
urnalism.html.
[19] Thomas, D. (2007). Game Criticism Redefined: "Is This
Game Any Good"? The Videogame Style Guide and
Reference Manual. D. Thomas, K. Orland and S. Steinberg:
97-99.
[20] Thomas, D., K. Orland, et al. (2007). The Videogame Style
Guide, Game Press & International Game Journalists
Association.
[21] Winget, M. A. and C. Murray (2008). Collecting and
Preserving Videogames and Their Related Materials:A
Review of Current Practice, Game-Related Archives and
Research Projects. Annual Meeting of the American Society
for Information Science & Technology (ASIS&T).
Columbus, OH.
[22] Zagal, J. P. (2008). A Framework for Games Literacyand
Understanding Games. ACM Futureplay 2008 Conference
Proceedings. B. Kapralos, M. Katchabaw and J. Rajnovich.
Toronto, Canada, ACM: 33-40.
[23] Zagal, J. P. and A. Bruckman (2007). From Gamers to
Scholars: Challenges of Teaching Game Studies.
Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association
International Conference (DiGRA) 2007. A. Baba. Tokyo,
Japan: 575-582.
[24]
222