IT’S COMPLICATED: REVIEWING IN THE MODERN ERA

     Reviewing games, films, television shows, etc. is not as straightforward as it should be. There are no standard criteria, no uniform process for assessing a work, and no governing body to ensure things are done in good faith. Instead, it is up to individuals and their respective publications to hand out grades on their own formula and agenda. In a perfect system, scores would be fairly given out based on an established method of reasoning and criteria, without bias or agenda. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as there are publications and individuals who clearly cater to certain developers, publishers, etc. when awarding scores. Whether this is a buddy-buddy system, a way to climb up the ladder of influence, or something else entirely is up to debate. What is not up for debate is the fact that there clearly is a problem with the review process and it needs to change. That, or the whole process needs to be scrapped altogether.

     While there absolutely are some questionable reviewers that tarnish journalistic integrity, most writers are good honest people who are just trying to make the best of a bad system. If reviews are going to stay, they need to have a governing body to oversee the process, create a uniform system for all publications, and dictate what a certain score means. In the current system there is far too much variance in interpretation and the scoring system can differ dramatically. For example, one publication may use a decimal system, potentially giving a game an 8.8 rating instead of a 9 (What does .2 difference in a game really mean or look like?). Many publications use a 0-10 system, but there are a handful who use a 1-5 method. Yet another faction uses a 0-100 scoring system. See what I mean? The whole thing is a mess. So, because it’s a mess, a review means little.

     Not all is lost however, as there are signs things could be changing. Several notable publications have revamped their scoring systems to be a simple Recommend or Not Recommend system. This allows the reviewer flexibility to honestly assess a game without the hinderance of a fictitious number that’s supposed to represent something, a something that isn’t even universally stated. In fact, this would be my ideal scoring system, as it gives the reviewer’s opinion as it is, and allows readers to read a simplified analysis. This would also completely kill the whole “Metacritic warrior” mentality of some fans, writers, studios, publishers, etc. as it would be a simple yes or no, not a 90.2 vs an 87 for example.

     The Last of Us Part II is just the latest high-profile game to bring on reviewing controversy. It received numerous perfect scores from reviewing circles, yet has reviewed pathetically with a large faction of fans. While no doubt, some of the abysmal fan scores are by fanboys trying to tank its score, (Yes, some people seriously spend their time doing this.), much of it appears to be a fanbase outraged by the direction Naughty Dog decided to take the characters and story. In essence, the game has become The Last Jedi in game form, with passionate response both in favor and against. This raises the question, who’s opinion matters more, the critic’s or the fans’? The answer to that question says a lot about a publisher and studio.