I agree, getting into the metrics side of games to make a comment about whether people should buy it or not feels wrong.
Even "is it fun" is subjective so the idea of fans of X will enjoy Y game is a good one. When I was writing reviews (I called them impressions), I focused on what players will be doing in the game, barriers to playing the game (like long play sessions or from an accessibility perspective, lots of text sort of thing), and how replayable the game is (how much does the game make you want to play over and over again)? I don't know if it landed but I was hoping those questions gave a clearer picture of whether a reader would like to play it or not.
I am not a fan of random out of X ratings for games!!
Interesting take! This is often what happens when coverage of a topic is kinda oversaturated? Everyone looks for a unique angle into the subject, and so we get breakdowns of things like technical stats or the business of games.
I kinda agree about the frame rate stuff or being too detail oriented with a review. For instance: I saw this pop up a lot in other reviews of Metaphor Re:Fantazio. But I didn't notice it, or look for it? Or really care? I wrote what I saw, and that's enough? For me at least.
So is it hurting the games industry? Or is there a correlation between layoffs and critique? Again tough to gauge. Games have a scaling and saturation problem, that much is certain. AAA Games that once took 100 people to make, now take 1000 and can't sell as many copies to justify the investment. And on the indie side of things, attention on games is so fragmented that even if you build something incredible its hard to get noticed. This is all to say, simple questions, complex answers.
I agree, getting into the metrics side of games to make a comment about whether people should buy it or not feels wrong.
Even "is it fun" is subjective so the idea of fans of X will enjoy Y game is a good one. When I was writing reviews (I called them impressions), I focused on what players will be doing in the game, barriers to playing the game (like long play sessions or from an accessibility perspective, lots of text sort of thing), and how replayable the game is (how much does the game make you want to play over and over again)? I don't know if it landed but I was hoping those questions gave a clearer picture of whether a reader would like to play it or not.
I am not a fan of random out of X ratings for games!!
Interesting take! This is often what happens when coverage of a topic is kinda oversaturated? Everyone looks for a unique angle into the subject, and so we get breakdowns of things like technical stats or the business of games.
I kinda agree about the frame rate stuff or being too detail oriented with a review. For instance: I saw this pop up a lot in other reviews of Metaphor Re:Fantazio. But I didn't notice it, or look for it? Or really care? I wrote what I saw, and that's enough? For me at least.
So is it hurting the games industry? Or is there a correlation between layoffs and critique? Again tough to gauge. Games have a scaling and saturation problem, that much is certain. AAA Games that once took 100 people to make, now take 1000 and can't sell as many copies to justify the investment. And on the indie side of things, attention on games is so fragmented that even if you build something incredible its hard to get noticed. This is all to say, simple questions, complex answers.
Anyway, your read got me thinking so good job!