From Reviews to Counters (Essay)

I was earlier considering a review of a SNES (Super Nintendo Entertainment System) game, Dragon View, a game which seems to have been marooned in obsoletion in its time. I like it. Upon coming here to write this review, I decided to approach a different topic, namely one which criticises the whole reviewing process (why not, after all?)

Reviews are good, of course; without other people's opinions and scopes, we wouldn't be able to tell whether anything was good or bad. We need a source of some form - be it friend, magazine, etc. - to help us separate what is inherently bad from everything else. There are some things which are, by default, more sophisticated, intricate, advanced, or simply enjoyable than others. Tiddly-winks is more fun than being dead, for example. That's quite obvious.

Ultimately, though, while getting someone's review on something helps to give you a basic gist of something, what it involves, what its pros and cons are (from the person's perspective), etc. But I'm not very fond of rating systems.

The problem with rating things is that the final score of something is going to be determined almost entirely by the individual that reviews the item; a person is very complicated (too complicated, really), and such things as the individual's personality, views, tastes, dispositions and biases will irrefutably get in the way at some point.

Here's a case in point: I can't play football. All my life, I've been unable to play football. I don't know the first thing about the game aside from getting the ball into the goal, and I have never gotten involved in a game outside of enforced P.E. lessons (I'm glad they're over).
If I were asked to review the game of football, weigh up its good and bad points, as well as score it out of ten at the end, what do you think I would say? Obviously, I'd bring it across as bad (if I were making it a purely personal account).

But then, David Beckham comes along and gives it a ten, before toddling away again. It didn't take long for that to happen.

This applies with video games considerably more than with anything else, for the simple reason that they are one of the most diverse individual forms of thing which can be classified within an absolute whole in existence. Nobody is going to like every form of game. Nobody is going to like every game. But you're going to get an awful lot of people to weave in and out of opinions on these games, as well as their forms.

I've seen many websites which rate things like games, films, and books, with scoring systems. A rating only works, if you ask me, where the reviewer can take the item being reviewed out of his/her box of opinion, and view it from a greater perspective, weighing up what aspects would have varying appeal for different types of people. Perhaps even having multiple scores for the thing, branching different categories (as in, it rates this well as this kind of thing, that well at that kind of thing, etc.) This would work for video games, at least. In that context, you could rate it according to how well it plays as an Action-orientated game, this well as Puzzle-orientated, Adventure-orientated, and so on.

I don't think anything ever deserves 10/10, either. That would imply absolute perfection in its field, which is something which just doesn't happen. Unless the field was something like 'one yellow pixel is present', in which case a 10/10 may well be deserved, and dutifully awarded by Person X. 'But wait,' Person Y crosses over. 'Is that pixel really completely yellow? Hmm... 8/10.' You just can't win, can you?

If I ever make a website and review things, I'd take a different approach. Maybe even scrap the rating system altogether. Of course, that's just the way I see it. I'd be happy to hear your views on reviews. I'm glad of ratings, since they certainly help in some cases. But some leeway ought to be taken as regards personal tastes.

I'm not going out on that football pitch again, no matter what David Beckham says.  ¶ 9:14 pm