I went into Eschalon Book I  (see the review ) knowing what other sites had said about it because I always take a look at the competition when I go to review a game. But I also don't let their judgement affect mine. So I was shocked to play the game and be sorely disappointed when it received high marks elsewhere. I know the game was developed from a small studio, perhaps even a one man operation, and I can appreciate that. But it also doesn't affect my judgement when it comes to a game being fun or not.

What happened?

Well to me the game looked nice and sounded nice, but played poorly. Now if it were an art competition they might have scored very highly. If it were a music competition they would have taken first place. But this was a video game review, and as such, the playability and entertainment value are the key factors here along with the control scheme. 

What's wrong with video game reviews?

Well apparently people are too nice because many games that are shit are getting fantastic scores. I am not implying Eschalon Book I is shit. It just happened to be the most recent review that I am using as an example.

If you take a look at Gamebanshee, who also reviewed the game, you'll see they gave it 7.6 (out of 10 I assume). They even weigh gameplay as 50% of the mark which must encompass the fun factor as well as the controls. But then, and this is what really gets me, if you read what they had to say about the game it sounds like this:

Its plot is both hackneyed and unimaginatively handled. Overused plots can at times be disguised by good characterization, but the NPC comments you read in the game are pedestrian, if competent.

Enemies are well chosen and varied throughout the game, but exhibit only moderately effective AI.

Another annoyance is the burden of long distance travel in the game. You spend a lot of your daytime hours—the only period when I, at least, could actually see much of what was going on...

Sometimes their [monsters] proximity is well-motivated, but at other times it feels rote, with the monsters obviously placed to furnish the obligatory challenge. 

I'm sorry, but to me that means you didn't like the game. Right? You totally laid into the story itself in the first example, you deconstructed the AI into 'moderately effective' and you said much of the game was tedious travel time and monsters were placed just to be obstacles. 

Well that doesn't sound like a fun game at all, yet you rated 76% basically and you gave the gameplay itself 75%. Then you cover that all over with:

In any case, I like Eschalon: Book I. Although at times it comes across as sketchy in content, there’s a good deal to enjoy: the artwork, the low resource requirements, the relatively large, open field for gameplay.

There's a good deal to enjoy, if it were an art exhibit, not a video game. That's what you're saying. But it is a video game!

This is neither a personal attack on the game or on Gamebanshee, but on the state of gaming reviews. Gamestop critics gave the game a 6.9, users gave it an 8.3 but the two featured reviews are 5.5 and 8.5. So it seems that perhaps this is a love or hate situation with not much in the middle.

How should games be reviewed? 

But if a game sucks, then say it sucks. Knock those points off. If a game is not fun it should not get a gameplay score of more than 50%. 50% means I would play if it I had nothing better to do and might even opt for bamboo shoots under my fingernails instead. 75% means the game was a good deal of fun. 85% means I put a lot of hours into it and anything above that means I was putting off work, canceling dates and generally being anti-social in order to play the game because I could not stop doing so.

A graphics score of 50% is average, mediocre even. So if the game looks like drek then the score goes below 50%. If it looks decent then it should score at or slightly above 50%. If the game graphics made you say 'cool' or even 'wow' then up to 75% and finally if your eyes were glazed over from the amazingness of the graphics or you just couldn't stop looking at it then above 75%. This is of course objective, but I think it's a fair and simple guideline. Sound would be similar to this. 

Controls would be something like:

50% - They're fine but could use something to make them more ergonomic.

75% - They're great and flexible to my liking

100% - They're perfect, I could do anything and everything and be comfortable while doing it.

What is really wrong? 

After all this then how do some games that suck get great scores? It's called F-E-A-R. People don't want to make others angry. Well screw that noise, I would say something stronger but we have young ones and advertisers present. Just imagine Hank Moody from Californication and you can picture something more like how I really sound. Ask CigDangle, he has been the target of many a tirade from me. 

We are not here to make friends in the industry, if we do great, if we don't great. We are here to look at games and tell you if we think they are worth your money and time, two things we all never seem to have enough of which makes them valuable. As such we look at them with, now listen up game reviewers, a critical eye. That means we need to think about whether or not the game is worth playing and whether or not others should invest time, money or both into the games.

As reviewers in any genre you have an obligation to tell the truth, not to cover everything over with broad sweeping statements that look like candy coating in order for the bitter pill of disapproval to go down smoothly. Not to cozy up to advertisers (are you listening Gamespot, IGN, etc) who pay for higher marks. If people (that should be read the creative people behind the products) don't like your review scores and such, tough titties for them. You're not there to coddle them and make them feel good about themselves, especially if the product is a steaming dung-heap of garbage they are attempting to push off on us just to make money. That's why we, the gamers, the game reviewers, are here. 

From reading some of the other reviews I truly believe that most people who posted did not even play the game. I say that because they all used the exact same phrasing in their reviews. The exact same phrasing that one might find in the press release or on the website of the games that they reviewed.

So the next time you read a review somewhere that tells you about epic tales of this and that with highly scalable something or others and mesmerizing whatchamacallits... look around and see where they got all those fancy words from.

Oh, and if you're a game reviewer reading this, do your damn job right. Actually play the game. Be a gamer not a journalist, your readers deserve that at the very least.

Gamers, developers, publishers, PR people (well maybe not the PR people) if you have a game or are thinking of buying a game and you want an honest opinion, let us know. We'll gladly take a look at it and tell you exactly what we think in a very sort of E10+ way. The original transcript of this article would have made even a lifelong sailor, Harley rider or truck driver blush I'm sure.

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto: