Best Review System (Revolutionary)

[The Boston Crab]

I'm going to make a few statements to present what I believe is useful and true, but I'm not convinced that it can't be improved, so please feel free to give constructive feedback. I will present my objective, then make a number of statements to support this, followed by a list of examples of this revolutionary reviewing method. This is not a simple system, but it is the best system.



It is an attempt to determine how good a game is - in whichever way you care to interpret that phrase.




- Grades are more meaningful, straightforward and accurate than numbers.




- Each game will receive three grades:


1. The relative grade of the game in relation to all other games within that genre, with both innovation and execution highly valued - subjective, but tends towards a consensus. For example, Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo - A+


2. The reviewer's grading of the game based on their own tastes and enjoyment of the game - subjective, and the meat of any meaningful review. For example, Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo - A-


3. The proposed grade of the game based on how successfully it transcends genre and the genre audience - subjective and complex, but extremely useful. For example, Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo - B


Just let that system sink in for a few moments.




- A fourth grade may be useful, which determines how successful a game is at achieving 'what it sets out to do', but I feel that this is extremely difficult to judge.




- The above system allows us to directly compare, for example, Gone Home with Hyrule Warriors, and say that one thing is BETTER than another.




- Some games seem to defy genre and, therefore, genre-specific grading. For example, Rocket League and ARMS may receive either S+ or ??? for genre grade. I am minded to say that as innovators, they receive a high grade by default. However, it may be more useful to crowbar them into the sports and fighting genres respectively, to add greater value and relevance to this grade.


That is effectively the new revolutionary tier review grading system. I will now list some examples so that you can understand how it works in practice:




Street Fighter 3: Third Strike: S+ / S / C-
Kick Off 2: D / A- / E
Lumines: A+ / A / B+
Ikaruga: A / S++ / B+
Mario Odyssey: A / A- / A+
God of War: A+ / D / A
Garou: Mark of the Wolves: A+ / S / B-
Bloodborne: S / S+ / C+
Picross S: B / C+ / B+
Dodonpachi DaiOuJou: S+ / S++ / D
Monster Hunter World: A / B+ / S
Titanfall 2: A+ / S / B
Firewatch: B+ / A / B-
Gran Turismo Sport: A / S+ / B
Captain Toad Treasure Tracker: B / A / B+
Speedball 2: Brutal Deluxe: A+ / B / A
Tetris: S++ / S / S+
Puyo Puyo Tetris: S+ / A / C
Dead Cells: A+ / A / B+
The Binding of Isaac Afterbirth Plus: S++ / S++ / C
ARMS: B / S+ / D
Magical Drop 3: B / B+ / D-
Mario Tennis Aces: C / C / B+
Dark Souls: S++ / S++ / C
Dark Souls Remastered: S++ / S+ / B
Gorogoa: A / A / B
Steredenn Binary Stars: B- / C+ / D
Uncharted 2: S+ / B / S++
Ultra Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition: S++ / S++ / S+
FIFA 18: S / B+ / S+
Kirby Star Allies: C- / C+ / C
Phoenix Wright Ace Attourney: A / B / B-
Nintendogs: S / E / A+
Horizon Zero Dawn: A / D / A+


I could do this forever, it's so robust and satisfying.


Any thoughts or feel free to just add your own and I'll print them off for the CaB annual or a book. Apologies if the spaces make it hard to read, I just think you need thinking time to process it all.


Equally, if you just want any game reviewed, post the name of the game and I will quote your post with the official review grading.

[popcorn]

↑↑↓↓←→←→BA

[The Boston Crab]

Constructive feedback, reviews or requests only, please. Hopefully a moderator will delete your post.

[marquis_de_sad]

All VR games: B / A / D
No Man's Sky: S / A / D

[Kelvin]

A traditional review score generally factors in and combines those three judgements anyway, though. Certainly if a game was innovative, you'd expect it to score more highly than a near identical, but less innovative game that came out afterwards.

I also don't see how someone who rates a game badly, based on their own tastes (ie. your middle rating) would be the right person to make a judgement comparing it to other games in the genre (and giving it a better or worse rating), or to some vast, and nebulous mass audience. Some genres will never have mass appeal, while others are insanely popular but put off specific people. What use is that last rating then? And how could any reviewer hope to provide a score for such a diverse and unknown audience.

Ultimately, this kind of information should be contained in the body of the review anyway; it's context within the genre, it's accessibility, etc. By adding more scores, you are raising more questions than you are answering, and needlessly confusing the reader/viewer.

[The Boston Crab]

I also don't see how someone who rates a game badly, based on their own tastes (ie. your middle rating) would be the right person to make a judgement comparing it to other games in the genre (and giving it a better or worse rating), or to some vast, and nebulous mass audience.

Lots of good points and questions here, but I especially like this one. I think the other two factors put each one in context. If I give King of Fighters 98 B / D / B+, the middle grade seemingly calls the first and last into question - who am I to judge its relative position or success in transcending genre if I don't actually like it? Well, given that I play a lot of fighting games, I can appreciate what it's attempting and how accessible it is to non-fighting game people (it has loads of characters and the special moves are all very similar inputs) and I can also see how it is basically a 'best of' KoF and packed with content and a certain amount of depth. You don't need much skill at all to have a few fun casual rounds but there's a lot there for fighting game aficionados, too. Personally, I think it's ugly and lacks identity relative to its peers. It has a nothing on Garou or Real Bout Fatal Fury Special, which are more compact, but better realised, and even less on The Last Blade or its sequel, so for me, I'd never choose to play it again. For the average consumer, though, or KoF aficionado, it's a very fine game.

The nebulous mass audience thing is difficult but I'd say that it comes down to the skill and insight of the reviewer. Again, if I pick, say, Dodonpachi DaiOuJou, that is simply one of the greatest games I've ever played, never mind shmups. It has an insane skill ceiling and after weeks of practice, I was still miles off a one credit clear. I'll never do it, but it's still extraordinarily entertaining and stimulating for me, and it towers above most of the genre. On the other hand, I don't know anyone in real life who I would ever recommend this to, and very few people online, either. It's such a niche game, it's just a roll of the die whether anyone would get anything from it besides extreme frustration. For the happy few, however, it's God Tier.

I agree that much of this content should be contained within a good review but most reviews do nothing besides describe the mechanics and graphics and say whether the they think it's worth it your money. While my system is more complex, it's not an attempt to simplify, it's an attempt to clarify. Where is the reviewer coming from? In what context is this Metroidvania worth my time over the thousands of others? Does it break out of genre convention to appeal to me, a shit muncher?

You raise some great questions, though.

[popcorn]

Hang on, isn't this a joke thread?

[The Boston Crab]

No, dive in. Any constructive contributions are welcome to make this the best review grading system.

[bgmnts]

Why alphabetical and not numerical?

[Mister Six]

I think this is a bad idea. I rate this idea "bad".

[The Boston Crab]

Must be constructive.

I rate your rating as D (unsubstantiated, simplistic) / B (I appreciate the response) / A+ (the pricks will eat it up).

There are so many capably produced, competent games and these days, it's hard to know what is genuinely good or what's just good enough. There are relatively few bad games these days because devs and publishers seem so risk averse and derivative - but it doesn't necessarily make for a game worth playing over the it her thousand similar examples.

Shantae: C (avg) / B (tits) / B+ (tits+)

[The Boston Crab]

I've had quite a few PMs asking for more reviews so here goes:

Destiny: A+ / A / A
NBA Playgrounds: D- / E / C (people are generally undiscerning)
Snake Pass: B- / E- / D
Octopath Traveler: B / D / C+
The Last Blade 2: A / A / B+
Slime-san: B+ / C / C
Skyforce Anniversary: D / C+ / B+
Waku Waku 7: C / A- / D
Danmaku Unlimited 3: B+ / A / C-
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe: S / B+ / S+
Final Fantasy VII: S / S++ / S+
Another World:  A / D / B+
Rodland: S / A- / B
Kid Gloves: B / A / C-
The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild: S++ / S+ / S+
Granny's Garden: A+ / A+ / B+
Street Fighter V: A- / C / A+
Dark Souls 2 Scholar of the First Sin: B / S+ / D
The Last of Us: S / S / S+
Gunbarich: A++ / A / D
Stardew Valley: S+ / E / A
Batman VR: B / C / B+
Dogs of War (Atari ST): B+ / S / C-
Repton 2: C / B+ / D
Castle Quest: C / A / E
Mushihimesama Futari Black Label: S+ / S+ / C
Okami: A / A+ / B
Splatoon 2: S+ / A+ / S
Tengai: A / A / C+
Sengoku 3: S+ / A / B+
Fortnite: S / B+ / S++
Hyrule Warriors DX: S+ / A / C+
VOEZ: S / B / D-
Enter the Gungeon: A / C+ / B+
Dragon Blaze: B+ / A / C
Skyrim: S / S++ / S++
Zero Gunner 2: A- / B+ / D
Bayonetta 2: A / A- / B+

Keep the requests coming, people.

[mrfridge]

What does the 'S' rating mean?

[The Boston Crab]

S is the best tier, maybe it stands for Super, I dunno. Lot of shmups seem to use S Class as the best grade for scoring.

Let me know if you need anything grading, it will help you to know how good a game actually is.

[mrfridge]

Ah right that sort of makes sense. The last game I played through was Horizon Zero Dawn and at the other end of the spectrum (pun intended) is Rebel Star Raiders 2. My favourite speccy game from about 30 years ago. Feel free to rate those bad boys!

[The Boston Crab]

No worries.

Horizon Zero Dawn: A- / C / A+

Rebel Star Raiders: n/a (I haven't played this game).

Keep them coming, folks.

[Bazooka]

It depends on how well the three letter scores/ratings are visualised in columns with an included description on a website or magazine.

I dunno, in the age of YouTube I personally use this platform to view multiple video reviews, especially as you can see the actual gameplay.

But as far as your new review system BC, its an interesting thought.

[popcorn]

This is a joke thread I reckon.

[The Boston Crab]

Nope. I'm still yet to hear any response or additional tweak to the basic concept of this system. It's a brilliant idea, basically. It functions as a buyer's guide, yes, but it's most interesting and useful as a categorisation tool and to determine 'how good a game is'. There are so so many games these days, that most of them don't need making, no matter how competent they are.

Instead of a review saying 'this is (another) good game which is worth your money', this simple method can put it's in much more specific context.

Within its genre, Assassin's Creed Origins is a B. It's competent but does little to stand out from the crowd besides its graphics and setting. It's derivative both of itself and its peers and its time travel trickery is now very tired. For me, personally, it's a C+ game because it lacked any distinct personality, it's mechanically very simplistic with no skill ceiling to speak of, it seems to play itself for the most part, it has no authorial intent, though I quite enjoyed the stealth combat atmosphere. In terms of broader appeal, it is an A-. For people who want lots of 'content' and gorgeous graphics, and a robust, consistent experience, this is a solid choice. If you're the kind of person who likes skill trees and crafting and looting, you will have a great time with this game. Ultimately, within the pantheon of gaming history, it is landfill.

[Zetetic]

Think you've got a problem when it comes to genre. I can recognise that Dark Souls is a good something but it claims to be an action RPG. Is that what you were tghink of it as? I'd obviously disagree with the rating if so.

Be interesting to see you apply it something other than console fodder - but I appreciate that's where your  problem of vast amounts of reasonably well-produced dullness is sited. (Not that we don't have vast amounts of shovelware from smaller PC devs, but they're not the total of it.)

Jalopy? Some of increpare's work? The Wizard Sniffer? Hidden Agenda?

[The Boston Crab]

I don't know anything about PC games or any of the stuff you mentioned, to be completely honest. I suspect there will be a lot of stuff which doesn't easily lend itself to a score in the first column, without doing as I suggested with Rocket League and giving it a high score (on the basis of originality and innovation) purely because it seems to stand alone.

As for Dark Souls, I'd be interested in how you would rate it as an action RPG, even though that wasn't what I was thinking. I think it's basically a genre of its own now, like Metroidvania or Roguelike/lite. It therefore gets a high score almost by default but that's not true of the whole Soulsborne series. It's not simply the most innovative, that's Demon's, but it's the best realisation of the form.

To give a comprehensive list of Souls reviews, I'd go:

Demon's Souls S / S+ / D
Dark Souls S++ / S++ / C
Dark Souls 2 B- / A / B-
Bloodborne S+ / S+ / A
DS2 SOTFS A / S / B+
Dark Souls 3 C / D- / A+

The closest thing to it is probably Monster Hunter, but only in terms of combat mechanics, and that's also very much in its own genre, so I don't see what else we could reasonably compare it with.

On the other hand, I'd have no problem saying that Ikaruga is a shmup, and definitely comparable to the rest of the genre, even though it is almost in its own subgenre and doesn't play like any other shmup (besides those which take it as a direct inspiration). It's a tweak to the form rather than in its own branch.

[The Boston Crab]

More reviews coming in:

Lemmings A+ / C / A
Cannon Fodder S / A- / B
Zak McKraken B- / A / D+
Micro Machines C+ / C+ / B+
Yie Ar Kung Fu D / C / C+
Actua Soccer D+ / B / C+
Wipeout 2097 S+ / A+ / A
Resident Evil S+ / B / A-
Yakuza 0 S++ / C / C-
Caladrius Blaze C+ / C+ / D+
No Man's Sky S / B+ / C+
Tekken 2 S+ / B / A+
The Last Guardian A / C / C-
Alien Isolation A- / D / B
MGSV TPP S++ / S++ / C

All definitive there, so write them down and feel free to cite at your leisure in pubs across the land.

[Kelvin]

Nope. I'm still yet to hear any response or additional tweak to the basic concept of this system. It's a brilliant idea, basically. It functions as a buyer's guide, yes, but it's most interesting and useful as a categorisation tool and to determine 'how good a game is'. There are so so many games these days, that most of them don't need making, no matter how competent they are.

Instead of a review saying 'this is (another) good game which is worth your money', this simple method can put it's in much more specific context.

Within its genre, Assassin's Creed Origins is a B. It's competent but does little to stand out from the crowd besides its graphics and setting. It's derivative both of itself and its peers and its time travel trickery is now very tired. For me, personally, it's a C+ game because it lacked any distinct personality, it's mechanically very simplistic with no skill ceiling to speak of, it seems to play itself for the most part, it has no authorial intent, though I quite enjoyed the stealth combat atmosphere. In terms of broader appeal, it is an A-. For people who want lots of 'content' and gorgeous graphics, and a robust, consistent experience, this is a solid choice. If you're the kind of person who likes skill trees and crafting and looting, you will have a great time with this game. Ultimately, within the pantheon of gaming history, it is landfill.

Why does a game that you consider mechanically boring and lacking in authorial intent deserve a C from you, but B when matched against other games. The B should be a C too. Your complaints are irrelevant to genre.

And it's an A for mass appeal? Except huge swathes of people dislike the series exactly for the reason you cite in your middle column. If anything, you're encouraging people to buy the most generic, boring games with that last column, even though you clearly don't think it's any good. Its the equivilant of saying 'ignore my review, it just wasn't for me, almost everyone else will love it'. So why review it at all?

I know this is a silly thought experiment, but it's an interesting one.

[Kelvin]

Do the Zeldas plees

[The Boston Crab]

Great questions and observations.

I would say that on one level it's unfair for me to review Assassin's Creed at all, really, because I think it's a load of busy work and very superficial interaction with a lifeless soulless open world. On the other hand, it's sold an absolute shitload so plenty of people must enjoy it. A lot more people enjoy it than, say, ARMS or Hyrule Warriors, for example.

Using my skill as a reviewer, and knowledge and insight, plus experience of the genre, I can say that if you enjoy open world busy work, it's a solid example of the genre. I think it's nothing more than a way to pass the time, personally, and therefore I wouldn't choose to play it ever. I could have given it a D in good conscience. That said, more than most games it's likely that almost anyone could pick it up, understand what it wants from you and how you play and receive some enjoyment without any great investment. It's on the level of Everybody Loves Raymond, but with less heart.

As to whether that third column does actually encourage homogenisation of games, and pushing people towards the lowest possible common denominator landfill, I think that's a very real danger which I hadn't considered and a reason to simply cut that column altogether.


Zeldas to follow. I'm just out shopping.

[Z]

- Each game will receive three grades:


1. The relative grade of the game in relation to all other games within that genre, with both innovation and execution highly valued - subjective, but tends towards a consensus. For example, Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo - A+


2. The reviewer's grading of the game based on their own tastes and enjoyment of the game - subjective, and the meat of any meaningful review. For example, Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo - A-


3. The proposed grade of the game based on how successfully it transcends genre and the genre audience - subjective and complex, but extremely useful. For example, Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo - B

Firewatch: B+ / A / B-

Surely Firewatch is a very solid A for the first one, the execution is pretty impeccable (especially the map design); as far as innovation goes I'd say it sets a great example of what a proper indie team* can do and which things are worth prioritising.
I'd say A+/A/B-, with it only getting a B- instead of a C because it just about managed to avoid chucking in some bullshit sci fi element.



* _{with the likes of Giant Sparrow with their Sony/Annapurna funded projects, big long credits at the end of Edith Finch and immaculately designed Unreal Engine house.... setting a totally unrealistic standard for aspiring indie developers}

[Bazooka]

I was trying to be objectively nice, but its a terrible system. Will this system show that Breath of The Wild is a brilliant game but could be one of the worst Zelda games?

[The Boston Crab]

What's terrible? I'm genuinely interested. I don't have any particular reason to defend this, but I do see a lot of value in it, especially as part of this hypothetical experiment.

While I'm yet to compile the Zelda review list, I can give you a brief spoiler that it won't be considered in the same genre as any other Zelda game (aside from the very first) because it has a completely different structure and lacks most of the key elements which make up a Zelda game.

[The Boston Crab]

Surely Firewatch is a very solid A for the first one, the execution is pretty impeccable (especially the map design); as far as innovation goes I'd say it sets a great example of what a proper indie team* can do and which things are worth prioritising.
I'd say A+/A/B-, with it only getting a B- instead of a C because it just about managed to avoid chucking in some bullshit sci fi element.

I would probably only put Edith Finch above Firewatch in this blossoming genre but because there are enough examples of the form, I can see how every single 'walking simulator' (or whatever) is lacking in some area and therefore I believe that the genre-defining example is yet to come. It's my experience, knowledge and skill as a reviewer which gives me this foresight, as well as the relative infancy of walking sims. The first genuine S class is yet to come, my dear boy.

[The Boston Crab]

Do the Zeldas plees

The Legend of Zelda A / B / B+
The Adventure of Link D / E / E
A Link to the Past S++ / A / S
Link's Awakening S / ??? / B
Ocarina of Time S++ / S+ / S+
Majora's Mask S / ??? / C
Oracle of Ages ??? / ??? /  D
Oracle of Seasons (ditto)
Four Swords (as above, but E)
Wind Waker A+ / A / A-
Twilight Princess A / A+ / A+
Phantom Hourglass B / B- / B
Spirit Tracks C+ / C / B
Skyward Sword B+ / A / B+
Breath of the Wild S++ / S++ / S+

Print and frame, as you wish.