Recent IGN reviews bring up an old problem. Can we solve it?
It's about perspectives, expectations, and the system.
Lately, I’ve seen a lot of discussion of how IGN reviews are getting it wrong. Travis Northup gave Crimson Desert a 6. Will Borger gave Mouse P.I. For Hire a 6. Michael Higham gave Saros a 7. The comments surrounding these reviews—comments that have existed well before these reviews—reflect a continued misunderstanding of them, and need for something to change.
One comment meant to discredit the Saros review said that it looks (emphasis added) like an 8 or higher, and the story shouldn’t lower the score. One of my colleagues at GamingTrend wondered why IGN has been “so far off lately.” A writer here on Substack wrote a piece that said reviews should reflect the tastes of the players. Another writer suggested that the reviews are wrong because of high sales volume. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, but it has to be grounded in a rational perspective, and thoughts like these are flawed.
It’s not uncommon for readers to think a game is scored incorrectly because it looks good. There’s enough marketing for big games that people can read or watch previews, listen to podcasts, watch gameplay, and decide whether they want the game. Sometimes, all it takes is the announcement of the title, and someone thinks it’s going to be good.
Most people’s fondness for a game is formed well before they’ve played it. If reviewers are doing their job properly, they can’t fall for the marketing hype. It’s not about being unbiased—that’s impossible—it’s about judging the game without the curated marketing trying to sell you on the idea that game-is-good-because-we-said-it’s good. Good critics ask “Is it, really?”
Roger Ebert wrote of movie criticism: “The purpose of a movie critic is to encourage good films and discourage bad ones.” It’s the same for video game criticism. We want to encourage good games and discourage bad ones.
With Saros, for example, it’s not just an action game. Housemarque included a story. Reviewers can’t ignore that.
If Housemarque’s story was mediocre, it deserves to be criticized and reflected in the score. It’s as simple as that. Determining if the criticism was adequately explained is a different matter. But it’s indisputable that if there’s something in the game, it’s fair game for criticism and reflection in the score.
Where many people get mixed up here is that they don’t care about elements of a game, so it shouldn’t be reflected in the score. This is where the idea that reviews should reflect the tastes of the readers comes from. What that thought is actually saying is that reviews should reflect the concerns of the readers. That’s impossible.
How can one person reflect the concerns of hundreds, if not thousands, of people? Take Saros: one person doesn’t care about the story, another person does. One person cares about the difficulty, another person doesn’t. Now think about the combination of concerns that could exist in all manner of degrees and spectrums. You can’t. There are too many. One person can’t cover everything, let alone “represent” the views of readers.
Housemarque put the story in the game. Because some people don’t care about it, the reviewer should ignore it? That’s nonsense.
What’s also nonsense is the idea that sales objectively determine if a game deserves a higher score. Just think about Call of Duty. So many people hate that franchise, and it sells like crazy every year. So is it good or not? The reality is that bad games sell well, and good games sell poorly. Besides, what does selling well mean? 1 million? 2 million? 6 million? Does how fast it sold matter? Ultimately, sales determine how well the game sold, not if the game is good.
What’s truly sneaky is where scores land. “Everyone else gave this game an 8 or higher!” So, every reviewer should be in the same range, even if they hate something in a game? They must reject their feelings in order to acknowledge what everyone else says? “They must appreciate the rest of the game despite the flaws!” BS. In any other part of society, those people would be considered fake. But it’s the way it’s supposed to be with reviews, somehow.
Sometimes a critic’s views line up with the majority. Other times they don’t. That’s normal. In fact, reviews should have a broader range, not a narrower one. One reviewer cannot reflect every concern readers have, but a conglomerate of critics can. And we don’t. We need more diverse thoughts, not a hive mind.
Again, that’s not to suggest that what a reviewer writes can’t be wrong. A reviewer still needs to justify their criticism. As long as they have done that, it is fair, even if you don’t agree with it. This is where IGN is struggling with some of their reviews.
If you look at their scoring philosophy, you should notice a problem.
“Our goal is twofold: Offer a critical view of how a piece of media succeeds or fails, and to give you as much info as possible to help you determine if something is worth your time and hard-earned cash.”
Do you see the problem? IGN is trying to do two things at once: see if a game succeeds or fails as a piece of media, and give you as much info as possible. That’s difficult to do, especially when the games are long and the deadlines are tight (keep in mind, one trick among publishers is to create short review windows to minimize criticism).
Most reviews end up being heavy on information and light on criticism. It seems like IGN’s changing that. In each example, the reviewers give more criticism, and sometimes they lack information about the game beyond very light praise. People want more information and good writing. This is the challenge for every IGN reviewer, and they have their work cut out for them if this is the direction they’re going.
The biggest flaw reviewers have—a flaw that feels baked into the system—is that we sometimes operate as gatekeepers. Remember, before the internet, when movies would arrive in theaters, critics were there to provide an opinion, meant to help people decide whether to see it. Video games had a period like this, too. Critics had the information people wanted. It’s an outdated method, and that’s how video game reviews still operate. It really should stop. Critics weren’t useless back then, but they’re certainly useless now if they’re supposed to determine how you should spend your time and money.
Readers don’t need us. Now more than ever, there are previews, IGN Firsts, GameInformer magazines are back, YouTube videos, livestreamers, podcasters, and social media. Anything you want to know about a game, the information is out there. Readers quickly figure out if they want a game well before a review. Sure, some might be surprised from time to time, or even disappointed, but those are rare moments. Most people don’t think “Man, I really wish I read a review before I bought this.” Readers saw what they saw, were enticed, and made up their minds.
Reviews rarely change minds. IGN wants to “help you determine if something is worth your time and hard-earned cash.” Readers have already figured that out. They have all the information they need. If they didn’t, they could easily find it. This is why reader backlash is so intense at times. “You’re telling me to not buy a game I’ve already decided is great!? F*** off!” It’s like an authority figure telling people not to do something they’ve already made up in their mind they’re going to do.
So, instead of reviewers telling readers if a game is worth their time or money, it should be written as, and considered, as another piece of the conversation. Here’s our thoughts. What do you, reader, think based on your experience? I know I’ve done that with TV shows.
Maybe it’s because I’m a critic, I’m just curious to know what those who watch TV all the time think. Many times, I don’t agree with all of what they said. But there are many times where I think “Oh, I see where they’re coming from.” It’s not about being right. The only reward for “being right” is an ego boost that’s popped the next time one is wrong. It’s about having the conversation, to raise our expectations for better games. You want better games more often, right? Then someone has to be willing to say the thing.
Reviewers shift from gatekeepers to another participant in the conversation. They don’t tell you how the game works, what the systems are, or if it’s good or bad. We don’t need to tell you anything. That information is out there. But reviewers need to examine the games: encourage the good, discourage the bad. That’s a conversation. “Mouse P.I. For Hire looks fantastic, but I think it fails as a genre piece. Here’s why.” Maybe you care or are curious about that. Join the conversation.
And if it turns out that something in a game could’ve been better, everyone’s standards are raised, and that puts positive pressure on the developers and publishers. That’s not possible if reviewers are supposed to reflect the tastes of readers or be a part of some collective critical hive mind. And it’s not possible to demand high standards if we keep trying to tell readers if something is worth their time.
Keep it simple: Encourage the good games, discourage the bad ones. I think if we did that consistently, reviews in all forms would be better, particularly IGN’s.
What I Wrote
Newsletters
You’ll need a free registration to read these.
In the creative space, AI is not a tool—it is a cheat
Epic better do something different
Loosen the grip
Valve is steadily making playing on PC easier
Maybe day-one games should come off Game Pass
Reviews, Previews, and Impressions
Forza Horizon 6 hands-on preview
Kiln review
Overwatch Season 1 Reign of Talon impressions
I’ve been bombarded with reviews at the last minute, and I’ve been working on some very cool interviews, so I didn’t have time to check out demos. Once I’m finished with reviews, I’ll be back to checking out demos, and looking to post more critical analysis.
See you in May!