One of my favorite things since I began collecting and completing games in earnest a few years ago has been updating this blog with reviews of games I beat. I have no idea how many people, if any, read them. I don't look at my blog's stats, nor do I really care. For me, it's just fun to write. I enjoy cataloguing my thoughts and critiquing games.
When I first started this blog, my intentions were to keep up with a lot of the latest games, as well as have a lot of retro-oriented content. To that end, I felt having a review system was key so anyone who might potentially stumble across my blog could get a general idea of what I thought without the necessity of reading my often extremely verbose, long-winded reviews. Eventually, I did away with the review system because I felt it was unfair to quantify a game into a number without justifying it. I could say, "This game is a 7," but what does that mean? As compared to what? And what exactly makes it a 7? Are the controls bad, or the graphics outdated, or are there a plethora of bugs? Not all 7s are created equal.
Over time, I've once again warmed to the idea of implementing a scoring system, and it's only fitting that it's cribbed from GamePro Magazine's old "face" system. Anyone who read GamePro back in the day undoubtedly remembers the cartoon faces (with corresponding numbers) they used to visualize their scores. It was a simple, effective, and attractive way to score games - one quick glance, and you knew what they thought of the graphics, sound, control, and fun factor. Ultimately, it still boiled down to numbers associated with those faces, but it was unique and memorable.
I say it's fitting because it's obvious that, while I do still enjoy modern games, retrogames are my passion. What better what to quickly sum up my thoughts than by using a retro review system from a defunct gaming magazine? I'm not going to break down each aspect of a game as they did. Each image represents my overall feelings on the game in question.
You can use this handy guide as a reference for what each face means:
1.0 Atrocious - A game with absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Undoubtedly one of the worst games ever made, and you should avoid it at all costs.
1.5 Bad - A minor step up from Atrocious. Its biggest positive is likely that it's so bad it's funny, but as a whole it could still be considered a terrible game not worthy of anyone's time or money.
2.0 Mediocre - A game that is technically functional, but still loaded with problems, glitches, and strange development choices. An overall underwhelming and largely unenjoyable experience.
2.5 Meh - Similar to mediocre, but with more indifference. Mostly functional, but just not very fun to play thanks to stupid design choices.
3.0 Average - Like the description says, a purely average game. There's nothing that stands out, but it's also fully functional and occasionally fun. These are games that some people may love, and others may hate based on personal bias.
3.5 Decent - A game likely worthy of your time, but not without some flaws and caveats. It may not blow your mind, but you won't feel like you've wasted your time either. Often these are good time-wasters.
4.0 Good - Recommended. It may not reinvent the wheel, or possibly it tries too hard to innovate and falls short, but it's definitely fun, functional, and an overall solid experience.
4.5 Great - A game with very few problems, most of them minor, that hold it back from perfection. Generally fun all the way through, save maybe one or two unfair segments. Definitely worthy of your time and money.
5.0 Incredible - As close to perfection as you can reasonably get. A game that really should be in everyone's collection, or that everyone should play to completion at the least. These can be games that set a new standard, or games that take existing concepts and refine them to perfection, but either way, you don't want to miss them.
Comments