#oneaday Day 945: Reviewing is Broken, August 2012 Edition

Game reviews are broken.

This is a pretty well-established fact by now, I would have thought, but the issue rears its ugly head any time something interesting but flawed such as Papo & Yo shows up and is, overall, worthy of praise but riddled with technical issues.

Let’s stay with Papo & Yo for a moment to illustrate my point. (I won’t be spoiling the game here, so read without fear.)

Papo & Yo is, technically and objectively speaking, filled with flaws. The frame rate is pretty poor at times, there’s a lot of screen tearing and the collision detection is occasionally a bit off.

Does this make it a bad game, though?


Does it prevent it doing what it sets out to do?


This is ultimately all that should matter. And yet IGN notes that “poor design outweighs any interesting concepts”, ultimately concluding that the game is “bad”.

Well, yes, if judged next to something that is longer, more polished and designed primarily as a “game”, I guess Papo & Yo is “bad”. The problem comes when you consider the fact that all games are not created equal. Papo & Yo was put together by an extremely small team who did not have the budget to do more than they did. It succeeds admirably in telling its powerful, emotional story despite its technical flaws, which cease to matter almost immediately after starting to play. It was also not designed to be a “good game” — it was designed to be a vehicle for telling its story.

I’m reminded of a post I wrote a while back concerning visual novels and interactive movies. Back in the dawn of the CD-ROM era, if anyone dared to release a title like this that focused on the story at the expense of what would be traditionally called “gameplay,” it was slated without mercy. The mantras of the day were “gameplay is king” and “graphics do not make the game”.

To be fair, a lot of these “interactive movies” were simply poor stories, too, largely proving that (at the time) game studios simply did not have the budgets to compete with Hollywood. But some were enjoyable, and I can’t help feeling that some of them may have had a better response had they been released today with better technology and storage capacities.

You see, gameplay isn’t king. Not all the time, anyway. In something like Geometry Wars, sure, gameplay most certainly is king, though the beautiful neon presentation certainly doesn’t hurt. But in something like School Days HQ or Papo & Yo, gameplay is not king. Gameplay is not even in the king’s court. Story is king. And alongside this comes the necessity to judge a game based on how well it is achieving its objectives rather than how “good” it is compared to all other games. In no other medium do we judge individual creative works against everything else ever created in the same medium. No; we judge bestsellers against bestsellers; literature against literature; arthouse movies against arthouse movies; blockbuster against blockbuster.

Both School Days and Papo & Yo are “bad” if we’re to judge them against other, more “gamey” experiences. In School Days all you do is watch animé sequences for 20 minutes and then occasionally get to pick between two options. In Papo & Yo all you have to do is navigate the environment and solve some fairly simple puzzles. But neither game is setting out to be a “fun” game. Both of them are setting out to do one thing and one thing only: tell a story. They accomplish this in completely different ways. And they both succeed admirably, regardless of their game mechanics and regardless of any technical issues.

Most gamers I speak to on a regular basis seem to recognise this fact. So why, exactly, do we persist in judging all games to the same standards? This isn’t about giving a “free pass” to “art games”, as I have seen a few commentators remark in the last few days. It’s about judging a game on just one thing: how well it achieves its goal. Screen tearing (which, let’s not forget, blighted the original Uncharted to a very noticeable degree) does not affect how well Papo & Yo spins its tale just as, to flip the argument around, the stupid, nonsensical story doesn’t affect the fun factor of Call of Duty.

As always, then, the best way to judge whether or not a game is something you want to play is simply to try it for yourself — or at the very least discuss it with your friends and get the opinions of people you trust. “Good” and “Bad” are relative, arbitrary and ultimately quite useless descriptors when referring to creative works, and so I firmly believe the sooner we get out of the habit of judging all games against some ill-defined “canon of greatness”, the better.

Published by

Pete Davison

Southampton-based music teacher, writer and enthusiast of Japanese popular culture.

7 thoughts on “#oneaday Day 945: Reviewing is Broken, August 2012 Edition”

  1. Hi Pete,

    I just submitted my very well thought out and written review of Papo and Yo, only to check my email and find this One A Day post. I’m very pleased to see that you were able to work Papo and Yo into your busy schedule, as I know just how hard it is to be able to play games that you desire to play, aside from those that need to be reviewed.

    Thing is, I didn’t know I was reviewing Papo and Yo when I played through it, and to be honest, I was so immersed in the game that I barely noticed some of the issues my first time through. I’ll not say anymore than you already have, as I don’t want to spoil anything for your readers.

    I do agree with you that some reviews and reviewers are broken. I don’t normally call them out by names, but IGN’s Papo and Yo review is a clear insight to the problems with reviewers in the industry. I’m not holding myself to up on a pedestal or anything of the sort. But I’ve got a huge passion for the industry and push myself to write all my reviews to the best of my ability, and I honestly can’t see how anyone could be so blind to what Papo and Yo has to offer to give it that low of a score. I actually quite sad when I think about it.

    1. I’m actually quite sad about IGN’s review. I like and respect Mitch, so I was very surprised to read what he wrote.

      Reviews are, of course, personal opinions and he’s entitled to say what he believes. I just don’t believe he was approaching the game from the right angle. As my friend Mark said over on the Squadron of Shame Squawkbox:

      As it stands, really solid work from the auteur to your brain. The game is highly personal and as been said before on the box, basically defies your attempt to put a numerical metacritic score on it. Just reading reviews it’s easy for me to sort of draw a line and think “unrelatable childhood” “”unrelatable childhood” “sympathetic childhood” “unrelatable childhood” down the line of the reviewers. I think if you’re tone deaf to the part of the game where the author is trying to explain his feelings to you, the audience, then maybe this game isn’t FOR you. I don’t get much out of your average chick lit or Can lit book either, and I have no problem thinking that maybe these aren’t FOR me. If you rated this game a 60, well… yeah.

      1. To what extent do you agree with the following statement with regards to computer games?
        ‘A good idea done badly is better than a bad idea done well’

        1. I’d be inclined to agree with that — though if “badly” equals “broken” then there’s not much that can resurrect even the best idea. “Flawed” isn’t the same as “broken”, though, which is where some people seem to get hung up.

  2. Well, my review was completely butchered, as the editor wants “to focus on the gameplay!”

    Might have a well written Papo and Yo review up for grabs this week! Haha

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s