This is coming from a guy who didn't like Guardian Heroes for the Saturn. Enough said.
He's reviewed thousands of games. Everyone has their tastes.
You can also submit game ideas for him to do. He's discovered both SonSon II and Parasol Stars (both were rated B+) because of me.
Tastes are one thing. Inconsistencies are another.
My crappy game received the same letter grade as Valis III and Alien Crush.
Keith Courage scored less.
All the shmups scored higher.
If you can't approach the reviews without letting your personal preferences sway the votes, you shouldn't be reviewing.
Reviews are all
about personal preferences. I mean, yeah, sometimes I think the Video Game Critic's reviews are good, other times completely wrong (been reading the site for several years now), but reviews are always an opinion. An entirely objective review would say almost nothing about the game other than the plain basics of how it plays -- any statement of quality, "this is good" or "this is bad" in a game, is an opinion. There is no such thing as an "objective" review. Just because most people dislike some game mechanic doesn't mean it is "objectively bad", for example. I do think that some games are better "objectively" and others are worse, but I'm just saying, you cannot entirely remove opinion from reviews, they are central to the concept, and what "better objectively" even means is something that can be argued about for sure! I don't think all things are relative, so I think that's a worthwhile question to ask, but it's definitely very difficult.
His letter grades are based on a curve compared to the system's library. So that means while Insanity (and Valis III) aren't "bad," they are "below average" compared to the other games he's played (and likes better).
Whether I agree or disagree with the letter grade assigned, I greatly prefer this to the "7-10" scale "mainstream" reviewers use. Of course it's subjective, the entire concept of review score itself is subjective. As long as the text conveys the opinion well, and generally gives the reader enough information to judge, I'm fine with it. For me, a Berzerk clone automatically starts as an "A," but that's just my own taste.
How are the two any different, though? They really are just two ways of saying the same thing.
I mean, in the US at least, an F = 0-59, a D is 60-69, a C is 70-79, a B is 80-89, and an A is 90+. Just turn those number scores into the equivalent letter grade and presto, you have a letter grade like he uses, while still using the standard 6-10 grading scale you usually see.
And yes, this is how I think of scores; if I see number scores I think of them in terms of the equivalent letter grade that number represents, and vice versa for letter grades. I don't like the "50% is average" system for this reason -- when I see a score under 60, I think 'that's a failing grade'.
I just don't like the guy's reviews. They stink of ignorance, his complete lack of skills, and/or him not spending much time with the game.
Take a look at how often the guy updates his site with new reviews. It's quite clear that he doesn't spend much time with each game, unless that site is his full-time job. Which I'm sure it isn't. I would call what he does "quick impressions", not reviews. And I agree that he should ditch the letter grades.
I like the site, but yeah, this is a fair criticism. I mean, I like the 'paragraph or two about a game' system. I've done that myself with my Game Opinion Summary posts (I post them on a few forums (not this one usually) and my website). But I don't call those reviews (or give review grades or scores for the games) for exactly that reason -- I think a review should be of a game you have finished, or at least played a lot. If you haven't played it that much, don't call it a review. I definitely have a problem with the idea of "full reviews" which clearly aren't based on playing most of the game, and it happens a lot I think.
I mean, I can like the "review" anyway, but not as a real review, just as an opinion piece based on playing the game for a little while.
