Review: Killzone 2 (PS3)

+'s
-successfully incorporates a cover mechanic into FPS gameplay
-Very good graphics (the character models are particularly outstanding)
-intense campaign mode took me just under 8 hours on Normal difficulty
-Realistic guns and shooting action (guns feel heavy and powerful, even the handguns)
-very deep and addictive multiplayer (several unlockable classes, perks, and weapons) with a great ribbon and medal system

-'s
-you level up a bit too quickly in multiplayer (I hit General after about 26 hours or so, but I still have several things to unlock)
-Weak in-game story

Neutral
-the controls are quite different than most FPS games (especially in Campaign mode)
-

Overall: This is the best FPS on the PS3 yet. There could've been much more story, but the gameplay and graphics more than makeup for it. The online multiplayer is the most addictive since COD4, and actually improve on that game in several ways. The FPS to play so far in 2009 for sure.

Reviews: Street Fighter 4 (PS3)

+'s
-sequel to Steet Fighter 2 (and better in every way)
-Fantastic gameplay (controls just fine with the Dual Shock 3 or SixAxis)
-Outstanding online multiplayer (lag is rarely a problem, great Battle Point system, addictive!)
-Lasting value (wide variety of characters, almost endless titles and logo's to unlock in online multiplayer
-New Focus Attacks and combo system makes for extremely deep strategic fighting

-'s
-character storylines are pretty much worthless

Overall: Street Fighter IV is exactly what all fighting game fans have been hoping for: it takes everything great about Street Fighter 2 while updating the graphics and adding innovative gameplay features. An outstanding game that I'll be playing for months, maybe even years.

Thoughts: Reviews Revamp Part 2

In many ways, this blog was about determining if I should have explored my dream as a 10-year old: video game reviewer.  I've learned that I have some decent ability with written reviews.  I've also learned that writing reviews, especially in a creative and well-written manner, quickly becomes drudgery (there's a reason those folks get paid for their work after all) and is a pretty ridiculous hobby.  In fact, reviews became so painful I had to revamp them into basic sections: positives, negatives, notable neutral's, overall impressions, and a review score based on how much of a priority a game should be given assuming the gamer has a finite amount of time to play games.  This new review method really suited me, and it helped revitalize my enthusiasm for the reviews for a time, but something still seemed off.  

I was initially extremely proud of my "innovative" review system.  Wouldn't it be a great benefit, especially as gamers age and have less and less free time, to score games based on the priority to which the game should be given?  As it turns out, no, not at all.  Why did I give Gears 2 a 9.0 and Resistance 2 a 9.5?  Am I saying you should make Resistance 2 more of a priority by .5?  It's a similar issue with No More Heroes getting a 9.5 and Prince of Persia getting a 9.0:  Am I saying every gamer should make No More Heroes more of a priority than Prince of Persia?  Doesn't that assume every gamer has multiple consoles?  Isn't it also making the assumption that all gamers have similar tastes?  My mistake should have been evident with my constant uncertainty what to score a game; I'm consistently doubting myself months after reviews are done, and I can't explain to myself what the heck my scores are trying to reflect.  Furthermore,  when has anyone ever said "This game is great, but I don't need to make it a priority" or "This game sucks, so I'm playing it all weekend instead of these other awesome games"?  They don't, because the quality of the game (or perception of quality) and the fun the gamer has playing the game dictate the priority in which they are played.  So, in short, my review system is inherently flawed and must be changed, simplified, and streamlined.  

First, I quickly found that what appears to be a ten point scale is really 6, as I have never scored a game below a 5 and only one has received a 10.  Also, apparently I envisioned playing a ton of terrible games, as I felt the need for the scale to reserve 1.0-5.5 for REALLY bad games.   Bad games that I do not play due to time constraints (which is quite a paradox reserving half my scale that prioritizes which games should be played for games that I will never play because they suck).  Secondly, I did well not using the ridiculous true decimal scale, which is really a 100 point scale (i.e. IGN and GameTrailer's 9.2, 7.8, etc.), but what's the difference between a 9.0 game and a 9.5 game?  On the flip side there is the 3 point scale: Buy it, Try it, or Fry it (I don't remember which site uses this).  This is a bit too limiting though.  The result is that I'm really understanding why Giant Bomb uses a 5-Star scale to review.  I wanted to simplify things even further though, so I'm mixing Giant Bomb's 5-Star scale with 1-Up's Letter Grade to get a 5 rating, letter grade based scale.  I expect it to look a bit like this:

A-Excellent (these games go above and beyond expectations for the medium and I recommend them  highly). 

B-Above average (these are very good games that I really enjoyed playing and recommend).

C-Average (Mediocre games.  I'm neutral on whether these should be played or avoided). 

D-Below average (these games have multiple flaws that prevent them from being much fun, but aren't overtly broken.  There might be some fun to be had, but I can't recommend them)

F-Failure (pretty self-explanatory)

So, the plan is to create labels for the new rankings.  Old reviews will have the new score labeled accordingly, but will keep the old score in the body of the review.  New reviews will only have the new scores as one of the labels.  

Let's see if reviews are fun again.  Here's to hoping...