Visual data is an important part of providing readers with compact but relevant data. Our new graphing method aims to give the most amount of data in a simple and easy to understand format… well relatively easy to understand format (you are here reading an explanation of the graph after all).  That said, the common method on the internet and among sites which feature reviews, is the deployment of ‘star rating’ systems.

These systems use a number of stars to display the data as an indication of how good something is. Other, more recent methods have used LED like bars to the same ends. The problem with them is that they take a lot of space, and don’t really give a good indication of anything concrete. It’s a completely subjective system that imposes the reviewers idea of what is “good” to areas that don’t have a solid and established metric. For example Wolfenstein 3D is one of the best known and most influential first person shooters, but compared to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 it is weak yet the audience will see something simple like a star rating system and be left wondering how it was that both titles scored similarly with nothing more than a guess as to how the data was compiled. What is worse is that the star rating system is just plain ugly and generic looking.

To bypass this we’ve implemented a dual bar graph per aspect to show how we felt and what the impact various aspects had on the game which is taken from what the developers indicate in press releases, title dedicated websites, and interviews. It boils down to comparing the experience with the title to the impact that aspects have on that experience overall. The bar graphs may not be much prettier, but it’s more informative and descriptive.

We review a game based on 4 main aspects: Concept, Mechanics, Story, and Graphics / Sound.

Why don’t you rate ‘fun’ and ‘replay value’?

Fun is subjective and would vary between players. How much fun ‘we’ had doesn’t do anything for the audience. It also keeps the term ‘jaded’ from popping into anyone’s mind when looking at the visual data – we may review a title that we don’t find very fun, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not good or won’t be fun for someone else. It could be that the game reviewed isn’t the type of game the person reviewing the title goes after on a regular basis.  As for replay value, it’s not at this a huge factor in the minds of people at the point of sale. As time has passed, more arguments have been made concerning the multi-player aspects of a game generating value to a title, but it’s not something that can be adequately represented objectively or subjectively before hand – it requires a community of people and fans to gather and foster for it to gain and retain value, therefore it’s really a non-factor.

There are 4 main parts to the review image:

1. Title Essential Data (TED)

The TED simply shows pertinent information that prospective buyer would need to know such as the name of the game, who developed it, when it was released, box art for easy visual identification, what systems the game is available, etc. It also gives the ESRB rating so that parents who read our reviews will know whether or not the game may or may not be appropriate for other members of their household.

Why don’t you list the price?

Prices change over time, so including a price is only briefly accurate thus moot in the long-term. We do indicate the retail price at time of release in the review itself.

Why is the ESRB in red?

To stand out. Parents can easily identify the location of the rating and determine whether or not they wish to take the time reading the review or move to a different review, particularly if the ESRB rating is what they don’t allow their children to participate in at home.

2. Overall Average (OA, orange bar)

The overall average is a lot simpler than it looks. Basically the formula is this:

Score =  Σ(AXS×AIS) / Σ(AIS)

The score is a weighted average of all aspects of our experience over the impact of the aspects unto the game. We use the Impact score as a weight because it’s what the developers have used as their goal. We feel this adds a bit of much needed objectivity to the rather subjective process of reviewing without spurring a huge debate over how a score was given, if the review took into account X, Y or Z,  or if a certain portion of an aspect should make up for the weaker portions of another. It’s not rocket surgery, the review process – but it is done with the consideration of detail and respect to objective balance.

3. Aspect Experience Score (AXS, blue bar)

The aspect score is the rating of certain aspects of a game. For example, if a game has great graphics then the Aspect Score for Graphics will be higher. If the graphics for a game is lacking, then the score would be lower. The written portion of the reviews goes into detail explaining why the Aspect Score of a particular is rated as such. These scores are purely subjective, but as reviewers we have a strong understanding on what makes these aspects work not only for the game, but for the particular genre and in context to one another.

Why don’t you have an AXS for sound?

We include this with ‘Graphics’ since they very often go hand in hand. The exception is with Rhythm games, which “Graphics” will be replaced with “Sound” but still cover both graphics and sound.

4. Aspect Impact Scores (AIS, red bar)

Many review sites will indicate the aspect score of a game coupled with the overall score, but that’s not really enough to give a clear picture of how these aspects impact the game objectively. Often times discussion will come about and debates occur pitting games against one another in an ‘apples to oranges’ fashion.

For example, Final Fantasy XIII has great graphics as does Mass Effect 2 however the graphics have more impact in Mass Effect 2 than in Final Fantasy XIII because of the way the game is designed. In this case, both games are RPG titles, but Concept, Story and Mechanics have more impact overall in Final Fantasy, where as Graphics, Story and Mechanics have more impact on Mass Effect 2.

So, the impact of an aspect has some to do with the experience to be had, but is geared more towards showing if an objective was achieved. A game that is dependent upon graphics but has poor graphics will have a low AIS, but because of the games’ dependency on them have a high level of impact. Conversely a low Graphics AXS on a game that doesn’t rely on graphics indicates to readers that having poor graphics isn’t really a big deal; it gives objective grounds for a subjective score. In other words, AIS, is the measure of how important a certain aspect is to the game.

SCORE SYSTEM

We would love to know what you think of our visual data methodology, if you find it useful, or if you have an idea on how to make it more concrete than we feel it is.  So, please, in the comment section below, tells us – we’re listening. Last but not least, we give credit where credit is due. That said:

A special thanks for Mykel Nahorniak, Mykola Bilokonski and Glen Haber for their time in consultation and lending their brain power to this endeavor, specifically in helping with an averaging solution.

Popularity: 2% [?]