There's not much yet, but if Ryan can stick to the book-a-week premise, I think there will be a nice and very accessible collection of reviews and thoughts on a wide variety of books. It's one of those things I've added to my feeds and just hope it doesn't peter out.

The Secret Books of Game Design [Words on Play via Grand Text Auto]

Gus Mastrapa posits in his column at GameDaily that writing really well is the game reviewer's highest calling, and he goes on to point out what he feels are the reviewer's seven deadly sins - Measure, Dullness, Doubt, Diplomacy, Forgiveness, Purposelessness and Obsession.

For example, the sin of "Measure" indicates when a reviewer has to apply a score or rating, and factors in the aggregate as he or she does so:

It's tempting to aim for the middle and grant a score that'll best conform to popular opinion, but to do so is tantamount to handing your guns over to a corrupt sheriff. It's better to score like you mean it and use the numbers, letters or stars to make a point.

I often feel like I'd prefer to do away with scores altogether, as we've done here at Kotaku, but I can also see the merit in needing a quick-hit evaluatory number, after we're so habituated to it.

Another one of Gus' points that jumps out at me is the sin of Diplomacy - worrying about the reaction, the reviewer is often tempted to try to please everyone:

In a post about Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots Tycho from Penny Arcade pointed out a bit of game review weaseling that I myself have been guilty of. "Most reviews I have read," he said, "can be simmered down to 'If you like Metal Gear, you'll like it.'" This kind of wishy-washy language is, itself, unforgivable. It's a way of avoiding the fight that should be at the core of your review. If you don't like Metal Gear you should be illustrating the series' weaknesses and the way they materialize Metal Gear Solid 4. Reviews are no place for peacemaking. Make your arguments and back them up.

A fight at the core of a review, huh? Often, it seems reviews cause fights even when you try to be as genteel as possible.

So, Kotaku readers, what do you think are the worst things reviewers do - and how can we do better?

Media Coverage: The Seven Deadly Sins of Video Game Reviewing [GameDaily via GameSetWatch]

It gives developers feedback, real insights into their game, so they can go back and improve their work. There simply isn’t a way for people to properly explain criticism in the current culture of “I’m not having fun” reviews. Nor is there a way to reward innovation or successful elements of games beyond gushing “I’m having fun” praise. It’s one thing to say you like a game, but figuring out a way to go beyond that gives developers a better understanding of their audiences reaction.

In any case, it's an interesting essay that ties in with a lot of other criticism of the gaming press at large; the other eight parts are also a good read, if you're not scared off by the "Zarathustran Analytics" in the title.

Zarathustran Analytics in Video Games, Part 9: Flaws in Criticism Today [PopMatters via The Brainy Gamer]

"I’m at a point where I rarely second guess what I think about a game upon finishing it,” Gerstmann told me. He said he’s long gotten over the doubt that could set in “when you are facing the raging fury of the Internet.” He used to get death threats about some of his scores. “Now that stuff just rolls off. It’s the ranting of insane people, which you could say about a lot of internet stuff.”

I've always thought that some people take personal offenence to reviews. They are just opinions. Everyone's got one.

The Art of Not Second Guessing [Multiplayer]

First, there would be no alphabetical or numerical review scores. Second, reviews would be focused on delivering the most critical information in the most efficient way possible. Third, they should be fun to read and hopefully foster conversation about a game's positives and negatives.

We decided to exclude a final score to ensure that Kotaku reviews would not contribute to the average rating at sites that collate and aggregate numerical scores, scores that do not follow a universal grading scale. Our hope was that we could avoid discussions that fruitlessly debate whether a "10" was, indeed, perfect and if one exclusive was better than another exclusive simply based on a number. Boiling down pages of analysis to a single grade or score or number of pumpkins doesn't help readers, it hurts them, reducing the process of critiquing what is often a living document into black and white terms, when there is often a world of gray left untouched.

Our hope is that by laying out the analytical process, by exposing what we feel was good and bad about that game without weighting either, we give you the resources to form your own educated opinion.

We hope this explains how and why we designed this system. We encourage you to add your comments, questions and suggestions in the comments after reading through the more detailed explanation on the key aspects of our reviews on the jump.

Our Reviews Are Designed To Be Concise And Easy To Read
We're not fans of long-winded reviews, ones that read more like the author is getting paid by the word and span seven pages. We've tailored our reviews to be as to the point as possible while giving the reader the relevant information about our experience with a title.

Reviews are divided into four parts: An introduction to get the reader up to speed on the game or series, a list of things we liked under "Loved," a list of things we didn't like under "Hated," then two paragraphs summing up whether we think the good outweighs the bad or vice versa. We then wrap up with some basic facts and figures about the game. Aspects of a game that we "Loved" or "Hated" are not weighed equally and a score should not be inferred because of the number of each. Pointing out what we loved and hated about a game we hope will highlight potential deal breakers, because what matters to one gamer may not matter to another.

Reviews will address both technical and artistic aspects of a game, as games can be more (or less) than the sum of their parts. We feel that due to the nature of the medium, it's important to discuss a game's artistic style as well as its technical capabilities.

Our Reviews Don't Use Numerical Scores
We like arguing about to-the-decimal-point scoring discrepancies for games we haven't played then complaining about them on internet message boards as much as the next guy, but concluding that "Basically, Game X is better than Game Y" because of an arbitrary scoring scheme doesn't benefit the reader. We'd prefer you read our review instead of just skipping to the score and forming an opinion based on a number, a number that doesn't represent a reviewer's assessment. There are plenty of resources for one to judge a game worthy of purchase and play by numbers, stars and letter grades, we're just choosing not to be one of them.

We're Transparent About What We Played
When reviewing a game, our goal is to at least complete a game's single-player mode, whether that's a story-driven campaign or a season in Madden or a series of license tests in Gran Turismo. However, in some cases beating a game is simply not possible, as is the case with open ended, massively multiplayer online RPGs. If we don't "finish" the game or access a particular multiplayer mode, we'll tell you. We'll also divulge how much of the game's multiplayer and bonus modes we played, if applicable and we'll tell you which system(s) we played it on. If there are questions about the experience, we urge you to ask your question in the comments or e-mail us directly.

Our Reviews Will Be Timely And Accurate
We do our best to get reviews up by the day the game ships to stores in North America. Occasionally, when a title is released in another region before its North American street date, we'll review the PAL or Japanese version. Our goal is have a review up no later than a week after its release, but we're not always given the courtesy of early review copies and often take extra time to play online portions post-release to get a better handle on how something will play in the real world. We'll take extra time with games that feature a significant online component to get a more accurate perspective of the experience.

Brian Crecente contributed to this article.

Easy to say from the outside looking in, but independent game developer Matthew of the Magical Wasteland blog shared his insider experience with an unidentified major publisher to explain that it's not always so simple, even when executives "talk the talk" about quality control.

Matthew cited the institution of bonuses for developers based on Metacritic scores, similar to the practice of hinging developer royalties on good scores that MTV Multiplayer's Stephen Totilo recently investigated.

Said Matthew:

Armed with the knowledge that higher review scores meant more money for them, game producers were thus encouraged to identify the elements that reviewers seemed to most notice and most like – detailed graphics, scripted set piece battles, “robust” online multiplayer, “player choice,” and more, more of everything. Like a food company performing a taste test to find out that people basically like the saltiest, greasiest variation of anything and adjusting its product lineup accordingly, the big publishers struggled to stuff as much of those key elements as possible into every game they funded.

The result, said Matthew, was that development became rushed and disjointed, all in the pursuit of the mighty Metacritic review score.

Multiplayer modes were suddenly tacked on late in development. More missions and weapons were added to bulk up their offering – to be created by outsource partners. Level-based games suddenly turned into open-world games.

Before you cry in despair, keep in mind that all these people wanted in the end was the best game possible – or, more precisely, the best-reviewed game possible.

Matthew's entire story is well worth a read, even with the (logical) absence of his career specifics. I find it ironic that the games press, many of whom are indirectly responsible for those scores, so rarely gets opportunities like these to look inside the developers' experience.

You Can’t Fake Quality, But That Never Stops Them from Trying [Magical Wasteland]

Totilo talks to some pretty big names about the practice, including GameSpot's former employee Jeff Gerstmann, who explains why the practice is so disturbing.

I’ve gotten e-mails from developers over the years who have said, ‘I don’t think you realize what you’re doing to me with this review’ because my review knocked them out of the range of some bonus that they were up for...

It's really a ridiculous practice that almost always works in the publisher's favor. Luckily it isn't as widespread as it once was, but it does give you interesting insight into why some developers will defend their games as if their lives depended on it. Sometimes they might.

Low Metacritic Scores Cause Game Publishers To Withhold Developer Royalties [MTV Multiplayer]

If the review is 9.0 or higher you can post immediately. Lower than 9.0, could you please hold until launch day, November 19th? Thanks.

Based on communications I've had with PR people over the years, yeah...I could definitely see this happening. In this case the GameSpot folks opted to just buy the game at a store and review it, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Video Game Company To Wii Reviewer: Save The Panning For Later, Okay? [MTV Multiplayer]

But is it all of that enough to shake off the stink of Wii shovelware and live up to the expectations of a game created by the man behind E.T., Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark?

Loved
Eclectic Gameplay: With more than 300 levels, a myriad of ways to play (from blasting and throwing to pulling and stacking), Boom Blox is a virtual toy story of Wii gaming. Each facet of the game manages to deliver, with little to none of the technical issues that have marred other remote-heavy Wii titles.

Great Character Design: What's a game without character? While Boom Blox is loaded with plenty of entertaining character design, it's in the adventure mode that the funky characters really shine. The four themed worlds were "creatively directed" by Spielberg himself and some of the sizzle seems to have made it through the process. Also, it's hard to go wrong with mini-fig like monkeys, cows and kittens in my book.

Deep Pick-Up and Play: None of the many games and modes in Boom Blox are hard to understand or to master, but the level of depth, the sheer number of puzzles included in the game are staggering. Many may take you only a minute or two to whip through, but all of them are satisfying.

Level Editor: The game's mix of multiplayer, single player, co-op, competitive, story and play is nicely augmented with a surprisingly innate level designer that, once the game is fully played through, grants you access to just about everything you come across in the packaged game. Building levels in the editor is so quick and easy to test out that it's almost as fun as playing them.

Sense of Fun: Boom Blox is a charming toy, a game imbued with a sense of fun that somehow makes it greater than it's many parts.

Hated
Weak Co-Op Gaming: After playing through the addictive adventure mode, I was looking for a similar experience to share with my son. Unfortunately I didn't get one. The co-op levels felt more like something meant for training or to show off the tech than for fun.

Shallow Competitive Gaming: While a bit better than co-op, the game's relatively shallow competitive mode feels like what I thought Boom Blox was going to be before I played it: A one trick pony.

Gimped Level Sharing: There's nothing more disappointing then being given a surprisingly robust tool with which to create your own fun and then being told you can't really share it with many people. Boom Blox level sharing relies on the Wii's innately flawed online support, which is so protective it throws down roadblocks to fun. In this case, you can, at least for now, only share them with a select group of friends. Perhaps a new channel will pop up on the Wii for level sharing down the line, but until then it's not very useful.

Boom Blox is, at it's heart, a puzzle game; you have to move, blow-up or shoot away blox to score points, save little blox characters, or defend buildings, but with so many different things to do and so many different ways to do them, it's easy to forget that. Add to the absurdly large number of puzzles and modes the game's four adventures, each with its own story and distinct look, and you've got a game that's sure to entice.

While Boom Blox isn't without its issues and moments of tedium, the main thing that prevents this title from realizing its full potential is the lackluster multiplayer. A game about fun should make multiplayer a top priority, not something that feels so tacked on.

Boom Blox was developed by Electronic Arts LA, published by EA and was released on May 6. Retails for $49.99. Available on Wii. Played single player Adventure mode to completion. Played single player Explore and all multiplayer modes and tested level creation.

Light gun games on the Wii, though, are a match made in heaven, or at least they could be if someone ever finds the right match. Could Target: Terror be it?

Loved
Digitized Bad Guys: Nothing takes me back to the days of Terminator and Mad Dog McCree like a little digitized blasting action. The game and it's digital graphics hold up well on the Wii.

Kitschy Arcade Fun: There's no way that someone can take Target: Terror seriously. It's got over the top bad guys and women, bizarre weapons like a freeze ray and is set in a motley assortment of locations, including Denver International Airport, of all places. Fun for the sake of fun is never a bad thing.

Hated
Major Lag While the game has some potential, that potential is absolutely destroyed by the lag that infects this game. At times the lag is so bad that you can't reload and shots are so delayed you end up hitting people who weren't even on screen when you pulled the trigger. When it happens it's game destroying and unforgivable.

Wii Mote Reaction Time: As if the occasion game-killing lag time weren't bad enough, the Wii remote's target reticule tends to drift a fraction of a second behind where you are aiming. You can get used to it, adapting to the slight delay, but you really shouldn't have to.

Lackluster Mini-Games: The mini games, unlockable by shooting stuff up in the campaign play, are for the most part uninspired and not very fun. The only exception for me was ICBM Defense Shield—which is essentially Missile Command—but even that is so short lived that it sucks the fun out of the concept.

Credit System: I get that the developers had to figure out a way to make a quarter-eating arcade game more challenging. Without the risk of going through an entire allowance in ten minutes of game play there really isn't a lot of tension built into the game. Giving a set number of credits to make it through the game is a fine solution, but it shouldn't be the only option, especially when you have to beat every single level to make it to the final stage. Unforgivable.

Target: Terror isn't a game someone would knowingly pick up expecting hours of over the top, deep gameplay. But even for those who go into the game with their eyes wide open, hoping to only relive a bit of arcade light gun nostalgia, Target: Terror is a let down. The glitches in the game are so bad at times, it makes me wonder if Konami or developer Leviathan Games even bothered to play test the game before shipping it out.

If you can pick this game up at a bargain price and are willing to grit your teeth through the slowdowns, the game does have its moments, just don't expect them to last.

Target: Terror was developed by Leviathan Games and published by Konami, and was released on April 22nd. Retails for $39.99. Available on Nintendo Wii. Played single player game to completion (less bonus round) in single player, multiplayer and dual-remote Justice Mode. Tested all mini-games.

The reviewer in question, Hilary Goldstein, editor-in-chief at IGN's Xbox 360 channel, talked to GameDaily about the GTA IV review mini-hubbub, chalking up Fritz's concerns to a possible grudge.

Goldstein theorizes that "if Variety didn't get the game early then you're looking at somebody, I don't know, who had a grudge on his shoulder because he didn't even have the game yet and we'd already put out the review." He thinks that to break an agreed upon embargo, similar to the one we agreed to with Rockstar for our own GTA IV review, would be a bigger ethics violation.

While I don't think that sums up Variety's particular concern and IGN editors swear everything's kosher, that no money or promises were exchanged, I think it's simply a matter of frustration with how coverage in the video game media industry is handled, how it's doled out to established video game outlets like IGN and not to those not known for their video game coverage. What may be simply a sign of an immature, capitulating industry, one populated with zealous fans, may not be as ethically troubling as it is indicative of one that needs to grow.

Media Coverage: IGN Says Variety May Have 'Grudge' [GameDaily]

For example, Game Informer gave Mass Effect a near-perfect 9.75 out of 10, while citing many problems that might otherwise lead to a lower score (and the fact Ben himself doesn't think it even comes close, but never mind that.) Without passing judgment on GTA IVs 10/10ness, he thinks that exclusive reviews are "ethically troubling" at minimum.

"But how can we trust a videogame review when the outlet running it has been given a major commercial favor — one that's worth money — from the publisher of the game? You never see a paper or TV station getting special access from a movie studio or TV network or book publisher to run an "exclusive review." Imagine the L.A. Times or Roger Ebert touting their "exclusive review of 'Iron Man.'" Absurd, right? So why do we tolerate it for a videogame?"

Exclusive Reviews are Ethically Troubling [The Cut Scene]

Yet curiously, by describing it also as "Without question, the best game since Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time," IGN sets up a strange paradox. Because it reviewed Ocarina of Time on Nov. 25, 1998. And then it reviewed Soul Calibur on Sept. 20, 1999. So ... the benchmark game for GTA's greatness goes back to 1998. But since then another game has earned a 10/10 score from IGN. So what gives?

On second thought, the hell with the 10/10 scale. Read our stuff instead. Our embargo on GTA IV will break Sunday at 10 am, and then all the nitty gritty your hot little hands can hold will be yours. We'll deliver you a flood of content, and then some.

Still, until then, you'll need some surrogate commentary, and IGN's as good a place as any to start.

"A 10 doesn't mean a game is perfect — it means a game is pushing boundaries, expanding a genre, and doing many things to a level so far above and beyond its competitors that they overshadows any flaws."

Sounds like a winner — by any score — to me.

Grand Theft Auto Review [IGN]

I would like you to briefly indulge me by participating in an exercise. Remove all of the mascots and familiar faces from Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and replace them with original constructs. Notice, if you will, the somewhat clumsy user interface, the high percentage of total content that must be unlocked to be enjoyed, the complete lack of usability of the Wii controls, and the lack of significant graphical or gameplay progression over the previous generation. It's true that even then, you'd have a good game. But would you have a 10 game?

What does it mean that I'm hesitant to even state my opinion that it'd be a 7 game? And what does that crap even mean, anymore?

Auto-Neurotic Asphyxiation

Tom's Games points out that the company posted three job listings over at JournalismJobs.Com from Feb. 15 through Feb. 27 for copywriter; associate editor, reviews; and associate editor II, PC previews and reviews.

Hit the jump for some of the responsibilities for each job. On a side note, I was a little disturbed to read that their copywriter position might include the unholy wedlock of advertising and editorial, with the person being responsible for writing banner ads, print ads and, perhaps, headlines?

Update: I hear from friends over at GameSpot that the copywriter job is in fact advertising and marketing only and that there will never be any editorial hanky-panky. Good to know.

Associate Editor, Reviews
The associate editor will be responsible for 3-5 regular game product review assignments per week in a timely manner.
The associate editor will be expected to contribute to the reviews editing process both by receiving and giving feedback on his/her own reviews, as well as reviews written by other editors and staffers.
The associate editor will be expected to contribute to additional review-related duties, such as appearing in video reviews or potentially helping to compile game assets.
The associate editor will be expected to contribute to GameSpot's editorial product in other ways, such as attending press events, covering games for previews, and contributing to editorial features.

Associate Editor II, PC previews & reviews
The associate editor will be responsible for 3-5 regular PC game preview and review assignments per week in a timely manner, and potentially some console-related coverage as well.
The associate editor will be called on to interface with game industry contacts and attend game-related industry events and may be required to travel, schedule appointments, manage press assets, and keep track of deadline and designated publish dates.
As part of the process of contributing to reviews, the associate editor will be expected to contribute to the reviews editing process both by receiving and giving feedback on his/her own reviews, as well as reviews written by other editors and staffers.
The associate editor will be expected to contribute to additional review-related duties, such as appearing in video reviews or potentially helping to compile game assets.
The associate editor will be expected to contribute to GameSpot's editorial product in other ways, such as attending press events, covering games for previews, and contributing to editorial features.

Copywriter
Write banner ads, landing pages, print ads, ads, microsites, videos, and, of course, email. Work autonomously with partner designer during concept development and design. Integrate the brand personality into all consumer communication and maintain a consistent look and feel that reinforces and builds the brands as innovators.

Work with Marketing, Product and product design teams to understand our customers, the nuances of the product and the key strategies for each project. Attend user lab studies to witness consumer experience with the product first hand in order to better understand their motivations, stumbling blocks, etc. Develop a strong command of our brands, their positioning and detailed product features.

Like Video Games? Cnet/Gamespot Going Hiring Crazy (must Like Eidos) [Tom's Games]

It seems to me that hardcore gamers are well aware of the futility of the games that they play. But they want the game's design to continuously distract them from this fact. It is the purest form of escapism: a game that absorbs you completely and doesn't allow your brain any time to reflect on what you're doing. Eurogamer literally complains about the fact that the designers of Endless Ocean are too gentle in this respect.

But what if you like being treated gently? What if you don't hate your life and you don't want to be knocked unconscious by your entertainment? What if you just want to relax in front of the television set, doing not much of anything, spending some time with your family, experiencing a story or looking at pretty moving pictures?

Does a game review prevent someone from enjoying a game? Does the fact that the New York Times film critics routinely pan huge summer blockbusters stop hordes of the movie going public from enjoying them? If you want to sit around with your family watching pretty pictures flit across the screen, there was this amazing technology of moving pictures invented in the 19th century. If you want to gently shake your Wiimote around while watching movie pictures, play Endless Ocean and ignore what Eurogamer has to say. I, too, enjoy a relaxing gaming experience - Harvest Moon is one of my beloved games for just chilling out - but to whine about the review structure for being focused on things like game play and design mechanics seems a little silly.

Clearly not all games are going to appeal to all people, and not all forms of the gaming press is going to be appropriate for everyone's needs; but there are plenty of sites catering to the more casual market, and even reviews of other types of media in more generalist publications tends to be more 'hardcore' than what the average audience member is after (how many panned-by-the-critics movies have gone on to be giant blockbusters? The answer: a lot).

Hardcore reviews of softcore games [Tale of Tales]

So what did the critics think? Hit the jump for our Frankenreview to find out: not quite every review, but probably more than you're going to read anyway.

IGNYou've got the GTA free-roaming that is used for doing individual missions, exploring the city of Santa Destroy, and hitting up a few shops and training areas, which leads the way for the action-oriented story. If the game was based only on the open world style, it would have been a pretty sizable disappointment as far as we're concerned, as there are constant frame issues, pop-in everywhere, very little NPC activity, and a huge overall lack of polish...What it all boils down to is about 10 or so stores and buildings to go into, a handful of mission points that bring you into new loading zones, and some mini-game jobs which are fun, but hardly necessitate an entire open world.

Gamespot
The crux of the action is found in No More Heroes' numerous and impressive boss encounters, where you'll use these subtleties to your advantage, though they don't usually present a foreboding challenge until the final few fights. Yet they're still enormously entertaining, thanks to your opponents' melodramatic (and often hysterical) soliloquizing, interesting attacks, and pure wackiness. Holly Summers launches missiles at you from her fake leg, while Stage magician Harvey Moiseiwitsch Volodarskii locks you up in the box used for his disappearing act...

NGamer
Never before have we played a game that felt so completely in love with being a game - text is rendered in an eighties pixellated font, your map's a sloppy digital display, the whole HUD ripped from Grand Theft Auto without mercy or apology; the ten best assassins table is the high score chart from a 1984 coin-op and the pause menu is like a scene from Tron.

4 Color RebellionThe music in is excellent. The No More Heroes theme is catchy and runs in several variations throughout the game. Fans of Lumines will recognize the song "Heavenly Star" by the Genki Rockets and you can even watch the song's music video from a tape in Travis's apartment...The voice acting is over the top and often hilarious. People have ridiculous accents, crazy rants, and seem to be doing nothing but spouting catch phrases. The dialogue is not good in an Oscar Wilde sort of way, but it is good in an "Army of Darkness" sort of way. No one really sounds like a real person, but nothing in this game ever feels very real to begin with.

InsomniaIn regards to the first point, what's happened here is that the remote/nunchuk functionality is used to mask how terribly shallow the fighting system is. So shallow, that it is quite possible to win half the fights in the game by — get this — turning your back on the TV and mashing the A button while vigorously shaking the remote in random directions.

Back to us—not dissimilarly from the public's reaction to Killer7, No More Heroes garners polar reactions. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't give it a shot.

Here's where it gets weird. Murph contacted Sony's PR to request a set for review, and was told...no. It would appear that the console wars extend further than any of us realized, but that's the reason given — we're a Microsoft-focused (but not -owned, I should point out) publication, and they are a PlayStation-creating company (but not the same business division, I should point out), so...just no. "I have to support our friends over at our sister company," said the representative.

Wait, what? Support them? How is selling their own product going to hinder the PlayStation 3? If anything, getting Bravias into the hands of consumers would make the PlayStation 3 that much more attractive of a purchase, wouldn't it? Maybe one quality Sony product would convince consumers to give another quality Sony product a try? When pressed, Sony PR stood firm.

"Sony is going to pass on this opportunity."

Sony Doesn't Want Your Money [OXM Online]

Now NiGHTS has come back to the masses on the Wii in NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams. So does its predecessor live up to expectations? Hit the jump for our Frankenreview: every thing you need to know about everything that is this one particular game.

GameTap
You can play Journey with several configurations. Each of them has a steep learning curve, but the remote-only setup will wear down your patience and send little kids crying to their mommas. It's just too tough to keep the remote cursor steady enough that it doesn't skitter around the atmosphere as you try to guide Nights past obstacles. Better to attach a nunchuk or plug-in a classic controller or even a GameCube controller, where the analog joystick eventually rewards your persistent thumb work with fairly smooth flying.
GameSpot
Visually speaking, Journey of Dreams is deliciously vibrant. Each dream world is unique and colorful without veering from the overall art design. From beautiful underwater vistas to a busy carnival complete with exploding fireworks, environments are created with painstaking care. Nights is smoothly animated, though in the ground levels, the children don't move as fluidly. Cutscenes are also well done and often poignant, thanks to expressive facial animations. You will encounter frequent moments where the frame rate dips a tad, but it doesn't usually get in the way of smooth flight.
1UP
This time, you assume the roles of William and Helen, two new tykes sucked into the dreamworld of Nightopia in order to better cope with the very modern pressure of living with unloving, often-absent parents. Unfortunately, you'll actually get to know these kids a little too intimately, thanks to an overabundance of heavy-handed, talky cut-scenes that assault the eyes (and ears) with amateurish production values. We definitely liked Nights when he/she was an enigmatic, laconic benefactor 10 years ago...now that it's more of a corny purple Mary Poppins that won't shut up, we're considerably less enamored.GameZone
More than half of Journey of Dreams' stages are worth playing through multiple times. Unfortunately, there are a few stages that you won't care to revisit. It's not that they're significantly bad, but they're not much fun either. They lack the excitement and awe-inspiring feeling that the rest of the game offers.
IGN
You'll also find odd sections of loading that don't bring up screens or icons at all, instead keeping the screen fully white or black for upwards of 15 seconds with no explanation. If it wasn't for the music playing in that background we would have assumed the game was frozen. This lack of overall polish can be found in virtually any area...
It looks fairly passable unless you are a big NiGHTS fan, though Wii owners who've beaten Super Mario Galaxy may be looking for something new.

GameRankings editor Lee Alessi writes today on his GameSpot blog, "No, I didn't get rid of their data 'on purpose'. I honestly have no clue how it disappeared and before anyone asks—-no, I didn't delete the site. I am no Tech but I will take a guess and say there will have to be a restored backup to get close to 10,000 in reviews and 60,000 in other articles back on GR."

Yes, GameRankings did indeed drop GameSpot reviews, but looks like it found them, plans to put them back in their spot, restore balance to all important percentages and (hopefully) defuse any further potential drama.

We've contacted CNET and GameSpot reps to get an official statement on the matter. Regardless, it sounds very much like this is not news.

Before people jump to conclusions/ make assumptions [GameSpot]

I get less concerned about game reviews because the casual gamers don't read any of those things...They're not swayed by a low score on IGN or a low score out of one of these gaming sites.

It's a little bit amusing, in that it's people reviewing games against measures that are important to core gamers yet are not important to casual gamers...The concept of a one-size-fits-all evaluation tool isn't as relevant...The measurement [of a game's appeal] for women aged 25 to 34 would more likely be whether or not they'd hang up on their girlfriend to play this game. 'Would you hang up a phone conversation for this game?' That'd probably be a truer measure for that target audience.

But the fact is, Vrabeck probably isn't all that far off the mark. And I'd expect casual games to be influenced far more by peer review, quick star feedback systems and one-liners at the place of purchase, than some gaming site exclusive.

EA Casual and the Problem with Reviews [nextgen]

There are a couple of themes from all of this, both the personal accounts that have wound up in our inbox and the wider discussion as a whole: this is nothing new and the ramifications are a little further reaching than a single reviewer, game company, or site.

I've been musing on all of this, mostly because reviews are part of an academic's life - epic flame wars have been fought on the pages of academic journals in every field, frequently over a scathing review or editorial. Feelings get hurt, professional relationships get strained - but money is almost never a concern. Your average PhD may make shit for a salary, but the upside is that professional integrity is rarely compromised in an attempt to hold on to the all mighty dollar.

It's amazing to me that some companies find this an acceptable course of action in some situations, and even more amazing that some bosses go along with this. Is losing credibility and mountains of bad press really worth those advertising dollars? But Kevin Gifford's Gamasutra editorial points to the very way video games are reviewed as part of the problem:

But many outlets have failed to stir up any reader interest in the text behind the review, or the overall atmosphere of the mag or website they're exploring — instead, readers increasingly care exclusively about the score, so they can praise and/or whine about it online. Entire game-media outlets have been, and are defined by, the numerals they publish...instead of, you know, how fun they are to read.

The Internet has largely made the job title "critic" redundant. The problem is that no one at most game mags and websites got the memo. Until they do — until they realize that it's their content that defines them, and not their scores — they'll have to be content with being abused by publishers and their readership for the rest of their existences.

I don't expect that game reviews are going to start looking like something out of The New York Review of Books - but getting away from the numbers would probably help on a number of levels. That's not to say that all of us - or even most - are somehow in some company's back pocket. Write anything, be it critical or glowing, and someone, somewhere will accuse you of horrid biases, even if you're simply speaking your mind and not acting as a surreptitious corporate mouthpiece. Our inbox attests to that. It would seem that game reviewers (and journalists at large) are frequently in between a rock and a hard place, and something needs to give.

It'll be interesting to see what the long term fallout from all of this is. It just makes me glad I've never aspired to a high powered career of game reviewing for a big site. I'll take my chances in the shark-infested waters of the Journal of Asian Studies and Modern China, thank you.

In the growing wake of the controversy surrounding GameSpot's alleged firing of editorial director Jeff Gerstmann comes a little bit of surprising solidarity.

A bunch of Ziff Davis staffers (including 1Up) made a banner to show their support for fellow game reviewers and marched it the two blocks to the GameSpot building on Friday. The banner, and impromptu march, shows that despite being competition, what may have happened at GameSpot could have wide-spread implications in the game publication industry.

We're also told that the Kane & Lynch user reviews on Gamespot have been, at least temporarily, disabled and there are rumors that people are canceling their Gamespot accounts "en masse."

I'm not sure how Gamespot is going to deal with all of this since I'm pretty sure they're not legally able to talk about why Gerstmann is no longer there. I'd assume that at some point Gerstmann might talk, but I'd guess right now he's trying to figure out what to do in the way of a job.

What about you? Do you work as a game reviewer? Have you been forced to rewrite a review due to advertising pressure? Feel free to email us at tips if you have or to editor. Remember, you can remain anonymous.

The 1Up Show [Flickr]

What I found intriguing about the movie was the lonely self-sufficiency of Agent 47, his life without a boyhood, his lack of a proper name, his single-purpose training. When Nika comes into his life, he is trained to guard against her, but he cannot, because she is helpless, needy...To the degree the movie explores their relationship, it is absorbing.

Other scenes, which involve Agent 47 striding down corridors, an automatic weapon in each hand, shooting down opponents who come dressed as Jedi troopers in black. These scenes are no doubt from the video game...It has a high body count but very little blood and gore. I wish it had less. It's the people we care about in movies, not how many dead bodies they can stack up. "Hitman" stands right on the threshold between video games and art. On the wrong side of the threshold, but still, give it credit.

Anyone see it yet?

Hitman Review [rogerebert]

Maybe the Detroit News, who is quite down on the flick and writes that it's "peppered with gratuitous nudity" like that's a bad thing. Or maybe the Boston Globe and you agree that Hitman watches like a "computer wrote and directed it." Golly! That'd be keen, if true!

Maybe you'll agree with Roger Ebert, who actually quite liked it, but devotes a paragraph to regurgitating his crusty opinion that Hitman somehow "serves as an excellent illustration of my conviction that video games will never become an art form." Oh, Rog! We've already ruled your opinion on the matter as archaic and out of touch, no need to trot that old horse out again.

For those who put such weight in things, Hitman is currently sporting a 7% positive rating at Rotten Tomatoes. However, it may have been boosted by the errant inclusion of a review of Disney's Enchanted, which the Dallas Morning News says is a great "screwball comedy". Guess I'll be seeing that!

Hitman Reviews [Rotten Tomatoes]

But Uncharted ended up being pretty good after all. Hit the jump for our Frankenreview: the full story on Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. Well, not the full story. We're not spoiling the game or anything. Or will we...

IGN
Uncharted does what few titles manage — it completely immerses you in its experience. From the moment the game begins with a sweeping camera move through the waters off Panama, a rich score and the words of Sir Francis Drake etched on screen, Uncharted will have you hooked. It'll maintain that hold with its story, style and gameplay.
GamerNode
...the characters in Uncharted are awesome. I thought Heavenly Sword was an anomaly, being a game rivaling most films in terms of voice acting and dialog, but Ratchet & Clank and now Uncharted have proven to me that it wasn't. Whether you hate the PS3 or not, you can't deny that a lot of the big titles do a great job in the voice acting and dialog department
TotalPlaystation
For a game that is really quite front-loaded with combat, you would think it could have felt a little more satisfying. Maybe it's a byproduct of this fancy-schmancy animation system that calculates and layers multiple pre-set animations on the fly, but the bullets never seemed to smack home with enough force (excepting the way a shotgun or a desert eagle could send someone flying 10 feet, mind you)...
1UP
Almost all of the handful or so of puzzles require you to crack open old-man Drake's diary for a hit-you-over-the-head solution. Think turning statues to the four compass points or rotating some rotting engravings...
Variety
At first blush it would be easy to compare Nathan Drake, the treasure-hunting star of Sony's new adventure videogame "Uncharted," with "Tomb Raider's" Lara Croft. But Drake leaves Lara in the dust, delivering the Indiana Jones experience better than gamers have ever seen it before...Anybody pick it up yet?

I don't really know, and I don't really care. The game's constructs—loading times hidden within elevator rides and random worlds to explore that aren't nearly as gorgeous or detailed as the main story arc planets—will be clear to most of our readers and all of the critics. Hopefully the public will see these idiosyncrasies as a natural byproduct of pushing a system to its limits, the sweat on a sprinting athlete or burp after a good meal. Because Mass Effect is a pile of amazing. It's so good that I have the game paused right now and I'm debating whether or not I should keep writing.

The trick of Mass Effect is that it's a completely conventional RPG—you still talk to Sam to talk to Sally to talk to Sam again. You still kill baddies or save someone's cat from the tree to gain experience (to thereby be better at killing baddies, but not necessarily saving cats from trees).

But the experience is so well articulated, so to speak, that Mass Effect transcends a simple class categorization and becomes a statement all its own. More than any game that's come before, I identify with the main character. I feel like my words are the protagonists' words. And that the protagonist's fight is my fight.

The dialog scenes are a subtle revolution and a complete sham...in the best way. Beyond the masterfully cinematic direction and voice acting within these frequent back and forths, there's always a choice in how you'll respond to another character. You can be overly nice, sarcastic or brutally honest. In essence, you may not control the exact words your character speaks, but you will convey their tone. Sometimes this tone will affect a relationship or change a mission. But most of the time, it does nothing to change an immediate outcome.

Here's the kicker: I don't care.

I don't care that the choice is often an illusion because Bioware has come closer to speaking my voice than any game maker before. And I don't care that the idea isn't 100% new because it's executed so cleanly.

Feeling such a connection with the protagonist is an invigorating feeling. It means that I suddenly don't mind exploring side missions, learning about made up extinct civilization or memorizing those classically horrid alien names that sci fi fans have had to suffer their way through since the beginning of time. And those times when the choice finally is real—when I can decide whether or not to eradicate or salvage a colony—I weigh the consequences in a more substantial way than just wondering which response will make me more spacebucks. I care about...I kid you not...the fate of the galaxy.

By creating a uniquely close connection to the story's main character, Bioware can develop the story slowly, and make the game as much about exploring the Universe as conquering it. Instead of hyperfocusing on my stats bars maxing out, I've come to value every other element in the game that I normally skip over in an RPG.

Mass Effect has created a superbly interesting and beautiful world for exploration and battle. But more so, with Mass Effect, Bioware has justified a genre. Do I mean RPGs or sci fi? Maybe a little of both.

The Wii is the counter example, but before you start thinking, "I've heard this all before," Harris continues to argue that game reviews haven't figured out what to do with the Wii. Games like Carnival Games have sold well despite terrible reviews because, well, they're just easy and fun to play.

Harris doesn't mention this, but it was Nolan Bushnell's original mistake of including complex controls in the Spacewar! adaptation Computer Space in 1971 that lead to the pick up and play values of coin-op, starting with PONG.

How the Videogame Industry Shot Itself In the Joystick—and Why the Wii Has Stopped the Bleeding [Newsweek: Level Up]

The review continues to point out flaws that other reviewers made nearly no mention of, writing that Super Mario Galaxy is "evidence of how bad the Wii is for third person action games", pointing to The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess as further evidence of that claim.

Additional complaints include poor use of the Wii's motion controls and "one of the worst two-player experiences ever seen in a videogame."

Personally, I tend to disagree with Mr. Fritz's opinion of Super Mario Galaxy, as our opinions on each one of these matters are at opposite ends of the spectrum. From my experience with the game, Nintendo nailed not only the perfect balance between Wii remote usage and traditional Mario-style platforming, but also added a two-player mode that suits the Wii audience quite well. I'm also quite glad that people are entitled to their opinions, so I'm not going to work myself into a froth over it.

But I hear some pitchforks being sharpened somewhere...

Super Mario Galaxy [Variety]

Hey, Marky Mark. (Alright, got that out of the way early.)

Anyway, just wanted to shoot you a line saying I agree with most of what you said. I've said it in the past, people from sites I can't stand...have said it in the past, and we'll all say it in the future: gaming reviews are just not done correctly.

Unfortunately, I've yet to be able to find a reasonable and realistic answer for this. The fact of the matter is, reviews on most sites not pulling in the moneyz like IGN and GameSpot are driven by what publishers send out for review. They don't want you to experiment on a score (trust me, I found that out the hard way when I tried to do an entire review in a back-and-forth chat between me and a writer...).

The biggest problem, though, is just the gaming press and readers in general. If you review games and aren't a Top 3 or 4 site, no one will care unless you're on Metacritic or GameRankings. Unfortunately, to
get on those you need to follow the tired and cliched rules; 7ish = average, 10 = perfect, etc. I've tried to switch to 1 = game blows, 5 = it's okay, 10 = it's a lot of fun type model a few months back, but
guess what? Sites that keep reviews pulled me off until I "fixed it"

Until GameSpot or IGN radically changes how THEY review shit (and I don't mean 'hey let's add pretty pictures and only score in .5 increments!') no one will accept changes made on other sites, because
if the big ones don't do it, it doesn't count. How many people who read 1Up actually pay attention to their scoring system? You STILL see a ton of "OMG a 5!? A 5?! It's not a bad gaem!" posts.

/rant...

Brendon Lindsey
Editor-in-Chief
GamerNode.com

By: Mark Wilson

There are some of you out there who love the way writers and publishers handle video game reviews. This article is not for you. As far as the author and his sympathizers are concerned, you are the saps stuck as janitors cleaning dirty toilets in The Matrix, the suckers who sit around drinking Diet Coke convinced that it tastes like real Coke, the unfortunate few who were never able to see the rhinos and race cars in those Magic Eye images.

But after reading countless video game reviews over the years, and more recently editing Frankenreviews for both games and gadgets, it's become more and more obvious that the video game review system is dated, limiting and even, at times, unintentionally condescending.

But there's a ton of talent in the game review industry, really. So where are we going wrong?

Chapter I: If there's no such thing as a perfect game, then what's with the numbers?

I don't think we've ever given any game a 100%...I think the reason is...for us, a perfect 100 would be the perfect game, and I don't think there's any such thing.
- Kristen Salvatore, PC Gamer Editor

If there is no such thing as a perfect game, when why the hell are you scoring out of 100? It's not just PC Gamer that thinks this way—most publications, even those who do give out "perfect" scores, do so begrudgingly. It's as if the developer has somehow cheated and broken their system.

The movie reviewers solved this problem a long time ago. That's why most adopted a simpler rating system in which a 4-star movie didn't imply "perfection" but supreme excellence. In most cases, games are penalized through being divided by a sum that they can never possibly reach. What does that make a 94 or a 9.5 then...is that our mortal interpretation of perfection? Is that the closest we can fly to the sun before our wings melt and we're doomed to playing Spongebob Squarepants XVI for eternity?

But even more so, what does this scoring system say to developers? What are they aiming for when they hand over that review disc? Because essentially, they're taking a test with 5 points docked for signing their name.

Chapter II: But it's as much the readers' faults as the writers'.
"I'm sure some readers seldom get past the grades/stars. That's a major problem. As a reviewer, you hope that people at least consider your reasoning, and, beyond that, that they're informed and entertained by what you've written."
- Bob Denerstein, Film Critic

Not so fast, smug reader. Never forget that you too are completely worthless and wrong, because the public is putting way too much emphasis on these review numbers.

There are reviews that go to the hundredth decimal place, scoring games like 9.45. In such cases, reviewers are essentially scoring out of a thousand. So what separates a 9.45 from a 9.44 or a 9.34. And on that matter, what separates an 82 from an 87? Maybe Yoshi's tongue snapped too quickly back into his mouth. If that were only tweaked, man, Miyamoto could have cleaned up with at least an 88.349.

Completely made up rule of thumb: The more numbers a reviewer uses, the more they are trying to authenticate their own bullshit.

If you as a reader can never understand completely the logic behind a number, how could you ever assign it a value? All this numerical scoring is an arbitrary system that we should ignore until it's simplified to a system that actually makes sense. But that's easier said than done when numbers have such high correlations with sales. (Just see this study.)

Chapter III: We should be reviewing art when we're really reviewing products.
"Our objective, precise, and repeatable testing methods...provide the comparative data and quantitative results that feed the technical analysis of our product reviews. This, combined with the qualitative analysis from the hands-on evaluations of our expert editors, gives our users everything they need to know to make informed buying decisions."
- Gamespot FAQ

Ok, we completely just lied. That quote was actually pulled from the CNET review guide (Gamespot's sister site). But if you believed the attribution even for a moment, we've made our point already.

The fundamental problem with game reviews is that they're analyzing products, not pieces of art. Or more clearly stated, art reviews decide if something is worth your time; game reviews decide is something is worth your money.

Let's go back to our convenient film comparison for a moment. When do reviewers ever complain that a movie is only an hour and a half long? They don't, because length as a value proposition is generally never affiliated with art. But Heavenly Sword's 5-hour gameplay reeks of a measurement of my cellphone battery's talk time.

Games are viewed as consumable goods meant to entertain for X hours at X amount per X dollars. There's an interest in durability (replay value, multiplayer), functionality (controls, camera), interface (HUD, menus), sex appeal (graphics) and accessibility (difficulty level).

We've turned Mario into an MP3 player.

Chapter IV: This is all useless, the author is tired/will receive hate mail.
"Hey guys, what are you doing with that—Ahhh! Ugh. Thud. Clang. Death."
- Mark Wilson, Plant Food

Now for the obnoxious backpedaling.

We really do direly need the video game review industry because there is just too much volume for gamers to get prioritize alone, even with word of mouth, message boards, etc. We need people and organizations that can plow through multitudes of games to pick out the gems and crap on the...crap.

But we need them to analyze the subject in a critical light, judging a game's intrinsic value over its dollar value. And hopefully everyone here is still awake.

Sources: [gamesradar] [cnet] [wsj] [arnold image]

Which leads to me my take on the RPG, at least in terms of daily use. "RPG" is a purely historical thing. In the same way "Spartan" doesn't mean "From Sparta" any more, but rather a set of values and beliefs (i.e. Less pillows and bedclothes. Less fancy clothes. Sit-ups now, probably), "RPG" is completely divorced from the meaning of the words. It just means "mechanics derived from D&D" and even games which fulfil the aims of RPGs better than 99% of RPGs (i.e. Elite) aren't. Any attempts to push it further than that is deliberate perversion and demagoguery on the part of the developer.

Which I'd tend to agree with. All categories, game or otherwise, are created for purposes of quick sorting. Key word: created. What do the Kotakuites out there think? Do these categories even matter? And who gets to decide what is - or isn't - X genre, and how?

The Witcher [Eurogamer via Rock, Paper, Shotgun]

Rob Smith, Editor in Cheif, PSM: "A game doesn't have to be perfect to get a 10. No game is perfect. I guess that's the difference in the 10 scale vs. the 100 scale, where you kind of assume a 100 is perfect because you can get closer to that edge. With a 10, no."
Ross Atherton, Editor, PC Gamer (UK): "I think people get hung up on review scores generally and a score is just a signifier to tell you how good a game is compared to other things out there and what kind of experience you're going to get from it. Everyone's experience of a game differs slightly. And no, a 10 doesn't equal a perfect game."

Francesca Reyes, EIC, Official Xbox Magazine (US): "When we award something a 10, we want it to be given considerable weight, like, 'this is the pinnacle of what it does at this moment in time' because who knows, a year from now or five months down the line there might be something that does it better. But for right now, everyone should check out this game, or at least consider it because we consider it to be at the top tier of games."
Tim Clark, Editor, Official PlayStation Magazine (UK): "I think the first thing that strikes us is that it has to be an instant classic — you know a 10 when you see it. It's like a purebred. It's something that just seems streets ahead of what other developers are doing with the same technology and often in the same genre."
Tony Mott, EIC, Edge (UK): "Broadly speaking, though, I do think 10s are thrown about a bit too casually. I do see some 10s that strike me as misleading to the consumer. I think when the consumer sees '10' on the page it should make them stop and think about it. It should make them think, 'This isn't just a game that's recommended; I actually must have this game'."
Chris Slate, EIC, Nintendo Power: "Personally, I've always viewed a 10 score not as 'perfect,' but as 'our highest recommendation.' 10s are the year's best games, the titles that are destined to be classics. And if a game really is head-and-shoulders above the rest, then I personally wouldn't hesitate to acknowledge that by placing it in an elite class."

Halo 3 scores HIGH in Famitsu [CVG - Thanks midnightz]

Madden 2008 for the Xbox 360 has taken a huge leap in quality of generations of yore. Hit the jump for the full story in our Frankenreview: your life gifted back to you, from Kotaku. It's that freaking efficient.

IGN
The biggest and most notable improvement this year is in the animation and tackling system. Gone are the majority of pre-canned animations. Just because you see Ray Lewis wrapping his meaty arms around Shaun Alexander doesn't mean the same overused tackle animation is about to kick in. The new branching animation system works in tandem with some new, more realistic football physics...Depending on a player's skill, positioning, and momentum, a large variety of animations become possible. The end result is some of the most varied tackling ever seen in a football game.

1UP
The new "weapons" feature has a two-pronged effect. First, these onfield icons make it supereasy to identify a team's key players and their strengths. And more importantly, these classifications bring some much-needed variety to each position. So running the pigskin with elusive Saints running back Reggie Bush feels way different than using Chiefs power back Larry Johnson.

Gamespot
These new weapon designations even go beyond basic techniques...After a single play or coverage scheme has been called four times, a quarterback like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady can actually see exactly what the defense is going to do, whereas a smart defender can get a glimpse of where the offensive play is going to go.

Game Informer
Fans have lamented the drop in features in past Maddens, but 08 pulls things back up to speed with extensive scouting/draft options and pre-game training for improving players. Overall, there are more draft tools at your disposal - including being able to manually rearrange your entire draft board, although the process itself of scouting and drafting is a little cumbersome.

Sportable
Something that is a lot more difficult about this game is Superstar mode. In years past, your "Superstar" would collect achievements based on randomized genes from parents...Instead of a randomization, you have to compete in several drills including the 40 yard dash, running back drills, catch and cover drills, and a bench press. If you don't do well in the events, your ratings will take a definite hit.

It sounds like Xbox 360 owners have finally gotten their taste of a "next-gen" Madden title. Kudos to EA for getting it right...on the 360.

In a move that's symptomatic of ... something, GameSpot has decided to do away with those pesky .1 percentage points - after all, with the time it takes to puzzle over wether you should purchase the game that scores a 7.5 or a 7.4, you could drink a cup of coffee or something - among other changes to make their scoring system a little more fair and applicable across a number of genres, and more to the point for you.

Maybe it's just me, but while I think number scoring is a nice rough guide to divide things into 'not worth a look' and 'maybe', I'm also not so lazy I can't be bothered to read through a review - where the actual important stuff is. Still, there's nothing wrong with keeping up with the times and changing a system to be more accommodating to a wider span of game genres. Maggie Greene

Letter from the Editor, 06/22/2007 [GameSpot]