RPGnet : The Inside Scoop on Gaming

John Wick once said in an interview with "Graveyard" Greg (at Gaming Outpost) that there shouldn't be game reviews. At first I didn't realize some of the scathing humor he buried within his diatribe and took it at face value. However, I've had quite some time to think about it since then and I've come to agree with Mr. Wick - up to a point.

The problem with reviews, especially those written by folk like you or me who don't write reviews for a living, is that they tend to be overly lopsided or completely bland. Praise is gushed forth in an almost sickeningly sweet fashion or the game is picked apart for every nuance that does not fit into the reviewer's mind-set model of a perfect game - neglecting the fact that no game has ever fit the model of a perfect game and never will (look up the word perfect). The game is compared against other games and scored, which is odd considering each game is it's own entity that more-or-less defies comparison with the other RPG entities out there.

Unlike board games, card games - even CCGs - Role-Playing Games, while they have rules, can be played like a completely different game from one group to the next. While games like Monopoly, Magic: The Gathering, and Chez Geek are virtually the same base games anywhere you take them, an RPG can have a totally different feel to it from game to game, because the rules are background, not forefront. However, most game reviews often focus either on the rules of the game, which are all background and very malleable, or on the forefront of the game, which is very group (or even session) dependant. How could one expect an un-biased or poignant review to come out of that?

In lieu of that, I agree with the creator of the upcoming OrkWorld that there shouldn't be amateur game reviews. Gamers have proved that they just can't handle that sort of power. Perhaps what there should be are game articles, in which the game is taken as a whole, rather than a book-by-book basis. In this way the writer can look at the entire body of a game, not just the guts in one sitting and the left elbow in the next.

Game articles should be not be based on the mechanics but the game-world itself, because most games are bought not because of the rules, but because of the genre and atmosphere of the game (and the artwork, too). Again, the mechanics of a game are an afterthought to the initial purchase. Need proof? Look at the success of White Wolf's Vampire, a broken system (which has been cleaned up in later editions) that brought some life back to gaming. White Wolf's concept was on style and feel, and in a time when most RPGs read like tech manuals it was a welcome change. It even got good reviews at the time, despite the mechanics.

Mechanics are not unimportant, but when looking at a game what should be presented is the developers' vision of how the game should be played and how well the mechanics work within those parameters and then look at the mechanics in terms of how the writer's group plays the game. However, the former is more important than the latter. Mechanics should be looked at, but like a gaming session being played they should be considered in the background - unless flawed to the point of ruining the game.

It's been said before, but RPGs are unlike any other type of game out there. If that's the case, shouldn't the way they're looked at and judged be different, too? No more scoring RPGs against other RPGs, no more basing how good or bad a game is on a session or a group. An RPG should be looked at like what it is, a living entity constantly in motion and evolving... until it dies.

I'm attempting my first game article in the pages of Gaming Outpost which should be finished by the end of this month. I don't expect to be a trend-setter or for my "review" to be the best ever, but I do think that people need a push in the right direction, and this is mine.

TTFN,
Erich S. Arendall
sprite@rpg.net

Special thanks to John Wick for bringing the point up in the first place and for the usage of his name, even though I'm sure he didn't expect to see it here, too.

Topics	Author	Date	Latest Reply
No one WANTS to GM/ST? (1) new	angelicmadrigal	05-26-2004 12:21	05-26-2004 12:21 new
fx10243 offers music for your game (1) new	andyg1968	03-04-2004 16:43	03-04-2004 16:43 new
Isn't the point to have fun?? (1) new	Grip	03-13-2001 09:41	03-13-2001 09:41 new
THAT wasn't what Optimus Prime said! (2) new	Roger M. Wilcox	02-16-2001 17:08	02-16-2001 17:09 new
immersive vs roll playing (2) new	Dungeon Curmudgeon	02-11-2001 08:43	03-01-2001 05:52 new
I remember when (1) new	James Morton	02-11-2001 07:02	02-11-2001 07:02 new
Great Lakes NTC, here he comes... (2) new	U Dog	02-09-2001 21:43	02-14-2001 08:43 new
Storytelling (7) new	Eric Christian Berg	02-08-2001 07:26	08-23-2002 18:53 new
That's not what he said.... (9) new	Metallian	02-07-2001 21:07	01-07-2005 05:45 new
Thanks! (1) new	Chris	02-07-2001 20:55	02-07-2001 20:55 new
there shouldn't be movie reviewa (1) new	Allistor Preist	11-14-2000 19:31	11-14-2000 19:31 new
a round of cheers for that one! (3) new	Matt	08-22-2000 05:54	03-01-2001 06:07 new
Pre-Planned Procedures (1) new	Judas	08-12-2000 23:34	08-12-2000 23:34 new
Oooh, good one (5) new	Steve D	08-10-2000 16:53	02-07-2001 18:49 new
Sheesh, this takes me back. (1) new	Scott Lynch	08-10-2000 13:21	08-10-2000 13:21 new
Missing the Mark (4) new	Patrick Riley	08-10-2000 11:51	08-12-2000 03:31 new
Minime versus symbolic representation (1) new	666	08-10-2000 10:09	08-10-2000 10:09 new
Instead of miniatures, how about this? (6) new	Jürgen Hubert	08-10-2000 03:16	08-12-2000 03:23 new
You're right (3) new	Noone Sung	08-10-2000 02:46	08-10-2000 08:45 new
'Amateur' reviews (3) new	Mark Green	07-16-2000 06:27	01-25-2001 16:52 new

Foaming at the Mouth: On Roleplaying

Regarding Reviews

What do you think?

All Foaming at the Mouth columns by Erich S. Arendall

Other columns at RPGnet


Foaming at the Mouth: On Roleplaying Regarding Reviews Erich S. Arendall July 5, 2000	John Wick once said in an interview with "Graveyard" Greg (at Gaming Outpost) that there shouldn't be game reviews. At first I didn't realize some of the scathing humor he buried within his diatribe and took it at face value. However, I've had quite some time to think about it since then and I've come to agree with Mr. Wick - up to a point. The problem with reviews, especially those written by folk like you or me who don't write reviews for a living, is that they tend to be overly lopsided or completely bland. Praise is gushed forth in an almost sickeningly sweet fashion or the game is picked apart for every nuance that does not fit into the reviewer's mind-set model of a perfect game - neglecting the fact that no game has ever fit the model of a perfect game and never will (look up the word perfect). The game is compared against other games and scored, which is odd considering each game is it's own entity that more-or-less defies comparison with the other RPG entities out there. Unlike board games, card games - even CCGs - Role-Playing Games, while they have rules, can be played like a completely different game from one group to the next. While games like Monopoly, Magic: The Gathering, and Chez Geek are virtually the same base games anywhere you take them, an RPG can have a totally different feel to it from game to game, because the rules are background, not forefront. However, most game reviews often focus either on the rules of the game, which are all background and very malleable, or on the forefront of the game, which is very group (or even session) dependant. How could one expect an un-biased or poignant review to come out of that? In lieu of that, I agree with the creator of the upcoming OrkWorld that there shouldn't be amateur game reviews. Gamers have proved that they just can't handle that sort of power. Perhaps what there should be are game articles, in which the game is taken as a whole, rather than a book-by-book basis. In this way the writer can look at the entire body of a game, not just the guts in one sitting and the left elbow in the next. Game articles should be not be based on the mechanics but the game-world itself, because most games are bought not because of the rules, but because of the genre and atmosphere of the game (and the artwork, too). Again, the mechanics of a game are an afterthought to the initial purchase. Need proof? Look at the success of White Wolf's Vampire, a broken system (which has been cleaned up in later editions) that brought some life back to gaming. White Wolf's concept was on style and feel, and in a time when most RPGs read like tech manuals it was a welcome change. It even got good reviews at the time, despite the mechanics. Mechanics are not unimportant, but when looking at a game what should be presented is the developers' vision of how the game should be played and how well the mechanics work within those parameters and then look at the mechanics in terms of how the writer's group plays the game. However, the former is more important than the latter. Mechanics should be looked at, but like a gaming session being played they should be considered in the background - unless flawed to the point of ruining the game. It's been said before, but RPGs are unlike any other type of game out there. If that's the case, shouldn't the way they're looked at and judged be different, too? No more scoring RPGs against other RPGs, no more basing how good or bad a game is on a session or a group. An RPG should be looked at like what it is, a living entity constantly in motion and evolving... until it dies. I'm attempting my first game article in the pages of Gaming Outpost which should be finished by the end of this month. I don't expect to be a trend-setter or for my "review" to be the best ever, but I do think that people need a push in the right direction, and this is mine. TTFN, Erich S. Arendall sprite@rpg.net Special thanks to John Wick for bringing the point up in the first place and for the usage of his name, even though I'm sure he didn't expect to see it here, too.