FM 2009: how to turn a 9.1 rating into a 2.0

[Lucas]

Because that is what Avi Burk did with her/his review of Football Manager 2009 on IGN U.S. :

http://pc.ign.com/articles/936/936295p1.html

And here is the 9.1 review on IGN UK:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/930/930213p1.html

Now, no, this is not really a case of a "gaming journalist" (sic!) finally speaking his/her mind, free of any "obligation" toward his own website and/or software house.

This is about totally missing the point of a game. Oh, and Avi Burk is the chief sports editor of IGN US, by the way.
----

Some issues pointed out in the US piece are legit, for example the VERY steep learning curve for a casual gamer or anyone new to football, and the lack of attractiveness when it comes to graphics (in general and with the new 3D engine).

But then Mr./Miss Avi Burk makes quite a mistake, and starts comparing a management simulation to an arcade game. Hell broke loose, and the fanbois came to the rescue (including yours truly) in the comments area of the review: comparing FM 2009 to Fifa 2009 or PES/Winning Eleven it's like comparing Civilization to Command & Conquer. Yep, it's strategy all right, but taken from two quite different perspectives.

Anyways, I thought this was quite a curious case in gaming journalism land, so I wanted to point it out just in case you missed it :P

[NowhereMan]

In fairness any sports management game is going to appeal to two sorts of people, those who love the sport and those who love lists and tables. If you're not in either of those they are horrible games but judging it badly on that basis is stupid. The US review is the equivalent of someone who hates poetry offering a review of a new Yeats collection. There may be problems with the rhyme scheme or whatever but that's not the reason they're not going to enjoy it, instead you'll get complaints about the use of obscure words and how there wasn't enough character development.

[HaemishM]

What a horrible fucking review.

[Nebu]

This guy is out of his depth.  I've been playing sports simulations since before there were computer games and can state confidently that this title is the Gold Standard by which all sports simulations are based.  He's rating the game on ALL of the wrong criteria. 

The engine has been greatly improved.  The graphical engine is the best to date (early the game had no graphics and evolved into circles on a field).  The trade and management AI are unrivalled to a point that even EA can't touch their technical expertise. 

Perhaps it's a target audience thing.

[Velorath]

This is about totally missing the point of a game. Oh, and Avi Burk is the chief sports editor of IGN US, by the way.

I think he got the point of the game.  The problem is, do you review the game for fans of the niche who probably know whether or not they already like the game (which might be hard if you don't have any reviewers on staff who are into that niche), or do you review the game for the masses?  At the end of the day, all a reviewer can do is tell you how he felt about the game, and how he felt in this case is probably how most of us would feel playing this.

Am I really supposed to care that he pissed off the hardcore fans who buy this game every year anyway?

[Sky]

I think reviews should be penned by people who love the genre and/or franchise for people of similar ilk. Then throw in the caveat about niche or whatever. Giving a game a 2.0 review because it's not some other game is stupid, I know a lot of hardcore sports and stats people love FM, but I wouldn't ever touch it, because I've got two neurons to rub together to have a fucking clue that it's a stats game.

File under: people are fucking morons who need to shut the fuck up. (You know, the BIG file)

[Velorath]

I think reviews should be penned by people who love the genre and/or franchise for people of similar ilk.

I'm not sure the average review staff for a U.S. site is going to have anyone on staff who is a fan of this series or anything like it.  Maybe they should have just avoided reviewing it at all, like they did in previous years.

[Nebu]

This game obviously aims to provide the deepest soccer simulation experience possible for the sport’s most passionate and informed fans, but it offers little to nothing that would appeal to a casual fan of the sport or to the average videogame enthusiast.]This game obviously aims to provide the deepest soccer simulation experience possible for the sport’s most passionate and informed fans, but it offers little to nothing that would appeal to a casual fan of the sport or to the average videogame enthusiast.

This statement in the conclusion of his review agrees with your comment.  For the average video gamer (someone playing FIFA, etc.) he's saying that this isn't the game for you.  

I just think that he should be evaluating the game based on the merit it deserves given the niche that it's designed for... not rating it as an arcade soccer game.  

[NowhereMan]

What's so fucking hard about saying, "This is a masterpiece of the genre but those not interested in the intricacies of the strategy involved in managing a Football team may be bored to tears by the large number of lists, tables and minute tactical decisions that must be made."? Then give it a score that reflects that rather than saying, "Holy shit the graphics suck. Phail!" Seriously I would never play FM because within minutes I would have ended it all in preference and I think he's a douche that gave it a shitty review.

[Kail]

I think reviews should be penned by people who love the genre and/or franchise for people of similar ilk. Then throw in the caveat about niche or whatever. Giving a game a 2.0 review because it's not some other game is stupid, I know a lot of hardcore sports and stats people love FM, but I wouldn't ever touch it, because I've got two neurons to rub together to have a fucking clue that it's a stats game.

File under: people are fucking morons who need to shut the fuck up. (You know, the BIG file)

Hmm, weird... I would have argued the opposite.  In theory, I'd like a review to represent something objective, some kind of middle ground.  Saying "reviewers should only review games in genres they like" is an extremely small step away from "reviewers should only review games they like" which is where objectivity crashes and burns.  If a game is only enjoyable to a small group of people, then even if it's really enjoyable to that group of people, I don't know that I'd go with saying it's universally a good game, which seems like the point of the whole number score at the end (inasmuch as it has a point at all).  I mean, a bunch of people enjoy Vanguard, and I don't think that a reviewer who is madly in love with their particular sub-genre giving it a 9.9 is really writing a useful review, even if it's a really great game for all ten of of the people with similar views.

[schild]

Saying "reviewers should only review games in genres they like" is an extremely small step away from "reviewers should only review games they like" which is where objectivity crashes and burns.

Not in the least. If it's a genre someone doesn't like and naturally strays aware from, it's more likely that they're not qualified to review anything in the genre. That is to say, you don't want me reviewing sports games. But I know a shitload about RPGs and more often than not I'm going to be more critical of them than most. Same goes with a number of other genres, but really there's some things I just shouldn't be reviewing. Reviewing genres they like just has a better chance of guaranteeing they have a breadth of knowledge about the genre. Reviewing games they LIKE is a completely seperate thing.

[Triforcer]

I just replayed Link to the Past on my SNES emulator.  I noticed that it was surprisingly poor at letting me play tennis, which is the reason I downloaded it.  Verdict:  1.0.

[Samprimary]

This is in the same vein as a reviewer failing a FPS because FPS's make them nauseated.

[Xuri]

December 5, 2008 - We missed the mark -- that's the only way to explain why we've pulled the U.S. review of Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 off our site.

"Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009"? Seriously?

Also, at least one of the two comments on that article (or what remains of it) completely missed the mark as well:

Cough *Sega pressured IGN by threatening to stop sending preview copies* cough.

BS. The original score wasa TAD low, but the game is unremarkable. The modern sports games all have franchise modes that are as in-depth as these text games, and also LET YOU PLAY the game if you want. These text sims are only for peopel with low-end pcs that can't run actual sports titles. That was their genesis, and that is their omega. [-] Minimize Comment

[Lucas]

Whoa, they removed the review for real 

Here is the complete piece:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/936/936295p1.html

Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 Review Removed
Analysis of SEGA's stat-footy pulled from site.
by IGN Staff

December 5, 2008 - We missed the mark -- that's the only way to explain why we've pulled the U.S. review of Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 off our site.

After seeing the community feedback and having more editors look at the title, we agree with the readers that our original review didn't give Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 a fair shake. Unfortunately, our critical analysis of WWSM '09 focused more on what the author wanted it to be rather than what the product actually was. We review games at IGN based on their own merits, and agree that it was unreasonable to compare WWSM '09 with action-oriented sports titles like FIFA or Pro Evolution Soccer. Because of the unfair comparison, we have deemed the review unacceptable and have removed it from the site.

We extend our sincerest apologies to both SEGA and our readers for the mistake and confusion. Look for an updated and more accurate relation of IGN's view of WWSM '09 sometime in the near future.

Jeremy Dunham
Games Editorial Manager, IGN.com

[Falconeer]

Clownshoes!

But seriously, I am scared by people here who thought even for a second that is ok to review a game of a genre you don't know a bit about and you probably don't like. That review was afterschool kiddietalk material.

[Triforcer]

They probably gave the review to some intern as a scut assignment, and then didn't check it closely before it was posted. 

[HaemishM]

This game obviously aims to provide the deepest soccer simulation experience possible for the sport’s most passionate and informed fans, but it offers little to nothing that would appeal to a casual fan of the sport or to the average videogame enthusiast.]This game obviously aims to provide the deepest soccer simulation experience possible for the sport’s most passionate and informed fans, but it offers little to nothing that would appeal to a casual fan of the sport or to the average videogame enthusiast.

This statement in the conclusion of his review agrees with your comment.  For the average video gamer (someone playing FIFA, etc.) he's saying that this isn't the game for you.  

I just think that he should be evaluating the game based on the merit it deserves given the niche that it's designed for... not rating it as an arcade soccer game.  

Yeah, that paragraph helps... but to then go and rate the game a 2.1 is super-retarded. If the game is the best and deepest at the gameplay it's trying to provide, whether or not you like that gameplay, your score should reflect that.

[sidereal]

Oh, and Avi Burk is the chief sports editor of IGN US, by the way.

They probably gave the review to some intern as a scut assignment, and then didn't check it closely before it was posted.

Or not. 

I am sympathetic to the people who think there's a place for a review from the perspective of some random chucklehead who walks into EBGames off the street and grabs a game based on the picture on the cover.  This was the review for that person.  However, you also need a review for the people who know the genre and a thing or two about the game.  Burk tried to squeeze in a paragraph for the grognards at the end, but it was drowned in the rest of the review's idiocy and the FINAL SCORE.

He should have gone the other way and reviewed it for genre-nerds, but started off with a big paragraph that essentially says "STOP!  ACHTUNG!  If poring over lists of Welsh Premier League Reserve players looking for someone with both good Pace and Decision-Making attributes doesn't sound like a well-spent Friday night, DO NOT PLAY THIS GAME.  Moving on..."  Dismissing the entire fanbase of the game was high numbskullery.

[Kail]

Clownshoes!

But seriously, I am scared by people here who thought even for a second that is ok to review a game of a genre you don't know a bit about and you probably don't like. That review was afterschool kiddietalk material.

Not knowing anything about the genre is bad; I didn't mean to imply that ignorance was some kind of virtue.  Haven't read the review in question, either, since I don't care about sports games.

I don't know that liking a genre should be a prerequisite for writing a review, though.  I suppose it depends on who you think is going to read it.  If you say "Game X is unbelievably great" and your readers run out and buy it and only five percent of them like it because it's super niche, then you lose credibility with the other 95%.

I'm just thinking back to a similar event which happened, if I recall correctly, back in a Neverwinter Nights 2 review, where the reviewer bitched about random rolls deciding combat and other problems with D&D style games, and people were making similar complaints ("If you don't like D&D games, why are you reviewing a D&D game?").  These were annoying problems with NWN2, but the reviewer was expected to ignore them because "that's the way D&D games work." Following that path of reasoning to it's conclusion seems, to me, like any negative review would be a symptom of a reviewer not being a member of whatever tiny niche market Game X is supposed to fill.  It just seems like you as a reviewer should be able to pick up on the things that work and the things that don't, even if you're not the biggest fan of that type of game in general.  I don't care about what kinds of games the reviewer likes, honestly, any more than I want to hear about his dietary issues or his relationship problems.  It should be possible for a reviewer to say "this works, this doesn't" without me knowing how passionate they are about Soccer or whatever.

[eldaec]

This is about totally missing the point of a game. Oh, and Avi Burk is the chief sports editor of IGN US, by the way.

Why the fuck does IGN have chief sports editor? They don't cover sport.

[NowhereMan]

stuff

See the problem is is that most of his complaints, like poor graphics that break immersion, were pretty irrelevant for the genre. That review was pretty much like reading a review of the exorcist that starts off by complaining about the lack of comedy relief and finishes bemoaning how few explosions there were, the lack of decent choreography and then pointing out that for fans of the Fifth Element it's not going to deliver more of the same.

While all true it's massively fucking irrelevant to a meaningful review.

[Velorath]

stuff

See the problem is is that most of his complaints, like poor graphics that break immersion, were pretty irrelevant for the genre. That review was pretty much like reading a review of the exorcist that starts off by complaining about the lack of comedy relief and finishes bemoaning how few explosions there were, the lack of decent choreography and then pointing out that for fans of the Fifth Element it's not going to deliver more of the same.

While all true it's massively fucking irrelevant to a meaningful review.

So irrelevant, that even the UK review which people praised spends most of the second page talking about the problems with the new graphics.

[sidereal]

The UK review followed the questionable 3d engine (which I disabled in the first 5 minutes of play and do not plan to re-enable) to a 9.1 score, meaning they correctly contextualized it as a feature that doesn't add much value and was poorly implemented, but which is optional does not fundamentally affect the quality of the rest of the product.

The US review followed the engine to a 2.0 score, because the reviewer had no idea what he was writing about and believed that the 3d engine was a fundamental and essential component of the gameplay, because in Pro Evolution Soccer and FIFA 09, it is.