Minimum Tempo

Oftentimes the most enjoyable or most popular works are not the most artistic or “best” works of the medium; a few notable examples are Dragonball Z and Halo 3 (360). Although Dragonball Z may have achieved an incredible amount of popularity in both the East and the West, I rarely ever hear of it as a “good” anime; there are vastly superior shows in terms of both artistic quality and enjoyability. As for Halo 3, it definitely it is not a revolutionary or groundbreaking title. It’s not the most graphically impressive, it doesn’t have an insightful or mind-blowing story, and it has a lacking single-player campaign that offers repetitive levels (as with the previous Halo titles). The multiplayer, however, is fun. Countless hours can be spent playing on Xbox Live blasting away your friends and random strangers, exchanging swear words with twelve year old idiots, and watching hilarious replays from other games.

It’s difficult whether or not to base a review or rating off of actual quality or simply sheer enjoyability. It should be assumed that, however, if a game is fun, it is of good quality. In some ways, that is true, but, ignoring the fact that Nintendo owns the Mario franchise, a 16-bit style remake of Super Mario Brothers 3 on the Xbox 360 wouldn’t garner many favorable reviews; its graphics, audio, and presentation are major downsides in this age of Unreal Engine 3 and GameBryo. Then again it is fun, and that is what is most important, right?

But that’s exactly what bugs me. Halo 3’s single-player content is highly inferior to other titles on the market, but Electronic Gaming Monthly’s former editorial director Dan “Shoe” Hsu gave the title a 10 out of 10 (currently an A+ on 1UP.com using their new scale), indicating that it was a masterpiece that few others could match. Perhaps he found the single-player campaign to be engaging and interesting, but I highly doubt Hsu would consider Halo 3 as having a captivating and intricate story when compared to the Half-Life series or Shadow of the Colossus.

For the non-interactive mediums, which is just about everything else, reviewing a work is much different; the media does not have to be “fun” for it to be “good.” Take Syriana for example; although criticized for its leftist messages, the film generally received positive scores, an average of 76 out of 100 at Metacritic. The movie is not fun; it’s a complex story that baffled my friends last year because they were not too interested and knowledgeable about politics and world events. Instead the movie grabs the viewer’s attention and weaves an ambitious and somewhat pretentious tale while simultaneously bringing the action that moviegoers often love.

The same applies to books, music, and television shows. As long as their intended goal is fulfilled, as in let’s say a History Channel documentary is brilliant in all areas and teaches its subject well, the work in question can be considered “good.” The Harry Potter series have been acclaimed and enjoyed by millions of readers worldwide because the books are well written for the mainstream, they seize the reader’s attention, and they offer incredible depth. The Office tries to make its viewers laugh and enjoy the show, and judging by the size of the viewership, I believe it fulfills its goals.

Games are different. Their primary purpose is not to educate, to spark deep thought, nor to compel the player to laugh. Their firstmost priority is to allow the player to have fun. Everything else comes after that; if a game is not enjoyable, it falls apart and has no legs on which to stand.

I rate games by taking into account the title’s presentation (visuals and audio), narrative (if applicable), gameplay (game mechanics and controls), and design (level design, difficulty, etc.). No game will be free from flaws. Regardless of how much effort was put in during development, a title will always have something that needs improvement. During the process of writing a review, I have to consider my overall enjoyment above all. Was it difficult to pick up and play? Were there many moments that frustrated me? Did I spend more time having a blast or simply moving along? In the end, was the experience worth it? Questions of that sort are always asked, and I try to escape from bias as much as possible.

After giving the game an initial rating based on my general experience, I ask other questions and raise or lower the score: Was there a lot of texture pop-in? Was the voice acting terrible? Is online play a smooth and fluid experience? Are the graphics poor for the system’s capabilities? All these other questions are necessary in gauging the final score so that it is indicative of the game as a whole.

Reviews differ, and this is quite obvious with EGM/1UP’s scoring of Halo 3. Hsu says (emphasis added)…

Halo 3’s campaign is better in every way imaginable. Subtly beautiful, rich and lush graphics, a heart-pounding orchestrated score, new weapons, vehicles, and enemies…and even better enemy and teammate A.I. Everything is now pretty much a known quantity, however, and a bit of going-through-the-motions gameplay numbs the excitement (it doesn’t help that some repetition and backtracking still taint this series, though they’re not as bad as in the predecessors).

I am not pointing out this excerpt because it says that Halo 3 doesn’t do anything new. Games can still be great games as long as they present their old offerings well. I’m selecting this particular excerpt because it criticizes the game, namely the mention of repetition and backtracking and the word “taint.” It’s definitely negative, and readers can tell Hsu thinks the single-player campaign is flawed in some respects. However, the overall score is still a 10 out of 10 (or A+) so he obviously narrows down the score to his overall experience or feels that the positives significantly outweigh the negatives.

Now, I ask, how do you rate games, or any media for that matter? Do you give a score from your gut that’s a general mesh of your game-playing experience? Or do you slap on a score for the main course and grade the side dishes separately, eventually extracting a final score out of the process? Or do you follow the path of obtaining an average from rating each scoring category (graphics, gameplay, sound, etc.) like Josh’s Anime Blog? How do you rate games, anime, movies, music, and everything else?

This post is tagged Anime & Manga, Games, Gaming, Halo 3, Review, Reviewing, Scores

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

By submitting a comment on this site you hereby agree to the comments policy and grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.