Short answer: I don’t really know, but I’ll explain my thought process.
I’m a lifelong fan of video games. I was first introduced to them probably around 1989 or so when I was about four years old.
As a kid, we had an Atari 2600 in the house, but the NES was what ultimately grabbed my attention. We got our first PC when I was about 6, but PC games weren’t quite the same back then. Over the years the Game Boy, SNES, N64, PlayStation, Xbox, and Dreamcast, among others, helped shape my taste in games.
So why does this matter? It still doesn’t, but somewhere along the way, games like Metal Gear Solid showed me that games could convey emotion and artistry, Delta Force introduced me to online gaming, and Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub-Zero showed me that even games from successful series can actually be pretty terrible.
So again, why am I telling you this? I still don’t know, but at some point I became a big fan of the entire concept and philosophy of video games and what they could be. I like to refer to it as #GamesAsArt, and it’s part of why I’m a HUGE fan and supporter of the indie game space and the ideas it cultivates.
I told you all that to tell you this: reviews on this site might be a little unconventional. Putting a number value on something means that you have this sort of scoreboard that always lives in the background. If you give something a 5, and if a different game is better, how MUCH better does it need to be to score a 10? A lot of sites have gone in favor of merely describing a game without referencing a number score, and prior to taking that approach, Kotaku simply gave games a Yes or No.
So I’ve decided to land somewhere in the middle. Games are expensive, with the exception of the cheap ones (free ones too!) so it’s hard to put a value on someone’s else’s entertainment. For example, I’m not a huge watcher of movies or TV, instead choosing music and games. When someone tells me that I would love a TV show, they’re probably right, but I also know there’s a chance I won’t enjoy it as much as they did, simply because TV isn’t my thing.
My goal here is to bring some coverage and attention to smaller titles that don’t always get the same coverage. Sure, I’ll still play big games, and I may even talk about those, but they aren’t #GamesAsArt to the same degree that someone releasing their first project ever and showing the world their life’s work. That said, I’m not here to critique someone’s life’s work, so my rating system is comprised of two elements: Good and Fun.
Keep in mind that “good” doesn’t necessarily mean that a game is objectively bad. A perfect example would include games like Call of Duty or Madden they are met with so much criticism with every release, but plenty of people still enjoy both series. They can be FUN games without being perfect.
Similarly, a game like Myst is a very well-made game with challenging puzzles so it is generally considered to be a “good” game, though its story and presentation can sometimes come off a bit pretentious. In this case, it may be an objectively “good” game, without necessarily being a lot of fun.
And then lastly, the value that someone sees (or doesn’t) in the price of a game is not for me to decide. There are people out there who have been subscribed to World of Warcraft since the very beginning and have spent probably $4000 or more, and there are others who have played thousands of hours on Fortnite without spending a single dollar. The “value” a person sees in the price of a game depends on their experience with it, so I’ll reference the standard prices of games (before any sales or discounts), but I don’t want to “grade” someone else’s career goal based on the price they charge.
So that said, the review criteria will answer two very simple questions: “Is it good?” and “Is it fun?” both of which can be answered with a YES, NO, or KINDA, along with the price. We’ll see how it goes.