I’m thinking of revamping the way we do reviews here. I’ve done a handful of board game reviews, and I have plans to do a bunch of rpg reviews, but the one RPG I’ve reviewed so far (Microscope) left me feeling a bit dissatisfied, so I’ve paused for thought.
Fact is, Microscope is a really great game. I felt uncomfortable giving it great marks though, because I don’t think it’s particularly great as a roleplaying game. It’s just something else entirely.
Looking back, I should probably just have changed its category to “history building game” or something, and had done with it. But anyway, it got me thinking that a rating out of five really isn’t good enough for a nuanced review. The text helps to convey the detail, but I’d like to break the rating up a bit.
We already have “type” (strategic card game etc), # players and time to play, plus text on gameplay and components and a written summary.
Here’s what I’m thinking of adding:
Complexity, from 1 to 5. 1 is “you can pick this up and be playing it inside of 10 minutes”. 5 is “you’ll need to set aside several hours to read this game, and allow time at the start to explain the rules to the other players”.
Strategic/tactical depth, from 1 to 5. 1 is snakes and ladders. 5 is Go (simple but deep) or Game of Thrones (complex and deep).
Roleplaying advice (roleplaying games only), from 1 to 5. 1 is “tells you what a roleplaying game is and leaves you to work the rest out for yourself”. 5 is “devotes a chapter or three to advice on how to run and/or play the game”. (Could widen this to boardgames I guess – play/strategy advice?)
Production values, from 1 to 5. 1 is cheapass games. 5 is Fantasy Flight Games.
Cost. In £s or $s or whatever we can get.
I feel like there’s something missing here… maybe something about how well-designed the rules are for the game it’s trying to be. “Design”, perhaps. 1 to 5, where 1 is “the experience of playing this game is radically different from how it’s sold on the tin” to 5 “rules and guidance come together to produce a game which hits the desired play experience on the head”.
So anyway. Thoughts? What would you want out of a game review? Would the above help you to identify a game you wanted to play? Do you even want ratings, or would you just prefer a good writeup?
Personally I don’t want ratings: can’t really see the point. They’re useful on something like BoardGameGeek where you’re averaging across loads of people, but on an individual review they seem a bit otiose. The writeup should be capable of covneying all useful information about your impression of the game.
I think the only element I would find helpful is how well-designed the rules are for the game it’s trying to be, although agree with Mo that could be conveyed well enough through text.
Maybe a scoring system is too much, but I do think some kind of rating can be useful as a summary in a review. Maybe just high, medium or low.
However if you’re going to rate it you must make all of the ratings scale in the same direction, based on what the customer is likely to value. For example I’d favour the lowest possible complexity and the highest strategic depth for that level of complexity.
I appreciate Mo’s POV but I don’t think rating is a problem as long as you’re consistent.