I've been pondering an objective structure to use to define a "good" game versus a "bad" game, with varying amounts of luck. "Good" being a game with systems that magnify and/or differentiate gameplay more than they get in the way of if, with a "bad" game doing the opposite. Attempting to extract personal tastes from game reviewing is proving as difficult as it is useful.
Functionality is definitely a big part of it. Like Starfield would get very few positive points for it's shooting mechanic because it's so basic(and buggy), and there's a lot of shit that gets in the way without adding a lot of variability. Games like Roboquest would get much higher marks, because the shooting is better made and has systems in place to greatly differentiate player experience within it.
I've been pondering an objective structure to use to define a "good" game versus a "bad" game, with varying amounts of luck. "Good" being a game with systems that magnify and/or differentiate gameplay more than they get in the way of if, with a "bad" game doing the opposite. Attempting to extract personal tastes from game reviewing is proving as difficult as it is useful.
Functionality is definitely a big part of it. Like Starfield would get very few positive points for it's shooting mechanic because it's so basic(and buggy), and there's a lot of shit that gets in the way without adding a lot of variability. Games like Roboquest would get much higher marks, because the shooting is better made and has systems in place to greatly differentiate player experience within it.