The Checklist
I created this checklist by cross-referencing Scott Rogers’ Level Up! The Guide to Great Video Game Design with the DICE Awards categories and also by considering the method of evaluation that IGN uses in their review videos. Initially, I was hopeful that both IGN and DICE had some sort of game evaluation criteria floating around online but I haven’t been able to find any legitimate references containing this information. What I DID find in all three sources was that the main determinant of whether a game is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ comes down to whether or not it is fun to play.
For instance, in the Rules and Regulations document for DICE Award game submissions, the Game Of The Year category is described as
“The single game, without regard to system or delivery mechanism, voted by the membership of the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences that best utilizes the chosen medium to entertain users.”
This is the only description provided for one of the most prestigious awards that DICE can bestow upon a game. I interpret the description as saying ‘all technical and artistic innovations aside, which game is actually the most fun to play?’. This isn’t really a mind-blowing concept but it was interesting to note that neither DICE nor IGN provide a details about WHAT exactly makes a game fun. Scott Rogers talks about removing all ‘unfun’ parts of a game in order to make sure that it is ‘fun’ but he is also purposely vague about how game fun-ness is manufactured (although he does imply that passion on the part of the game design team is a huge contributing factor).
IGN was a little more cryptic regarding its review process. The company’s corporate website provides a lot of information about how editors ensure that reviews are unbiased and that games receive points-based scores out of 100 possible points. The site was silent about which elements of each game are specifically evaluated and what aspects of each game could generate or lose points.
After watching a host of IGN reviews on different types of games, I believe that this omission was purposeful. It appears to me that IGN reviews each game on a per-game basis possibly because there is no generic ‘score-card’ that can be applied to each and every game. However, the game elements that were discussed in the majority of the reviews that I watched do align quite will with the elements iterated in Scott Rogers’ work. IGN’s review process did persuade me to separate the checklist into criteria that can be applied to (almost) all games versus criteria that apply to a lot of games but not all.
The purpose of this checklist is to serve as my hypothesis on the elements of a game that will enhance it and make it better than other games of the same genre. I will test it by applying the checklist to games that are critically and commercially successful vis a vis games that are critical or commercial failures. It will also be interesting to see if critical success and commercial success meet the same checklist criteria.
Critical Success: The games that I will evaluating as Critical Successes will be winners of the GOTY as awarded by DICE in the past 5 years.
Commercial Success: I will be using Forbes as a reference for commercial success as they were the most reliable source I could find regarding unit sales per year. Some of the financial statements for publicly traded companies did provide unit sales but do not differentiate unit sales by product and many companies have a massive amount of subsidiaries. I will briefly touch upon the marketing campaigns that were used in the commercially successful games but have found it pretty difficult to evaluate wether or not a particular campaign is ‘successful’ or not.
Failures: I will be using IGN to provide examples of games that I will consider to be failures. These games will have scored less that 5.0 overall and will have been released in the same year as each of the GOTY that I evaluate.
Limitations: Please note that while I will try to be as objective as possible, my evaluation of each game will be subject to my own opinions and perspectives about quality in each of the evaluative criteria. For example, my impression of good quality aesthetic may not be transferable to other gamer’s opinions. For this reason, I will first present only verifiable facts for each game in a given area of evaluation and then follow my own opinions about how I might score that particular game in the given area.
Criteria Definitions
Theme – part of the narrative but not necessarily the story. As Scott Rogers explains it, “the central topic of the game. A theme can often be summed up in a statement” (pp 54).
Controls – My evaluation of game controls will be base on how intuitive the controls are, whether they follow genre standards and whether they utilize the platforms full capabilities.
Reward System – This criteria will involve both trophies and in-game reward systems. Do the reward systems instil a sense of motivation to achieve, progress and persist through the game?
Level Design – This will include everything from character levels/level-ups for some games, chapters for others, traditional levels and level difficulty options.
Progression – Is this game slow-burn, fast and flashy, or a mix of the two? Does the pacing work or does it negatively impact the game?
Aesthetic – Pretty self-explanatory but also the most open to individual preference. I will consider the graphical fidelity of other games released on the same platforms in the same year and also how much thought was put into the general look of the game.
Music and Sound – Does music and sound contribute to the gaming experience? Usually when I play a game I notice music and sound when it is especially good or especially bad. Demerits for lacklustre or repetitive music.
Story – is it interesting and does it draw the player into the world or is it cookie cutter and paper thin? Lore will be considered when applicable.
Character Design – both aesthetically and on a narrative level. Are the characters relatable and dynamic or flat and uninteresting.
Enemy Design – are there various types of enemies with different strengths and weaknesses and are enemies interesting aesthetically and narratively. I will also look at level and area bosses.
World Design – I will look at wether the world is interesting, worthy of exploring, immersive and whether the areas are rich in content or relatively barren of activity (Fallout 76).
HUD (Heads-Up Display) – Scott Rogers provides a helpful explanation of the elements involved in HUD. “The HUD refers to a visual screen overlay that communicates information to the player” (pp 182). He includes health bars, mini-maps, gauges, scores and experience, radar and more.
Game Mechanics – Extra elements of the level or area that “create gameplay” (Rogers, 353) when the player interacts with them. This are a big part of some games (platformers) and an extra detail in others (RPGs).
Social Game Mechanics – is there an option for multiplayer or co-op? How well does it work and does it add to the experience of the game?
Questing – How detailed are the side quests, errands and main storyline? Do they vary or are there a plethora of repetitive fetch quests.
Monetization – Monetization can definitely be done right (Fortnite) or wrong (Star Wars: Battlefront II).
Additional Content – DLC’s, expansion packs, limited offers, season passes etc.
List of Works Cited
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/#2ffb5e8f2254. Accessed Oct 25, 2018.
IGN. https://ca.ign.com/reviews/games. Accessed Oct 27, 2018
Rogers, Scott. Level Up! The Guide to Great Video Game Design. 2014,
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
“The D.I.C.E. Awards” Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences,
https://www.interactive.org Accessed Oct 25, 2018.
tkq.home.blog 