About Our Reviews

So as you may have noticed by now, we here at InsaneBear don’t utilize a numerical scoring system for our reviews. We simply believe that such systems are ultimately unfair to the game, the reviewer, and the reader. So we’ve created a seven phrase scale that accurately and fairly describes a game in one word.

Classic: A genre-defining game that pushes design boundaries and perfects current conventions. This game is impossible to forget. Ex: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Portal
Superb: A memorable game that successfully innovates and sets standards but ultimately feels unpolished, poorly executed, or incomplete in some phases. Ex: Dragon Age: Origins, Gears of War
Great: A really fun and well-crafted game that either doesn’t do enough new things or has too many noticeable flaws for it to be remembered as a standard-setting game. Ex: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, inFAMOUS
Good: A fun game that just isn’t daring enough to be remembered a few years down the line. Ex: Assassin’s Creed II, Halo 3: ODST
Meh: An underwhelming game that’s less than the sum of its parts. Gamers will likely remember it for the potential it couldn’t deliver on. Ex: BioShock 2, Resident Evil 5
Mediocre: A forgettable game that isn’t necessarily broken, but it’s just not fun enough to warrant more than a rental. Ex: The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed
Bad: A deeply flawed game that will likely stick with you for life…in a bad way. Ex: You think I’ve actually played one of these?

Now in case you were wondering how our reviewers arrive at these oh-so-informative conclusions, we’re providing an explanation of what we look for when we review a game.

Fun: Probably the most important question when critiquing a video game is, “Is it fun?” Even the worst games have some degree of fun to them, even if that fun stems from a “so bad it’s good” scenario. But unsurprisingly, the best games have more of that ineffable thing we call fun. It’s futile to discuss why shooting things or solving puzzles or leveling up is fun, but we can undoubtedly come to the conclusion that adhering to the next six steps monumentally contributes to a game’s fun factor.
Polish: Applying a good level of polish to a game is probably the easiest way to prevent people from treating it like it kills puppies and steals candy from babies. As long as it’s not full of bugs or glitches and it looks like the developers gave half a damn, then most people will give a game a fair shake. And the prettier the graphics are, the more authentic the sound is, and the more intuitive the interface and controls are, the more likely a game is to be regarded highly. This is really base level stuff here, and it’s a developer’s obligation to the consumer to make sure a game is adequately polished.
Completeness: There are a lot of good games out there that are like a nice turkey sandwich without any mustard–everything looks good at first, but then you bite in and realize that it’s incomplete. Whether it’s a shooter that’s devoted so many resources to its multi-player that the campaign seems forgotten or an action-adventure game that seems to lose its direction in the last third of the game, many games just feel unbalanced or unequal throughout the entirity of the package. An “incomplete” game can still be a lot of fun, but it’s just a bit of a buzz-kill when you have to stop and think that the developers clearly didn’t pay equal attention to certain aspects of a game.
Variety: The spice of virtual life! Sure, some people think level-grinding with the same attack animation against the same enemies over and over again for hours on end is fun, but for the rest of us, a mixture of gameplay elements or even just a change of pace really freshens things up. Games would be pretty bland if every environment looked the same, if every enemy acted the same, if every mission played out the same way. We’re certainly not advacating a collection of mini-games here (let’s not get started on those God-forsaken things), but it is nice to see and do different things in a game.
Depth: Sort of the “yin” to variety’s “yang,” depth is about how well constructed all those changes of pace are. Some games have a ton of variety that’s very appealing at first, but an hour in you quickly find out that you’ve learned all there is to learn about the game–the developers sacrificed intriguing, intricate, and immersive gameplay experiences for shallow diversity. It’s a tight balance, but one that must be struck for a game to be considered great. A game can’t just do one thing really well and expect people to like it, yet it can’t lose sight of what it wants to do well by overwhelming itself with too many departures from the core experience that can’t realistically be developed meaningfully. Variety’s great, but that melting pot of gameplay has to be more than ankle deep.
Value: For all of us out there with a name that doesn’t end with “Gates,” value is one of the most important considerations when pondering a potential purchase. “Is this game worth the money?” Games that feature lasting multiplayer, real incentives to replay a campaign multiple times, or that are just inherently long make that question a lot easier to answer. That doesn’t mean that a 15 hour game with no replayability can’t be a “classic,” it just means that said game would have to be an especially memorable experience for that to happen. It’s all about getting that “bang for your buck.”
Innovation: Some of the most fun games out there do absolutely nothing to innovate and move a genre forward, and that’s fine. But for a game to be considered “superb” or “classic” it has to do something new and original. Just as Shakespeare advanced literature and Hitchcock advanced film, there are game developers out there that are trying to break the mold when it comes to our medium of choice. We commend that here, because video games are very much still growing as a medium and they need to be pushed forward with fresh ideas and concepts. Video games as we know them today are the product of the daring and creative minds that are willing to be different.