The Fundamentals
I've asked many hardcore gamers if they have ever heard of Bartle's Taxonomy, and I've yet to come across someone who was familiar with it. Have you?
Bartle's Taxonomy encapsulates, very clearly, why people play video games.
Understanding the quadrants and their relationship to one another explains every gamer motivation and personality. For example, take Killers and Socializers; they both share the end of the Player:World spectrum that emphasizes playing games because you can play with friends or others online instead of the narrative and game world content. They are opposite one another on the Acting:Interacting spectrum, which is the difference between Co-op PvE and Competitive PvP (technically, those concepts are more expansive than just playing the game itself, but for simplicity of the point).
Then, to move to another tangential relationship: Killers and Achievers. They both share the Acting end of the Acting:Interacting spectrum, but are opposite because Achievers wish to act on the world presented to them in order to 'beat the game' how the developers intended the game be completed. Killers, when given the option, will forego playing a single-player campaign and jump straight into PvP because their idea of 'beating the game' is asserting dominance over another player holding a controller, screaming at their screen in disgust when they beat them.
If you want to get a great in-depth breakdown of Bartle's Taxonomy, I'd suggest checking out this vid by Extra Credits on YouTube:
Reconstructing the Review Methodology
Over time, I've become disillusioned by the greater inconsistency of game reviews over the last decade. The money the industry has drawn in has diluted the quality understanding of a game through its review. Those reviewing the games are often knowingly or unknowingly manipulated by the back-scratching nature of business.
It's bad enough that we've allowed ourselves to get to the point where we cannot help but preorder games and DLC packs by just seeing some sizzle reel:
cough
I'm certainly guilty of this; I wish I wasn't. Gamers always need a new fix in regular intervals to satiate the appetite that the interactive medium fulfills in us. We latch onto the 'could-be' of hyped games and max it out to 10 based upon our individual assertion about how that game fits in our own taxonomy for playing games.
Perhaps you feel the same way, and want to see a more objective methodology for reviewing games.
I Hereby Introduce K.A.S.E. Scoring
Instead of the traditional review structure that results in a single cumulative score (often a scale of 0 to 10), I propose offering 4 scores for each game, each of the 4 representing a meta analysis approach for each quadrant in Bartle's Taxonomy.
The Value of Objectivity
The goal in my reviews will be to remove as much of my subjectivity (it won't be flawless; no system is) in the analysis of the game and filter it through a meta checklist of descriptors for each of the 4 quadrants. How it does on each checklist determines its score for that quadrant.
What cool about this sort of review structure is giving you a different perspective. I want you to be informed with good food for thought as you conglomerate your ideas about a games ability to fulfill your desires before purchasing or playing.
Please look forward to seeing K.A.S.E. reviews of old games and new in the weeks, months, and years ahead. Moreover, I look forward to interacting with you to better understand how this review methodology helps you understand your gaming passion.
Have an awesome day!