How would you prefer a games reviewer to review games?

M

mrkgoo

Member
I recall a bit of a debacle a while ago: a games reviewer, after giving a verdict on a high-profile game, gave the game higher than what he thought it deserved, on the basis that the public expected a higher value.

This caused a bit of a ruckus here at GAF, with many declaring that you can't review a game based on other people's opinions.

However, on the flip side, it could lead to a very popular game getting less than what most believe to be an accurate rating.

So - of course, they're all opnions of individulas and such, but what kind of review style do you perceive to be 'appropriate' (for lack of a better word):

a) a reviewer giving his own personal opinion of the game, with no regard to others opnions. The possible outcome is that their result could greatly differ from anyone elses view (ie. they don't even like the genre of the game reviewed, or they love it so much, the value is inflated) - of course, the review would clearly state that the result is only the opnion of that reviewer;

or b) A reviewer gives (or tries to give) a mark based on an objective view for what the game deserves. This is similar to reviewing games based on what they believe others think it deserves -after all, if it's not truly their own opinion, then whose is it?
 
I'm too tired to make a long and thoughtful coherent post, so I'll just say A) - I'd prefer trusted opinions than general opinions since I'm more of an enthusiast than your casual gamer. I'd prefer to read RPG reviews by RPG fans, shooter reviews by shooter fans, etc.

A review I liked was Tim Rogers Earthbound review... I never really cared about Earthbound, quickly dismissing it as extremely primitive. But reading his thoughts on the game and the little details that he liked - makes me wanna play it through again just to see what I missed. Infinitely more interesting to me than another soulless Gamespot/IGN/EGM "bullet point" review.
 
djtiesto said:
A review I liked was Tim Rogers Earthbound review... I never really cared about Earthbound, quickly dismissing it as extremely primitive. But reading his thoughts on the game and the little details that he liked - makes me wanna play it through again just to see what I missed. Infinitely more interesting to me than another soulless Gamespot/IGN/EGM "bullet point" review.
Click to expand...

As soon as you mentioned Earthbound I stopped caring about the topic of this thread and just made it my duty to say as many times as I can to you: PLAY EARTHBOUND. Over and over and over again! It is so good... so, so good... mmmmm

Ok, that's a public service announcement.

As to the topic, every reviewer should only post their personal opinion. It doesn't matter if the score is different from the general norm. That's what a review is - a personal opinion.
 
It's an odd thing - if a reviewer gives their own opinion and it doesn't coincide with the general opinion of the game, they're ridiculed for being 'wrong' about the game, or accused of attention-seeking. If they give a review that tries to judge how other people will view it, they're ridiculed for not reviewing it properly, or accused of being a sell-out.

I guess the moral of the story is that it sucks to be a reviewer. ;)
 
AmirOx: But would you respect their opinion if their view was vastly different from yours? Simply accept that their tastes are different, or would you lose respect for them? (like if they said Ico was borefest, or not appelaing in the slightest).

On Earthbound: I actually bought Earthbound, and got the scratch and sniff book and everything, but the US cart (it never came out PAL) didn't work through my converter, and I was forced to return it. Got Illusion of Time instead (Illusion of Gaia). I actually liked it quite a lot, but never did play Earthbound in the ned, and for that, I am sad.
 
Earthbound, that brings back some excellent memories. I think it is about time for my annual playthrough.

Anyway, I would prefer it if reviewers would abolish the overall score. I want them to write about what they liked about the game and what they don't like. Also, I think length and difficulty are subjective so if a magazine or website does a review, they should have two of their writers review the games so we can compare.
 
A review should be informative.

Regardless of how the reviewer feels, they should provide enough information for you to form your own opinion. If they can achieve that in their text, even if they love things I hate or hate things I love, I would call it a good review.
 
I like when a game reviewer can get away from the mechanics and technical aspects of a game (the one exception being game length, which is always important to note) and intelligently describe how it makes you feel. Of course, the problem is that there are so few innovative games out there that most games can't warrant this kind of review. Anecdotes about unique things that happen in a game are almost always the best way to convey the feel of the game.

I guess the main problem is that 90% of games are too crappy / derivative to warrant a truly good review. :-/
 
mrkgoo said:
AmirOx: But would you respect their opinion if their view was vastly different from yours? Simply accept that their tastes are different, or would you lose respect for them? (like if they said Ico was borefest, or not appelaing in the slightest).
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by 'respect.' Like all opinions, of course I'd respect it. If I had an opportunity to talk to a person who wrote a review I strongly disagreed with, I might spark up a discussion with him/her about the reasons behind the review. Debate, etc... but I'd most certainly respect it. Just because you respect something doesn't mean you have to agree with it. The only way I'm not going to respect a reviewers opinion is if it's obvious they didn't play the game in their write-up. Like, if you see a lot of errors in what they wrote and you're wondering how they could come to this conclusion if they reached X part or Y part.

mrkgoo said:
On Earthbound: I actually bought Earthbound, and got the scratch and sniff book and everything, but the US cart (it never came out PAL) didn't work through my converter, and I was forced to return it. Got Illusion of Time instead (Illusion of Gaia). I actually liked it quite a lot, but never did play Earthbound in the ned, and for that, I am sad.
Click to expand...

Heh, I always loved that Earthbound came in that massive box w/ strategy guide. Interestingly enough, I managed to find a copy of Earthbound that came in the small box, which I heard was pretty rare back in zee day. So now I have both copies, because Earthbound is my favorite game.
 
iapetus said:
It's an odd thing - if a reviewer gives their own opinion and it doesn't coincide with the general opinion of the game, they're ridiculed for being 'wrong' about the game, or accused of attention-seeking. If they give a review that tries to judge how other people will view it, they're ridiculed for not reviewing it properly, or accused of being a sell-out.

I guess the moral of the story is that it sucks to be a reviewer. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's exactly the point I was pondering.
 
I realized I didn't answer the posed questions really... I'm only interested in the opinion of the reviewer. I don't want him guessing whether or not the masses will like a game (sorry, Game Informer). It's really the editor's job to assign games to a reviewer that will give them a fair shake.
 
Ther eviewer should see if there are any bugs and glitches that happen a lot. Especially for sports games. Also, a reviewer who ACTUALLY plays for more than a few hours on the game, instead of spending a hour or two, just to say they played it.
 
iapetus said:
It's an odd thing - if a reviewer gives their own opinion and it doesn't coincide with the general opinion of the game, they're ridiculed for being 'wrong' about the game, or accused of attention-seeking.
Click to expand...

Hehe, C-



But seriously, you're always gonna find love-hate games. You can find the most universally panned games and there are still people who love 'em. There are a few Unlimited SaGa fans on this board, hell I bet there are even some Fugitive Hunter:War On Terror fans and Ping Pals fans out there. Some games just rub people the right way, I guess.
 
... and really, all of this only comes into play when numerical game ratings are taken into effect. I yearn for a magazine /site that's able to transcend the need for numbers & just talk about the art of gaming.

Next-Gen's 5-star system seemed to be the closest to doing this. Even though they technically had a scale, they seemed more interested in the way the game affected the state of the art than anything. ***** games were generally the most innovative, fully conceived ones.

People obsess over the numbers, of course. When that stops, I think the state of game criticism can improve. Of course, it will take great game critics to write reviews so compelling that a number isn't needed...
 
djtiesto said:
I'm too tired to make a long and thoughtful coherent post, so I'll just say A) - I'd prefer trusted opinions than general opinions since I'm more of an enthusiast than your casual gamer. I'd prefer to read RPG reviews by RPG fans, shooter reviews by shooter fans, etc.

A review I liked was Tim Rogers Earthbound review... I never really cared about Earthbound, quickly dismissing it as extremely primitive. But reading his thoughts on the game and the little details that he liked - makes me wanna play it through again just to see what I missed. Infinitely more interesting to me than another soulless Gamespot/IGN/EGM "bullet point" review.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm also too tired to remember the specific instances, but there have been some terrible mismatches with some reviews; like having a guy gripe that some Strat-RPG is "all fighting" or some BS like that.
 
Unison said:
... and really, all of this only comes into play when numerical game ratings are taken into effect. I yearn for a magazine /site that's able to transcend the need for numbers & just talk about the art of gaming.

Next-Gen's 5-star system seemed to be the closest to doing this. Even though they technically had a scale, they seemed more interested in the way the game affected the state of the art than anything. ***** games were generally the most innovative, fully conceived ones.

People obsess over the numbers, of course. When that stops, I think the state of game criticism can improve. Of course, it will take great game critics to write reviews so compelling that a number isn't needed...
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. The scores really need to be done away with. The score always seems like the most important part of the review but that is wrong. Reviewers need to critique every portion of the game that is relevant. If you are reviewing an RPG, you should see how well the characters are developed, how fleshed out the story is, and how well the world works in itself as well as the gameplay/graphics/sound that you would look out for. If you are reviewing a shump, you would obviously be looking for different things.
 
gamespy.com's reviews, sans point-based scoring system, would be great. game reviews don't need to be 10 pages long, as anyone who actually cares about how a game is reviewed has already been following the game's progress for months.
 
I've put forward my ultimate reviewing guidelines before, and I'd love to see a site/mag follow them.

First, no scores. We all know why rating games out of 100 (or 10, or 10 on a range of five points, or whatever) is ridiculous, so I won't go into that right now. Given that we know it's ridiculous, why bother with it at all?

Second, multiple reviewers. Every game should be reviewed primarily by someone who likes the genre the game falls into, and has good experience with it. The review should combine technical details (what the gameplay mechanic is, how it deviates from established genre conventions, graphics) with personal preference (sound, gameplay quality, graphics). This should be accompanied by one or two columns giving two other people with different gaming backgrounds a chance to comment.

Thirdly, effort should be made to justify and/or explain the subjective judgements made in the review. "This game has the suckiest graphics that ever sucked," is bad. "This game has the suckiest graphics that ever sucked because once again a developer is applying cel-shading to a wildly inappropriate genre, and the painful framerate (below 20fps at times) shows that their engine isn't up to the task" is good. And cel-shaded tetris clones are a PESTILENCE THAT SHOULD BE WIPED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

<cough>

There is no fourthly.
 
A review should tell the reader as much about the game as is needed and no more. A review should entertain, but not overdose on wit/humour, and keep the reader engaged throughout. A review needs to be highly detailed and general at the same time. A review should be one flowing document not interrupted by various categories segregating sound, graphics, etc. A review should be written in a voice its readers will understand, but its content should not cater to anyone but the reviewer--once a reviewer stops saying what they think, they become a mouthpiece for popular opinion, and completely worthless. I cannot stress how important it is for reviewers to stay true to their opinion and no one elses.

Not sure how much that paragraph makes sense as I'm currently penning a mock musical for no reason other than to prove how quickly they can be produced. Rar, I'm off to bathe in some self glory.

EDIT: Words should be treated humanely: use as many as needed and no more. If you can say something in one sentence, don't use 12.
 
I actually don't think it's that hard to review a game on an objective level. There is simply a lack of proper vocabulary and maturity in describing game mechanics that prevent reviewers from talking about things from an objective manner. That's why you always get these weird analogies, exaggerated hyperbole and basically a mishmash of different ways of saying the same thing that ends up coming out like nonsense.

Furthermore, there are actually two types of reviews, maybe more, but right now I can only think of two. There are critiques which focus solely on the game itself, what it does right/wrong all that stuff without any concern to other games or prices or anything like that. The goal of the critique is to describe the game itself to a general audience including the developers.

Then there is the consumer guide review which takes into account other games (sometimes not even in the same genre, or on the same system) and also the price of the game, whose ultimate goal is to recommend to the reader where their money should be spent. Virtually all reviews fall into this second category since that's the direction things have gone. There's nothing wrong with this type of review, except that it really shouldn't involve a numeric score, simply a recommended purchase or not (in favour of another game).

Obviously the critique type of review is the one where a numeric score is appropriate as the game can be measured against what it is TRYING to do to what it actually accomplishes. And then based on the ambition of what the devs are trying to do the actual score is raised higher. Like olympic diving.

I'll use Ebert as an example of what I'm talking about. On the show Ebert & Roeper the goal of the show is to recommend to the viewer which of the currently playing movies are worth seeing, which is done by their trademark seal. However, Ebert also writes critiques on those same movies that are more indepth, involve a numeric score, and rarely contain comparisons to other movies.


Just as a lot of film critics attend film school, game critics should also attend game school to have a better understanding, and vocabulary of what it is they're talking about.
 
A reviewer should give details about the game, how it plays and so on but not give any final scores. Review scores suck, any good gamer can pretty much tell if they want a game or not by the text. Scores just bring on paranoia.
 
I agree. Screw the scores. I don't mind them usually, I've grown to trust some reviewers. And I trust Edge magazine and Games TM. But for the most part, scores are just fanbot ammo and force people to rank things out of context.

Just convey whats good or bad about the game. Give me an idea if I'll be into it. Place it in the context of other / nearby game releases if you have to.

Further, force people to actually read rather than skipping to the last page, or "summary" area. Encourage people to talk about and compare the actual gaming rather than the scores.
 
If reviewers are to drop scores, they need to keep their reviews short. Or at least offer a short version of their long reviews, like a summary.
 
In the absence of a universally acceptable and rigidly/unambiguously applicable metric for "game quality" I will go for a). It should be taken for granted that reviews are the reviewers' opinion. I treat "professional" game reviews with little or no more weight than (well articulated) impressions and reviews here on GAF or elsewhere. There was a time my purchases were heavily influenced by the reviews of certain magazines, but thanks to the internet that's no longer the case for me - I've come to view them for what they are, another person's opinion, no more, no less. My purchases now tend to be driven by a general "feeling" for a game from both professional reviews and moreso by net communities like this, and not specific reviews. I guess in short, word-of-mouth means more to me now, and the internet has facilitated word-of-mouth on a mass scale, making it more influential and more "trustworthy" since you get the opinions of so many so quickly versus real life. I guess it's somewhat similar to how the whole blogging landscape is "democratising" information and changing how the media works generally.

In other words, "professional" reviewers should take note of the changing landscape in terms of the influence of their reviews, and stop getting so hung up on guiding the wider crowd to purchases they *think* they'll find satisfying, and just start giving their own opinion. One thing professional reviewers have over web-board people and most gamers generally is probably a massive store of gaming experience and history, and thus is possibly more capable of weighing a game's contribution to the state of the art in a credible fashion. So when I read their reviews, I want to hear about that - not to hear what they think about the game bringing themselves "down" to the level of a casual gamer with no such history of gaming behind them.

I understand that, for now, a lot of people still look to magazines and the like alone for recommendations, but I think that's changing, and going forward, "pros" should be more inclined toward giving their own non-skewed opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How would you prefer Chrono Trigger gets remade?
2 3
129
586
Thabass replied
  • Poll
After a few years of shows by the Dorito's King, as a gamer, do you prefer Geoff's shows or would prefer E3 came back?
2
90
454
Fbh replied
  • Poll
How would you rate Xbox Games Showcase 2025?
2 3 4 5 6
251
4K
Orbital2060 replied
  • Poll
Battlefield fans, would you prefer more incentives to encourage squad play?
2
53
677
Ceadeus replied
  • Poll
How would you rate Gamescom 2025?
2 3
107
1K
SpokkX replied
Top Bottom