Support NeoGAF

[Belfast]

I'm just curious, as I'm trying to hone my writing style. I guess I've been having a lot of trouble balancing content with personal opinion. In other words, I'll genereally go in-depth with the major problems of the game and only mention other parts in passing, such as graphics. If there's something exceptional about the graphics, sure I'd go in-depth with them, but if they're generic or barely passable I have a hard time describing it. What do you guys do in this situation?

I know that I probably should expound on certain aspects of a game more, so that the reader will be more informed of the content of the game, but when the content isn't compelling, it really is hard sometimes to say something about it.

How do you all you long-time reviewers handle issues like this?

 

[demi]

For starters, you can try not playing the game.

 

[Gek54]

You cant explain why you think certain graphics are generic? Search Shogmaster's and m0dus's post history, that should give you several examples.

 

[WindyMan]

Elaborate on the things that need elaborating. Don't bother talking about the trivial stuff, if you must, just mention it.

If the game looks gorgeous and the gameplay sucks, then you're going to need to explain why the gameplay sucks a lot more than you need to explain why the game looks gorgeous, you know?

 

[CarlosX360]

It takes practice, but do play a game that YOU like....and go from there, then from there...ask your friends for advice, they will help you too...But do practice reviewing games a lot....The more you understand the principles, the easier it is to know how to write a review.

Start out by categorizing your reviews like this:

Graphics:

(insert what you want to say)

Sound:

(do it again, but for the topic above.)

and so on and on.....And then, when you're familiar with it, you can do what I like to call "freelance writing" meaning, that you can go from topic to topic without categories...I mean, this is best for those who is USED to reviewing games. This also gives the reader reasons to read your reviews, like GameSpot does.....

But for a beginner, you should categorize your paragraphs as shown above.

And the best tip of them all? Don't Rush. Get used to the idea of writing a review FIRST, then you can set yourself a deadline, a lot of sites do this..

 

[shpankey]

if you want to be a good reviewer, try to be as clinical in your approach as possible. try not to use too many descriptive adjectives and be aware of your tone. avoid any kind of extremes (negative or positive) and basically try to present the reader with as much data that you observed as possible. do not LEAD your reader to a conclusion... let him/her arrive at his own, based on your information.

the only people who really ever did this imo were Next-Generation magazine. nowadays there is nothing but garbage out there.. filled with personal bias and fanboyism (usually vaguely masked) and just plain poor writing style (harping on small things far too long, glossing over big things entirely to quickly). i especially hate the mini history lesson we get in every review nowadays (please for the love of God, avoid doing this shit).

remember, a review doesn't need to be long just for the sake of length. you will lose your readers interest if you bombard him with info they don't want (ie: history of the game, company, etc).

lastly, avoid filler words. be concise and as direct as possible. 40% of the words in most reviews aren't needed. in your editing process, you should always be on the lookout for words you can cut out or simplify.

 

[Pellham]

I hate categorized reviews. Sometimes certain elements just aren't as important to a game so why bother mentioning or expounding on them? Just write a game review the same way you'd write a movie review, or a book review.

 

[CarlosX360]

I hate categorized reviews. Sometimes certain elements just aren't as important to a game so why bother mentioning or expounding on them? Just write a game review the same way you'd write a movie review, or a book review.

Hey, I hate it too.....But again, it takes practice. The thing is, you need to develop a sense of organizational skill. And that requires a lot of practice.

You need to be on topic on every paragraph, otherwise your article will come off as "huh?" or "what the fuck are you saying?" So, its hard to stay on topic without categories....as a beginner. You don't want your article to go into many directions at once, otherwise your reader will get lost. This could make or break a website. You need to grab your readers, and pull them into your article to keep them staying there...If you don't, it hurts the website as a whole, its reputation, its reliability, its accuracy, and so on and on. Nobody's perfect in writing a review, but a reviewer needs a good article to be hired in the first place.

People have this perception that reviewing games is a piece of cake, it isn't...Because you need to know HOW to do it...and how to develop the skills needed to create a review, let alone a good one.

 

[DeadTrees]

Just answer, using concrete examples, two questions:

*What were the designers trying to do with the game?
*Did they succeed?

Sometimes you play a game for a rich, emotional, immersive experience, and sometimes you just want to maim squirrels.

And for bonus points:
*How does their success or failure affect the big picture of gaming?

 

[Matlock]

I stay awake until I can't think clearly, then I type the first things that come to mind when I think of the game.

It's worked so far.

 

[Gek54]

I stay awake until I can't think clearly, then I type the first things that come to mind when I think of the game.

It's worked so far.

Ha, thats my technique for writing term papers. I have to wait untill my ADD goes to sleep.

 

[Belfast]

I tend to lean away from the cateogrized review format. Like I said, that seems to get me in trouble sometimes due to skipping over certain features, but when they are features that haven't changed or are standard for the genre, I just don't feel they're worth giving more than a line or two.

 

[Matlock]

I tend to lean away from the cateogrized review format. Like I said, that seems to get me in trouble sometimes due to skipping over certain features, but when they are features that haven't changed or are standard for the genre, I just don't feel they're worth giving more than a line or two.

Belfast: I know my writing style isn't the best, but I've strived to stay away from the categorical review. It's a little more brief than the style you're looking for, but hey--here's some samples to see what I've done with the same ideas.

http://www.gaming-age.com/cgi-bin/reviews/review.pl?sys=nds&game=pwright
http://www.gaming-age.com/cgi-bin/reviews/review.pl?sys=nds&game=tak3ds

 

[CarlosX360]

I tend to lean away from the cateogrized review format. Like I said, that seems to get me in trouble sometimes due to skipping over certain features, but when they are features that haven't changed or are standard for the genre, I just don't feel they're worth giving more than a line or two.

Minus one for skipping. Attention to detail is your friend in reviewing a game.

So next time, don't skip a topic. Your readers want to know everything about a game....And that's why categorized reviews is a good start for reviewers in the first place, then later, he can do whatever he wishes. In any order he wants...as long as he knows where his opinions go.

See.....I want you to look at these two:

This is pre-E3, at the time, nobody on staff had GTASA, I was the only one with a version of GTASA. The owner came to me for the preview.

There are OBVIOUSLY flaws in it...but it is well recieved, since I used a lot of what you marketing people call.....propaganda.
http://www.xe360.com/article.php?artid=2072&pg=1&comments=

This is post-E3 [Thanks to the blackout on Day 3]....I thought this is the best article I've done since GTASA, or my well recieved MKDA preview (went on AMN/XE).
http://www.xe360.com/article.php?artid=2266

You want to know the difference? I was estatic about Condemned, and still am.

 

[Jewbacca]

When I review a game I look at this.

A. Is it fun?



And thats about it... If it can suck me in then its worth a buy.

 

[CarlosX360]

When I review a game I look at this.

A. Is it fun?

And thats about it... If it can suck me in then its worth a buy.

Well, that's why the gameplay section is the most important part of any review (but like I said before, don't skip a topic), you want to give the reader the best idea of how a game plays. If you can't accomplish that, then sorry, you need to edit that article.

In my GTASA preview, I talked a lot about gameplay/improvements....In condemned, same...

I've been looking for my old, old review on AMN.....

This is about the time Turok Evolution was released.

The first mistake of the review is history: Can them. Forget it.

Second mistake: Fanboyism; It shows, can the attitude. Throw it out, pronto.

Why? Because it forces you to come off as "patriotic" for that particular game...I don't blame myself, because I was a huge Turok fan...Huge. I was hoping to god that TE succeeded where T3 failed, for christ sakes.....its gamecube. Its no Xbox, but there shouldn't be any excuse as to why the game failed. I hated to admit the fact that Turok Evolution failed worse than Turok 3 did. I admitted to it long time ago, I started to careless about the game. Because other PS2 shooters took helm of the best...And better yet, Half Life 2.

http://gc.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=691

But it didn't matter to AMN at the time, because GCA was a propaganda for GCN. Any review that is positive, and "fair" enough, it will be approved.

 

[Blackace]

I stay awake until I can't think clearly, then I type the first things that come to mind when I think of the game.

It's worked so far.

hasn't worked that well..

 

[Bebpo]

I just tend to ramble out every thought in my head about my experience with the game as it came to me...but that's why my review threads tend to be like waaaaaay too long and I doubt most people read the whole things.

Oh and it's a lot more fun to review a game that ended up sucking (see XSep2, SOIII) because you can basically have a ton of fun making jokes about all the ridiculously bad aspects of the game. It makes the review very entertaining but it's also not very profesional :\

It's always easier to talk about the stuff the game does wrong, especially if it's something you'd think anyone would notice so you wonder why they didn't fix it (see Suikoden IV sailing). It's tougher to talk about the good parts of a game nice and professionally since it's usually just "Graphics are great! Nice colors/designs".

Uhmm, so yeah, don't listen to me ^^;

 

[MC Safety]

Recognize that there may be a difference between a game you like and a game that is good. A game you dislike, too, may not be bad.

And I wouldn't say that fun is the determining factor in whether a game is good or not. Silent Hill, for example, is never "fun." And something like Dodge Ball for the NES may well be the funnest game ever, but it's far from the best.

 

[Hayami]

First I ask my-self four questions:

How does this game make me feel?

How may this game enhance my penis size?

How may this game help eradicate racial tension?

Music. Music?


Finally, I leave the game on PAUSE for several hours while I sleep next to the TV. The game affects me in my dreaming state, and whichever number appears most often is the score which it receives.

- Eddie "Eddie's the Name, Games are My Game" Korolla