Support NeoGAF

[SickBoy]

He looked into his work-addled brain on the way home, and it struck him. An idea. A revolution. A way to change video game reviews for the better: The SickBoy method.

Review bashing is nothing new in these parts, and even constructive concepts sometimes sprout up in the same discussions. But a lot of people still dislike videogame reviews, and as I was driving, I realized there were certain things that consistently cropped up in reviews and generally annoyed me. It's time to go to work. Here's what they are, and here's my recipe for a good videogame review.

I'll note that while a lot of my comments have to do with tightening review copy, I'm not advocating a wham, bam, thank-you-ma'am cookie cutter review. If anything, I think that's what reviews are now (cookie cutter). Though they're not so much "wham, bam, thank-you" as they are "bore her to death with passionless, klutzy foreplay."

I have all sorts of respect for any review that commands my attention from line one and keeps me reading straight through... one that prevents me from scanning it through, which is the way I approach most reviews today.

(I randomly clicked on "big site" reviews of "big games" from Gamerankings.com to illustrate my points. The reviews are quoted within and contribute largely to the length.

They are:
IGN: Mercenaries
1UP: Gran Turismo 4
GamePro: KOTOR II
Gamespot: NFL Street 2
Gamespy: Resident Evil 4

...being chosen truly at random (never mind differing review formats) means some will exemplify my points far better than others)


PROBLEM ONE: The meandering lede: How many reviews start with a highly generalized overview of the state of the industry or the genre a game falls in (or a history lesson)? Answer: Too many. This is boring (not to mention highly extraneous to the rest of the content in far too many cases). Especially right at the beginning of a review.

Examples:

You've got to hand it to LucasArts. As a company known for creating inconsistent quality Star Wars games and some very forgettable non-Star Wars games, the last 18 months have been a boon. With few exceptions, you can now look confidently at the Marin, Ca.-based publisher and find something compelling or downright desirable. With Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords, the upcoming Star Wars: Republic Commando, and the strangely addicting Mercenaries, you'll be hard-pressed to resist any of them.

You really have to hand it to LucasArts. Look at all they've done. What does this have to do with the game? Mercenaries is strangely addicting and the latest in a list of recent compelling titles from LucasArts. Wow 16 words stretched to 85. And how important some of those 16 are is arguable... And does anyone care where LucasArts is headquartered?

Forget everything you know about survival horror. In fact, let's forget the tired genre completely. That lethargically-paced subset of adventure gaming has overstayed its welcome almost as much as the control-scheme that powers the titles that represent it. While the best entries in the genre still remain somewhat interesting, (the GameCube remake of the original Resident Evil is definitely a rewarding experience, for example) none have presented gamers with enough distinctive gameplay elements to distance themselves from the titles that founded the genre so long ago.

Yawn... he actually does discuss RE4 in the next paragraph.

The same complaint applies in every review, with the two sequels being the most focused of the bunch:

Less than a year after the release of EA's last venture into the arcade football genre, the prolific publisher has already produced a sequel in NFL Street 2. While NFL Street 2 is every bit as slick of a product as you'd expect from EA's sports division, it's only marginally improved over its predecessor. This iteration has only made a scant few changes to the gameplay, and it really does very little to correct any of the flaws present in last year's--er, make that this past January's game.

Released about a year and a half ago, the first Knights of the Old Republic wasn't all that revolutionary a game--as any hardcore PC dork will tell you, KOTOR's emphasis on long conversations and meandering sub-quests is standard issue on computer role-playing games. No, KOTOR was different because it took this time-consuming experience and made it palatable, even engaging, to console audiences--and KOTOR II keeps the tradition going by not fixing what ain't broke.

And GT4:

Gran Turismo 4 is in an unenviable position. It's been delayed so many times we've lost count. The online racing that was supposed to be the cornerstone of Sony's online strategy has been cut. Yet expectations remain sky high. Polyphony Digital and in particular the combination of perfectionist and auto enthusiast in its leader Kazunori Yamauchi have built a pedigree for the franchise that helps fans keep the faith while waiting for its arrival. It's still over a month away elsewhere (including North America), but that day arrived 12/28/04 in Japan. We could't wait another day to learn the fate of this legend.

Give me a brief overview of "This game was fun because" any day over this crap.

PROBLEM TWO: The Sectioning: It makes sense to discuss the pieces of games in a review. But sectioning reviews seems to suck a lot of life out of them. For some, it brings out more of PROBLEM ONE: The meandering lede:

Developed for Xbox and PlayStation 2, LucasArts' Mercenaries should feel both familiar to those who've played open-design games, and fresh, as the 20-plus hour, single-player action game stars three mercenaries who run around North Korea like it was their neighborhood stomping ground. You start with one of three characters, the swift, roguish Swede who speaks Russian, a stealthy British female from Hong Kong who is fluent in Chinese, and a tough Korean-speaking African-American. (There is supposedly a fourth, unlockable character, which LucasArts has yet to reveal.) You'll be brought up to speed on the controls, vehicles and weapons as you progress through the first mission and within minutes you'll be introduced to the factions, which are at the core of Mercenaries's unique progression scheme.

There's actually a lot of information here, but it's produced in the same rambling form as that crappy lede. It's the sort of writing I would expect of myself writing on a videogame forum, not so much from a person paid to write a review. And is this really the most important knowledge for people wondering about the gameplay?

I think there's an inherent challenge here. It's easy to write the paint-by-numbers approach (this is on this console, it's a familiar member of this genre and you can play these characters and stuff, and blahblahblah something else I said)... but wouldn't this be far more compelling if it took you right to the heart of what the gameplay (i.e: what do you do and how is it executed?). There may be a place for all the information in this quote, but is it here, in this form? I don't think so.

So sectioning can suck the life out like that, but don't think that just because it doesn't say "graphics" at the top, it's not "sectioned." Most game reviews are. It's a logical way to do things a lot of the time. But I think it would be a worthwhile challenge to provide all that same information by mixing things up, or at least by at least providing some flow:

Then the realization that this is Gran Turismo comes crashing home. Despite great discussion of artificial intelligence for the drivers things are the same as they ever were...... It's hard not to be disappointed, but a nice upgrade in the graphics department does help soothe the sting.

Wow! A transition! THat's not so hard, is it? Well, you still see a lot of this in reviews:

As far as presentation goes, NFL Street 2 really does nothing to differentiate itself

and

Story wise, The Sith Lords is a step up

...and I'm not going to let them get away with:

Resident Evil 4's sound design deserves specific mention

Sneaky, but did we really think they weren't going to talk about sound?

Alarm bells sound with any paragraph that starts off with "graphically," "aurally," "visually" or "sound wise," etc....

PROBLEM THREE: The Compare-o-Tron: Every review site has one of these crazy gizmos. And for the record, I think comparisons with other games are great. But I think they're overused and CompareTech Inc. should stop promoting them as an end-all.

Comparisons with other games in the same genre are useful, as are comparisons with prequels, but I think they're also largely a crutch. And consider that many people have not played every game out there

In several instances, players will even be required to jam buttons in time with onscreen indicators during cutscenes; Sega fans may consider such sequences a nod to cult-classic Shenmue's Quick Timer Events.

A valid reference, but still, does Shenmue need to be invoked in an RE4 review? Don't worry, there's worse (much worse):

(1)Incorporating elements of Battlefield 1942 and Grand Theft Auto, LucasArts and Pandemic have created a militaristic sandbox-style tour de force.... (2)While like GTA and Battlefield 1942, Mercenaries offers a distinct sense of balance and gameplay.... (3)Unlike GTA, however, this game hands you endless military power.... (4)You can literally destroy an entire city -- similar to the way you can in MechAssault 2: Lone Wolf and still have money, weapons and vehicles left over to go on your merry way....

1. It never tells you what elements of BF1942 it incorporates. Which basically turns the reference into name-dropping.

2. I've played a bit of BF1942 and a lot of GTA. Does this mean that the other games don't offer a distinct sense of "balance and gameplay"?

3. Name-dropping

4. I don't know what this mean, and I expect a lot of people don't given MA2's fairly recent release (and do you still have money, weapons and vehicles left over in that game?)

Thankfully, the sequel reviews tended to keep away from the random compare-osity. But I don't expect to see GT4 reviews miraculously going without comparisons to wannabe games and other new competition like Need For Speed: Underground and Burnout.

PROBLEM FOUR: We will leave no stone unturned:

This needs no explanation, and shouldn't need examples (which would be endlessly long). I'd like to know about the modes, sure... but let's not spend paragraphs upon paragraphs detailing them... talk about those of interest and get to the point, already. (Roughly half of GameSpot's Street 2 review seems to talk about the various game modes -- too much!)

....


The SickBoy Method

Here are guidelines I think would help make for better reviews:

1) Kill the history lesson: Gas anything that offers broad generalizations about the industry, genre history or what gamers like... or anything else that might fit into the category of "broad generalizations." Are they there for the "hardcore"? They already have their opinion of that thing you just said. Are they there for the casual gamer? I'll bet 70% or more couldn't care less.

2) Put the Compare-o-tron in Energy Star mode: I said earlier comparisons are useful. And so they are. But I also said they're a crutch. No comparisons except with prior versions in the main review. A "sidebar" type story with how a game measures up will benefit the body of the review and still offer that "how it measures up" look.

3) Don't be afraid to be brief: In the real world, how often are people hanging on your every word like it's being channeled directly from the heavens? This is THE INTERNET, where attention spans are even shorter (bodes poorly for this post, I'll add!).

4) Strive to avoid sections: Take a more organic approach. For example, crappy graphics or camera can screw up gameplay. Crappy gameplay makes good graphics pointless, and a great soundtrack can enhance an already-creepy survival horror game.

All the separate elements of a game exist as part of a cohesive whole. Don't strip them down like a group of thugs would an unlocked WRX... talk about how they enhance each other or detract from one another. Kill your inner zombie.

5) Get to the point: That's not to say be brief or be boring. But present the interesting stuff early. Make someone want to read your review. And keep it engaging in that same way throughout. You can't trick the reader and write a great first paragraph and then return to Dullsville.. he's still not going to stick around.

6) Don't try to be hip: I don't know about you, but I thought that WRX remark was pretty lame. If you're trying, think twice, then think once more.

7) Don't use parenthetical statements There's nothing wrong with the occasional parentheses or aside, like this one, but I'd make the leap and call them a crutch too (and a bad one... see?)... easy, common, and too likely to disrupt flow.

Well, this is the longest post ever from me. Never again.

 

[Matlock]

1) Kill the history lesson: Gas anything that offers broad generalizations about the industry, genre history or what gamers like... or anything else that might fit into the category of "broad generalizations." Are they there for the "hardcore"? They already have their opinion of that thing you just said. Are they there for the casual gamer? I'll bet 70% or more couldn't care less.


A valid point, of course, but sometimes the reasoning can be backed up with some information from teh gloooorious passst. Not often, mind you.


2) Put the Compare-o-tron in Energy Star mode: I said earlier comparisons are useful. And so they are. But I also said they're a crutch. No comparisons except with prior versions in the main review. A "sidebar" type story with how a game measures up will benefit the body of the review and still offer that "how it measures up" look.

Some games pretty much beg the comparison, though: any GTA-style game; for example.


3) Don't be afraid to be brief: In the real world, how often are people hanging on your every word like it's being channeled directly from the heavens? This is THE INTERNET, where attention spans are even shorter (bodes poorly for this post, I'll add!).

Probably the most pertinent point in this thread. While IGN's reviews soar into the heavens in pagecounts, sometimes four thousand words just can't say what four hundred say. I try sticking around 600, myself, but that's just me.


4) Strive to avoid sections: Take a more organic approach. For example, crappy graphics or camera can screw up gameplay. Crappy gameplay makes good graphics pointless, and a great soundtrack can enhance an already-creepy survival horror game.

One of the earliest, and hardest to break standbys of a review. First mistake any writer will make, and one of the first they need to rectify. Thank god for IGN, because they keep avoiding any real development in quality.


5) Get to the point: That's not to say be brief or be boring. But present the interesting stuff early. Make someone want to read your review. And keep it engaging in that same way throughout. You can't trick the reader and write a great first paragraph and then return to Dullsville.. he's still not going to stick around.

Inverted pyramid is nothing new, but it's hard to stick to.


6) Don't try to be hip: I don't know about you, but I thought that WRX remark was pretty lame. If you're trying, think twice, then think once more.

I did once, by referencing Brad Pitt's ass in a Tak 2 review. Never again!

Well, unless I get another Tak title.


7) Don't use parenthetical statements There's nothing wrong with the occasional parentheses or aside, like this one, but I'd make the leap and call them a crutch too (and a bad one... see?)... easy, common, and too likely to disrupt flow.

I agree (or do I?)

 

[MarkMacD]

Some good points here.

On the length of reviews, for the web anyway, I've heard the longer ones justified on the grounds that those who -do- want to know about every single mode and such can get that info, while those who don't can just skim over that part.

 

[Slo]

I'd love it if there were only three paragraphs to a review. Pros, Cons, and Summary. That's all I need, or care to read. For all you gaming "journalists" out there that treat your reviews like a high school essay, please save it for the editorials. Or write a novel or something.

 

[BenT]

On the length of reviews, for the web anyway, I've heard the longer ones justified on the grounds that those who -do- want to know about every single mode and such can get that info, while those who don't can just skim over that part.

The other thing is they generate mad page views.

 

[Matlock]

The other thing is they generate mad page views.

*dingdingding*

I debated whether or not it'd be too cynic or off-topic to throw that in my post last night...but, well, it's true.

I'd love it if there were only three paragraphs to a review. Pros, Cons, and Summary. That's all I need, or care to read. For all you gaming "journalists" out there that treat your reviews like a high school essay, please save it for the editorials. Or write a novel or something.

What about haiku?

Mercenaries rocks
Awesome destruction, combat
Jack helicopters!

Physics sometimes slide
Across the plains they do glide
Slide, vehicles, slide

As a conclusion
I love this awesome game, guys
Gaming-Age gives A

 

[Dan]

The other thing is they generate mad page views.

Only for sites that choose to separate them into multiple pages. That's not a requirement of the form, by any means.

 

[BenT]

Only for sites that choose to separate them into multiple pages. That's not a requirement of the form, by any means.

Of course. However, I don't think you'd see quite so many 4,000-word monsters if this weren't a factor. It's not like it'd be economical to have your writers churn out that many words if they only generated a single page view. Does anyone normally want to write that much junk about a game? I hope not!

 

[SickBoy]

I'm pleased to see some good responses in this thread...

With regard to long reviews, I know there are people out there who want to know every exhausting detail, but I'd suggest sites would do well to have a detailed "game overview" section as opposed to stuffing it all into the review.

And Matlock, you might be onto something with the haiku.

 

[kasavin]

Good advice, but good luck trying to patent these common-sensical notions; I've been actively bearing these sorts of ideas in mind with my review writing for the past eight years or so, and the review guidelines I distribute to my staff boil down to a lot of the same concepts. (How successful I've been at applying them isn't for me to judge, though.) With respect to mentioning graphics and sound in reviews, there was that Wall Street Journal editorial about a year and a half ago that talked about how game reviews would never get out of the game-journalism equivalent of the "portable gaming ghetto" until reviewers stopped going point for point about technical details, filling their reviews with near-useless jargon. I'm sympathetic to that idea, but I always do end up going into some specific detail about graphics and sound, because in my experience, these components continue to have special importance to a lot of game players. At any rate, I pretty much always save the detail-oriented stuff about graphics and sound for near the conclusion. As you suggested, it makes sense to present all the most important information early on, and then to elaborate on it and save some sort of overarching observation for the conclusion. I basically try to write reviews that don't waste people's time. Even if you skim them (which is fine), you'll spot the parts that are intended to be important, because they're not buried. Meanwhile, those who do want the extra detail can get to it straightaway.

EDIT: Wow, I see I've earned a new rank here. I guess that pretty much says it all about my reviews, then.

 

[chespace]

Good advice, but good look trying to patent these common-sensical notions; I've been actively bearing these sorts of ideas in mind with my review writing for the past eight years or so, and the review guidelines I distribute to my staff boil down to a lot of the same concepts. (How successful I've been at applying them isn't for me to judge, though.)

Greg, could you email me a copy of your reviews guideline? I'll be happy to let you know how successful your staff has been following your ideas.

 

[SickBoy]

Wow, lost track of this one... the "review quotes" thread made me think about it again.

Good advice, but good luck trying to patent these common-sensical notions

Don't worry, they're open source I'm just trying to angle for credit...

With respect to mentioning graphics and sound in reviews, there was that Wall Street Journal editorial about a year and a half ago that talked about how game reviews would never get out of the game-journalism equivalent of the "portable gaming ghetto" until reviewers stopped going point for point about technical details, filling their reviews with near-useless jargon.

I recall the article (or at least discussion about it), but does anyone have a link?

 

[Zelda-Bitch]

I skip to the end, read the final comments and overall score. I'm willing to bet that's what most people do unless it's a high profile game.

 

[Patrick Klepek]

i'll give this a shot with my next review, as i can't say i have any particular rhyme or reason in mind when i write one

 

[LukeSmith]

At some point there will be a paradigm shift (revolution pun unintended) in the way game reviews are done. Sites like gamespot/ign/ et cetera and their hyper-detailed reviews will continue to exist, because I think there is a specific draw to both casuals and hardcore gamers alike.

A more interesting point of view in game reviews is that of Clive Thompson who writes about games monthly for Slate. Instead of a conventional "review" of a game, his pieces are a little less time sensitive (read: late) and are not so concerned with a game's graphics, but rather he tends to focus on a specific part of experience.

For instance his piece on Halo 2: Alien Autopsy
http://slate.com/id/2109613/

or his piece on Thief: Deadly Shadows which talked much about the stealth genre
http://slate.com/id/2103628/

Sure, he's writing for Slate and has strict word counts to follow so he can't go on for pages like game sites can, but this kind of writing sparkles, to me as a reader, as something closer to the future of game journalism than, say, 5 internet pages with a score at the end.

 

[Mike]

There are some good points here, especially in regards to length. I think most editors feel they're delivering a better review experience by writing 7 pages on a game, but I prefer brevity.

I'll take a concise EGM review over one of IGN's meandering editorials anyday.

 

[kasavin]

That Wall Street Journal article is here (registration required). Thanks for the feedback in this thread. I think it's clear there's a growing sense among some game players that game journalism needs a shot in the arm.

 

[LukeSmith]

That Wall Street Journal article is here (registration required). Thanks for the feedback in this thread. I think it's clear there's a growing sense among some game players that game journalism needs a shot in the arm.

Thanks for the link, registering now.
It's more than a shot in the arm, but not an amputation of a limb. Game Journalism is at a pretty exciting phase in its young history. Specifically, it reminds me of music journalism pre-Gonzo explosion (or rather, what I've read about it, I certainly wasn't around back then, and no offense if anyone was).

There are more sites exploring ludic elements of games, digital media theory, et cetera. This is likely not where the average reader wants to turn to for their game reviewing, but at the same time those writings are often quite compelling and interesting. A while back on here was a piece of "journalism" that was gonzo-ish I don't recall the title, it may have been "Bow N****r." I certainly don't think this is the direction game journalism should head, but pieces like it are interesting.

The Lester Bangs of game writing is out there somewhere, right? Because I can play a game and have a score in my head and then argue on a message board about someone else's score (i.e., Greg's Halo 2 review, or whatever) but the average reader only wants to see the score, and I think that's part of the problem.

Scoring makes it easy to place games in a tight, neat little package. It makes it easy to compartmentalize everything and that's part of why game reviews will likely always have them. But these more expansive essays (like Clive's work, for instance) is what I think we'll see emerge as gaming continues to move out of the basement and into the mainstream (to borrow a tired, tired cliche). Eh, whatever, enough of my soapbox. Good thread, Sickboy.

 

[Gazunta]

When I was EIC of Hotgames.com the one editorial guideline I gave my writers was to review games as if they were drunk. Made for some interesting reading, that's for sure.

 

[shpankey]

great post... lots of great points that i agree with. a great writer is very succinct and stays on point. sadly, there are absolutely no great writers in the gaming review world (not implying i am or anything either though).

there used to be some very good writers back in the day. they all worked for Next-Generation magazine. the only writers in the gaming world i've ever known to have a great writing style that pretty much followed your rules.

 

[Blazyr]

I was going to thank SickBoy for quoting my GT4 review but then I did the math:
-1 Crap Intro +1 Nice Transition -1 Junior Member = still less than zero.

A lot of what you said strikes a sympathentic chord in me. What Greg said about writing to your audience also figures into writing a well received review.

I've always sought to give the reader a sense of what it's like to be sitting there, on their couch playing the game. The sights & sounds are still a big part of that in the way games are perceived. If you buy-in at all to the comparison so often made between games to movies consider this; it's not uncommon for films of a certain type to still be judged by their special effects or other technical merit. As games mature we may see more that deserve an esoteric review; I think it unlikely, though, that it will preclude there being purely sensory experience games.

I have found that much of what I feel is my best work results from setting a target word count of 800.

 

[SickBoy]

For those who don't want to run out and buy a WSJ subscription, a Google search brought out a reposting of (what appears to be) the full text of their article:

http://www.gamegirladvance.com/archives/2003/11/03/the_wsj_gets_it.html

...and it also brought up the Gamespotting response to said article:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6080520/p-2.html

Interestingly, the WSJ article seems to put a dose of the responsibility on publishers/developers as well as the people covering the industry:

Better videogame criticism is a good idea. But for it to matter, games will have to expand their cultural and social impact to match their economic weight. Game publishers should work harder to attract more gamers outside of their traditional demographic market. They can also offer some more sophisticated fare, games worth writing about.

Just thought I'd offer those up, all while getting one last thread bump in. I've really enjoyed reading the responses and other opinions in this thread. And of course, nothing personal if I picked on your review

 

[LukeSmith]

For those who don't want to run out and buy a WSJ subscription, a Google search brought out a reposting of (what appears to be) the full text of their article:

http://www.gamegirladvance.com/archives/2003/11/03/the_wsj_gets_it.html

...and it also brought up the Gamespotting response to said article:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6080520/p-2.html

Interestingly, the WSJ article seems to put a dose of the responsibility on publishers/developers as well as the people covering the industry:



Just thought I'd offer those up, all while getting one last thread bump in. I've really enjoyed reading the responses and other opinions in this thread. And of course, nothing personal if I picked on your review

The onus slipping to the publisher is interesting, though not in the "creation of more sophisticated games to warrant writing about." Sure, a piece about ludology vs. narrative in the context of Super Mario Bros. (for NES) would be merit-less, but a piece, like Kasavin wrote a while ago about Punitive character death in Fire Emblem, always comes to mind when I think about the future of game writing.

Plenty of games, if not, most games warrant some kind of deeper examination. But as far as the 'investigative' side of game journalism, I would love to see some stories being broke instead of simply released to the public. But, having worked with publicists, et cetera, I know this is more fantasy, than reality.

 

[Matlock]

It was said in the "Kyle Orland is a dick" thread, but it bears repeating--Sickboy, you went about critiquing journalism the right way, that is to say, by being crtical yet not pretentious.

Great thread all-around.