What's wrong with game reviews?

Datawhore

on the 15th floor
http://www.gamesarefun.com/gamesdb/editorial.php?editorialid=8

This is a really good editorial worth the read.

Suffice it to say, hype basically poisons the review pool. Reviewers (or sometimes their bosses/editor in chiefs) can consciously or subconciously feel obligated to the people hyped about a game and the company doing the hyping to give it a good score. I think we can all remember seeing countless reviews of major titles that say something like "Overall, GameX didn't bring anything new to the table. It's got slow load times, the story isn't that great, and the music leaves something to be desired. But it is an excellent title with solid gameplay. 9.5/10"
 
Scores are often weird. I've noticed a few times in IGN reviews where they praise a game in the review text and barely mention anything bad about the game, yet when you look down at the score, its like a 7.5. Doesn't make sense.
 
I think a large part of the problem with reviews are the gamers who read them.

Think about that.

I believe the majority of gamers do not know what a good review is. They see a review, look for a score, maybe glance at the text and then go, "I agree with that. That's a good review." But rather than seeking agreement as a basis for good or bad, they should be seeking -information-.

If a review gives me enough information about a game, it doesn't really matter if I share the same views as the reviewer. The review would have been worthwhile. Maybe a reviewer would say that this RPG has a lot of random battles and that it's the best game ever because the more random battles the better. I can look past the opinion and think about my own views. Now that I'm armed with the knowledge that it has lots of random battles, what do I do with it?

Reviews are meant to inform. That's all there is to it.
 
Datawhore said:


Essentially, what has happened to gaming press is what happened at Hollywood a long time ago: studios are wining and dining critics (in Hollywood they call them 'press junkets') with the clear intent of trying to influence their reviews. For me, the only way through the noise is sites like Rottentomatoes and Gamerankings, and even then I can find myself agreeing with the minority, as with Fable.

On that note, this is the review that read after I returned Fable. I agree with nearly all of the points:

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=429709
 
Speaking of wining and dining, here is some of the stuff companies have tried to bribe us with lately:

snake.jpg


For whatever reason, Rockstar sent us the $1000 BMX bike after the San Andreas reviews came in. Nice bike, though -- Kink Freebird, Profile SS cranks, the whole bit.

DFS.
 
"Overall, GameX didn't bring anything new to the table. It's got slow load times, the story isn't that great, and the music leaves something to be desired. But it is an excellent title with solid gameplay. 9.5/10"
B0001UEHP8.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


Except the music was pretty decent
 
My biggest gripe is that they generally give way to high scores. They should also get rid of that stupid 100% system and go for X/10 (no 0.5 folks!) or school grades. Also sometimes they should make clear that the review is an opinion and not a fact. However some actually like to believe that i think.
 
mumu said:
Also sometimes they should make clear that the review is an opinion and not a fact.

If you don't already take that as a given, you've got problems we can't solve for you.

DFS.
 
Tsubaki said:
I think a large part of the problem with reviews are the gamers who read them.

Think about that.

I believe the majority of gamers do not know what a good review is. They see a review, look for a score, maybe glance at the text and then go, "I agree with that. That's a good review." But rather than seeking agreement as a basis for good or bad, they should be seeking -information-.

If a review gives me enough information about a game, it doesn't really matter if I share the same views as the reviewer. The review would have been worthwhile. Maybe a reviewer would say that this RPG has a lot of random battles and that it's the best game ever because the more random battles the better. I can look past the opinion and think about my own views. Now that I'm armed with the knowledge that it has lots of random battles, what do I do with it?

Reviews are meant to inform. That's all there is to it.

Close. But not %100 correct.

Reviews are criticism and the goal of criticism is "to enlighten the text."

The information you get in a review is there for the purpose of supporting the critic's argument. But that information shouldn't be the end-all-be-all of the review. There has to be some kind of opinion, theory, idea, feeling, statement, or conclusion made in regard to the game.
 
Tsubaki said:
I believe the majority of gamers do not know what a good review is. They see a review, look for a score, maybe glance at the text and then go, "I agree with that. That's a good review." But rather than seeking agreement as a basis for good or bad, they should be seeking -information-.

If a review gives me enough information about a game, it doesn't really matter if I share the same views as the reviewer. The review would have been worthwhile. Maybe a reviewer would say that this RPG has a lot of random battles and that it's the best game ever because the more random battles the better. I can look past the opinion and think about my own views. Now that I'm armed with the knowledge that it has lots of random battles, what do I do with it?

Reviews are meant to inform. That's all there is to it.

Well said. Anyone can spout an opinion--a good review makes it clear how you arrived at that opinion, and exactly what evidence you have to back it up.
 
WarPig said:
Speaking of wining and dining, here is some of the stuff companies have tried to bribe us with lately:

snake.jpg


For whatever reason, Rockstar sent us the $1000 BMX bike after the San Andreas reviews came in. Nice bike, though -- Kink Freebird, Profile SS cranks, the whole bit.

DFS.

:lol Nice. How is that bike worth $1000????
 
i've always felt that nintendo games get free passes in a lot of reviews because of that. it's finally starting to fade a little.
 
Gek54 said:
:lol Nice. How is that bike worth $1000????

Lemme break it down, actually...

Kink Freebird frame: $330
Profile SS cranks (I think that's what they are, anyway): $200
Kink chainwheel: $30
Kink Freebird bars: $55
Kink Freebird fork: $100
Tektro U-brake kit: Maybe $30
Grips, bar-ends: Another $20
Seat and post: Another $50
Two Kenda tires: $20
Standard D-C aheadset: $20

Wheels are probably about $150, can't peg the hubs but they're nice Alex rims. Stem's not a Kink design so I dunno who made it, but that's probably another $40 or so. Add it up and you get a little over a grand.

DFS.
 
mumu said:
Also sometimes they should make clear that the review is an opinion and not a fact.

Yea, I agree. Dumb everything WAY DOWN.

DO NOT DRINK THE SHAMPOO. DUMB FUCKER. CALL POISON CONTROL IF YOU DRINK SHAMPOO. DUMB FUCKER. 8/10
 
WarPig said:
If you don't already take that as a given, you've got problems we can't solve for you.
That's not what i meant. They sometimes make it sound like they believe their opinion is in fact a fact.
 
Preceding every statement with "I find", "I think" or "I feel" would get repetitions. Perhaps every score should be followed by "IMO" in big letters.
 
Speevy said:
I say eliminate scores altogether. Force people to read the reviews.


People dont liked to be forced. They will just go click on adbanners elsewhere. IGN already tried to do that by putting the score at the end of the review. How long did that last?
 
Gek54 said:
People dont liked to be forced. They will just go click on adbanners elsewhere. IGN already tried to do that by putting the score at the end of the review. How long did that last?

IGN had the score at the end of its reviews for years, actually. The whole time I was working there. Actually, did they ever change that? I haven't been paying attention.

DFS.
 
Gek54 said:
People dont liked to be forced. They will just go click on adbanners elsewhere. IGN already tried to do that by putting the score at the end of the review. How long did that last?


Then break it down to a simple pros/cons system. No more 8 page reviews. Problem solved. It is impossible to give all games the scores they deserve relative to those games which deserve greater/lesser scores.
 
Speevy said:
I say eliminate scores altogether. Force people to read the reviews.

Some of my favorite movie reviewers don't use scores - New York Times, for example. Of course, gamers would have a heart attack.
 
WarPig said:
IGN had the score at the end of its reviews for years, actually. The whole time I was working there. Actually, did they ever change that? I haven't been paying attention.

DFS.

Well, they use to have one page reviews(IIRC) then they tried to brake it up into several pages and leave the score on the last page only. That didnt last tooo long.
 
While i'm generally an anti-score guy as well scores do actually have a purpose. Sometimes i hear about some game, then i go to gamespot etc. and check the score. If it got some 40% i know that in 99% of all cases i shouldn't waste any more time even thinking about that game. You don't have the time to read a multi-page review all the time either.

I'm not satisfied with the overall score most magazines/sites use though. Stuff like sounds/graphics (all technical stuff) shouldn't be so dominant. I'd like to have an additional seperate score to that average score, the "How much i wanted to keep playing this game!" score. I actually saw sth. like that already somewhere, i think it was called the INSERT CREDIT score or sth. meaning how willing you'd be to pump quarters in an arcade machine with that game running.
 
Gek54 said:
Well, they use to have one page reviews(IIRC) then they tried to brake it up into several pages and leave the score on the last page only. That didnt last tooo long.

I dunno. Does two years count as long? They added the multi-page stories with the score at the end in 2001, and they were still using 'em in early 2003 when I got canned.

DFS.
 
Force people to read the reviews.

Yes, force people out of your magazine and force yourself to unemployent and hunger, funny! ;)

There is a reason why magazines have not erased scores. I would be happy to do it, but experience says it´s not a good idea if you think in readers, they let the magazine or complain a lot because they want first a clear reference, and then if they are interested, they can give you the honor of his time to read some pharagraphs, maybe all the text if they feel happy.
 
WarPig said:
I dunno. Does two years count as long? They added the multi-page stories with the score at the end in 2001, and they were still using 'em in early 2003 when I got canned.

DFS.

Yeah well that was a painfull two years that id like to forget and think it wasnt too long..but still the point is now they have the score on the first page.
 
I always assumed breaking up the reviews into multiple pages was to get more hits on the ad banners.

As for reviews, I liked how a lot of the old home computer magazines used to do it. No scores, no breakdown into categories like graphics, sound, "lastability" (WTH is "lastability", that's not even a word). Just a column or two of text describing what the game is and what the reviewer felt the game did right, what it did wrong, and perhaps how it compared to other games in the same genre. And a screenshot or two.
 
PC Gaijin said:
I always assumed breaking up the reviews into multiple pages was to get more hits on the ad banners.

Yeah. What happened, amusingly enough, is that they started to notice a traffic pattern developing. In a three-page review, you'd have roughly equivalent hits for the first and third pages, and then a big drop for the middle one (people would click to the review, click the score, and not bother to read the text).

I was once told that Gamespot had the same problem, but worse, 'cuz they gave away the score on page one. Why IGN would switch to doing the same thing I'm actually not sure, unless they could trace a precipitous drop in review traffic in general to the previous format.

DFS.
 
I used to write crazy long reviews, but I've grown a bit tired of reading such long reviews myself. Reviews in gaming mags tend to stay short enough (of obvious reasons), but reviews on gaming sites can be way too long for me to read nowadays. Which is kind of ironic, because I find it a lot easier to read longer reviews in a mag (since you don't have to sit in front of a computer screen and read all the text).

At the same time, I can see the point with extensive reviews. If you're really interested in the game and need to know about every little detail, it's a good thing. But at the same, a good reviewer should be able to keep it short and still get the most important points through, instead of going into ramblings about every feature and game mode etc (like they're going through a checklist of sorts).

That's why I really think there should be two reviews on gaming sites...or to be more precise, one "normal" (=long, more detailed) review, and one that's a lot more straight to the point. The closing comments in IGN reviews is kind of what I'm suggesting, but more in-depth and maybe 3-4 times as long. Sometimes, less is more. And I think a lot more people would actually READ more reviews if the texts were shorter.

Or how about hiding the review score IN the actual text!?
 
As far as I'm concerned the only people who should care to have a review as long as (for example) the ones IGN gives to high-profile games are the developers themselves.

In fact, that's how they end up getting written when they're that long -- more like a list of rambling beta-tester impressions than a well thought-out review.
 
Top Bottom