http://www.gamesarefun.com/gamesdb/editorial.php?editorialid=8
This is a really good editorial worth the read.
This is a really good editorial worth the read.
What's wrong with game reviews?
- Thread starter Datawhore
- Start date
Atomsmasher
Member
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.
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
Late Stage Marxist
Member
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.
Tsubaki said:
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.
WarPig said:Speaking of wining and dining, here is some of the stuff companies have tried to bribe us with lately:
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????
Gek54 said:
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.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
mumu said:
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
Late Stage Marxist
Member
Hells yeah. (then OOT will be #1 foreverSpeevy said:
)
Late Stage Marxist
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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!?
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!?
Late Stage Marxist
Member
Six-point-eight!Kiriku said:
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.
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.