Gaygamer Editorial: Reviewing Reviews
It's easy to review something that is either undeniably spectacular or horrifically dreadful. All the material you need to write a review is right in front of you. If it's a great game, you illustrate how well crafted the experience is. You try to paint a picture with words that tells the reader just how captivated you were and why they need to play the game. If the game isn't all that good, the review's purpose is to find just where the whole thing came undone. For me, these are the most straightforward reviews to write and spill out of my mind into a Word document quicker than I can speak it. The tricky ones for me are the "in between games." These games haven't quite perfected their approach, but are by no means broken. One recent example like this that I feel that I didn't quite do a great job of assessing was Mirror's Edge. After reading what others have wrote on the subject, I feel that the majority of reviewers (of positive and negative views) never got to the core of what the reader wanted to know about this game outside of a vague number that appears on MetaCritic. This is when I asked myself, "What does the reader want out of my review and why didn't they get it?"
Writing for the site here grants me the opportunity to see games from a fascinating perspective. Being a predictably stubborn person that I am, I didn't think that the site would really change how I look at games, but sometimes I find myself conflicted over just how I should be looking at a game. In a "reviewer" mindset there's the natural urge to jump on every fine detail of a game, like a revealing texture seam that only hardcore enthusiasts will notice on their third play through. When I put on the developer cap I attempt to find the overall vision of the game, to see if the game accurately captures the feelings and emotions that the designers, artists and programmers wanted to convey. As a reader, I'm all over the map. Sometimes I want something informational with hard numbers: levels, maps, modes, character types, etc. Other times I just want to be entertained and read something interesting. The gamer in me just wants to know if the game is any fun.
While I don't think that every game should be reviewed exactly the same way because every game will elicit a different response from a player, there has to be some kind of consistency behind the assessment. With this whole blogging thing being just another form of interactive media, I want to lower the drawbridge to the GayGamer Castle just a little bit to hear your thoughts and what you want out of reviews. What do you think makes a great review? What information is absolutely vital to know about every title? What should or shouldn't be part of a review? On a 1 to 10 scale, what score would you give this post?
Game-Boy
Posted to Hot Stuff, Miscellany, Video Games on 25 November 2008
· Comments (7)
Other stuff like this: business, editorial, readers, reviews
I'm actually confronting this exact issue myself, since I'm trying to start up my own review site (it's just some blog posts on live.com at the moment, but eventually I'll move towards ad support, etc.). It's especially jarring when a game you really enjoy personally gets bad reviews on other sites-- does it mean you have poor taste, or that mainstream review sites just "aren't for you?" I think that for this site, you are best off just talking about the game as you experience it as a fellow gamer, rather than putting on a "reviewer" hat; we can get that alleged "objective" BS from other sites. 10 points rating on your post, just for sharing your own conflicted feelings.
-I need to know if you think the game is fun, reasons why/why not.
-If it is a rent first or buy right away game.
-Who you think the games would be best for.
-Maybe your standpoint on judging games if it's a different reviewer each time. (are you critical, easy going/easy to please, do you happen to really like/dislike that type of game.)
I like gaygamer reviews. They feel more human to me I guess. I don't have to worry if you're being dishonest or are paid off to give a certain type review. So keep them coming.
I have lost my faith in reviews a long time ago, for the sole reason that each reviewer is an individual with his or her own taste and preferred genres. I've played games enough to know what type of games I like and what I want to steer away from.
Thus, I usually don't pay much attention to the scores the reviewers give to the game, but just read the text to see if there's anything I like in the game - the reviewer might be hating the features I prefer, so their opinion isn't that important to me.
So to put shortly, what I seek in a review is neutral and extensive explanation of the features the game has.
If I want to hear how many tears the reviewer wept as he or she played the game or how much he or she absolutely despises games of that genre, I'll go and watch Yahtzee's Zero Punctuation. ;P
Well you shouldn't worry about trying to be TOO objective and universal, it's totally unrealistic. You're a human being, just do your best.
I mean don't throw journalistic integrity out the window or anything, I don't want bias or spin, but I for one always read multiple reviews as well as random forum comments to get the big picture. For more objective things like gameplay mechanics and features, I just read wikipedia.
I do ask that reviewers play the game for more than a few minutes though. Like Castlevania Judgment, it is just getting trashed by some critics, like not just mediocre or low reviews but like "worst game ever" kind of thing, and it doesn't sound like they even played it. And really, the art is stupid, but the game isn't that bad (music is great). I bought it and I'm having fun.
I've been working at a video game store since summer, and I find my views on games are changing. I'm more mellow, much less opinionated, more aware of other people's different tastes.
Eshto, that's exactly what I do too: read multiple reviews and forum posts. I just don't do it to compare the scores, like other people seem to do, but to find the essence - the big picture, as you said - of the game.
Reviewers can be as biased as they want, but in that case they won't get my respect. In my opinion, games should be reviewed by someone who's into the game's respective genre. There's nothing more grating than a FPS-guy trying to review a JRPG! XP
A perfect recent example of this is the Last Remnant by Square-Enix. All these reviews say totally different things about it, giving it scores between 5 and 9, so based on the reviews I'm really lost at if the game is any good or not. But then again, I know I like JRPGs like the Last Remnant, so I'm most probably going to get it at some point, no matter how poor some of the reviews are. It's the features that the game offers that matter, not some person's subjective view on the game.
That's why I don't trust reviews very much in general.
With any criticism, whether it be movies, books, theatre or restaurants, the most important thing, I think, is engaging and alive prose. The writer should show a broad base of knowledge in the field that he is writing about as well as a strong general understanding of culture and history. The opinions expressed in reviews should be forceful but argued for and if the critic has any particular hang-ups pertinent to the review (i.e. he hates FPS's and is reviewing HALO) these prejudices should be admitted up front. A great sense of wit is always welcome. Given that video games have a tendency to be controversial, a sense of moral seriousness is important, especially since games these days reflect our social anxieties, like Call of Duty 4 or the new Fallout. A great review, whether good or bad, should elevate the understanding in the reader and bring into better focus the context in which the game has been created, not just within the Gaming business but society as a whole. This is not to say that the nuts and bolts of the game, it's controls, graphics and story, should be ignored, but on the contrary should be up front and center in any review. I just suggest that these criterion are supplemented with some observation that might be bypassed by other critics. I think GayGamer.net has some of the best writing about video games out there (sadly, there is quite a dearth of quality writing about gaming) and I look forward to reading even more.
Agree with SigLNY
You know, no one actually delves into the nuts and bolts of a game as much as I would like. I'm a father and whether a game has checkpoints or allows saves at any point makes a huge difference to my enjoyment. I would like a "nuts a bolts" section on each game describing the mechanics - the boring stuff because most checkpoint save games (Farcry or GTA IV for example) are simply out due to the likelihood of a baby crying.
After discussing the objective facts of a game, a reviewer should then say how a game succeeds and fails and whether it is actually fun (the main problem with GTA IV). I often read "linear storyline" as a negative, but there are many gamers who don't want to plow 80 hours into Fallout 3.