How do you read game reviews?

[Tylahedras [deprecated]]

If the game review is below a 7 and I don't know the game I don't read the review. If the game is 8.5 or above I read the entire review unless it becomes clear I don't like that kind of game.

Generally I go to the big 4 IGN, 1UP, Gamespot, and Gametrailers. I usually read or watch (Watch if possible) their review and then make a decision based on the aggrigate. When the concensus is that a game is good I buy it almost without exception. If there is variance in the scores then I base a purchase off how much I like that genre and what specific reviewers liked or disliked.

I am a story whore for example, so a game with a poor story and great gameplay still won't win me over easily. Really I don't see why people make a big deal of numerical scores, if you're interested in the game you should want to read about it. If you don't that's fine, but you can't really complain if you end up hating it.

 

[Goofonian]

If the game review is below a 7 and I don't know the game I don't read the review. If the game is 8.5 or above I read the entire review unless it becomes clear I don't like that kind of game.

Generally I go to the big 4 IGN, 1UP, Gamespot, and Gametrailers.

When I started reading that I wondered how exactly your centre line ended up at around 8ish, then I kept reading and it all made sense.

I still think a 5 or 10 point grading system is the best way to go, and the centre point should be the centre point. the way IGN reviews games, a 20 point difference between 60 and 80 is less of an improvement than a 5 point difference between 93 and 98, simply because their bell curve is so crooked, it gets crowded at the top.

IMO Gaming steve has (had - where's he gone?) the best scoring system:

5 - awesome, everyone should play
4 - great, definately worth looking into
3 - good, play it if you like the genre/play style
2 - not so much, maybe if you really like the genre and have nothing else to play
1 - forget it

simple and effective, and games that score mid range (~50%) are still worth a look in, so the bell curve shapes up nicely.

 

[Ayavaron]

Usually, I've found myself to be an incredibly picky gamer in comparison to the critics. What I've found sadly is that most games do nothing for me.

I read the reviews, not very carefully, but looking for something special about the game, something unique, something that appeals specifically to me. I also know that games that get the best scores usually aren't the ones that will appeal to me. On most best game ever lists, the top ten games will all be ones I found mediocre. Same goes to most 10/10 games. I've found that most of the games I like usually get about 8/10 scores.

Ultimately though, reviews do not do much to dictate my purchasing. They used to but no longer carry weight. My tastes are too hard to predict. These days, I prefer to browse around looking for cheap games and seeing if there's any appeal to them. Sometimes I make bad choices (Ooh? XIII for only $3! That game had good graphics.) Other times, I make some excellent purchases that will keep me entertained for weeks. (Ratchet and Clank 3? I kinda liked the first one. This is under $20...) (Shadow of the Colossus... people talk a lot about this when they want to say games are art.)

 

[Vrikk]

I read the text and completely ignore the score of a game since I tend to get sidetracked if I want to buy a game that was scored a 6. If there isn't any numerical value assigned to something then it's much easier in the decision-making process. I can stomach a game a lot easier that "has a few glaring flaws but still delivers the fun for your buck" than one that is a "6/10". That's 60%. Passing grade of only ONE PERCENT. Not a fun way to look at it.

I think this is why I like Edge magazine. They abolished scores altogether.

 

[Wolfrider]

It depends. I use Gamerankings quite alot, but after a game moves beyond the mid 60 or 70% mark, things get pretty random for me. I'll avoid a game that has a universally low score, but I have a tendency to be pretty harsh on my games. So, for that reason I usually just rent anything passed that point that looks interesting. I rarely agree with outrageously high scores (10/10s are meaningless to me) and have only come across a single game I would score "perfect" (that being Ico).

So usually what I'll do is look at the base score from a review aggregator (usually Gamerankings). If it gets the high 60+ mark then I start reading the reviews in depth (ignoring the individual scores as much as I can) and judge whether or not the game would be a good fit for me. Then I rent/buy.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I read reviews when I'm not quite sure about a purchase. I'm not going to read a review about the latest EA Sports abortion, because I ain't gonna buy it; likewise, I won't bother reading a review about BioShock, because I'll be too busy beating the crap out of anyone who dares to get between me and EB while I'm waiting for it to open on release day. On the other hand, I read several reviews of X3: Reunion, which convinced me to stay away from the game until version 2.0 was released.

I read reviews front to back. I look at scores because it's all but impossible not to, but the relevant and worthwhile information comes from the text of the review itself. I remember years ago when Computer Gaming World decided to implement numerical scores along with their reviews; it caused quite a kerfuffle within the magazine itself, with several writers expressing their misgivings over the move. I agreed with that sentiment then, and I still do. Scores at the end of reviews encourage readers to gloss over the review itself, if they pay any attention to it at all, and base their decision entirely on whether a game is a 6.2 or a 9.7. Unfortunately, but also unavoidably, this is what readers want. I'll try to avoid a long-winded rant about dwindling attention spans, but the fact is that we just don't see detailed, multi-page reviews anymore. The better writers manage to avoid it, but all too often reviews are nothing but a few paragraphs of Lara's checklist - graphics, sound, multiplayer - followed by a summation and a score. It does a disservice to anyone seeking useful and insightful information about a game.

You kids these days...

 

[thefreemarket]

I tend to be a late adopter. Before i choose to play a game, i wait for some press. I generally scan bluesnews.com and if something grabs my attention, i'll follow the story a bit.... Or so I tell myself.

But in all actuality, I'm a box whore. I go to, say, Superior Purchase (the name has been changed to protect those who help decide what we play). My goal is to find the next big "TV on DVD" (i dare anyone to find anything better than "Six Feet Under," "Arrested Development," "The Office," "Curb Your Enthusiasm," and "Extras."(.....and "Freaks and Geeks").

Anyway, I always look at the boxes. And when the box scratches my itch, then i check the game out. The box gives you a framework for which to see the reviews. Granted, this doesnt work so much for wargames and the like in a general sense, but for the average game its marketing materials actually can work for/against it in a profound way. If a game cannot sell me on its box which was designed to sell me the game, then i may not play it.

i've played both great and terrible games using a personal ratings system based on both research and "wowness." But i've never played a game i regret trying (aside from DoD: Source).

 

[Andrew Armstrong]

Ohh, I might as well bump this.

I agree, scores are desperately misleading. I loved the song "Ban 7 out of 10" done at the Develop conference in July. A shame it was so factual.

Reviews are currently despised for good reason, but the reviewers are between a rock and a hard place.

Therefore, I usually stick to my mates telling me a game is good, me finding some game and trying the demo (shock! horror! a demo!). I have an easier time on my PC of course. I do find some review sites refreshingly honest (four fat chicks [http://www.fourfatchicks.com/review_index.shtml] has some good reviews from what I've read), and others very dull (okay, most of them are bloody dull), but sometimes look them over. Always ignoring the score, the body of the text needs to sell the game to me, not a random number.

Until a game reviewer is possibly called a "critic" and have some semblance of honesty, criticism (which I don't ever see!) and less hyping of games they have not played, I won't really be looking at major review sites. I want to see every reviewer rate a game as "1" (or less then 10%) within a year of posting their first review, else they clearly do not review enough games honestly, and therefore only play those "big games" which clearly they'd suffer the publishers wrath for posting a bad review.

Bah, I'm ranting. Simply I usually ignore reviews, check tips from friends and check out demos, and never EVER look at a score (don't even get me started on "game awards")

 

[StolenName]

I've been writing semi-professionally for about 2 years for a variety of websites (and starting up my own shortly woo, exciting). Part of being a good reviewer is reading and analysing what makes a review good and how it reflects the quality of the game.

When reading, I usually read the whole thing from beginning to end to try and take note of what said is in fact useful, detrimental, criticisms, praise and how the overall game seems to be. My pet hate is the lengthy, self-obsessed introduction that most reviews begin with. Understandably, some form of introduction is needed but a review throws me right off when it doesn't get to the substance of the game. On the occasion these intros DO contain some context, for instance if its a sequel or is notably trying to strive to an ideal or the reviewer is trying to state their particular bias BEFORE they begin to state their opinion.

Using the reviews of BioShock as an example (and without drawing from any particular piece), none of the mainstream reviews or previews I've encountered has even scraped the tip of the ice-berg when it comes to reviews and many feel rushed or vague. I'm currently going through the game (for review) and feel the game needs to be conveyed first for its atmosphere (which incorporates some points in regards to graphics and sound which add a great deal to the feel), second for its story-telling, its achievements in making gameplay unique and customisable to an individual and scope of inventiveness available to the player (weapons, environments, AI, creatures), then the graphical and sound quality specifically - if I find I truly understand the concepts put forth when I complete the game, then I'll comment on that too. I've also some criticisms with the game as well though none of which are game-breaking by any means.

None of the reviews to date have really scratched the surface on all of these concepts and instead aim to focus on one. My approach might make for a lengthy review but I feel that if I'm entertaining enough that this game deserves it - however I would disagree with many reviewers 100% feedback (unless they're scoring out of 5!).

Best introduction to BioShock I've stumbled across over at Gamers With Jobs and its a preview :| http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/32465 - this is an exampled of how a games ideal has been researched and well presented. Once you've played the game and read THIS preview, you'll have a greater concept of the game and its relevance - why its groundbreaking and I feel this is lacking from the gaming culture.

I think the way reviews are written needs to be rethought. The score system can work for people who are just out for a particular check-box. For instance, Crysis will most likely be 10 / 10 for gfx and sound but that says naught for story, game play or replayability. Games should be thought of more for the sum of the parts than a category break down.

I feel like I'm rambling. Might have to make a shorter post next time :\

 

[StolenName]

@ Andrew Armstrong - http://www.fourfatchicks.com/ has some great reviews! Thanks for linking it to me, I don't believe I've ever read a piece on Okami that so brilliantly sums up what the game is.

 

[Deathsaw]

Personally I try to find reviews that talk about everything. Even though the games multiplayer is bad, I don't think people should just say a feature is bad and move on. I think a review of quality would compare bad features in a game to other games with the same bad features like it. I'm not a reviewer because I want to go on and on instead of stop, but most reviews I've seen just list general things wrong about it and say some good things then slap a score on it. With reviews that nail it I have to say X play because they are (mostly) on the ball. Other quality sources are EGM and Gamepro. I love gamepro because they took out everything but Fun Factor. Other reviews I just can't tell the difference from a 7 and a 7.5. What gives it the .5? I view either the Top 5 system or the Fun Factor method the best two. Seriously. I read reviews in OXM before they simplified it and I couldn't tell the difference in some of their reviews. "First game? Give it a 82. Next game? How about 80?" Like the 99 they gave splinter cell meant that it had room for improvement.A perfect %100 score is a unicorn in the game business..........wait Bioshock has been getting perfects? I'm off!

Also, I wouldn't mind an internship in gaming mags. I need to see how games are reviewed before I can make them.

 

[Bongo Bill]

I find that Action Button [http://www.actionbutton.net/] has some more critical reviews, even if they are a bit new-games-journalism-y for my tastes. Tim Rogers has got to be the long-windedest game critic/reviewer/writer on the planet.

 

[StolenName]

I find that Action Button [http://www.actionbutton.net/] has some more critical reviews, even if they are a bit new-games-journalism-y for my tastes. Tim Rogers has got to be the long-windedest game critic/reviewer/writer on the planet.

Long-winded is an understatement. Man that guy loves to type! I didn't manage to read the whole thing, if half of it. Must say, I love the sites look and format, however and will strive to visit it again when I'm REALLY in the mood to read slabs of baffling text :|

 

[FunkyJ]

I don't think you can get an accurate picture of what a reviewer thought of a given game UNLESS you read the entire thing. I know that when I write reviews, I include everything in them for a reason, and if someone only read the last paragraph, they'd miss a good portion the ideas I'm trying to convey. It's hard to persuade someone to either play or not play a game if he or she only reads one paragraph. They'd miss the entire argument!

Maybe it's my journalism study coming into play, but that's why I always use the intro to say everything I want to say in the review, and use the conclusion to repeat it, because people often just read the intro paragraph of a news story.

 

[Andrew Armstrong]

That Action Button site looked okay. Shame he hasn't reviewed any PC games.

And reviews can be both long (for those interested in the game, and seeing if it is worth buying) and short (the conclusion paragraph), since it is an opinion, the opinion should not take more then a few sentences to condense ("buy this game if...") but the reasons why that opinion was formed should be the majority of the review.

I also want to note that I found Inside Pulse - Not a True Ending [http://notatrueending.insidepulse.com/topics/reviews] reviews more interesting for its scoring methods, where it tends scores away from the 7/10 mentality. It does it in 10 categories and totals it at the end. Not perfect, and they don't post many reviews either, but still a good way to stop a huge amount of games getting over 50% ratings, even if the categories are not perfect for everyone (I for instance, don't mind a game which has no replayability, if I can enjoy it for a long amount of time my first playthrough). I still dislike scores, but they *could* be done better, as Not A True Ending proves.

Also, a pet hate of mine is doing a single review for a multi-platform game, or just doing a single review of the console version. This is painful. Good example: Oblivion sucked in many many areas without modification (UI sizes, game speed, game quality (and driver problems), controls, all majorly flawed on release) for the PC version, since it was basically a Xbox port, and this was never EVER picked up in any of the reviews I read, and everyone still gave the game "Game of the Year" awards (like I noted above, something I shouldn't get started on).

I'm so disillusioned. Anyone know any other good review sites/"blogs"?

 

[Russ Pitts]

I don't think you can get an accurate picture of what a reviewer thought of a given game UNLESS you read the entire thing. I know that when I write reviews, I include everything in them for a reason, and if someone only read the last paragraph, they'd miss a good portion the ideas I'm trying to convey. It's hard to persuade someone to either play or not play a game if he or she only reads one paragraph. They'd miss the entire argument!

Maybe it's my journalism study coming into play, but that's why I always use the intro to say everything I want to say in the review, and use the conclusion to repeat it, because people often just read the intro paragraph of a news story.

The difference is that reviews, at least the good ones, are opinion pieces, not news items. But then we would tend to call those (and reviews such as Lara and myself write) criticism, rather than reviews.

There is a place for reviews that say very little and append a score above the fold, but I don't personally find such work to be of value.

 

[StolenName]

There is a place for reviews that say very little and append a score above the fold, but I don't personally find such work to be of value.

I write reviews that say very little for my local University publication, Adelaide University's On Dit. For those reviews, it's more about entertainment (with some information) than anything else. If I can get my point across in 250 words describing the overall tone of the game and how enjoyable it is (without getting too much into critique) then I'm happy.

 

[spengler [deprecated]]

Sometimes it's useful for me to see why someone liked a game so much they could overlook its shortcomings. Or, conversely, disliked it so much they couldn't appreciate its strengths. There are only ever a handful of games that nail everything perfectly, and usually (not always) their advertising campaigns make it impossible to not know what they are.

Game journalism has never really been legitimized in the eyes of mass media, I don't think (and 1/2 page a week in the Times doesn't convince me otherwise). I think that's made it easy for "amateurs" to take it over ever more rapidly than bloggers en masse are starting to seriously screw with the demographic of people who consume print news or tv news.

There is a place for reviews that say very little and append a score above the fold, but I don't personally find such work to be of value.

I think bubble reviews are perfectly suitable for games like Madden 2008 and any shooter of the form Dramatic title: Dramatic subtitle! I suppose I don't find those games of much value, but to each their own.

To answer the initial question, I still read game reviews in general (and print reviews especially) out of the antiquated notion that "professionals" can and should make comments on games that I heed. That leads me to conclude that if I have children at some point, they will likely grow up thinking the "reviews" I used to read in "magazines" sound like a lost relic, like the Pony Express, or dinosaurs.

 

[pairunoyd [deprecated]]

Personally, if its a recurring sports game like Madden, I'll look for glitches, game play improvements and in general the quantity and quality of the game.

I think that online review sites are woefully under employing the technical advantages of being online. A review is simply one person's opinion, albeit a hopefully respected opinion, one opinion nonetheless. What review sites need to take advantage of is interactivity. I see reviews as being in 3 parts - opinion piece, technical piece and Q&A.

The opinion piece would be along the lines of the traditional review and would contain the opinion and personality of the writer. The technical portion should cover not only graphics and sound but things like: No. of controller setups, level of customization for each race (no. of laps, damage settings, AI difficulty, etc), hours of game play, etc. The Q&A would be the most popular part of the entire review. This would include an approved list of questions received from the sites readers and would be answered by the reviewer. Why try and guess what the readers want to know about a game when you can solicit inquiries and answers those qualified inquiries within the review?

Have you guys ever seen when someone goes to a forum and claims to have a game a few days before the release date? They are BOMBARDED with questions, no matter how extensive their review may be. This is the untapped demand that's burgeoning at all sites and continues to go unsatisfied. The current method is VERY old school and slightly elitist, to be honest. I cant wait to see when this idea takes off and how popular it will be. The first sites to do it will be trendsetters and the other sites will follow suit.

 

[J.theYellow]

I enjoy the Metacritic reviews and understand they can't work as an aggregate unless everyone does the same sort of score system (which CGW/1up is pissing all over with its system, despite it making a whole lot more sense than the classic system,) but everyone I know regards games as one of three states:

Must-get (which means generally everyone must play it, at least for typical gamers)
Ambivalent (or "shrug," which means it has non-universal appeal. Could end up being a huge hit, especially if it's something like The Sims, catering to non-gamers.)
Avoid (90 percent of all games.)

If there were more gamers who were actually halfway able to articulate themselves about what they supposedly love and appreciate, there would be no need for reviews. But if there were more reviewers who treated their work as more than just an exercise in how smart they can sound to themselves (which the "New Games Journalism" is turning out to be now that everyone who thought it was a good idea has run it into the ground,) many utterly fail to grab my attention. The fact that so many game magazines blow the holy hell out of their screenshots and art assets and sidebar boxes, de-emphasizing the actual words on the page to the point and thus suggesting I not bother to read them at all, doesn't help.

And then it turns out a lot of it is payola anyway.