How do you read game reviews?

[Hengst2404]

Having been on the Staff over at 2404.org for a number of years, I ahve had some highs and lows in regards to reviewing PC games.

I also began with a template in which I basically wrote a few paragraphs about each of the main categories, sound, graphics, gameplay, story/challenge and then after rating each of those with a number, an overall score that was not an average of the other scores.

My first couple of reviews were rough and even though i got a ton of hits and some praise, my worst moment looking back was my review of doom 3. I rushed through the game to get a review out the week it was released and ended up rating it a 9.8 out of 10. I was so excited and in a hurry that I just went with my emotions and not a proper review.

Despite numerous requests to my editor, I was never able to re-write that review. This taught me the dangers of being excited about a game versus being objective about a game. Writing a proper review is more an art than a science, of course having a good editor also helps (something we always struggled with).

I cannot recall the name of the website, but about a year ago they did a series of articles covering video game journalism and the writing of reviews. they went into depth about avoiding categories and spending far too much time worried about the length of the review instead of the actual content.

Personally, I hate the 10 point scale, hate it with a passion. I would rather do a letter grade or perhaps even a simple thumbs up or thumbs down. Removing the emphasis on score will force the reader, in theory, to actually read your review, focus on what you are saying about the game and then either agree or not with your opinion.

My favorite review I wrote was for Swat 4, a great game I might add, which was released a few years back. Although it was largely ignored by most readers, I did get some positive feedback regarding my historical analysis of the series from police Quest 1 to Swat 4. Anyways, my point is that aside from people who actually liked my writing style or were simply interested in a game I was covering, most reviewers tended to look at my score and if they disagreed, then and only then did they bother (in most cases) to actually read the entire review. Nothing gets people reading like a contrary opinion.

 

[spengler [deprecated]]

My first couple of reviews were rough and even though i got a ton of hits and some praise, my worst moment looking back was my review of doom 3. I rushed through the game to get a review out the week it was released and ended up rating it a 9.8 out of 10. I was so excited and in a hurry that I just went with my emotions and not a proper review.

I got a pretty substantial amount of hate mail for giving that game a 3/5.

 

[Hengst2404]

Funny that history would definitely now call me fool and you the more accurate of the 2 reviews. I am certain you did get quite a bit of flack for the review, meanwhile some people agreed with me and were also caught up in the hypequake.

 

[Andrew Armstrong]

pairunoyd, I like the idea of the division of a review, into technical, opinion review (which should be spoiler free, dammit), and a dynamic Q&A. The Q&A is most certainly missing, there is never an (optional) FAQ with online reviews - something that'd answer all the nagging questions they always miss out. The technical one would be good for PC users too, knowing about release glitches and bugs, and other technical information on how it performs and what it does (does it support EAX? does multiplayer have automatic microphone usage? Does it use HDR? What resolutions are supported? etc. etc.).

Keeping a review up to date once the game is released may mean the opinion changes, but certainly would likely cause a change to the FAQ and technical information, since so many review sites get pre-release copies.

 

[jt2002tj]

i haven't really played a new game recently, but i enjoy the video reviews from gametrailers. i feel like they're informative even if you don't agree with the score they give. plus, i guess they've rated the games that i do like fairly well so our tastes aren't too far off.

 

[Stinky-Dinkins [deprecated]]

Upside down.

 

[gameloftguy]

When I would write a review I would try to be as unbiased as possible, while trying to give a potential reader the impression how I felt about the game as well. Its a tough route to take but I think it gives a reader a better overall view of the game then whether or not I particularly liked it. Some games I have reviewed are games I would not have played myself. I would have to take myself out of the picture and view the game from the perspective of what someone who would play this game would be looking for and what they might like/dislike. Knowing your audience is something that is important in writing a review and these traits are what I look for in reading reviews from others. Role playing helps with that a lot.

If I can see a bias early on in a review I will read the review but not take the person's view as seriously as I would of someone I felt was giving an uncritical review of the game.

 

[Goofonian]

I write reviews that say very little for my local University publication, Adelaide University's On Dit.

No shit! I used to read On Dit with my girlfriend all the freakin time. Probably a stupid thing to think, but I never really expected there to be another south australian on the escapist forums...... Small world indeed!

 

[Hengst2404]

One thing I did pride myself on was my review of Sid Meier's Pirates from like 2 years back. I hated the game, wasn't pleased with it at all, but then I dislike most strategy games like that one. Even though I disliked it, I was forced to give the game a high rating because it was an excellently made game that did what it was supposed to and it was an accessible title and technically proficient on all the right levels.

I think that was when I started to grow as a writer and at least realize that if I can properly score/rate a game that I don't enjoy, then maybe there was hope for me yet.

 

[keithburgun]

Game reviewers are sold out worse than the american system of presidential election.

 

[Hengst2404]

I don't entirely agree with that notion that game reviewers are sold out. What is happening now, is that game review sites went from offering coverage stories for access to games to actually advertising games and establishing relationships with publishers for advertising revenue. I am not so cynical that I think all game sites offer bought and paid for reviews, but I am sure it does happen, the old 'payola" scam in gaming.

Really things would be better if games were critiqued and a simple letter grade or pass/fail was offered instead of a numerical score. This would force the gamer to actually....dare I say...."Read" the review.

 

[623S]

I read based on what I think of the game prior to playing it and then when I play it, I reread the review and decide whether the reviewer had a stick up his ass or if was being reasonable.

Either way I take the review very lightly. I take my friends experiences and my own to judge a game.

 

[Russ Pitts]

I look at the score only, and if it disagrees with my imaginary score, I immediately get pissed off and attack their credibility about a game I may or may not have even played.

..j/k, but that's how the internet babies act.

This might be interpreted as sarcasm if you weren't off being a jerk in another thread.

Banned.

/mod.

 

[Damn Dirty Ape]

I just registerd on this forum, cause I'm glad to see more people that tend to look at games as far from perfect these days. I'm a perfectionist, I'm parttime betatester now and then and I tend to look at every game I play with a critical eye. I do get a feeling sometimes that many sites don't share my point of view, heck most "high profile" games getting a constant stream of 8.9-9.5 ratingwise is proof enough of that.

I bought a few of those more recent high profile games after reading multiple reviews and got disappointed every time. Take hl2 for instance, a good polished game but I felt it lacking somehow compared to hl1. I could easily point out several things that bugged me, that were easy to notice after a single play through. Almost no reviews talking about those things what so ever.
Battlefield 2, good ratings almost everywhere. I found 1, I repeat 1 single review from a site I can't remember that mentioned the obvious bunny hopping and dolphin diving issue. Not to mention the bad hit detection and pesky cone of fire system.
More recently, company of heroes. Fun at first, but increasingly flawed with every patch that Relic put out. Although I have to admit, reviews were given for the 1.0 version but the lame campaign and lack of mp maps/decent online system were easy to see. Nothing what so ever about this in the reviews, 9.5 instantly.
Just now, bioshock. Praised as if it were Jesus himself that came down to save us from the depths of shitty gaming, I played about 5 hours and got bored. It offerd almost nothing I had not seen before in a game. I might try to play this game again soon, but I think I'd rather return it to the store.

I just don't buy this hype anymore, same for halo3. Alot of people still look up to certain sites as if their word is truth, gamespot comes to mind. ( if I'm not allowed to name other sites please let me know ) Every single review from that site lately feels extremely rushed ( 1 page where other sites have at least several ) with no information what so ever that you can't find in any preview. Yet there are tons of thread on forums with "omg gamespot gave game x a 9 instead of a 9.8, let's complain". Seems they are pushed into certain ratings by the public, they actually changed ratings because of this. They have lost my respect a long time ago. IGN seems pretty decent, but is low in mentioning flaws as well. Their ratingsystem is ok imo. Gamespy is one of the better ones lately, since they do mention flaws and always have several things mentioned in "the good, the bad" above every review.

But please escapist, continue to make rational clear reviews and don't fall for the complaining of fanboys. It's refreshing to see a site of your caliber among most sites that tend to follow the rest of the flock.

Long story but my conclusion is these days I tend to read the reviews automatically that give a game the lowest score of all. Not because they are by defination a good review, but because they count in the flaws which almost every game of the past year has. I may be young with my 20 years of age, but I still have the most fun playing old games like deus ex or red alert 1 instead of new game with flashy graphics that usually has no lasting appeal.

Final question, does your search function goes for the forum as well? I didn't see the option. Thx for reading.

 

[LisaB1138]

I do read reviews. I'm pretty picky about what I play because only certain types of games appeal to me. I also read them as a mom because it's a good way to discover content in a game.

I hate perfect scores because I don't think any game is perfect, and I always wonder how easy to please a reviewer who passed out that "10" must be.

 

[LisaB1138]

I do read reviews. I'm pretty picky about what I play because only certain types of games appeal to me. I also read them as a mom because it's a good way to discover content in a game.

I hate perfect scores because I don't think any game is perfect, and I always wonder how easy to please a reviewer who passed out that "10" must be.

 

[Automatic Meat [deprecated]]

Most of the time I ignore game reviews simply because I have a hard time finding writers who can be consistently good at reviewing a game, or some that don't fall into the obligatory starry-eyed hype over substance discourse. There are some exceptions and I ocasionally browse Eurogamer and follow up some other reviewers to get a general feel for a game, but I find the opinions of those I trust to be far better suited to the job. I can't stomach the likes of "epic" and "cinematic" buzzwords anymore; I leave those to the average, dull-witted consumer who thinks a game can be played "like a movie".

In the opposite end of the scale most of my review attempts end up being overly verbose because I try to comment and expose everything I think is meaningful about a game. This leads to some accusing me of fixating on some of the game's aspects when in truth, it comes down to analyzing - perhaps excessively, I admit - everything I find good or bad about the gameplay. Otherwise I don't feel the review is doing a good job.

That last part is also why I'm having an existential crisis concerning videogames. Either I'm losing touch or game reviewing is doomed to perpetually recycle itself in favor of historical awareness, and whereas I once considered a future in the medium I now wonder if I should just give up. Case in point, Bioshock. The more I play it the more it feels like a mixed bag of System Shock 2 and I can't help but wonder why a game that is so adamant about repeating the bulk of its design is being considered fresh and inovative. I just can't find much merit in forgetting the last decade worth of gaming to hype a visual update to an old - even if competent - design.

 

[Automatic Meat [deprecated]]

I look at the score only, and if it disagrees with my imaginary score, I immediately get pissed off and attack their credibility about a game I may or may not have even played.

..j/k, but that's how the internet babies act.

This might be interpreted as sarcasm if you weren't off being a jerk in another thread.

Banned.

/mod.

Hey, I never got a bloody card.

 

[Katana314]

Let me say right off the bat I hate people who give 10 or 100 scores. It means the game cures cancer, ok? Because if you give that game a 10, then a game comes out that cures cancer, you're saying Halo 3's gameplay will make you forget about cancer.

I also try to read reviews, but to me it's mainly the score that seems to stick. Which is unfortunate, since games' scoring system is so solidly stuck. The entire numerical range from 0-69 means "really bad"

I've also hated review sites that never re-review games after updates. Hypothetical example:
"Counter-Strike Source is a great game. But it's completely let down by its meager 5 maps, single character model per team, and multitude of bugs. 70."
Great. The game now has 15 maps, 8 total character models, and most bugs complained about were fixed.

Also, I kind of feel far too many reviewers prepare their review in their head before the game actually comes out. I like how IGN has a "longetivity" score, showing they've actually spent some time with it; but most of the time a 3-hour game that looks fantastic and has little gameplay will get higher scores than it deserves.

 

[Still Lee]

I used to read a lot of reviews back in the day, especially around 1999-2001. I wrote a lot of them, as well. I'm quite embarrassed that I wrote 2000-3000 word reviews of Wild ARMs 2 and Valkyrie Profile, and have since had them removed off the face of the internet.

Over time, I lost interest in reading text reviews altogether. I look at the game's average rating of all popular review site scores at Game Rankings [http://www.gamerankings.com], and then I watch a GameTrailers [http://www.gametrailers.com] video review.

If there's an old game I'm interested in, like, say, Power Blade for the NES, I will skim over some short reviews at GameFAQs [http://www.gamefaqs.com].