In defense of using game reviews as purchasing aids

[WeepingAngels]

Let's Plays can't replace reviews. I watch reviews all the time but I never put too much stock in any of them. I may watch 10 reviews about a game and then see most of the reviewers mention the same things (like this game has QTE's or this game has a troublesome camera).

Make no mistake, publishers aren't withholding review copies to benefit the consumer.

I have to mention something else too. Many game journalists made their field irrelevant. Remember when many of them seemingly collectively decided to call gamers misogynistic and all that stuff? They decided to follow Anita into a dark place? Many gamers turned away from them during all of that.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

This whole bethesda kerfuffle brought up an interesting notion. Gamers aren't dead but websites, ones like those that claimed it, might be.



Reviews for me are a way to see the game in motion in a way that offers more variety than a lets play segment or oftentimes an amusing activity as I like to laugh at things being wrong. What the reviewer is saying in the background is often factually wrong or irrelevant since I often have superior expertise than the average reviewer in the few genres that I spend all my time on. Reviews may have a use for the uber casual people but you know what, those people aren't gonna use a dedicated site like that enough to generate profits.


Reviews on youtube have a function but a review site is not sustainable. When a random youtube nobody with 400 views offers the same product as your "experts", you will end up experiencing difficulties. And oftentimes the youtube nobody will offer a superior product as nobodies tend to only make reviews about stuff they know their shit about and there's gonna be a few nobodies that will review each game sufficiently, and some games only they will touch. On the other hand, some "pros" can offer such reviews like the hilariously bad Doom one where the dude couldn't fire while moving.

And here we are, back to doom and bethesda. I don't know why they really did this but if you ask me which has garnered more good will over the years, bethesda or games journalists, I would like to think the answer is obvious.

 

[Kyrian007]

Reviews are still useful. As bad as the hype train and marketing and pre-order culture are... reviews are more important than ever actually. I love Bethesda games, but with this latest decision... it means I won't even consider a Bethesda purchase until some reviews (that didn't go out early) are in. Basically, one of my favorite publishers just lost my day one dollar. Doesn't mean I won't buy or play their games... but I wait until the reviews are in. Always have. And its kept me safe, I've never bought a game at full price that I didn't like. I don't think I've ever spent more than 5 dollars on a game it turns out I didn't like. And that's over 3 decades of gaming.

Or, I'll put it this way. I love the Alien franchise. And I never bought Colonial Marines. That's the power of waiting for the review.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Honestly, I feel traditional reviews have become completely and utterly obsolete.

What I'm looking for when deciding whether a game is worth my bucks, is generally if the "mechanics" are sound. That means I generally use Let's Plays, and analyzes like Total Biscuit's WTF is... series, because they allow me to determine if a game is completely broken before I actually commit money to it.

 

[NPC009]

Honestly, I feel traditional reviews have become completely and utterly obsolete.

What I'm looking for when deciding whether a game is worth my bucks, is generally if the "mechanics" are sound. That means I generally use Let's Plays, and analyzes like Total Biscuit's WTF is... series, because they allow me to determine if a game is completely broken before I actually commit money to it.

Many games are more than just mechanics, though. They tell a story, feature puzzles to solve, and more.

For instance, the mechanics behind most point & click adventures is pretty simple: you click on things to make it interact with other things. Seeing a developer screw that part up is a very rare occurance.

A short let's play might show (and spoil) a few puzzles, but a critic who has played the entire thing can give me a good idea of what the puzzles are like throughout the game. Do they get more difficult as the game progresses? Do they make sense? Do the puzzles involve a lot of backtracking and/or tedious steps? Is there are good variety of puzzles? How well do they tie into the story? 15 minutes of gameplay aren't going to answer those questions.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Many games are more than just mechanics, though. They tell a story, feature puzzles to solve, and more.

For instance, the mechanics behind most point & click adventures is pretty simple: you click on things to make it interact with other things. Seeing a developer screw that part up is a very rare occurance.

A short let's play might show (and spoil) a few puzzles, but a critic who has played the entire thing can give me a good idea of what the puzzles are like throughout the game. Do they get more difficult as the game progresses? Do they make sense? Do the puzzles involve a lot of backtracking and/or tedious steps? Is there are good variety of puzzles? How well do they tie into the story? 15 minutes of gameplay aren't going to answer those questions.

Which is exactly why I feel the way I do.

I want the reviews to stay on the mechanics because I don't want to be spoiled about the story.

As I see it, the reviewers job is to mainly inform the consumer, and to be the last line of defence against faulty products.

For example, given that you mentioned Point-n-Clicks, the story may have been very good, but if the game is so incredibly unstable that it crashes every 5 minutes, I won't buy it (sure, that may be a rare occurrence, but I still feel that is the singularly most important part of the games-review. Is it stable?).

And of cause 15 minutes won't answer all questions, however, I feel the true "deal-breaker" issues for me, usually manifest relatively early (whether they be lacking settings, stupid controls, stability, or in some cases peripheral support).

I find that "repetitive puzzles" can be alleviated by taking a break once in a while. Stupid game design, or controls that are set up by an imbecile are a lot harder to work around.

So yes, I do find that classic reviews, that tend to only analyse the story are obsolete.

 

[Dalisclock]

For example if you go through Valkyrie Profile on the PS1 and see it's just talking for the first hour, but afterwards it's one of the best JRPGs ever made. Or Spec Ops the Line, which at least for me worked well with it's message, and seeing a let's play you either spoil it or just see the average gameplay and won't get what the fuss is about. Though I can understand a combination of both reading a review and watching a let's play footage.

I was gonna make the same point. Some games are a slow boil. They take a while before they start getting interesting and even a small amount of gameplay doesn't help much.

Spec Ops the Line actually had a demo(remember those?) and when I played it, it felt very meh because it took two missions that weren't particularly interesting and just tossed them in together. It was the reviews that got my attention and led me to play it.

And some games start interesting and then get less interesting the longer they go. Bioshock has an amazing opening level, which then becomes less amazing for a while before it comes to the confrontation with Ryan. After that you might as well stop playing.

 

[NPC009]

Many games are more than just mechanics, though. They tell a story, feature puzzles to solve, and more.

For instance, the mechanics behind most point & click adventures is pretty simple: you click on things to make it interact with other things. Seeing a developer screw that part up is a very rare occurance.

A short let's play might show (and spoil) a few puzzles, but a critic who has played the entire thing can give me a good idea of what the puzzles are like throughout the game. Do they get more difficult as the game progresses? Do they make sense? Do the puzzles involve a lot of backtracking and/or tedious steps? Is there are good variety of puzzles? How well do they tie into the story? 15 minutes of gameplay aren't going to answer those questions.

Which is exactly why I feel the way I do.

I want the reviews to stay on the mechanics because I don't want to be spoiled about the story.

As I see it, the reviewers job is to mainly inform the consumer, and to be the last line of defence against faulty products.

Just because someone talks about the story doesn't mean the story is spoiled. Please tell me you're not one of those people who thinks a story is ruined just because you know something about it...

I mean, I get the appeal of going in blind. I do that all the time, but there are times when I want to be informed and for me, depending on the type of game, the story is a big part of the experience. It's part of what makes a game good or not.

And of course a reviewer should talk about the game mechanics, glitches, controls and so on, but that doesn't mean they can't talk about everything else. There's a lot more to games than moving your character from A to B!

 

[MrFalconfly]

Many games are more than just mechanics, though. They tell a story, feature puzzles to solve, and more.

For instance, the mechanics behind most point & click adventures is pretty simple: you click on things to make it interact with other things. Seeing a developer screw that part up is a very rare occurance.

A short let's play might show (and spoil) a few puzzles, but a critic who has played the entire thing can give me a good idea of what the puzzles are like throughout the game. Do they get more difficult as the game progresses? Do they make sense? Do the puzzles involve a lot of backtracking and/or tedious steps? Is there are good variety of puzzles? How well do they tie into the story? 15 minutes of gameplay aren't going to answer those questions.

Which is exactly why I feel the way I do.

I want the reviews to stay on the mechanics because I don't want to be spoiled about the story.

As I see it, the reviewers job is to mainly inform the consumer, and to be the last line of defence against faulty products.

Just because someone talks about the story doesn't mean the story is spoiled. Please tell me you're not one of those people who thinks a story is ruined just because you know something about it...

I mean, I get the appeal of going in blind. I do that all the time, but there are times when I want to be informed and for me, depending on the type of game, the story is a big part of the experience. It's part of what makes a game good or not.

And of course a reviewer should talk about the game mechanics, glitches, controls and so on, but that doesn't mean they can't talk about everything else. There's a lot more to games than moving your character from A to B!

No but it does mean that they're waffling on about something I find either irrelevant, or spending time "reviewing" something which is entirely subjective, with a risk of spoiling the story.

Very rarely have I actually found that I agree with any reviewer regarding a story (I actually think the Michael Bay Transformers movies are fun. Dumb sure, but still fun), so why should I use the reviews that 9.9 times out of 10, spend about 99% waffling on about story points, I know I'm not going to agree with(generally, I find that word of mouth is a lot more reliable to judge whether I'm going to like the story or not), when all I want is for the guy to check whether the game is an unplayable pile of garbage, or not.

As it stands, I still think they're obsolete, and I simply don't use them, because they don't provide any kind of useful data.

EDIT:
As for "There's a lot more to games than moving your character from A to B."

If the game is so broken that it can't manage that, then it doesn't matter what story it has, it's not going to win me over.

Let the reviewers take care of functionality testing, and let me decide whether the story is shit or not (luckily for many games, they don't stand or fall with the story. A game with a lackluster story can still be fun to play. A game with lackluster gameplay on the other hand).

 

[NPC009]

No but it does mean that they're waffling on about something I find either irrelevant, or spending time "reviewing" something which is entirely subjective, with a risk of spoiling the story.

Very rarely have I actually found that I agree with any reviewer regarding a story (I actually think the Michael Bay Transformers movies are fun. Dumb sure, but still fun), so why should I use the reviews that 9.9 times out of 10, spend about 99% waffling on about story points, I know I'm not going to agree with(generally, I find that word of mouth is a lot more reliable to judge whether I'm going to like the story or not), when all I want is for the guy to check whether the game is an unplayable pile of garbage, or not.

As it stands, I still think they're obsolete, and I simply don't use them, because they don't provide any kind of useful data.

All right, I guess this is something we'll never agree on, as we seem to value the story aspect of games differently.

Personally, I've got a good idea of what I like to get out of a story (for instance, I prefer psychological horror over jump scares, my sense humor tends to be on the dark side, and I don't mind a boy-meets-girl-then-saves-the-world adventure story as long as it doesn't take itself too seriously), and throughout the series I've found critics I know share my tastes. If they're not available, I'll just look for some other reviews. Good critics do explain why they think certain thinks, which is enough to for me to figure out if it's likely I'll agree with them or not.

 

[MrFalconfly]

No but it does mean that they're waffling on about something I find either irrelevant, or spending time "reviewing" something which is entirely subjective, with a risk of spoiling the story.

Very rarely have I actually found that I agree with any reviewer regarding a story (I actually think the Michael Bay Transformers movies are fun. Dumb sure, but still fun), so why should I use the reviews that 9.9 times out of 10, spend about 99% waffling on about story points, I know I'm not going to agree with(generally, I find that word of mouth is a lot more reliable to judge whether I'm going to like the story or not), when all I want is for the guy to check whether the game is an unplayable pile of garbage, or not.

As it stands, I still think they're obsolete, and I simply don't use them, because they don't provide any kind of useful data.

All right, I guess this is something we'll never agree on, as we seem to value the story aspect of games differently.

Personally, I've got a good idea of what I like to get out of a story (for instance, I prefer psychological horror over jump scares, my sense humor tends to be on the dark side, and I don't mind a boy-meets-girl-then-saves-the-world adventure story as long as it doesn't take itself too seriously), and throughout the series I've found critics I know share my tastes. If they're not available, I'll just look for some other reviews. Good critics do explain why they think certain thinks, which is enough to for me to figure out if it's likely I'll agree with them or not.

Well, I freely admit that it's maybe me who's the oddball.

There's actually quite a few games with "great stories" that I haven't gotten into, mainly because I thought the gameplay was shite (not even objectively shit. I just didn't like that particular style of gameplay).

Dragon Age for example (my sister loves those games, and I just find them boring, because I think the controls disconnect me too much from the characters), or World of Warcraft (I really bloody hate RNG based gameplay), or Final Fantasy, or indeed most turn-based games.

Maybe it's because of the games I grew up with. I was born in '92 and my first games were Crash Bandicoot 3 Warped, and Spyro the Dragon. Mainly 3D platformers where you almost developed a "telepathic" link with the character.

 

[Smooth Operator]

95% of "reviews" really are useless because the reviewer isn't actually aware what he was suppose to be doing, most of the time you get some snappy sales pitch of the game because that is what most people do and that is what they think is how to do it.
Very very rarely do you come across someone that has a genuine clue as to the information that should be provided, someone who understands they aren't doing it for themselves but the buyer who wants a good insight.

So I do understand why people avoid reviews, especially people who only want a new fancy product to consume without complications.

 

[BrawlMan]

Well, I freely admit that it's maybe me who's the oddball.

There's actually quite a few games with "great stories" that I haven't gotten into, mainly because I thought the gameplay was shite (not even objectively shit. I just didn't like that particular style of gameplay).

Dragon Age for example (my sister loves those games, and I just find them boring, because I think the controls disconnect me too much from the characters), or World of Warcraft (I really bloody hate RNG based gameplay), or Final Fantasy, or indeed most turn-based games.

Maybe it's because of the games I grew up with. I was born in '92 and my first games were Crash Bandicoot 3 Warped, and Spyro the Dragon. Mainly 3D platformers where you almost developed a "telepathic" link with the character.

Nothing wrong with that. The only RPGs I play are of the JARPG variety, and even then there's not that many. I played some Final Fantasy or Pokemon here and there, but most RPGS in general I don't care for. Plus I lost interest in those titles I just mentioned years ago. I was born in '89 and didn't know what an RPG was until Final Fantasy VII. Before that point, the games I always played were Beat'em ups, 2D/3D platformers, Racing, and many other genres.

Like movie reviews,most game reviews are shit anyway; especially from the "professional" critics.

 

[NPC009]

Well, I freely admit that it's maybe me who's the oddball.

There's actually quite a few games with "great stories" that I haven't gotten into, mainly because I thought the gameplay was shite (not even objectively shit. I just didn't like that particular style of gameplay).

Dragon Age for example (my sister loves those games, and I just find them boring, because I think the controls disconnect me too much from the characters), or World of Warcraft (I really bloody hate RNG based gameplay), or Final Fantasy, or indeed most turn-based games.

Maybe it's because of the games I grew up with. I was born in '92 and my first games were Crash Bandicoot 3 Warped, and Spyro the Dragon. Mainly 3D platformers where you almost developed a "telepathic" link with the character.

I think that might explain a lot. My early gaming days were filled with adventure games and RPGs. The stories weren't just a bit of background info to make the game world vaguely more interesting, something you could easily miss if you skipped the opening or didn't read they manual, they're part of the package. As simplistic as some of those early games were, they did leave me with a lot of admiration for people who tell stories and build worlds. To me, interactive stories are a big part of what makes videogames an interesting and unique medium.

And sure, of course I'll playing something that doesn't really have a story if it's really fun. Super Mario World was one of my favourite games back when I was young. I still think Tetris is amazing (but Lumines is nice, too). However, as long as the gameplay or stability isn't too distractingly bad, I'm willing to play nearly anything with a compelling story. I'm terrible at shooters and don't particularly enjoy them, but I had to find out what Spec Ops: The Line is all about. No regrets there.

 

[Fallow]

Why would anyone intentionally purchase aids?

 

[NPC009]

Why would anyone intentionally purchase aids?

Munchausen (by proxy)?

 

[aozgolo]

Reviews are so much better than let's plays, though. I can read a review in five minutes and get an opinion on the entire game. Am I gonna watch an entire let's play to find out if a game is good? what if a game has a fantastic first level but the rest of the game sucks?
If I had the money to buy every game that came out or the time to watch someone play every game I wanted to buy for five hours then yeah maybe I wouldn't need reviews, but for me they are a huge part of my video game purchasing process

Wrong.

You can watch a review in 5 minutes to find out the reviewer's opinion of the game. You still have no idea if it's good or not.

And of course you dont need to watch the entire lets play. I'm assuming you're not a braindead, drooling moron. After a certain point, surely you have enough common sense to formulate a conclusion as to whether you or not you liked what you saw.

Honestly, games are such a freaking safe purchase with the amount of outlets that give you game information. I can't even remember the last game I bought and didn't enjoy.. Probably Final Fantasy 13? Back before I used the internet much..

Or take it a step further and say that all you're doing there is watching someone else play the game. You may generally know what it looks and sounds like, but still have no personal idea with how it plays. Sure, you could take their word for it, but at that point it's not much better than a concise opinion from a normal review.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Honestly, there is no right or wrong answer as to whether one uses reviews or not; there?s nothing to defend; it?s a personal choice.

Personally, I prefer to form my own opinion. I find critics tend to be flaw seekers; as gaming is a luxury and meant to be non-serious fun, the last thing I need is someone highlighting faults I might otherwise overlook. The way I see it, any money I spend on gaming is better spent elsewhere, so I don?t worry about ?wasting? it on a bad game neither do I need assurance a game ?deserves? my cash. That?s not my bragging; I?m not rich by any stretch of the imagination; I?m just very selective with the games I purchase and RARELY do I buy on launch and pay full price. I find games that pique my interest and time the buying with the level of that interest. If a game ends up sucking, so be it; at least I gave it a fair shot to impress me on its own merits versus my listening to a Jim Sterling ***** about dropping framerates or microtransactions in multiplayer I?m not interested in to begin with.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Well, I freely admit that it's maybe me who's the oddball.

There's actually quite a few games with "great stories" that I haven't gotten into, mainly because I thought the gameplay was shite (not even objectively shit. I just didn't like that particular style of gameplay).

Dragon Age for example (my sister loves those games, and I just find them boring, because I think the controls disconnect me too much from the characters), or World of Warcraft (I really bloody hate RNG based gameplay), or Final Fantasy, or indeed most turn-based games.

Maybe it's because of the games I grew up with. I was born in '92 and my first games were Crash Bandicoot 3 Warped, and Spyro the Dragon. Mainly 3D platformers where you almost developed a "telepathic" link with the character.

I think that might explain a lot. My early gaming days were filled with adventure games and RPGs. The stories weren't just a bit of background info to make the game world vaguely more interesting, something you could easily miss if you skipped the opening or didn't read they manual, they're part of the package. As simplistic as some of those early games were, they did leave me with a lot of admiration for people who tell stories and build worlds. To me, interactive stories are a big part of what makes videogames an interesting and unique medium.

And sure, of course I'll playing something that doesn't really have a story if it's really fun. Super Mario World was one of my favourite games back when I was young. I still think Tetris is amazing (but Lumines is nice, too). However, as long as the gameplay or stability isn't too distractingly bad, I'm willing to play nearly anything with a compelling story. I'm terrible at shooters and don't particularly enjoy them, but I had to find out what Spec Ops: The Line is all about. No regrets there.

Yeah well.

I find that, for me to feel invested in the story of a game, I need to feel "in the shoes of the character". Books achieve this by basically telling the story from the viewpoint of one character (The Harry Potter books were like this, and I absolutely loved them). But for games to achieve the same (for me atleast), the gameplay and the controls have to be absolutely spot on.

Dragon Age for example had you controlling 3 or 4 different characters, almost like in a RTS, and I just feel disconnected. I feel like I wrestle with characters, who have their own agenda.

I'd describe Spec Ops as being on the limit of this "telepathic control", that I like. It's a Third Person Shooter, so you're only "this much" into the character, but you still feel like it's you who are doing it, and not just pushing buttons to get someone to do it.

Another example would be Bioshock Infinite, where you aren't just controlling Booker. You ARE Booker (at least, that's how I felt).

 

[NPC009]

Yeah well.

I find that, for me to feel invested in the story of a game, I need to feel "in the shoes of the character". Books achieve this by basically telling the story from the viewpoint of one character (The Harry Potter books were like this, and I absolutely loved them). But for games to achieve the same (for me atleast), the gameplay and the controls have to be absolutely spot on.

Dragon Age for example had you controlling 3 or 4 different characters, almost like in a RTS, and I just feel disconnected. I feel like I wrestle with characters, who have their own agenda.

I'd describe Spec Ops as being on the limit of this "telepathic control", that I like. It's a Third Person Shooter, so you're only "this much" into the character, but you still feel like it's you who are doing it, and not just pushing buttons to get someone to do it.

Another example would be Bioshock Infinite, where you aren't just controlling Booker. You ARE Booker (at least, that's how I felt).

I have to admit I never really considered that. I've read, seen and played so many stories where I didn't really like (or dislike) the main character. My feelings towards the main character rarely affect my investment in the story. Perhaps the best way to say it is that the ability to connect myself to the story does not rely on my ability to connect to the main character. That connection my stem from other characters, the world itself or simply me feeling engaged by the events in the story.

As a result, the perspective doesn't much matter to me. I've played choose your own adventures and visual novels written in a second person perspective, I've hovered over a cast of characters in turn-based JRPGs, I've played various types of first-person games (dungeon crawlers being my favourite). I'm also totally fine with stories told from multiple perspectives.

I'd go a step further and say creating a rift between the player and character can be a very effective storytelling tool. Many games are heroic fantasies, escapism. These journeys lead the player by the hand and let him do what he wants to do: save the world, princess, whatever. It's a symbiotic relationship between character and player. And then there are games that abuse that symbiotic relationship to force the player to do something they (probably) don't want to do. Games like Spec Ops: The Line, LISA...

I can also think of examples of games that use the symbiotic connection to trick players into assuming something about the main character that isn't true. Plot twist like that can be great fun.